Criminal cases are, generally, precluded by statute of limitations - 224 counts were recently dropped against a former local Archbishop - DA was trying to pursue a couple, but state law makes few exceptions - even in the case of children too scared to talk.
Pope = “Vicar of Christ”. WWJD? Hire pit-bull lawyers to ask “Did you enjoy it?”
Catholic Church gunning for victims? They’d better hope the “Church” of Scientology doesn’t find out. Then the COS would sue for copyright infringement.
ALEGED, ALEGED, ALEGED… There, are you happy now, Scylla?
There is at least some possibility that the “aleged victim” was actually abused. That is why the pitbull lawyers asking if he enjoyed it are fucking evil.
There is a huge fucking difference between a vigorous defense and asking “did you enjoy it”.
You really do have quite the ugly little anti-catholicism thing going, don’t you?
So 224 cases all dropped proves what?
So the assumption is that because all these cases were dropped he must be guilty of them?
Or, that the statute of limitations is unjust?
I think your credulity knows no bounds.
Am I supposed to beleive that a high profile member of society was able to molest 224 children over a period of how many years, and not get caught on a single one of them until after the statute of limitations is passed?
Am I further supposed to believe that each and every one of those 224 cases broke after the statute.
How do you cover up so much activity for so long, and then manage to get yourself caught on so many different cases all at once?
I guess we could posit the possibility that this archbishop was some kind of criminal mastermind who planned it all so well and in such exacting detail that he has able to micromanage these 224 molestations with such machiavellian skill that he was able to make them all break after the statute had expired.
We could beleive that.
Or, let’s try this:
All of a sudden there’s money in accusing clergy.
The article states that the RCC has documents on priests behaviour, but refuses to release them. The RCC is covering things up, and using religious freedom as a justification. If I remember right, covering up a felony is very much a crime. Oh well. That little campus that is called an independent country will likely take them in when they claim diplomatic immunity.
“all of a sudden there’s money in accusing clergy”? Does anybody want to hold my hair while I vomit?
A vigorous defense could be mounted. Character assasination of the accusers is what is happening instead.
Mr. Blue Sky, you took the words right out of my mouth. These tactics do sound eeriely similar to what the Church of Scientology does to those whom sue them.
And look! Internet filters designed by the Catholic Church for schools that make sure nothing that doesn’t promote Catholic values goes through?
I’m confused… What’s going on here?!
It’s “alleged.”
You forget the circumstances. We’re not talking about a criminal case where some poor kid is testifying to put a monster behind bars.
They’ve passed on that choice. Either there’s not enough evidence, they didn’t want to bother or they didn’t want to ruin the shot at a civil case.
So, we have a civil case. Somebody is in it, asking not for justice, but for money. They’re not going after the accused, but rather the organization of which the accused is or was a member.
I think the fact that you’re looking for money from a third party is a little bit different.
I don’t think you get to play the protected victim card quite so stringently when you have your hand out for a check.
You have to prove your case.
If somebody calls me up with a complaint about my business, I take it seriously and I treat them as a party who has both been wronged and who can help my business by showing me where it’s flawed.
When somebody call me up looking for money, I tend to be a little more suspect.
Well I’m obviously the stupidest person on the face of the earth, I misspelled a word. I guess I’m just dumb ol’ white trash.
That doesn’t change the fact that these tactics are sick. The church is only making itself look worse by adopting these practices.
The reason there is “money in accusing clergy” is because the church has a history of covering this shit up and re-assigning priests.
WTF? An accusation of child molestation is not an attack against one’s character?
Certainly the character of the person making the accusation is an issue germaine to the case. How else do you ascertain credibility?
Are we just supposed to take somebody’s word for it, because it’s too distasteful of impolite to find out if it’s true?
You don’t even know the context of the question as it was asked. Without knowing the context you cannot possibly have the slightest clue whether it was an appropriate or innapropriate question.
Scylla, name a context where that would be an appropriate question.
[sub]By the way, I am posting directly from a trailer park. It’s true."[/sub]
How does asking if they enjoyed it speak to their credibility?
Isn’t it manifest? If they did enjoy it, would they be bringing charges? And going by your apparent line of thinking (they’re just out for the money and lying), would they be expected to answer the question honestly anyway?
I’m hard-pressed to see how such a question is intended to be anything other than malicious.
::Sigh::
Somebody reduces a court case on an issue like this to a sound bite, and you accept it at face value.
The tactics are bad?
No, the tactics are not bad.
They are just tactics.
They are bad if you are further victimizing a child who has already been victimized.
They are the greatest thing in the world if the are revealing a moneygrubbing liar making false accusations.
A lawyer that does the former is not going to win a lot of sympathy for his client from a judge or a jury, and that’s going to translate when the punitive damages get awarded.
Somebody that thinks about trying to pull of a stunt, and win big bucks from the RCC had better have their shit straight before they take the stand, or risk getting torn apart.
That’s the way it is, when you hold out your hand and sue for money.
