Lodinews.com

default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
|
||
Logout|My Dashboard

For second day, Lockeford priest Michael Kelly denies sexual assault allegations

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 5:18 pm | Updated: 6:26 am, Thu Mar 22, 2012.

Father Michael Kelly continued to deny allegations that he sexually assaulted anyone while spending almost two more hours on the witness stand on Wednesday.

Attorney John Manly, representing a 37-year-old man suing Kelly on allegations that the Lockeford priest sexually assaulted him when the plaintiff was an altar boy in the 1980s, named several people in the 1970s and '80s and asked Kelly if he touched any of them on or near the groin.

Subscription Required

An online service is needed to view this article in its entirety. You need an online service to view this article in its entirety.

Have an online subscription?

Login now

Need an online subscription?

Subscribe

Login

You must login to view the full content on this page.

Thank you for reading 20 free articles on our site. You can come back at the end of your 30-day period for another 20 free articles, or you can purchase a subscription at this time and continue to enjoy valuable local news and information. If you need help, please contact our office at 209-369-2761. You need an online service to view this article in its entirety.

Have an online subscription?

Login now

Need an online subscription?

Subscribe

Login

More about

More about

More about

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Use your real name. You must register with your full first and last name before you can comment. (And don’t pretend you’re someone else.)
  • 2 Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually oriented language.
  • 3 Don’t threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
  • 4 Be truthful. Don't lie about anyone or anything. Don't post unsubstantiated allegations, rumors or gossip that could harm the reputation of a person, company or organization.
  • 5 Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 6 Stay on topic. Make sure your comments are about the story. Don’t insult each other.
  • 7 Tell us if the discussion is getting out of hand. Use the ‘Report’ link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 8 Share what you know, and ask about what you don't.
  • 9 Don’t be a troll.
  • 10 Don’t reveal personal information about other commenters. You may reveal your own personal information, but we advise you not to do so.
  • 11 We reserve the right, at our discretion, to monitor, delete or choose not to post any comment. This may include removing or monitoring posts that we believe violate the spirit or letter of these rules, or that we otherwise determine at our discretion needs to be monitored, not posted, or deleted.

Welcome to the discussion.

16 comments:

  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 11:42 pm on Sun, Apr 1, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403

    K Lee,
    Maybe you are not aware of your own posts and cannot remember how often you support and say positive things about people who denigrate and besmirch the charater of the church and anyone who is religiously orientated. I cannot recall one positive statement you have made in 2 years of posting.

    You had an opportunity here in this thread again to correct Steve ( which you never do) ...yet you again were silent.. as always when something negative and unfair is stated about the church or its priests....

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 2:18 pm on Sun, Mar 25, 2012.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Plus, Darrell, I do not blindly follow anything that comes along just because someone from a church makes the statement/claim.

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 2:17 pm on Sun, Mar 25, 2012.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Darrell wrote, "I only see you put down, criticize or question anything good that might be said of the church. Why is that?"

    I am innocent of your accusations.

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 2:16 pm on Sun, Mar 25, 2012.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Darrell: It is not cold to ask a person why she completely believes in the innocence of someone "without question". In light of your attack on my simple inquiry I guess in your view no one should ever question another's claim of innocence. I'll have to remember your position when other topics come up on the boards.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 8:37 pm on Thu, Mar 22, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403

    So Steve... any comment on something pertinent to the actual case at hand ... why talk about something on this thread that has zero relevance to father Kelly.... Are you saying that the Bishop Blaire and father Kelly participated in castrations and help victims in dungeons?.. that they are part of some international plot to do something evil? Or are you simply attempting to leave a bad taste in people's mouth and hope to cast a negative attitude about the Catholic institution and all Catholic priests.

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 5:31 pm on Thu, Mar 22, 2012.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2239

    Kevin, the link you provided had lots of examples of laws that mandated the sterilization of criminals but there was no mention of programs to sterilize rape victims.

    The Church's policy was pretty straightforward. Lock up the victims so that they couldn't implicate the rapist priests who attacked them and then castrate them as an example to other victims who might think about talking.

    I feel certain that, as these horrific stories mount one atop another that we shall eventually reach a point where even you have to admit that the Catholic Church is utterly and completely morally bankrupt.

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 8:52 am on Thu, Mar 22, 2012.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 1904

    Steve, don't forget that during the same time as the horrible actions in the Netherlands, our own Government was doing the same here. http://civilliberty.about.com/od/gendersexuality/tp/Forced-Sterilization-History.htm

    If you read down to the bottom the last legal one performed in the US was done in 1981.

    Not defending the action but the in the time it was considered (wrongly) to be a viable treatment option. This is much the same (the belief in the "therapy" value) as electric shock therapy. Look how long that was used "for the patients own good". Now we know it barbaric. But at the time it was thought to be helpful.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 6:54 am on Thu, Mar 22, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403

    Mr Schmidt stated...Posey and Darrell will have to forgive us if we don't simply accept the defense's case on "faith".
    Evidently, Mr Schmidt did not bother to read Posey's post. She stated that Father Kelly took several lie detector tests and was evaluated by an FBI profiler, who stated that he passed the tests without question. I seriously doubt the the lie detector tests that father Kelly took work programmed to conduct a faith based test. In fact, On must wonder why Mr Schmidt who has said many vile and despicable things about the entire Catholic organization would so badly mischaracterize what was stated. No one suggested anywhere that “faith” be the criteria to determine guilt of innocence. It was obvious that because father Kelly voluntarily requested and welcomed an FBI trained person to conduct a professional lie detector test, and passed with flying colors that she then stated she believed he was innocent.
    Faith has nothing to do with it.

