PDA

View Full Version : Lawyer to list church’s alleged abusers



Gingersnap
01-19-2011, 10:27 AM
Lawyer to list church’s alleged abusers
More than 100 will be named

http://i52.tinypic.com/hx0rw5.jpg
HIS MOTIVATION Garabedian said the church has an obligation to provide victims with the validation of seeing their abuser named.

By Lisa Wangsness
Globe Staff / January 19, 2011

Frustrated that the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston has not published a list of priests accused of abusing minors, a Boston lawyer who has represented hundreds of victims plans today to release his own list of more than 100 alleged abusers.

Mitchell Garabedian said yesterday that he would hold a press conference this morning to announce the names of priests, members of religious orders, and former employees of the Catholic Church named in sexual abuse complaints for which he has obtained settlements or arbitration awards.

He said he would also post the 117 names, 99 of whom served in the Boston Archdiocese, on his firm’s website.

Garabedian, who said he has represented more than 750 victims of sexual abuse by clergy, said he is publishing the list because Cardinal Seán P. O’Malley has not fulfilled a promise he made almost two years ago to release a comprehensive list of priests who sexually abused children in the Archdiocese of Boston.

The publication of such lists has been a top goal of victim advocacy groups, and a number of dioceses around the country have posted them.

Garabedian said his goal is “to provide the necessary transparency that the church does not provide, transparency that allows victims to heal and protects children.’’

BishopAccountability.org, which tracks sexual abuse by clergy around the country, lists on its website the names of 222 accused priests and members of religious orders, all of whom were at some point assigned to work in Boston.

Garabedian’s list includes 18 alleged abusers from Boston who are not on the list posted by BishopAccountability, a discrepancy that highlights the challenge facing outside groups trying to compile such lists.

The Archdiocese of Boston, asked about Garabedian’s plan, issued a statement outlining the steps it has taken to protect children from abuse and said it is working on developing a list of accused clergy.

“We remain committed to augmenting our present policy in the area of disclosing additional information about credibly accused clergy,’’ said Kelly Lynch, a spokeswoman for the archdiocese. “At this time, our work on this important undertaking is ongoing. We continue to evaluate the complexities of this initiative, especially those associated with disclosing information relating to deceased priests or those accused of a crime whose guilt or innocence has not been established, and the serious due process concerns this presents for those accused.’’

In a March 2009 letter to the chairwoman of a committee advising the archdiocese on child protection policy, O’Malley suggested he was on the verge of releasing a list of clergy accused of abuse and the status of the cases against them.

But Garabedian said that even if an alleged perpetrator is dead and no longer a threat to children, the church has an obligation to provide victims with the psychological validation of seeing their abuser publicly named. He also said that by not releasing the names, the church retains an advantage over victims in settlement negotiations.

Boston (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/01/19/lawyer_to_list_accused_sex_abusers_in_boston_archd iocese/)

Novaheart
01-19-2011, 11:35 AM
Lawyer to list church’s alleged abusers
More than 100 will be named

http://i52.tinypic.com/hx0rw5.jpg
HIS MOTIVATION Garabedian said the church has an obligation to provide victims with the validation of seeing their abuser named.

By Lisa Wangsness
Globe Staff / January 19, 2011

Frustrated that the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston has not published a list of priests accused of abusing minors, a Boston lawyer who has represented hundreds of victims plans today to release his own list of more than 100 alleged abusers.

Mitchell Garabedian said yesterday that he would hold a press conference this morning to announce the names of priests, members of religious orders, and former employees of the Catholic Church named in sexual abuse complaints for which he has obtained settlements or arbitration awards.

He said he would also post the 117 names, 99 of whom served in the Boston Archdiocese, on his firm’s website.

Garabedian, who said he has represented more than 750 victims of sexual abuse by clergy, said he is publishing the list because Cardinal Seán P. O’Malley has not fulfilled a promise he made almost two years ago to release a comprehensive list of priests who sexually abused children in the Archdiocese of Boston.

The publication of such lists has been a top goal of victim advocacy groups, and a number of dioceses around the country have posted them.

Garabedian said his goal is “to provide the necessary transparency that the church does not provide, transparency that allows victims to heal and protects children.’’

BishopAccountability.org, which tracks sexual abuse by clergy around the country, lists on its website the names of 222 accused priests and members of religious orders, all of whom were at some point assigned to work in Boston.

Garabedian’s list includes 18 alleged abusers from Boston who are not on the list posted by BishopAccountability, a discrepancy that highlights the challenge facing outside groups trying to compile such lists.

The Archdiocese of Boston, asked about Garabedian’s plan, issued a statement outlining the steps it has taken to protect children from abuse and said it is working on developing a list of accused clergy.

“We remain committed to augmenting our present policy in the area of disclosing additional information about credibly accused clergy,’’ said Kelly Lynch, a spokeswoman for the archdiocese. “At this time, our work on this important undertaking is ongoing. We continue to evaluate the complexities of this initiative, especially those associated with disclosing information relating to deceased priests or those accused of a crime whose guilt or innocence has not been established, and the serious due process concerns this presents for those accused.’’

In a March 2009 letter to the chairwoman of a committee advising the archdiocese on child protection policy, O’Malley suggested he was on the verge of releasing a list of clergy accused of abuse and the status of the cases against them.

