Posted on 02/18/2012 6:57:13 PM PST by the invisib1e hand
A Queens elementary school teacher arrested on Thursday and accused of repeatedly sexually abusing two students had been investigated 10 years before for inappropriately touching students at another school, but was allowed to continue teaching with only a warning letter, officials said.
Wilbert Cortez, a computer teacher at P.S. 174 in Forest Hills, was arrested Thursday morning and accused of molesting two boys, ages 8 and 9, over the course of the 2010-11 school year, the Queens District Attorney’s office said. Cortez was expected to be arraigned on Thursday night, and the DA’s office did not know if he had a lawyer.
Cortez, 49, was “reassigned away from students” in October, when the Department of Education was notified about allegations against him, officials said. In a letter, principal Karin Kelly said she would meet with parents Friday morning.
Cortez is the third public school teacher to be accused of sexual assault in the last few weeks.
“I am appalled by the allegations against Wilbert Cortez,” Chancellor Dennis Walcott said in a statement. “No adult who inappropriately touches a student, in or out of school, belongs anywhere near the children we are responsible for protecting.”
But the department had known about previous allegations made in 1999 while Cortez was teaching at PS 184 in Brooklyn, and let him continue teaching nonetheless.
In 2000, the Special Commissioner of Investigation for city schools found that two boys described receiving a “bad touch” from Cortez on several occasions. Other students said they had witnessed the molestation, according to the report, which said that Cortez declined to be interviewed by investigators.
His only reprimand was “having a disciplinary letter placed in his file,” education officials said.
School officials did not say if the teacher who ignored the students’ accusations had been reprimanded.
Cortez began as a substitute teacher in 1986, and became a full-time teacher in 1990. He faces seven years in jail if convicted.
Class actions suits are brewing...not.
WILBERT ?
That priest was a liar but what’s new.
Public school teachers can’t escape to the Vatican.
1. quite not.
2. your bias has poisoned your rational faculties.
You could be a witness for Jerry Sandusky’s defense.
“Your honor, don’t blame Jerry, everyone rapes children!”
Apparently they don't have to, they just get a stern letter in their personnel file.
This is NOT the title of this article.
The title is: Queens teacher arrested for sex abuse was also investigated in 2000
FR Rules require that the CORRECT title MUST ALWAYS be used.
You're past the point of recovery, friend.
Mods, please make this guy take his meds.
Will in the NY schools they can escape to the Teacher warehouse.
On a simply rational bases the NY School system makes more sense to a pedophile than the priesthood.
The pay is better, you can have a wife as well as the kids (the wife provides a cover story and you can delude yourself that you are normal), the added benefit of a strong union to protect you (as can be seen here the school administration will also try to protect you), and there are a vastly larger number of kids to choose from.
You must remember that in the last 50 years the number of priest in the US has fallen drastically and the number NYC school teachers has grown vastly. Just on the numbers it makes sense that teachers would molest more kids.
I’m not the one posting threads with deceiving titles.
ignore him and he’ll go away.
Ignoring things like child rape is the Catholic MO...
Neither have any priests who are guilty of sexual abuse.
Cardinal Law actually set the plan up for protecting children that his successor, Sean O'Malley put in place upon arriving in Boston. Because of the news reports, most folks believed that Law ignored large numbers of abusive priests for years and never did anything about it. They didn't realize that most of the abuse that was reported in the press in Boston had occurred long before Law ever arrived in the city. That is not to say he wasn't to blame for not turning a few of the men over to the authorities, but he wasn't the ONLY one in that regard. Many District Attorneys over the years had declined to charge priests who had been suspected of abuse. Geoghan and Shanley were two prime examples of this, and it was likely because they were big supporters of Democrat politicians.
Geoghan did end up in prison, and was subsequently killed by a fellow inmate. I do not know what happened to Shanley, other than that he went to the West Coast, at some point in time.
Cardinal Law resigned his seat, unlike any other Bishops who had abusive priests in their Dioceses, to clear the way for O'Malley, He did NOT, contrary to popular belief, 'skip town' to avoid prosecution. He stayed in the United States, making himself available for any questioning by the authorities, until the investigation was done, and only afterwards, did he leave for Rome.
AG Reilly's question could be asked of his predecessors, and several DAs in the Commonwealth. They declined to prosecute some of the abusers. What's THEIR excuse?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.