Tuesday, May 26, 2009

GREECE MUSIC TEACHER INDICTED!!


Band director Jeffrey Hoffman indicted on:
Third Degree Rape
Second Degree Criminal Sex Act
Third Degree Criminal Sex Act

"He was suspended with pay from his job on Nov. 6 following the allegations, which police initially said the allegations did not consist of sexual conduct." ~~ D&C

SCATS ~~ Can Greece Police be trusted to do ANYTHING correctly?

28 comments:

Anonymous said...

SCATS...........The GPD and school district have had a "cover up" deal for years and years. Maybe it was this new investigator from the NYS Police that "uncovered" the seriousness of the alleged crimes and turned the info over to the DA's office.

SCATS said...

To 11:19PM ~~ I somehow find that difficult to believe since Mr. Loszynski is working at Town Hall. I guess we should feel lucky the papers didn't get shredded. Oh wait! Maybe they did but the forensics lab put them back together again and got this creep indicted!

Anonymous said...

Originally didn't they say the crime was not committed with a student? Now the story says it was with a student. At the elementary school or the marching band?

SCATS said...

To 6:46AM ~~ Initially, they told us there was no sexual contact. To be honest, I didn't believe it. It seemed overboard to suspend the guy with pay for only writing a note.

Anonymous said...

According to the news reports the issue is the the reporting of the student involved. The account became more detailed over time. That is not unexpected with young people and sexual crimes. They may not reveal all at first.

SCATS said...

To 10:46AM ~~ I'm sorry, but I'm just not buying it. GCSD has already completed 3020a proceedings against Hoffman (May 11th BLOG showed the legal expenses had been posted) and NY State is in the process of revoking his license to teach. This fellow was suspended on Nov. 7th, 2008 charged with two counts of endangering the welfare of a child after the parents complained about an inappropriate letter sent to their daughter.

Anonymous said...

SCATS:

Perhaps you are correct. All I know is what was said in the media which we know is not always trustworthy.

It is however plausible that the student revealed more about the sexual assault over time. That does happen.

SCATS said...

To 1:59PM ~~ Perhaps I'm correct!? Please show me any part of my statement from 11:16AM which is incorrect. ALL of that information was taken straight from the GCSD website (the 3020a proceeding) and the Supt's press release when Hoffman was first suspended ;)

From the different media sources I've read/heard on this subject, only ONE suggests what you mentioned about the student. While I'm not saying it doesn't happen that victims recall more later, it bothers me that making that an issue now kind of makes it sound like this kid was somehow to blame ... nevermind that a 28 year old man who had a position of trust through his job as a Greece teacher is the ONLY ONE at fault here.

Anonymous said...

Hey scats take a chill pill.

My posting at 1:59 wasn't meant to call your report into question. When I said perhaps you are correct I also implied that I might be incorrect and that I might have had limited or incorrect info.

I never intended to imply the victim was to blame. Quite the contrary.

SCATS said...

To 2:55PM ~~ How about we share one "chill pill", since I was attempting to make the point that the ONE media source was bringing up the victim's memory issue now and making it an issue :)

Anonymous said...

I think the "Perhaps you are correct" statement was directed toward your "I'm just not buying it" statement....in which you could or you could NOT be correct depending on whatever the whole story really is. Clear as mud,huh? I don't think the poster was trying to undermine your recounting of the facts. But, then again, calling into question ANYTHING you say is typically met with a rant from you....so we shall just chalk it up to more of the same.

SCATS said...

To 3:58PM ~~ Thanks for inserting yourself into the discussion with your interpretation of my possible thoughts which you clearly dislike. Since you know me so well, why do you continue to bother coming here to abuse yourself with that which you find so distasteful? Oh, I know! You just can't resist sharing your oppositional nature with those who view the world differently than the perfect Chamber of Commerce postcard image you wish for Greece.

Anonymous said...

