after 25 years, Austin couple exonerated in child abuse case

[Obliviax]

I post this because many people said that police don't over-charge and innocent people don't get convicted. After 25 years, a couple accused of abusing a child are finally exonerated:

When I began reinvestigating the case in 2008 for the Austin Chronicle, I was stunned to learn that police and prosecutors who had worked the case back in the early ’90s still believed some of the most outrageous allegations leveled against the Kellers. The Austin Police Department refused to release its investigative report on the case, forcing the Chronicle to take the agency to court. We ultimately won the right to full, unredacted access.

After reading the report, it was not hard to understand why the department had fought to keep it secret. It was an ALL-CAPS, run-on-sentence fever dream full of breathless accusations and absent any actual investigation that could prove or disprove the claims. On multiple occasions, the lead investigator took the girl who accused the Kellers to lunch at McDonald’s before setting out for drives in the neighborhood where she would point out locations: Yes, she had been abused there; yes, she recognized the cemetery where the Kellers had killed and buried babies; yes, many of the residents of the quiet neighborhood were in on the hi-jinx. Not once did investigators question the child’s statements.

My reinvestigation of the Keller case turned up evidence that would ultimately lead to their release from prison. The only vaguely physical evidence that tied the couple to any wrongdoing was the testimony of a young emergency room doctor named Michael Mouw, who had examined the girl and concluded there was damage to her vaginal area that could be the result of sexual abuse. As it turned out, the doctor was wrong. Mouw told me that not long after the Kellers were convicted, he attended a medical conference where he learned that what he had interpreted as signs of abuse were nothing more than a normal variant of female genitalia.
​

These cases are, fortunately, rare. (while being accused is NOT rare) But when prosecution just wants a conviction, hysteria gets stirred up and the press piles on, its hard to get people to think strait.

 

[LionDeNittany]

I post this because many people said that police don't over-charge and innocent people don't get convicted. After 25 years, a couple accused of abusing a child are finally exonerated:

When I began reinvestigating the case in 2008 for the Austin Chronicle, I was stunned to learn that police and prosecutors who had worked the case back in the early ’90s still believed some of the most outrageous allegations leveled against the Kellers. The Austin Police Department refused to release its investigative report on the case, forcing the Chronicle to take the agency to court. We ultimately won the right to full, unredacted access.

After reading the report, it was not hard to understand why the department had fought to keep it secret. It was an ALL-CAPS, run-on-sentence fever dream full of breathless accusations and absent any actual investigation that could prove or disprove the claims. On multiple occasions, the lead investigator took the girl who accused the Kellers to lunch at McDonald’s before setting out for drives in the neighborhood where she would point out locations: Yes, she had been abused there; yes, she recognized the cemetery where the Kellers had killed and buried babies; yes, many of the residents of the quiet neighborhood were in on the hi-jinx. Not once did investigators question the child’s statements.

My reinvestigation of the Keller case turned up evidence that would ultimately lead to their release from prison. The only vaguely physical evidence that tied the couple to any wrongdoing was the testimony of a young emergency room doctor named Michael Mouw, who had examined the girl and concluded there was damage to her vaginal area that could be the result of sexual abuse. As it turned out, the doctor was wrong. Mouw told me that not long after the Kellers were convicted, he attended a medical conference where he learned that what he had interpreted as signs of abuse were nothing more than a normal variant of female genitalia.
​

These cases are, fortunately, rare. (while being accused is NOT rare) But when prosecution just wants a conviction, hysteria gets stirred up and the press piles on, its hard to get people to think strait.

Who are the "many people"? If anything, recently the opposite has been implied about the police and law enforcement in general.

LdN

 

[Obliviax]

Who are the "many people"? If anything, recently the opposite has been implied about the police and law enforcement in general.

LdN

Those in the press that have covered up and defended the way prosecution behaved in the CSS&P situations.

 

[psuro]

I post this because many people said that police don't over-charge and innocent people don't get convicted. After 25 years, a couple accused of abusing a child are finally exonerated:

When I began reinvestigating the case in 2008 for the Austin Chronicle, I was stunned to learn that police and prosecutors who had worked the case back in the early ’90s still believed some of the most outrageous allegations leveled against the Kellers. The Austin Police Department refused to release its investigative report on the case, forcing the Chronicle to take the agency to court. We ultimately won the right to full, unredacted access.

