Priest flees country on eve of testimony in California sex-abuse case

  • Thread starter Thread starter spectre88
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Luigi_Daniele said:
The first case was criminal. He was found innocent. The other cases are civil.

The lawyer (who, again, makes a living ONLY suing priests/the Church) keeps producing “victims” (including the one in this case, who didn’t even know he had been a victim, until he underwent repressed memory “therapy”).
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, I was asking for facts. How many victims have come forward? If there was a criminal trial for this defendant it wasn’t in this case, because the statute of limitation expired long ago.

Do you know how many people have accused him? Do you have a reference to any criminal case that would be a victim who was within the statute of limitations? Do you know in how many jurisdictions cases have been filed?

Tell me what evidence you have to support the contention that the attorney handling this case only accepts cases of sexual abuse against priests.

Also, knowing rather a lot about how repressed memory works in trauma, especially in children, I’m not that impressed with your quotes around words, which seem to imply we should all dismiss the testimony of the plaintiff. A jury found this priest liable in this case. Juries aren’t prone to find one way or the other without some kind of substantiating evidence. That is: there had to be more than “yes, he did; no, I didn’t.” If there had not been, if the jury had been prejudiced in some way, the judge is perfectly within his legal right to overturn their findings and enter his own judgement.

This trial transcript is apparently sealed as the victim’s identity is unknown. So, we have no way of knowing what that evidence was.

However, calumniating the victim here, is hardly a Christian response.
 
I’m sorry, but I was giving you facts. 😉

I have neither the time nor the inclination to go over the entire trial with you:)

You are absolutely entitled to your opinion regarding repressed memory therapy. Many psychiatrists/psychologists think that it is bunk. I share that opinion.🙂

I know Father personally. I can vouch that he spent many hours at our home (which includes young children) and always behaved like a gentleman. I choose to believe him over an antiCatholic trial lawyer. Or the “evidence” produced by repressed memory “therapy” of something that supposedly happened over 20 years ago.

And I’ll end my comments there.
 
Luigi_Daniele said:
I’m sorry, but I was giving you facts.
Click to expand...
You stated your beliefs. Which is fine. One of your beliefs is contradicted by the facts.

A lot of pedophiles are perfectly lovely people well-liked by their close family and their community. I arrested one at his 65th birthday party. It was very well-attended.

She was 8. I had DNA. None of his friends ever believed it.
 
Luigi_Daniele said:
Not suggesting that this somehow proves Father innocent (after all, somebody has to be in the 0.02%), but I found this interesting:

catholicleague.org/99-98-of-priests-are-innocent/
Click to expand...
From your link:
Of that number, 9 were deemed credible by law enforcement. Which means that 99.98% of priests nationwide had no such accusation made against them last year. Nowhere is this being reported.
Click to expand...
The bolded part is not correct, it’s an editorialization by the writers. The fact is, 9 were prosecuted criminally. This in no way implies that the other accusations were not deemed credible. The most common reason that charges are not pursued is “no reasonable likelihood of successful prosecution.”

This is attorney-speak for: “Yes, we think he did it, but all we have is the victim’s word…”

Many forms of sexual assault do not leave physical evidence.
 
Julia_Mae said:
The most common reason that charges are not pursued is “no reasonable likelihood of successful prosecution.”

This is attorney-speak for: “Yes, we think he did it, but all we have is the victim’s word…”

Many forms of sexual assault do not leave physical evidence.
Click to expand...
I would think that this would make the successful prosecution of older cases a rarity. But this is the way it must be.

That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved.

Benjamin Franklin.
 
Julia_Mae said:
This is attorney-speak for: “Yes, we think he did it, but all we have is the victim’s word…”

.
Click to expand...
Really, it’s “If we take what we have to a trial, we don’t think a jury would believe it”

If a prosecutor felt there was a way he\she could get the jury to buy into it, even if it was just on the word of the victim, they would take it trial.
 
Julia_Mae said:
You stated your beliefs. Which is fine. One of your beliefs is contradicted by the facts.

A lot of pedophiles are perfectly lovely people well-liked by their close family and their community. I arrested one at his 65th birthday party. It was very well-attended.

She was 8. I had DNA. None of his friends ever believed it.
Click to expand...
As a lawyer who has been involved in a few cases involving child pornography or abuse - no one ever believes it or admits to it - at least not until the DNA evidence, medical evidence, photographic/computer evidence appears.
 
Last one 😉

I am in no way saying that this stuff doesn’t happen. I’m just saying that I highly doubt that it did in this case.

Time will tell, I guess.
 
Brendan said:
Really, it’s “If we take what we have to a trial, we don’t think a jury would believe it”

If a prosecutor felt there was a way he\she could get the jury to buy into it, even if it was just on the word of the victim, they would take it trial.
Click to expand...
Well, I don’t know what jurisdiction you were an attorney or police officer in, but in the four jurisdictions in three states shared among the 7 police officers and lawyers in my family, this is entirely incorrect. No one goes to trial on word alone. You couldn’t get it past a prelim. The prosecutor’s boss would also not allow it.

But cite a case if you have one, they do keep making movies about such scenarios and TV shows, maybe someone someplace got inspired.
 
Luigi_Daniele said:
The (I want to use a bad word, but won’t) lawyer makes a living suing priests/diocese. I love that Father Kelly has denied him making more money off of the Church.
Click to expand...
Well it looks like Fr. Kelly was not successful in denying anyone from making money off of the Church. The diocese will pay $3.75 million. I don’t know if or how fleeing played a factor, whether indirectly or directly, into the final settlement but I have to wonder if it did more good or harm.

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=14072
 
I make no judgment of this man. This case desperately needs our prayers. I am not privy to the facts of the case and have no prejudice one way or another. I am troubled if the diocese paid out a settlement out of a sense of impotency – if the man was truly innocent. I am also troubled by the idea that “victims” without a a record of clinical treatment (for example) and merely their own “word” might be allowed to substitute for evidence. We don’t know individual motives in cases like this. Many years ago a supposed “victim” came forth against Cardinal Bernardin and was proven and admitted to be a fraud, and later was generously and graciously forgiven and welcomed by the Cardinal.

That said, everyone should take note that in other cases, men who victimize others in this way (clergy, coaches, teachers) have been among the most popular and well-liked of people, and often work at creating such a public “image.” I am definitely not implying that Fr. Kelly is among such people. However, it is important not to confuse public perception with private deeds.

My heart goes out to this man if he is being unjustly accused and feels so desperate that he has no recourse but to “run out of town.” He is in my prayers, now.
 
Elizabeth502 said:
I am troubled if the diocese paid out a settlement out of a sense of impotency – if the man was truly innocent. I am also troubled by the idea that “victims” without a a record of clinical treatment (for example) and merely their own “word” might be allowed to substitute for evidence. .
Click to expand...
I think we can be assured, that the Diocese,when they make payment, will do so because the court ordered them to and no court is allowing a case with totally unsubstantiated claims.

Nice post, I thought.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top