Trial begins in case of boys who accuse priest of molestation

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/northern_california/11252090.htm

HAYWARD, Calif. - The Roman Catholic Diocese of Oakland practiced a policy of secrecy, negligence and disregard for children's safety that led to the sexual abuse of two altar boys more than 20 years ago, a plaintiffs' attorney argued Monday at the start of a civil trial that could influence hundreds of similar cases throughout California.

"This was not an isolated incident," attorney Rick Simons told jurors during opening statements. He said the diocese gave the Rev. Robert Ponciroli "the opportunity and green light for sexual molestation and abuse of children with actual knowledge of his history and knowing disregard of their safety."

The case, which involves two former Antioch altar boys suing the Oakland diocese, stems from one of more than 750 lawsuits that have been filed against Catholic dioceses in California since a 2002 state law temporarily lifted the statue of limitations on decades-old claims of sexual abuse by priests.

The case of brothers Bob and Tom Thatcher is the second lawsuit to go to trial, and the first that seeks punitive damages that could substantially raise the amount of money cash-strapped dioceses must pay to victims. Negotiations for settlements continue for more than 150 other sexual abuse lawsuits filed in Northern California.

more

[LostinVA]

1. A question re: molesting priests and Michael Jackson

Okay, I am not trying to start anything, I honestly am curious about this: why do the majority on DU automatically assume the priests are guilty, but excuse Jacko with cries about racism and that kids lie (ala McMartin and Little Rascals cases)? I agree children lie, and I agree some of the priests are guilty, and I tend to think MJ is guilty, although the evidence for a court decision isn't there.

My town had a priest accused of molesting a boy who's an adult now. The priest was removed from public service areas. Guess what? The accuser later recanted. I personally think it's disgusting that so many cases of molestation by priests were covered up by higher ups, and they should all go to jail. Conversely, I think it's disgusting that so many people automatically believe the priests are guilty. I lived in Greensboro, NC, when the Little Rascals witch hunt and trial was going on, and it was horrible. It was worse than McMartin.

I was raised Catholic but am now a Unitarian Pagan (I know, I know), just for the record. I am honestly just wanting to understand the difference here.

[Krupskaya]

2. People are excusing MJ?

That makes me want to hurl.

[LostinVA]

3. Many people on DU

And, I sincerely respect their opinion. However, people then jump all over the accused priests who have even less evidence against them. Again, many of the priests ARE guilty, but many also are just being accused unfairly. My belief? Money. As soon as dioceses started writing checks, the number of accusations shot up.

[msmcghee]

4. Without taking sides here . .

. . it could be that since priests occupy a position of extreme trust in society that it is especially heinous when a priest abuses that trust.

It is hard to imagine why any parent would drop their kids off for an over-nighter with Michael Jackson - except perhaps as way to get rich from suing him later.

I think that people have a bias against any person accused of a heinous crime. They subconsciously believe it would be best to err in the side of conviction.

I don't know if any psych studies have been done on this. Any psychologists out there care to comment?

[LostinVA]

9. I honestly don't have a side

I've just noticed how some people on DU will jump all over priests accused of molestation, even if that PARTICULAR case has little or no evidence -- while slamming anyone who believe Michael Jackson guilty. Again, I am NOT taking any side. I've just noticed this, and find it interesting, and was just wondering why.

I do agree that priests are in a position of trust, and that makes it worse when one of them is guilty. That's really not what I was asking. But thanks!

[Bridget Burke]

5. The "money" thing does cloud the waters a bit.

Those who sincerely want to put molesters behind bars need to bring criminal charges. The Church hasn't had its own dungeons for several centuries now.

But bringing criminal charges means the accuser will have to answer questions. It's so much easier to come back years later & ask for more money.

[NashVegas]

8. Unfortunately, It's the ONLY Way

Speaking from personal experience, if you aren't coming up their ass with a lawyer, it's like this: see this rug? See this broom? Swoosh. Away it goes.

[LostinVA]

10. Again, this isn't what I'm asking

I'm asking specifically why some posters here will immediately think that a priest is guilty, but yet excuse Michael Jackson.

I really appreciate all of these great answers, though.

When the first big case broke in Boston, however, there was no money involved, and it was plastered all over the news forever (and it should have been). It's driving me crazy what the priest's name was -- it began with a "G." He later left the priesthood and married.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

11. The priest's name was Geoghan (sp)

and frankly, I think most DU'ers think Jackson is guilty and say so (although I don't think he is guilty.)

The difference between Jackson and the priests is that while payouts are involved in both cases, the RCC KNEW about these incidents and transferred the priests, in many instances keeping them in positions where there was more opportunity.

That doesn't mean there is an automatic presumption that the priests are guilty, but it does color the issue somewhat to have such a large worldwide religious organization practicing such criminal conspriracy.

[NashVegas]

13. I'm Not Excusing Jackson

Although he's theoretically innocent until proven guilty, there's no denying he has an inappropriate fascination with young boys and their bodies.

In the early 1990s when he was accused, I remember a press conference MJ's pr guy had, where he played a recorded message of the kid's dad, threatening to go to the police. The message was intended to show the world the guy was a discreditable blackmailer. In the message, the guy said, "when the truth about this comes out ... (blah blah blah you're gonna be in trouble)." Because of the way it was phrased, I was inclined to believe there was some substance behind it.

When it comes to the priests, by all means, call me biased. I simply cannot imagine going up against the institution and people we're indoctrinated to believe are our moral authorities, going to the police, going to court over it, on a lie. It takes enough 'nads as it is.

And NSMA is correct. In the early-mid 1990s, there were plenty of cases reported in the news of priests getting arrested, and an occasional suit. They came and disappeared every few months.

The current explosion that started in Boston 2-3 years ago happened because it was shown how church officials knew all along, what was going on, and hushed it up. Do you remember when Sinead O'Connor went on TV and ripped up the pic of the Pope (1991-ish)? That happened just after JPII made a statement blaming the issue of clergy abuse on the sexual revolution of the 1960s. They were all good men, under the influence of the flower children. As if no kid had ever been molested or otherwise abused sexually before then. GMAFB.

[CoffeeCat]

14. In many molestation cases, victims can't press charges...

...and seek justice through the criminal justice system--because the statute of limitations has run out.

Most of these crimes happened decades ago. Many state laws prevent victims from bringing these cases into the system. Each state law has different statute of limitation guidelines.

Many victims sue in civil court--because this is their only option.

[cthrumatrix]

6. why isn't THIS trial on CNN and FAUX ?????????????????

[LostinVA]

7. Court TV has had some of the priests' trials on n/t

[NNN0LHI]

12. Because Michael Jackson is much more important n/t

[Megahurtz]

15. Ew......

:freak::freak:???