After reading the report, it was not hard to understand why the department had fought to keep it secret. It was an ALL-CAPS, run-on-sentence fever dream full of breathless accusations and absent any actual investigation that could prove or disprove the claims. On multiple occasions, the lead investigator took the girl who accused the Kellers to lunch at McDonald’s before setting out for drives in the neighborhood where she would point out locations: Yes, she had been abused there; yes, she recognized the cemetery where the Kellers had killed and buried babies; yes, many of the residents of the quiet neighborhood were in on the hi-jinx. Not once did investigators question the child’s statements.

My reinvestigation of the Keller case turned up evidence that would ultimately lead to their release from prison. The only vaguely physical evidence that tied the couple to any wrongdoing was the testimony of a young emergency room doctor named Michael Mouw, who had examined the girl and concluded there was damage to her vaginal area that could be the result of sexual abuse. As it turned out, the doctor was wrong. Mouw told me that not long after the Kellers were convicted, he attended a medical conference where he learned that what he had interpreted as signs of abuse were nothing more than a normal variant of female genitalia.
​

These cases are, fortunately, rare. (while being accused is NOT rare) But when prosecution just wants a conviction, hysteria gets stirred up and the press piles on, its hard to get people to think strait.

Stop it - you are being a Sandusky apologist.

 

[TenerHallTerror]

I post this because many people said that police don't over-charge and innocent people don't get convicted. After 25 years, a couple accused of abusing a child are finally exonerated:

When I began reinvestigating the case in 2008 for the Austin Chronicle, I was stunned to learn that police and prosecutors who had worked the case back in the early ’90s still believed some of the most outrageous allegations leveled against the Kellers. The Austin Police Department refused to release its investigative report on the case, forcing the Chronicle to take the agency to court. We ultimately won the right to full, unredacted access.

After reading the report, it was not hard to understand why the department had fought to keep it secret. It was an ALL-CAPS, run-on-sentence fever dream full of breathless accusations and absent any actual investigation that could prove or disprove the claims. On multiple occasions, the lead investigator took the girl who accused the Kellers to lunch at McDonald’s before setting out for drives in the neighborhood where she would point out locations: Yes, she had been abused there; yes, she recognized the cemetery where the Kellers had killed and buried babies; yes, many of the residents of the quiet neighborhood were in on the hi-jinx. Not once did investigators question the child’s statements.

My reinvestigation of the Keller case turned up evidence that would ultimately lead to their release from prison. The only vaguely physical evidence that tied the couple to any wrongdoing was the testimony of a young emergency room doctor named Michael Mouw, who had examined the girl and concluded there was damage to her vaginal area that could be the result of sexual abuse. As it turned out, the doctor was wrong. Mouw told me that not long after the Kellers were convicted, he attended a medical conference where he learned that what he had interpreted as signs of abuse were nothing more than a normal variant of female genitalia.
​

These cases are, fortunately, rare. (while being accused is NOT rare) But when prosecution just wants a conviction, hysteria gets stirred up and the press piles on, its hard to get people to think strait.

Dorothy Rabinowitz did an excellent (and chilling) series of reports for the WSJ about the Fells Acres Day Car Center Sex Abuse Scandal

sadly, the loud voices of the trolls who condemn anyone that questions the clearly bogus narrative about the Sandusky scandal cannot erase the history of prosecutorial abuses and hysteria surrounding many high profile child sex abuse cases which get tried in the media

 

[The Spin Meister]

Was just going to post this. I remember that case, the media went nuts with every sordid accusation. The talking heads were breathless with their phony indignation. Even if they had been found innocent, their lives would have been destroyed anyway.

Key takeaway from article;

Contrary to what many people might think, you don’t have a right not to be convicted of a crime you did not commit. For the most part, the Constitution is silent on this point. Instead, the focus is on whether a person received a fair trial. Did you have at least minimally competent lawyers? Were you afforded the ability to cross-examine witnesses against you? If so, then your conviction — even for a crime that never happened — should stand. Once a person is convicted, the system works only to reinforce that outcome. That remains the reality for untold thousands who sit innocent behind bars today.

