Frigga
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2009
- Messages
- 5,229
- Reaction score
- 36
Further from this link:
Mr. Schreffler speculates that the district attorney declined to press charges because the state Department of Public Welfare didn't indicate a charge of abuse, which would have made the prosecution's case even more difficult.
"It'd be a little hard for them to prosecute, when you have the state saying there wasn't any abuse."
In an interview with the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Mr. Lauro said he closed the case because he lacked substantial evidence that there was abuse.
"It didn't meet the criteria," Mr. Lauro said. "If I really thought there were any child abuse ... I definitely would have indicated it."
Well, I think Mr. Lauro made the wrong decision per what has been said in articles and some posters that this was indecent exposure at least.
So sad and frustrating to look back now and see that if these 3 men had just filed a complaint on JS instead of letting him get away with this behavior, it may have prevented the abuses committed in years after.
So wait... do I have this straight... they made the decision that no abuse had occurred without finding or interviewing the supposed victim? Is that the story these men are representing? Oh JS said no abuse occurred and there was no other evidence so they took his word? They believed HIM? I don't understand any of this and to say it makes my blood boil would be the understatement of the year. can someone explain if I am getting this right- please. Was a child ever interviewed in either of the two instances?