There we go again, SCATS. I wasn't interpreting YOUR thoughts....I will admit to trying to clarify the thoughts of the poster who said, "Perhaps you're right." Contrary to YOUR belief, SCATS - it isn't always all about you. I know, I know...this is your little site and you can do with it what you want. Bully for you. I also have First Amendment Rights and I have't name called or bullied once....so, I will continue to voice my opinion - just as you do. : )
Have a great day.
P.S. I find none of this distasteful. Amusing? YES. Distasteful? NOPE.

Anonymous said...

9:01 sounds like another control freak lol.......

Anonymous said...

Yeah, I took my lessons at SCATS International.

Anonymous said...

This 9;01 poster isn't too full of themselves.
Better shape-up Scats. This person is not happy and "your" job Scats should be to make "them" happy.
Better shape-up.

Anonymous said...

10:51 - how in the world can I not be happy? I have all this inane entertainment right at the click of my keyboard. It's a riot and egging people like you on is even better. : )

SCATS said...

To 10:51AM ~~ I'm definitely considering ways to "shape up." One of them is to potentially require all bloggers here to get an account and then log-in to BLOG. People with multiple accounts could be exposed. People who cause trouble could be banned. People who try to mimic me could be ... well, I'm sure you get the picture.

People like 11:26AM could take all those happy feelings and share his inane remarks elsewhere :)

By the way 11:26, my trigger finger is twitching to hit the delete button for you ... "just because."

Anonymous said...

SCATS, don't go the account route. I've seen some sites where you're required to login with your actual name. If you did that it would make it very difficult for people to spread misinformation here and call it fact. I don't think anyone from both sides really wants that, or you for that matter. You'd probably have to run this under your actual name too, to be fair. It'd add legitimacy to your site, but at what cost? Let it be and party on! This way is much more fun.

Anonymous said...

Go ahead, SCATS. I'm actually surprised you haven't censored me already. Even though I've done nothing that rises to that level other than hurl some insults toward your site. Guess the hurling is only allowed in one direction, huh? From you to everyone else. I'll duck now since I'm pretty sure one will be coming my way.

SCATS said...

To 12:56PM ~~ You would be able to use a created "name" for a blogger account, just as I login with "SCATS." I have no interest in learning who you are specifically and your anonymity would remain to all of us on here.

To 1:19PM ~~ Gee, first you accuse me of being predictable. Now you say I've surprised you. Please try to make up your mind!

Anonymous said...

"I have no interest in learning who you are specifically"

SCATS, I never said that you did. Please show me where I accused you of this. And please do not put words into my mouth or claim that I expect you to do something when I clearly haven't.

You don't like it when it's done to you so please don't do it to others.

I know you don't always play fair here, but this really is unnecessary. C'man SCATS, cut it out.

SCATS said...

To 2:32PM ~~ I was attempting to reassure you. I meant "you" in the plural sense anyway. Where did you get the idea I was accusing you specifically? Guilty conscience maybe ... ?

Anonymous said...

"I meant "you" in the plural sense anyway. Where did you get the idea I was accusing you specifically?"

Oh, maybe from your comment:

"I have no interest in learning who you are specifically"

Specifically has a way of sounding , well, specific.

"Guilty conscience maybe ... ?"

Please don't get smarmy and sarcastic. I didn't start this, you did. I hope name calling is not next. Followed up with bullying. And then deleted comments.

Well that last one we all know you won't do, at least for yourself anyway. ;)

SCATS said...

To 3:28PM & all others who like to argue with me ~~ I'm done with dealing with your insolence. Future comments meant to antagonize will be deleted, not edited. There will be no trace or clue that your mouth ever ran.

Anonymous said...

So is this an "agree with me or I'll delete your comment" blog now? If commenters don't tow the line, will they be deleted? Please don't delete me. I'm seriously just asking. Just wanna know the rules here. If people promise to attack the GCSD and the town, will they get all their comments approved?

Anonymous said...

SCATS, you're starting to sound like Auberger. Is that you Jack? I hope this site isn't just a well orchestrated ploy to confuse the public?

SCATS said...

To 5:24PM ~~ I don't care whether you agree with my opinions related to MY commentary on BLOG entries. I'm drawing the line on your "opinions" related to how I run the BLOG. I am the only "police" here, like it or not. Big difference ;)

This thread is done, capisce?