 

[Obliviax]

Was just going to post this. I remember that case, the media went nuts with every sordid accusation. The talking heads were breathless with their phony indignation. Even if they had been found innocent, their lives would have been destroyed anyway.

Key takeaway from article;

Contrary to what many people might think, you don’t have a right not to be convicted of a crime you did not commit. For the most part, the Constitution is silent on this point. Instead, the focus is on whether a person received a fair trial. Did you have at least minimally competent lawyers? Were you afforded the ability to cross-examine witnesses against you? If so, then your conviction — even for a crime that never happened — should stand. Once a person is convicted, the system works only to reinforce that outcome. That remains the reality for untold thousands who sit innocent behind bars today.

Its a great quote. Most people accused have very limited resources. Often, a lawyer is appointed that makes something like $250. So they just want to clear the case and get the next $250. Time is money, and when money is fixed, you minimize the time spent. Time and again, prosecutors are friends of the judges and bailiffs. They work the bailiffs to get "favors" (heads up on evidence, access, status). In the end, you really have to prove you are innocent, the burden is NOT on the prosecution. We've seen this time and again in the JS situation and trials.

This is not, in my mind, even debatable. I've seen it in 99 cases out of 100. No wonder people of limited means are tired, angry and against the system.

 

[pandaczar12]

Dorothy Rabinowitz did an excellent (and chilling) series of reports for the WSJ about the Fells Acres Day Car Center Sex Abuse Scandal

sadly, the loud voices of the trolls who condemn anyone that questions the clearly bogus narrative about the Sandusky scandal cannot erase the history of prosecutorial abuses and hysteria surrounding many high profile child sex abuse cases which get tried in the media

In the end, those trolls will have to live with the fact that their false narrative puts kids at risk... Ironically for most of them, because of football.

 

[TenerHallTerror]

In the end, those trolls will have to live with the fact that their false narrative puts kids at risk... Ironically for most of them, because of football.

I don't think they are capable of that level of self reflection

 

[WDLion]

I post this because many people said that police don't over-charge and innocent people don't get convicted. After 25 years, a couple accused of abusing a child are finally exonerated:

When I began reinvestigating the case in 2008 for the Austin Chronicle, I was stunned to learn that police and prosecutors who had worked the case back in the early ’90s still believed some of the most outrageous allegations leveled against the Kellers. The Austin Police Department refused to release its investigative report on the case, forcing the Chronicle to take the agency to court. We ultimately won the right to full, unredacted access.

After reading the report, it was not hard to understand why the department had fought to keep it secret. It was an ALL-CAPS, run-on-sentence fever dream full of breathless accusations and absent any actual investigation that could prove or disprove the claims. On multiple occasions, the lead investigator took the girl who accused the Kellers to lunch at McDonald’s before setting out for drives in the neighborhood where she would point out locations: Yes, she had been abused there; yes, she recognized the cemetery where the Kellers had killed and buried babies; yes, many of the residents of the quiet neighborhood were in on the hi-jinx. Not once did investigators question the child’s statements.

My reinvestigation of the Keller case turned up evidence that would ultimately lead to their release from prison. The only vaguely physical evidence that tied the couple to any wrongdoing was the testimony of a young emergency room doctor named Michael Mouw, who had examined the girl and concluded there was damage to her vaginal area that could be the result of sexual abuse. As it turned out, the doctor was wrong. Mouw told me that not long after the Kellers were convicted, he attended a medical conference where he learned that what he had interpreted as signs of abuse were nothing more than a normal variant of female genitalia.
​

These cases are, fortunately, rare. (while being accused is NOT rare) But when prosecution just wants a conviction, hysteria gets stirred up and the press piles on, its hard to get people to think strait.

With today's media, social and news, i think it's impossible to get a fair trial today.