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 4:57 am on Thu, Mar 22, 2012.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2239

    There were some sickening reports out of the Netherlands yesterday about how the Catholic Church conspired to have children who reported sexual abuse by priests committed to Catholic mental asylums. In a couple of cases, young men were even castrated in retribution for their whistle blowing.

    This is an international conspiracy of massive proportions. Posey and Darrell will have to forgive us if we don't simply accept the defense's case on "faith".

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 4:46 am on Thu, Mar 22, 2012.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2239

    If you believe in something without question, that is faith. A realtor may have faith that a house is without blemish but only an idiot would buy a house without a home inspectors report.

    I am touched by Poesy's naive faith in this man but I don't think it has much bearing on the issues at hand.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 2:39 am on Thu, Mar 22, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403

    K Lee stated...Posey Mattea, "I believe in Fr Kelly's innocence, without question."

    Why

    Even though this person explained why, K Lee still coldly asks...why?

    I have a "why" for k Lee... over the last year, every time a person says something positive about religion or a particular church... every time someone defends a priest, why are you always there to cast a negative question. I have never seen one " WHY” from you when someone says something derogatory about the church or a priest. Never seen you one time speak kindly or in a constructive positive way about all the good things the churches or religions do and have done. I only see you put down, criticize or question anything good that might be said of the church.

    Why is that?

    When Steve Schmidt goes on his anti-Catholic rants and derogatory statements, you simply admire what he states. When I or anyone else defend the church or any of its representatives , you always ask why?? Why is that?

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 1:20 am on Thu, Mar 22, 2012.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Posey Mattea, "I believe in Fr Kelly's innocence, without question."

    Without question? Why?

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 1:20 am on Thu, Mar 22, 2012.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Posey Mattea, "I believe in Fr Kelly's innocence, without question."

    Why?

     
  • Posey Mattea posted at 10:34 pm on Wed, Mar 21, 2012.

    chatty95321 Posts: 15

    Even though they mention that no charges were ever filed against Fr. Kelly, they fail to mention that he took several lie detector tests and was evaluated by an FBI profiler, who stated that he passed the tests without question and was very believable.
    Maybe the accuser should have been given a lie detector test as well. I believe in Fr Kelly's innocence, without question.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 9:59 pm on Wed, Mar 21, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403

    Tim stated...He confirms the testimony of Mgsr. Ryan concerning how church officials respond to accusations of abuse.

    I see Tim is attempting to lay the foundation of the church being negligent and having liability. Yes... little money can be gotten from father Kelly. The deep pocket is the church. The millions they want can only come from the entity that has money. Interesting that Tim addresses the church liability possibility when the church has nothing to do with liability in this case. However, if they win this case, then the church is next... so obviously, Tim is doing his very best to make certain the future jury pool will have a preconceived impression that the church was negligent and liable. You are a clever man Tim. When millions of dollars are at stake, people like Tim can and will say anything to get what they want in my opinion.

    He stated that Bishop Blaire acknowledged that he was told of many other complaints concerning Kelly in relation to his tickling and "roughhousing" with children. He then attempts to translate complaints of tickling to being abuse. No one complained of abuse back then... that was not the nature of the complaints... now Tim wants the public to believe the church is negligent in investigating abuse when there was no alleged abuse. Evidently, Tim, if I have read correctly in other publications, is involved in attempting to change legislation to change statute of limitations on child abuse cases. In my opinion, he has a vested interest in establishing church liability.

     
  • Tim Lennon posted at 9:17 pm on Wed, Mar 21, 2012.

    Tim Lennon Posts: 45

    The testimony of Bishop Blaire was very enlightening. He confirms the testimony of Mgsr. Ryan concerning how church officials respond to accusations of abuse. In the case of the plaintiff they investigated the victim not the alleged abuser. In fact they failed to ask any substantial questions of Kelly permitting a simple denial as sufficient.
    Bishop Blaire acknowledged that he was told of many other complaints concerning Kelly in relation to his tickling and "roughhousing" with children. Again, no investigation was made to understand the scope of the inappropriate intimate contact with children.
    So if we have half a dozen complaints, none of them investigated, how are the children of the faithful protected? And if church officials refuses to act because of their self imposed ignorance of multiple instances of inappropriate behavior how are the parishioners going to protect their children?

     
Readers Choice Awards 2014

Video

Popular Stories

Poll

Loading…

Mailing List

Subscribe to a mailing list to have daily news sent directly to your inbox.

  • Breaking News

    Would you like to receive breaking news alerts? Sign up now!

  • News Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily news headlines? Sign up now!

  • Sports Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily sports headlines? Sign up now!

Manage Your Lists