wow, they are not acting responsibly. if they don't have the evidence drop the case. if you have it, forward the charges.

They don't have a complaint!

Yet, they drag this out. It really smells of dead things walking.

Dohn, we need this question asked. How can they continue with this investigation without a complaint? It's absolutely rediculous. It really seems as if they are using Scott as leverage to get at the owner, which, given the circumstances, is unethical at best.

DingTank,

As was explained to me by several of the officers, there are other pieces of information not being released to the media about the case. Plus, there are some issues with the expected resident I cannot get into because a few sources asked me not to go public with things yet, so I cannot.

Let's see...they found ILLEGAL DRUGS and a GUN at the house. The house is probably rented. Do you blame the people who live in that house for not wanting to talk to the police?

Brian,

From reading what I can about this story, I have the impression that the people who own the house weren't residing in the house and that whoever was residing in the house was either renting or house sitting. Or perhaps a relative of the actual homeowner.

Is that the case? How hard would it actually be for the sherriffs or police to find a homeowner considering they pay utility bills, mortgage payments, checking account, etc.

Looking at the timeline of Eric Scott's arrest record and his coacing career I wonder if he was on probation while at Crenshaw High and if he was on a 2-year probation for the Jan.05 weapon arrest when Dorrell hired himat UCLA in Mar 05?It really is unusual for public schools to have any employee who is on probation for weapons violations. And, could this have figured into his leaving Crenshaw High to intern at UCLA?

Thanks for the response.

However, I have one more question.

I noticed that the Sheriff's Department is now advertising here on this site. I haven't seen that before. Is it just me, just a coincidence or is the Daily News being indirectly being paid off for going soft on this story?

Sorry, it's a question that just popped into my head! I can't help it.

DingTank,

I'll be honest. At first, I thought about not answering your question because it seemed so ludicrous, almost laughable, but I decided to in case you were serious (since sometimes humor doesn't translate in writing).
First, I did not know the Sheriff's Department was advertising with us.
Second, I don't care. I report facts, regardless of any other circumstance.
Third, I don't know what you mean by going soft on this story. What else would you like to know that can be written, from a factual standpoint, that has not been written?

Is it normal for you guys not to report what you know? Maybe I'm just naive, but I just never thought that is what reporters did.

As per the laughable part:

I may not know much about how the Sheriff's front door operates when it comes to the Media, but I can tell you things about the back door that you do not know. This unique perspective allows me to see things you cannot. So, the next time you want to demean a person's question, just because you did not think of it, remember you do not know as much as you think you do.

I just reread your response and it is more clear to me now. I just realized that the sources information that you are withholding are not that of the Sheriff's.

Brian

In answer to your question to DingTank Here are questions that remain unanswered:

1. Was Eric Scott ever asked about his prior convictions by Guerrero, Dorrell, HR, the Athletic Dept, the Police Dept?? Scott was hired as an intern in March of '05 presumably when he was on probations for his last misdemeanor conviction. Did anyone bother to ask him about his convictions then, when he was on probation??!!

2. Did Eric Scott ever misinform anyone at UCLA of his prior convictions .. be it Guerrero, Dorrell, HR, the Athletic Dept, the Police Dept??

3. It is still not clear, due to their the Athletic Dept's own misstatements, if the background check conducted by UCLA PD came back positive for prior misdemeanor convictions. The only thing that is clear now is that there was a "breakdown" in getting the results of that investigation from the PD to HR to the AD. What was the result of the PD's background check??

4. Now that UCLA claims they dont ask coaching hires if they have ever been convicted (something they say they will review), and now that they say there was a "breakdown" in the hiring process in getting background check information from the UCLA PD to HR to the AD, is UCLA going to go back and investigate every coach and Athetic Department staff member for prior convictions?? I mean there could be a convicted felon on staff or in our coaching ranks and we might not know it!! Im sure I know the answer to this question, no. This is all smelling like a cover-up.

DumpDorrell,

Here are the answers to your questions, based on the information I know.

1. I know of no one at UCLA that knew about his prior convictions. I cannot pinpoint where the breakdown was in the process.

2. I do not believe Eric Scott was ever asked about prior convictions.

3. As I said in answer No. 1, I do not know where the breakdown took place. I just know one took place. Due to privacy issues, I cannot get the background check from UCLA, because I have already asked for it and was denied.

4. I believe now the background checks will be done with more scrutiny, and I was told UCLA is working toward that.

On a side note, it seems you are big on a cover-up going on at UCLA, but I don't see it. They made a mistake, and are embarrassed by it. In any workplace, mistakes are made, and organizations try to eliminate them from happening again. From everything I know, UCLA has been forthright in what it has said regarding the situation. Sometimes cover-ups happen, and it's my job to expose them. If I find it with this, I will report it. But right now I am yet to learn of a cover-up.

Brian

Thank you very much for the answers!! I have said this smells like a cover-up ... I have not said it IS a cover-up. I can appreciate that you might see how this may be a realistic set of organizational mistakes that are more systemic than anything. With the answers you have given it makes more sense. I will withhold judgment because it all sounds too neat. Besides, if there were truly a systemic issue and the AD was serious about prior convictions they would order investigations into every coach's backgrounds ... and make it public to preserve their integrity. We haven't heard of any such thing, not that they would tell us.

As for Q2, I asked if Scott every misinformed anyone. A little more subtle, but my guess is that even if he did at this point no one would admit it, lines are drawn in the sand.

As for Q3, thank you for letting us know that you requested a copy of the background check and were denied. That still leaves open the possibility that the background check did come back positive (I would hate to see the PD take the hit for this - they have enough issues to deal with).

In any case, your answers go a long way towards clearing up the issues, despite the outstanding items. We will follow how the AD and Dorrell, and the new Chancellor, resolve this embarrassing episode. Regardless, the damage to UCLA's image is already done, I hope it's not compounded. Thanks again.

Hi Brian,

Did you miss not responding back to the questions I had above regarding who owns the house and who was actually living there?

Westwood Bob,

Sorry, I did miss the question. The police are trying to figure out who lives in the house, and who owns the house. At least, that's what they tell me.

I think it's safe to say if a large quantity of drugs were found in my house I'd talk to a lawyer before I talked to the police as well. I think this hole is getting deeper, not closed.

Also, you would think in the interview process Scott might actually tell someone about his misdemeanor convictions if the Dept. didn't know about it.