 

[Mack_Daddy]

I post this because many people said that police don't over-charge and innocent people don't get convicted. After 25 years, a couple accused of abusing a child are finally exonerated:

When I began reinvestigating the case in 2008 for the Austin Chronicle, I was stunned to learn that police and prosecutors who had worked the case back in the early ’90s still believed some of the most outrageous allegations leveled against the Kellers. The Austin Police Department refused to release its investigative report on the case, forcing the Chronicle to take the agency to court. We ultimately won the right to full, unredacted access.

After reading the report, it was not hard to understand why the department had fought to keep it secret. It was an ALL-CAPS, run-on-sentence fever dream full of breathless accusations and absent any actual investigation that could prove or disprove the claims. On multiple occasions, the lead investigator took the girl who accused the Kellers to lunch at McDonald’s before setting out for drives in the neighborhood where she would point out locations: Yes, she had been abused there; yes, she recognized the cemetery where the Kellers had killed and buried babies; yes, many of the residents of the quiet neighborhood were in on the hi-jinx. Not once did investigators question the child’s statements.

My reinvestigation of the Keller case turned up evidence that would ultimately lead to their release from prison. The only vaguely physical evidence that tied the couple to any wrongdoing was the testimony of a young emergency room doctor named Michael Mouw, who had examined the girl and concluded there was damage to her vaginal area that could be the result of sexual abuse. As it turned out, the doctor was wrong. Mouw told me that not long after the Kellers were convicted, he attended a medical conference where he learned that what he had interpreted as signs of abuse were nothing more than a normal variant of female genitalia.
​

These cases are, fortunately, rare. (while being accused is NOT rare) But when prosecution just wants a conviction, hysteria gets stirred up and the press piles on, its hard to get people to think strait.

I ask for justice.

 

[DandyDonII]

Its a great quote. Most people accused have very limited resources. Often, a lawyer is appointed that makes something like $250. So they just want to clear the case and get the next $250. Time is money, and when money is fixed, you minimize the time spent. Time and again, prosecutors are friends of the judges and bailiffs. They work the bailiffs to get "favors" (heads up on evidence, access, status). In the end, you really have to prove you are innocent, the burden is NOT on the prosecution. We've seen this time and again in the JS situation and trials.

This is not, in my mind, even debatable. I've seen it in 99 cases out of 100. No wonder people of limited means are tired, angry and against the system.

Maybe it's because I live in a liberal county in California, but I would disagree with your assessment of things...While we are generally trusted a bit more than defense attorneys by the judges (we do have a higher ethical standard as prosecutors plus our convictions can be overturned unlike the defense, who cannot have an acquittal overturned) the burden of beyond a reasonable doubt is alive and well.
Additionally, the media's portrayal of Ferguson etc.. makes it even more difficult for police to be trusted.
I know the Sandusky case has left a bad taste in people's mouth, but every prosecutor I know wants to be able to lay their head down on the pillow at night with a clear conscience.

 

[voltz99]

I post this because many people said that police don't over-charge and innocent people don't get convicted. After 25 years, a couple accused of abusing a child are finally exonerated:

When I began reinvestigating the case in 2008 for the Austin Chronicle, I was stunned to learn that police and prosecutors who had worked the case back in the early ’90s still believed some of the most outrageous allegations leveled against the Kellers. The Austin Police Department refused to release its investigative report on the case, forcing the Chronicle to take the agency to court. We ultimately won the right to full, unredacted access.

After reading the report, it was not hard to understand why the department had fought to keep it secret. It was an ALL-CAPS, run-on-sentence fever dream full of breathless accusations and absent any actual investigation that could prove or disprove the claims. On multiple occasions, the lead investigator took the girl who accused the Kellers to lunch at McDonald’s before setting out for drives in the neighborhood where she would point out locations: Yes, she had been abused there; yes, she recognized the cemetery where the Kellers had killed and buried babies; yes, many of the residents of the quiet neighborhood were in on the hi-jinx. Not once did investigators question the child’s statements.

