Jim, what about that? Why did these indictments take so long? 

 

You know, I think we need to look at time line. First of all, as you just said, the football players were convicted in March of raping a 16-year-old high school girl. The grand jury then convene in April and remember grand jury are for adults. And that grand jury heard from 123 witness. There were 18 days of testimony. The grand jury doesn't meet any single day and during that time, investigators had to investigate. And as we learn today from attorney general and as we know, this case is all about text messages, emails, photographs, videos and they had to look through hundreds of things to find the needle in the haystack that would become evidence and if you are talking about obstructing justice trying to hide the facts that crimes may occur, you're gonna be deleting things. So, that only made it, I think, more difficult for all investigators but ultimately, I think the question many people have is why only 4 people were charged. And the answer from that attorney general is that the grand jury spoke. They heard from many people. They could have indicted others but they chose to say that only 4 people, probably cause to commit a crime that was in hands for.

 

And explain exactly what these school employees are charged with?

 

Well, the superintendent of the school is the most serious because there are 3 felonies, tampering with evidence, obstructing justice, 2 counts and then f. obstructing an official proceeding. So, they're trying to show the superintendent was trying to hide that crimes were committed. As far as assistant football coach and an assistant wresting couch, they were charged with things varying from failure to report the child abuse had occurred because that is the duty of a school administrator or teacher and with that assistant football coach, very interesting. His father own the home. His parents did. He lived there but apparently one of the parties were at the house because he was charged with allowing minors to drink and contributing to the delinquency of a miner and that is the first charge we've seen of this type in this case. 

 

That elementary school principal, you spoke with her attorney. What did you learn? 

 

Well, this is interesting because she is charged with failure to report child abuse but he wants it very clear. It is not regard to the S. rape case. As we know it, it is regard to an alleged rape that happen before August of 2012. A rape that has never been prosecuted. A rape that he says never happen because there's no victim. She failed to report that instance of child abuse and he says she's innocent, a 30-year educator, a great person and what he is concerned about is that she could lose her teaching credential, her administrator credential, something is unwarranted because she didn't commit a crime, he says.