A “moneygrubbing liar” wouldn’t be affected by the question. I’ll be honest, the only purpose I can see that question having is to scare off a legitimate victim. It has dick-all to do with the credibility of the accuser, and a “moneygrubbing liar” wouldn’t be bothered by it- not having actually experienced the abuse. Someone who was legitimately abused might drop the case to spare the child- That is what the fucking lawyers want.
Once again, name a context- any context where that question would be appropriate.
Was the questioning taking place on Bizarro world? 'Cause that is the only instance I can think of where it wasn’t totally inappropriate.
Sure. If the person making the accusation is now an adult, I don’t think they have the same protected status as a child does. If they are suing for money, I think it’s even less.
So, let’s say it’s a forty year old guy asking for $. Furthermore, let’s say you have a witness who you are going to call shortly, and this witness is a gay man who is the accuser’s ex-lover. Let’s say this ex-lover is going to testify that the accuser told him about all his exploits as a teen, and among those was a time he seduced a next door neighbor, as well as a parish priest. Let’s say further, that the ex-lover will testify that the accused told him how upset he was that the priest acted so guilty and refused to repeat the act because the accuser really enjoyed it.
So, that’s the witness you have behind curtain number two.
So the guy sits there and tearfully tells you how awful it was to be abused, and how his life has been ruined, and how the Church needs to be punished and how he should get all this money.
So, you ask him if he “enjoyed it.”
::gasp:: everybody breathes in. How could you ask such an insensitive question?
Easy. You’re going to make this guy perjure himself. You’re going to get the real story out. You’re going to tell the story of a 16 year old boy who seduced a priest. The priest is certainly guilty of statutory rape, but cries of victimization are going to sound pretty disingenuous when you have a witness or witnesses that will demonstrate that the accuser had a pattern of seeking or creating such situations for his own gratification.
What you have now is a guy trading on a past indiscretion he created in order to recieve monetary gratification.
You certainly don’t have a predatory priest.
And when the guy answers “That’s horrible, how could you ask me such a question. I was victimized!” and you have that witness,
Well,
you have just served both your client, and justice.
And, it would be absolutely appropriate.
You asked for one, there one is.
[sub]By the way, I am posting directly from a trailer park. It’s true."[/sub] **
[/QUOTE]
I see. And do you identify with the term “white trash?” Are you sitting there with a mullet haircut eating fritos and Schlitz, while your commonlaw wife makes marshmallow ambrosia with curls in her hair?
Are you watching professional wrestling while looking occasionally out the window to make sure your monster truck hasn’t been stolen?
Are you smoking Marlboros while wearing a flannel shirt and a “Cat Diesel Power” ballcap?
When you go to work knocking cows on the head at the slaughter plant do you try to crack their skulls in time to “achey breaky heart?”
Have you ever lost your trailer to a tornado?
If the chicken pot pie is cold in the middle do you bitchslap your wife?
Have you lost fingers in more than three seperate industrial accidents?
Do you have an Elvis lamp?
Because if you answered yes to these questions,
You might be white trash.
The worst thing is, you can’t even bitch about it since you don’t have minority status and you haven’t been oppressed. You’re just a generic loser.
But, I didn’t call you white trash, so make of it what you will.
Yes, indeed. Pity the long-suffering Scylla. However does he tolerate such simpletons?
Again, it’s not the whole court case I take issue with, but rather the questions cited.
Given that you obviously have no qualms about endorsing these sorts of questions, which are we to assume: that you’ve decided all of the plantiffs fall into the latter category, that the former isn’t negative enough to warrant concern, or that those who would be affected by the former are simply ‘collateral damage?’
Nope Scylla. I may be white, I may be trash, but I ain’t white trash.
I guess I got upset because, just as in the “Darwin Fish” thread it seems that some are blaming the victims. That just happens to be something that pisses me off.
“Alleged victim”, “alleged child molestor” fine, whatever. The “alleged” molestors have been codled by the church- I believe I read that one preist was reassigned five times due to allegations of molestation. I suppose it is somehow possible that people in five different cities who didn’t know each other and didn’t know the priest’s history somehow collaborated to come up with false charges: It must be some kind of conspiracy, before last year who had ever heard such a thing. I bet nobody in history has ever been abused by a priest, I’m sure the crusades and inquisitions didn’t happen. Borgias, what Borgias, the Catholic church is the most pure and innocent institution in history, how dare you believe those white trash heathens.
In short FUCK YOU!!!
If you were being sued for child molestation, how would you want your laywer to defend you? What questions would you want him to ask, what strategy would you want him to pursue?
Scylla’s not saying, “I hope these priests get away with molesting children.” He’s saying that the RCC has the right to pursue a legal defense, and do what they can to win.
I would sure as hell not want my lawyer to ask an accusor if they “liked it”, were I accused of child molestation. I would want my lawyer to find evidense that I didn’t do it. Assasinating the character of the accusor only makes you look worse.
They can’t find any evidence to exonerate the priests so they are harassing people who have already been victimised. And don’t give me any of that “alleged” bullshit- that only flies so far.
Of course, the only people who are offended by this shit are apparently white trash anti-catholics according to Scylla.