My reinvestigation of the Keller case turned up evidence that would ultimately lead to their release from prison. The only vaguely physical evidence that tied the couple to any wrongdoing was the testimony of a young emergency room doctor named Michael Mouw, who had examined the girl and concluded there was damage to her vaginal area that could be the result of sexual abuse. As it turned out, the doctor was wrong. Mouw told me that not long after the Kellers were convicted, he attended a medical conference where he learned that what he had interpreted as signs of abuse were nothing more than a normal variant of female genitalia.
​

These cases are, fortunately, rare. (while being accused is NOT rare) But when prosecution just wants a conviction, hysteria gets stirred up and the press piles on, its hard to get people to think strait.

Sandusky is guilty. MM, JOE, Curly, Shultz and Spanier all should have gone to the police. They F'ed up. It does not even matter if Sandusky is innocent. It is not up to them to decide and they are required to go to the police.

 

[Obliviax]

Maybe it's because I live in a liberal county in California, but I would disagree with your assessment of things...While we are generally trusted a bit more than defense attorneys by the judges (we do have a higher ethical standard as prosecutors plus our convictions can be overturned unlike the defense, who cannot have an acquittal overturned) the burden of beyond a reasonable doubt is alive and well.
Additionally, the media's portrayal of Ferguson etc.. makes it even more difficult for police to be trusted.
I know the Sandusky case has left a bad taste in people's mouth, but every prosecutor I know wants to be able to lay their head down on the pillow at night with a clear conscience.

well, you certainly are not familiar with the prosecutors in Philly or CLE. I am glad to hear that.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Sandusky is guilty. MM, JOE, Curly, Shultz and Spanier all should have gone to the police. They F'ed up. It does not even matter if Sandusky is innocent. It is not up to them to decide and they are required to go to the police.

 

[Obliviax]

Sandusky is guilty. MM, JOE, Curly, Shultz and Spanier all should have gone to the police. They F'ed up. It does not even matter if Sandusky is innocent. It is not up to them to decide and they are required to go to the police.

so why didn't MM, dranov, dad, mom and many others go to the police if it was so cut and dried?

 

[getmyjive11]

Only one child? Doesn't seem relavent.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

so why didn't MM, dranov, dad, mom and many others go to the police if it was so cut and dried?

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Only one child? Doesn't seem relavent.

Did you know?

• The meerkat, also called a suricate, is a mammal in the mongoose family and is the only member of the mongoose family that doesn't have a bushy tail.
  
  
• Meerkats live in areas of clumpy grassland and deserts in the southern area of the African continent, including the Kalahari Desert in Botswana, the Namib Desert in Namibia and southwestern Angola, and in South Africa.
  
  
• A family group of meerkats can be called a 'mob', 'gang' or 'clan'. These groups usually contain around 20 meerkats but sometimes have as many as 50.
  
  
• Meerkats live on average 7 - 10 years in the wild, and 12 - 14 years in captivity.
  
  
• Adult meerkats are about 25 - 35 cm (9.8 - 13.8 in) tall when standing upright.
  
  
• The meerkat uses its tail to balance when standing upright. They often stand up in the morning to absorb heat on their bellies after a long cold desert night.
  
  
• Meerkats are very good at digging, they have long, strong, curved claws that they use for digging burrows.
  
  
• Within their territory the clan usually have up to 5 different burrows that they sleep in at night. The burrows have multiple entrances and can be 5 m deep.
  
  
• Meerkats mainly eat insects but also lizards, snakes, scorpions, spiders, plants, eggs, small mammals, centipedes and fungi. They are immune to certain types of snake and scorpion venom.
  
  
• Meerkats have excellent eyesight, they can spot predators in the air from more than 300 m away. They have great peripheral vision and the dark patches around their eyes cut glare from the hot desert surface.
  
  
• A clan of meerkats will always have one "sentry" on guard to watch out for predators while the others forage for food.
  
  
• If the meerkat on guard spots danger, it barks loudly or whistles in one of six different ways. For example if the threat is of low, medium or high urgency and if the predator is in the air or on the ground.
  
  
• For a high-urgency land predator alarm call, meerkats will scatter down their nearest burrow entrance. For a high-urgency aerial predator alarm call, they will crouch down and may look skyward.
  

 

[Obliviax]

yeah...and when someone answers that questions, I'll quit asking it (but will ask why they weren't prosecuted like CS&S).

