Priest denies abuse of seven boys

[Abyssinia]

A former Catholic priest has denied sexually assaulting seven boys who are alleged to have been abused between 1974 and 1994.

Alexander Bede Walsh pleaded not guilty to 23 counts of indecent assault and two other serious sexual offences when he appeared before a judge at Stoke-on-Trent Crown Court.

Walsh, who served as a priest in Coventry and in the Cheadle area of north Staffordshire, will stand trial on a date to be fixed.

The 57-year-old, of Church Lane in Abbots Bromley, near Rugeley, Staffordshire, was charged with the offences earlier this year after a detailed investigation by detectives from Staffordshire Police.

uk.news.yahoo.com/priest-denies-abuse-seven-boys-115517696.html

 

[valentino]

He has a right to deny thte charges.If he is proved guilty then he’s guilty.However it does seem strange that 7 boys would claim that they were abused if they were not.It could be that his definition of abuse is different from what they claim to be abuse.Let’s wait an see what is decided.

 

[JimG]

It’s alway more difficult to find the truth of the matter when charges are not made until 17 to 37 years after the alleged incidents.

 

[nordskoven]

Let’s see if seven people will all flunk a lie detector test. Give the priest a lie detector test. Lots of falsely accused people take lie detector tests because, while inadmissible in court as not being wholly reliable, they go a long way to show a person’s mettle. Police often use lie detector tests to screen rape victims. Do it.

 

[Godfollower]

Let’s see if seven people will all flunk a lie detector test. Give the priest a lie detector test. Lots of falsely accused people take lie detector tests because, while inadmissible in court as not being wholly reliable, they go a long way to show a person’s mettle. Police often use lie detector tests to screen rape victims. Do it.

The reason lie detector tests are inadmissible in court is that they’re unreliable. If I accused you of wrongdoing and passed a lie detector test, would you simply pay the money I asked for? If you aren’t willing to agree with a “passed” lie detector test, then you shouldn’t demand one hoping for a “failed” test.

And, by the way, who should go first? If the priest goes first and passes, should we just dismiss the case? If the victims go first, and three pass while four fail, should the priest be convicted of three counts but acquitted of four?

I don’t think rape victims should be subjected to lie detector tests, and I don’t think priests or their accusers should be subjected to them. It isn’t right.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

He has a right to deny thte charges.If he is proved guilty then he’s guilty.However it does seem strange that 7 boys would claim that they were abused if they were not.It could be that his definition of abuse is different from what they claim to be abuse.Let’s wait an see what is decided.

Multiple accusations against an innocent person are not unheard of: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMartin_preschool_trial

Obviously, this isn’t identical to the Walsh case but I think this kind of incident does raise questions.

 

[Godfollower]

He has a right to deny thte charges.If he is proved guilty then he’s guilty.However it does seem strange that 7 boys would claim that they were abused if they were not.It could be that his definition of abuse is different from what they claim to be abuse.Let’s wait an see what is decided.

Multiple accusations against an innocent person are not unheard of: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMartin_preschool_trial

Obviously, this isn’t identical to the Walsh case but I think this kind of incident does raise questions.

I had a case in which I absolutely believed that the priest in question had commited the abuse, in part because of multiple accusations by widely separated accusers.

Then, during his deposition, the plaintiff made specific, clear, otherwise-credible accusations concerning the abuse that I knew from independent sources simply could not be true (as in, I was abused on this day, which I remember clearly because X, Y, and Z (all of which we knew to be true), and on this day, which I remember clearly because A, B, and C (all of which we knew to be true), and in the following ways (which agreed with the ways the other, independent accusers had said) – but the priest had a clear, absolute, unquestionable and undefeatable alibi for those dates).

So, yes: sometimes it seems too clear to be denied. Yet it’s untrue.

So, in accordance with canon law and with civil law, I say wait, and let the process play out. Maybe he’s guilty. Maybe he’s innocent. Time will tell. And, in the meantime, take the appropriate steps to protect both the accused, the accusers, and potential future victims.

 

[Pax_et_Bonum]

Innocent until proven guilty applies to priests as well.

 

[valentino]

I had a case in which I absolutely believed that the priest in question had commited the abuse, in part because of multiple accusations by widely separated accusers.

Then, during his deposition, the plaintiff made specific, clear, otherwise-credible accusations concerning the abuse that I knew from independent sources simply could not be true (as in, I was abused on this day, which I remember clearly because X, Y, and Z (all of which we knew to be true), and on this day, which I remember clearly because A, B, and C (all of which we knew to be true), and in the following ways (which agreed with the ways the other, independent accusers had said) – but the priest had a clear, absolute, unquestionable and undefeatable alibi for those dates).

So, yes: sometimes it seems too clear to be denied. Yet it’s untrue.

So, in accordance with canon law and with civil law, I say wait, and let the process play out. Maybe he’s guilty. Maybe he’s innocent. Time will tell. And, in the meantime, take the appropriate steps to protect both the accused, the accusers, and potential future victims.

was their motive money?all Catholic children?how did they get these kids all together and confess to the lies?I just curious.Is this a case along with some others just out to get priests?

 

[Pax_et_Bonum]

was their motive money?all Catholic children?how did they get these kids all together and confess to the lies?I just curious.Is this a case along with some others just out to get priests?

We’ll find out.Have you ever witnessed a social worker “interrogate” a child or adult-the biases are astounding.I have a background in same and BELIEVE me you are guilty till proven innocent.Remember abot 10 years ago when whole groups of innocent people were accused found guilty and jailed because of the allegations of Devil Worship by some children and the encouragement of social workers?Let him have his trial then if found innocent DO write him a letter of apology or would you prefer to stone him now and get it over with.If he IS guilty-find a pond and a millstone and I’ll help.Till then the presumption of innocense please.Public speculation is a form of calumnous gossip which I do believe is a sin.

 

[laszlo]

Before 1962, when we lived in a somewhat normal world, there was a statute of limitations. No one could be initially changed after 15 years, because the facts could not be judged impartially.

 

[Pax_et_Bonum]

Before 1962, when we lived in a somewhat normal world, there was a statute of limitations. No one could be initially changed after 15 years, because the facts could not be judged impartially.