Sherrif Clarke

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Maybe. Or he was supervising monsters.

I don't want to downplay this because of "rape" being involved, but sometimes  you can end up working with people who aren't quite what we had hoped they would be.  If Clarke was directly at fault, I also don't want to suggest something else.  What I'm getting at is how did he know, or how was he supposed to know?  If he did know, then to what degree did he have knowledge of who and to whom the problems were directed at?  I'm certainly not saying he's innocent, because he may not be, but to what extent could he have acted based on what was reasonably known (or knowable) to him?  He could be a "monster" but I won't assume he is until I know more.  If he is, then bring on the torches.

How was he supposed to know?  He was being SUED, fer chrissakes. Please outline for me the conditions under which you would be sued and not know about it. FWIW, I've been sued more than once, and it's a pretty hard thing not to notice.

It was his fucking job to know what was going on.  We aren't taking about a single incident, but a pattern of abuse and neglect that went on for years. ON HIS WATCH.

Boru

Being sued doesn't indicate guilt, responsibility, or anything else.  You go to a trial and evidence is presented.  Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.  What I'm looking for is at what point did he personally have all the said evidence to process?  Was it during the court hearing?  Was it after he even had a chance to act on it?  Again, I'm not saying you're wrong.  I'm saying "I" can't conclude he's a monster because I don't know enough details.  Also, was he sued directly?  Like he was ruled against, and he had to fork out the cash?  I understand he was "in charge", which often defaults the responsibility to the supervisor, but that doesn't always mean it was directly their fault, just that they must assume fault for their employee.