 

[marshall23]

Police never, ever lie.
Prosecutors never, ever lie.
Those who claim to be victims, never ever lie. Even if they change their stories once millions of dollars are hanging in the balance.
One must be unhinged to question.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

yeah...and when someone answers that questions, I'll quit asking it (but will ask why they weren't prosecuted like CS&S).

The only difference between them that I can really think of is the knowledge of 98. I'm sure you'll get that honest answer with the Jerry trolls on BWI. Nice cast BTW.

 

[marshall23]

The only difference between them that I can really think of is the knowledge of 98. I'm sure you'll get that honest answer with the Jerry trolls on BWI. Nice cast BTW.

Dranov and Daddy were not going to blow MMs testimony out of the water at the JS trial. That was the difference.

 

[Obliviax]

Only one child? Doesn't seem relavent.

• child abuse
• bad evidence, later discredited
• bad police, ignoring evidence
• bad prosecution, chasing conviction even though they knew that the people were probably innocent
• press ruining their lives and running with the prosecution's story and giving them no presumption of innocence

I can go on but will stop there. I am not saying JS is innocent. I am saying that these cases are weird and that there is suspicion on many levels.

 

[pandaczar12]

so why didn't MM, dranov, dad, mom and many others go to the police if it was so cut and dried?

Because he didn't see anything that required notification of the police. Not one person's actions or testimony corroborate the (current) MM version. Not only were MM, JM, and Dranov involved within ~1 hour of the incident, none of them were hindered by the knowing that JS had false allegations made against him in the past. They had no reason not to report, other than there was nothing to report.

 

[pandaczar12]

• child abuse
• bad evidence, later discredited
• bad police, ignoring evidence
• bad prosecution, chasing conviction even though they knew that the people were probably innocent
• press ruining their lives and running with the prosecution's story and giving them no presumption of innocence

Which case are you talking about?

 

[marshall23]

Dranov's testimony is very straight forward. He heard nothing that convinced him the authorities needed to be notified. Again, look at the layout of the locker room and tell me what MM "saw."

 

[83wuzme]

Of course, bad criminal legal outcomes can go either way. How many times did a perp get off, only to commit additional crimes before eventually getting incarcerated ? Think of all of the people who had their lives ruined or ended because a perp got off due to a bad investigation or prosecution or sentence.

 

[Obliviax]

Because he didn't see anything that required notification of the police. Not one person's actions or testimony corroborate the (current) MM version. Not only were MM, JM, and Dranov involved within ~1 hour of the incident, none of them were hindered by the knowing that JS had false allegations made against him in the past. They had no reason not to report, other than there was nothing to report.

exactly. and not one shred of evidence that MM told CCS&P anything different than what he told his crew at home.

 

[91Joe95]

Sandusky is guilty. MM, JOE, Curly, Shultz and Spanier all should have gone to the police. They F'ed up. It does not even matter if Sandusky is innocent. It is not up to them to decide and they are required to go to the police.

Have you ever taken the mandatory child reporting class? Its online and free from the university of pitt. There is a question that covers exactly what you described. One of the options is to call the police. If you try to choose it you cannot continue until you correct it. But I'm sure you already knew that.

 

[psu1969a]

Stop it - you are being a Sandusky apologist.

Argument as hominem is very poor. Remember: it ain't over til the fat lady sings!

A very proyd JoePa apologist.

 

[EPC FAN]

Maybe it's because I live in a liberal county in California, but I would disagree with your assessment of things...While we are generally trusted a bit more than defense attorneys by the judges (we do have a higher ethical standard as prosecutors plus our convictions can be overturned unlike the defense, who cannot have an acquittal overturned) the burden of beyond a reasonable doubt is alive and well.
Additionally, the media's portrayal of Ferguson etc.. makes it even more difficult for police to be trusted.
I know the Sandusky case has left a bad taste in people's mouth, but every prosecutor I know wants to be able to lay their head down on the pillow at night with a clear conscience.

Yea, sure they do. GTFOH. Some of the worse scumbags in the legal community are grandstanding District Attorneys. It's all about pelts on the wall, showing how tough on crime they are, at election time.

