J. J. in Phila
Verified Insider
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2008
- Messages
- 8,466
- Reaction score
- 3,878
Since we've had the reports, I think several points should be made:
1. Neither opinion is admissible evidence, in terms of prosecuting. They may have been admissible in relation to corroborating Victim 6's story (though Sandusky provided corroboration).
2. At the time, Seasock was not a licensed psychologist, and did not have his Ph. D.
3. Based on the police report, which not complete, Dr. Chambers' report was sent to the DA's Office. It is not clear that Seasock's report was, but it was written at a time when the police report was incomplete.
4. Lauro claims to have never seen neither report, and has said that this would have changed his finding. The finding by DPW would have different than grounds for prosecuting.
Lauro apparently never contacted Dr. Chambers, at least he never claimed to have contacted her nor has Chambers claimed that he did.
1. Neither opinion is admissible evidence, in terms of prosecuting. They may have been admissible in relation to corroborating Victim 6's story (though Sandusky provided corroboration).
2. At the time, Seasock was not a licensed psychologist, and did not have his Ph. D.
3. Based on the police report, which not complete, Dr. Chambers' report was sent to the DA's Office. It is not clear that Seasock's report was, but it was written at a time when the police report was incomplete.
4. Lauro claims to have never seen neither report, and has said that this would have changed his finding. The finding by DPW would have different than grounds for prosecuting.
Lauro apparently never contacted Dr. Chambers, at least he never claimed to have contacted her nor has Chambers claimed that he did.