But Garabedian said that even if an alleged perpetrator is dead and no longer a threat to children, the church has an obligation to provide victims with the psychological validation of seeing their abuser publicly named. He also said that by not releasing the names, the church retains an advantage over victims in settlement negotiations.

Boston (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/01/19/lawyer_to_list_accused_sex_abusers_in_boston_archd iocese/)


There is a HUGE difference between publishing a list of those who have admitted guilt or been found guilty and publishing a list of those accused.

It's also important to remember that the secrecy of the past in such matters was with mutual agreement for the good of the church and the victim. You can't really name a perp without naming an accuser and the accusers often didn't want to be named. It's also important to remember that these sexual abuse cases, the proven ones, amount to a handful of people over a very long period of time.

Sorry, but this lawyer sounds like the kind of trash which ruined lives back during the campus rape hysteria and the "satanic cults of child abuse" represented by the McMartin Preschool case.

People lie.

Gingersnap
01-19-2011, 11:46 AM
I certainly would like to know what "accused" means in this case. If it means that arrests, followed by convictions or confessions, then it's one thing.

If it means that a middle-aged individual looking for answers for a damaged life gets to level false or fantasy accusations at the elderly or dead with no burden of proof, then it's something else.

Something that we call a "witchhunt".

noonwitch
01-19-2011, 11:50 AM
There is a HUGE difference between publishing a list of those who have admitted guilt or been found guilty and publishing a list of those accused.

It's also important to remember that the secrecy of the past in such matters was with mutual agreement for the good of the church and the victim. You can't really name a perp without naming an accuser and the accusers often didn't want to be named. It's also important to remember that these sexual abuse cases, the proven ones, amount to a handful of people over a very long period of time.

Sorry, but this lawyer sounds like the kind of trash which ruined lives back during the campus rape hysteria and the "satanic cults of child abuse" represented by the McMartin Preschool case.

People lie.


I'm always suspicious of claims of "satanic ritual child abuse". I'm not saying they don't ever happen, but I think in cases like the McMartin case, or the one in New Jersey, that the adults involved (parents and investigators) had issues with their own cravings for attention-kind of like a psychological Maunchausen-by-proxy. They convinced the kids it really happened, which is abusive.

Rockntractor
01-19-2011, 11:52 AM
When it comes to sex crime even a false accusation can ruin someone, this is wrong.

lacarnut
01-19-2011, 12:49 PM
The Catholic Church screwed the pooch on the listing of the abusers. The lawyer claimed the church did not fulfill the promise the Cardinal made two years ago. Plus, they transferred pedophile priest to other locations which should be criminal in my opinion. The church should have reported these monsters to the police pronto when the evidence was warranted.

I do not have a problem with him listing the names of those that he has gotten settlements from. If I was accused of a crime and was not guilty, I sure as hell would not pay someone off.

m00
01-20-2011, 12:16 AM
If I was accused of a crime and was not guilty, I sure as hell would not pay someone off.

I'm pretty sure I could construct a scenario involving alleged file-sharing where you would.:p

lacarnut
01-20-2011, 04:18 PM
I'm pretty sure I could construct a scenario involving alleged file-sharing where you would.:p

I doubt it in a civil case such as many of these.

NJCardFan
01-20-2011, 04:55 PM
And a response by the ACLU will be coming in 3...2...1...0...-1...-2...-3...-4..-5...

However, if someone wanted to list convicted child molesters in a particular town, the ACLU would be all over it like a fat kid on a cupcake.

m00
01-20-2011, 11:49 PM
I doubt it in a civil case such as many of these.

oh, when they say "pay us $3000 or we will sue you for 30 million, we have 'records' of your IP downloading 22 songs" you have to wonder whether their army of lawyers can win against truth.

noonwitch
01-21-2011, 12:56 PM
And a response by the ACLU will be coming in 3...2...1...0...-1...-2...-3...-4..-5...

However, if someone wanted to list convicted child molesters in a particular town, the ACLU would be all over it like a fat kid on a cupcake.


That's why most states have the registry. Everyone on the registry has been convicted. Not much the ACLU can do about it in those circumstances.

I just don't like seeing the registry abused by listing 18 year olds who had consensual sex with their 16 year old girlfriends, or women arrested for prostitution on it. Also, in Michigan, it seems guys who cross the the line and touch the dancing girls at the titty bars get convicted of 4th degree CSC and end up on the list, and that doesn't seem right to me unless they have multiple convictions.

lacarnut
01-21-2011, 01:04 PM
oh, when they say "pay us $3000 or we will sue you for 30 million, we have 'records' of your IP downloading 22 songs" you have to wonder whether their army of lawyers can win against truth.

That would be hard to prove since I have none. I would also suspect that I could file a counter suit.

m00
01-21-2011, 11:52 PM
That would be hard to prove since I have none. I would also suspect that I could file a counter suit.

You would be surprised what sort of things you can "prove" when the premise is that an IP address uniquely identifies a person.

Rockntractor
01-21-2011, 11:55 PM
You would be surprised what sort of things you can "prove" when the premise is that an IP address uniquely identifies a person.

If a person is hell bent on getting around traceability there are always hot spots like Starbucks, McDonald's or Burger king.

m00
01-22-2011, 12:02 AM
If a person is hell bent on getting around traceability there are always hot spots like Starbucks, McDonald's or Burger king.

they've busted people who've done that... but then it has to be a *real* crime and not file sharing. :p

But yea you are still traceable with mac addresses, browser fingerprints, if you so much as have java or javascript enabled.