 

[DandyDonII]

Yea, sure they do. GTFOH. Some of the worse scumbags in the legal community are grandstanding District Attorneys. It's all about pelts on the wall, showing how tough on crime they are, at election time.

I should have qualified that, the head DAs who are elected do play politics.....but the rank in file generally want to do the right thing, we didn't get into it for the money....

 

[Ten Thousan Marbles]

Maybe it's because I live in a liberal county in California, but I would disagree with your assessment of things...While we are generally trusted a bit more than defense attorneys by the judges (we do have a higher ethical standard as prosecutors plus our convictions can be overturned unlike the defense, who cannot have an acquittal overturned) the burden of beyond a reasonable doubt is alive and well.
Additionally, the media's portrayal of Ferguson etc.. makes it even more difficult for police to be trusted.
I know the Sandusky case has left a bad taste in people's mouth, but every prosecutor I know wants to be able to lay their head down on the pillow at night with a clear conscience.

Seth Williams was a prosecutor. He stole his mother's pension and SS checks.

You are making a false assumption that everybody has a conscience. There is just no guarantee. Do not need to have a conscience to become a prosecutor. Some have one, and some do not.

Here is what most certainly do have: ambition...sometimes unbridled.

I see that you later qualified your statement. I still think you are being way too optimistic about this.

Just like all the cops we each know who are straight shooters until they get busted, there are prosecutors who are the same way.

 

[LaJolla Lion]

[

Seth Williams was a prosecutor. He stole his mother's pension and SS checks.

You are making a false assumption that everybody has a conscience. There is just no guarantee. Do not need to have a conscience to become a prosecutor. Some have one, and some do not.

Here is what most certainly do have: ambition...sometimes unbridled.

I see that you later qualified your statement. I still think you are being way too optimistic about this.

Just like all the cops we each know who are straight shooters until they get busted, there are prosecutors who are the same way.

There are bad people in every single profession. It doesn't make them all bad. I don't think his point was that hard to figure out or way out of line.

 

[Lyons212]

so why didn't MM, dranov, dad, mom and many others go to the police if it was so cut and dried?

Why didn't Schultz and Curley report the incident to the authorities when recommended to do so by Wendell Courtney, the legal counsel they discussed the matter with who also labeled the file of the consult as "Possible Child Abuse". Bottom line is that Curley and Schultz had enough information to know they needed to involve the authorities...they had that information before even discussing it with Mike.

Is there a lot more to the story, most definitely, did some high powered people know about JS, good chance. Was TSM, CYS and DPW dirty, most likely. Is Sandusky guilty, most definitely. Did the PSU guys screw up, most definitely. The actions of all the other players does not change the fact that the PSU guys screwed up.

 

[Obliviax]

Why didn't Schultz and Curley report the incident to the authorities when recommended to do so by Wendell Courtney, the legal counsel they discussed the matter with who also labeled the file of the consult as "Possible Child Abuse". Bottom line is that Curley and Schultz had enough information to know they needed to involve the authorities...they had that information before even discussing it with Mike.

Is there a lot more to the story, most definitely, did some high powered people know about JS, good chance. Was TSM, CYS and DPW dirty, most likely. Is Sandusky guilty, most definitely. Did the PSU guys screw up, most definitely. The actions of all the other players does not change the fact that the PSU guys screwed up.

I don't disagree. What is puzzling is how a dozen people heard the story and not a single one called CYS or the police. Not a single one. That tells me that, consistently, they must not have felt it warranted such action. What is more puzzling is that the police only went after CS&S, Why didn't they go after MM? Dad? Dranov? Mom? GF? Courtney? Raykovic? and so on?

So we've got a dozen people that didn't report it and most of them were not pursued by the authorities. What does that tell you?

 

[Obliviax]

I should have qualified that, the head DAs who are elected do play politics.....but the rank in file generally want to do the right thing, we didn't get into it for the money....

When your boss, who has the power to promote, fire and give raises, is motivated by politics.....you are too. For the most part, DA's are political animals. They get ahead and promoted by pleasing their superiors and having a great conviction record. It is even more important if their case has some kind of PR value.

