A forum partnered with WesternPaFootball.net
CharlesBarkley123 wrote:OutsideLookingIn wrote:In terms of potential findings for administrative investigations, "unfounded" for this one is incorrect. Unfounded means that the the incident was investigated and conclusively proved that it did not occur. In this case it was investigated and failed to disclose facts to support the allegation. The correct finding is "not sustained"-it wasn't proven or unproven. The Catholic culture is very well versed in not divulging information so this outcome should come as no surprise. The fact that the PIAA can't classify their findings correctly is equally unsurprising.
Unfounded: The investigation conclusively proved that the act or acts complained of did not occur, or the member named in the allegation was not involved in the act or acts, which may have occurred. Exonerated: The act or acts, which provided the basis for the allegation or complaint occurred, however, the investigation revealed they were justified, lawful, and proper. Not Sustained: The investigation failed to disclose sufficient evidence to clearly prove or disprove the allegation made in the complaint. No Finding: The complainant failed to disclose promised information needed to further the investigation.Sustained: The investigation disclosed sufficient evidence to clearly prove the allegation made in the complaint.
So basically what your saying is..... nothing happened
Reading comprehension is such a lost skill. To be clear, I didn't say nothing happened. The PIAA said nothing happened in error. What they should have said is there was no evidence to prove or disprove (because the good Catholic parents wouldn't answer any questions). Got it?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 20 guests