Lodinews.com

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

Father Michael Kelly criminal case still under investigation

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Related Documents

Posted: Thursday, September 13, 2012 12:00 am | Updated: 6:12 am, Thu Sep 13, 2012.

The Calaveras County District Attorney’s Office has yet to complete its investigation into allegations that former Lockeford priest Michael Kelly committed clergy sexual abuse against a 12-year-old boy more than a decade ago in San Andreas, according to a spokeswoman from the District Attorney’s office.

However, a civil lawsuit was filed Tuesday against Kelly, St. Andrew Parish in San Andreas, Stockton Diocese Bishop Stephen Blaire and diocese Monsignor Richard Ryan.

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

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.

8 comments:

  • Steve Golay posted at 1:09 pm on Fri, Sep 14, 2012.

    Cadavera Vero Innumera Posts: 43

    Darrell,

    As I commented on earlier articles, the issue of Repressed Memory, and its recovery, cannot be easily dismissed. That the procedures and protocols of Criminal Courts hold a high bar is to be commended but that in itself does not "disprove" the phenomenon of Repressed Memory. It's over reliance and improper use is the issue, not the fact of it. Even in a criminal case is the point that it should never be used as "fact in evidence" or simply that it can never be the determining factor. As always, in any court proceeding it is a matter of weight and weighing.

    And do not neglect the impact the False Memory Syndrome Foundation has had in a-skewing various court cases in its attempt to push the law into a "false" direction. Once more, what the founding history of the Foundation. who are its handlers?

    Go to the sites I suggested and take a peek.

    Still, AND THIS IS THE MAIN POINT NOW, is Repressed Memory (Recovered) even at issue here in the Calaveras Case? When that question is settled than the discussion will take its proper direction. I have no way of knowing, do you?

    Then, of course, Repressed Memory (Recovered0 must be defined - for this discussion and how the Court would permit the term. But, again, mind you, an unvoiced memory does not equal a repressed memory.

    Hope to Heaven's heights that Manley, Esq., knows the difference. II don't know the man, never met the man, didn't even knew he was corpulent!

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 8:15 pm on Thu, Sep 13, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405


    As Mr. Farrow stated no crime. Why? Repressed memory over 20 years old was only evidence. Criminal court was not a possibility.

    States such as Texas would not have let this case even go to court. Why? Because their Supreme Court has determined repressed memories in this nature to be inadmissible. This is why statues Limitations are reasonable as evidence degrades and becomes unreliable as time goes by.

    I dispute that I am saying anything disparaging about victims. In my view, justice is the victim in this case. I do not believe father Kelly is guilty of anything and therefore, the people you call victims are not victims in my view. I think the anonymous status of the accuser promotes dishonesty and an unfair disadvantage for any defendant

     
  • Ross Farrow posted at 3:35 pm on Thu, Sep 13, 2012.

    Ross Farrow Posts: 104

    David: This may sound like a technicality and "legalese," but Michael Kelly has never been convicted of a crime. The legal term is "held liable," which is used for civil lawsuits. The jury in the Travis Trotter case determined that Kelly was "liable." There is also a lesser burden of proof in civil cases.

     
  • David Diskin posted at 3:05 pm on Thu, Sep 13, 2012.

    David Diskin Posts: 184

    Darrell, you know very well that Kelly has already been convicted.

    Now you may claim that the case was fixed or improper, but he had his day in court and there is no mistrial claim that I'm aware of.

    Why do you say such disparaging things about victims of abuse, or those assisting victims, and so staunchly defend those who are accused and conviced?

    I have never heard of anyone suggesting we do away with due process. Let every accused have their day in court. But if they are convicted, it's time to turn away from defending them and instead assist the victims. It's a shame your priorities lie in the other direction.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 11:51 am on Thu, Sep 13, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Belle sated...Why anyone in the Stockton parish think he's any different..

    Lets carry out Belle's thinking to it's logical conclusion... if a priest is accused, no need for a trial, he's guilty... if one is guilty they all are.

    Lets just execute them all. Let us also award each accuser with 2 + million. No evidence needed...just accuse a priest and the money is yours. After all, SNAP states they have never met a false accuser.

     
  • Arabella Clark posted at 10:58 am on Thu, Sep 13, 2012.

    Arabella Posts: 129

    As someone wrote in the comments section on a Mercury News article about Kelly, he's just another one of the thousands and thousands of such pedophile cases. Why anyone in the Stockton parish think he's any different..

    Remember, Jerry Sandusky started off by first tickling and wrestling with his victims too.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 10:47 am on Thu, Sep 13, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aKpMf4fr3A

    On this video, Judy Block Jones states she was born and raised Catholic and now is not. She claims her relatives were abused by one priest and now is on a crusade to “get priests” innocent or guilty. If she were concerned with innocent priests, she would not declare the defendant guilty just because of his occupation.

    In reading her post below, it is obvious she considers the anonymous accuser as being 100%
    truthful and has no question of Father Kelly's guilt. In Trotters case, she posted similar statements which like this one, had absolute certainty that Trotter was truthful even though the only evidence was repressed memories that were decades old and unreliable.

    Unfortunately in this world, money is a motivating factor. When the accuser can remain anonymous and millions of dollars can be received, there should at least be skepticism that possibly the accuser may be motivated by money. It is scary to think a person has to prove they did not do something 10 or more years ago to be considered innocent until proven guilty by absolute evidence. In Trotters case, an emotional jury convicted a man without one shred of evidence.

     
  • Judy Jones posted at 9:37 am on Thu, Sep 13, 2012.

    Judy Jones Posts: 12

    This brave victim is to be commended for having the courage to come forward and take action to expose the truth about being sexually abused.

    Let's hope that every person who saw, suspected or suffered sex crimes and misdeeds by Michael Kelly, will find the courage and strength to speak up and call police, not church officials. They are not the proper officials to be investigating child sex crimes.

    Keep in mind that child predators rarely have only one victim. And your silence only hurts, and by speaking up there is a chance for healing, exposing the truth, and therefore protecting others.

    Judy Jones, SNAP Midwest Associate Director, USA, 636-433-2511. snapjudy@gmail.com,
    (SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests,)

     
City of Lodi Leaf Pickup Schedule

Video

Popular Stories

Poll

Loading…

Your News

News for the community, by the community.

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