Perhaps it is regional, but CLEs prosecutors are nuts. I can give you a dozen situations that I am aware of where kids ended up copping to felonies for very minor stuff. And when you get a felony on your record, good luck finding a decent job. So those people languish.

Here is when I learned that. A 15 year old girl gets pregnant. Scared to death, she doesn't tell anyone. She ends up having a severely premie baby in the basement and tosses the dead baby in the trash. someone discovers it and in the autopsey, they find oxygen in the baby's lungs. Since she is a minor, the police charge her with murder. In this state, that is not protected by being a juvie. But juries also have the power to lower the accusation. So they take her to trial, by this time she is 16 or 17 and no longer a juvie. She is now a mature young woman. They convince the jury to convict her of manslaughter and she gets 8 years in prison when she should be a juvie. I've got a friend who's GF's brother left drugs in his garage. He gets a felony possession and is no longer employable (used to be an electrician but the union tossed him out due to his conviction). An A student in nursing school gets called to a house for a party. She is told the door is stuck and to crawl through a window. Cops come, she gets nailed for breaking and entering. So long nursing school. A guy gets shot in the temple, cops say he was being held from behind while the shooter shoots him in the right temple. Problem is, the shooter was left handed. No witnesses but convicted. Another guy, two time loser on drug possession charges, gets accused of taking $40 cash from his sister's ex boyfriend's wallet. No witnesses, no proof money was taken, no proof he even had the money. Three strikes, sent up for over ten years even though he had been sober and working for over five years. on and on and on...we've lost common sense. And don't get me started on appointed attorneys that get handed cases by judges who want to get the case of their docket. Fight the charge, take the judge's time, and you won't get another case. Just last week, we had a judge find over 20 people in contempt at 8:30 am for being late. The boss was called and she got into a little trouble. So the next day, 40 people waiting for court to start at 8:30 waited for her past 10am. She wanted to send a message to show how frustrating being late was. Problem is, most of the people that day were uninvolved the day before.

.........

 

[LaJolla Lion]

Why didn't Schultz and Curley report the incident to the authorities when recommended to do so by Wendell Courtney, the legal counsel they discussed the matter with who also labeled the file of the consult as "Possible Child Abuse". Bottom line is that Curley and Schultz had enough information to know they needed to involve the authorities...they had that information before even discussing it with Mike.

Is there a lot more to the story, most definitely, did some high powered people know about JS, good chance. Was TSM, CYS and DPW dirty, most likely. Is Sandusky guilty, most definitely. Did the PSU guys screw up, most definitely. The actions of all the other players does not change the fact that the PSU guys screwed up.

Pretty much it. The reason they were targeted IMO was they had prior knowledge of Jerry doing this and they made a choice not to call for some odd reason. MM, Dad, Dr, D and so on weren't discussing Jerry in 98 like these two were in particular. People can willfully ignore that I guess, but there is the big difference. Was it criminal or a cover up, don't think so. The other biggest reason for their charges was hysteria and hype around this since it was a national story. People love a good witch hunt and what is funny on this site is those that hate that a witch hunt happened are still after everyone else involved. A little bit of hypocrisy there.

 

[Obliviax]

Pretty much it. The reason they were targeted IMO was they had prior knowledge of Jerry doing this and they made a choice not to call for some odd reason. MM, Dad, Dr, D and so on weren't discussing Jerry in 98 like these two were in particular. People can willfully ignore that I guess, but there is the big difference. Was it criminal or a cover up, don't think so. The other biggest reason for their charges was hysteria and hype around this since it was a national story. People love a good witch hunt and what is funny on this site is those that hate that a witch hunt happened are still after everyone else involved. A little bit of hypocrisy there.

Yep...have to agree. But there is also the side of the story which notes that knowledge of 1998, and knowing it was completely investigated BY THE AUTHORITIES (two psych evals, two sting operations show it wasn't taken lightly) and they didn't do anything led them to believe there was no actionable intel this time either. I mean, there were no witnesses and MM was telling different stories to different people.

having said that, to your point, I agree that it came down to C&S. It was a value decision and they guessed wrong. IMHO, it wasn't criminal, just wrong.