Lodinews.com

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

Michael Kelly trial turns focus on parents who raised concerns

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Thursday, April 19, 2012 12:00 am | Updated: 6:15 am, Thu Apr 19, 2012.

Now that Michael Kelly has left the United States for his native Ireland and is not expected to return in the near future, attorneys are relying on other witnesses to piece together the second phase of Kelly's sexual abuse trial.

San Joaquin County Superior Court Judge Bob McNatt on Wednesday told jurors that if they believe that Kelly left the country with the intent to suppress evidence, they have the right to distrust or completely disbelieve anything Kelly said in deposition.

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.

91 comments:

  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 7:00 am on Sun, Apr 22, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405


    Josh... you ignored the main point and question. That is, If someone comes after you claiming repressed memories after 30 years... how will you defend yourself?

    So you eliminated the only possible defense, the polygraph...ok.... so then what? No evidence for you to refute, as there is none. In the Kelly case, the plaintiff could not remember what year the questionable event took place and event contradicted his own account of events. That means Kelly could not possible refute the timing. For example, if the plaintiff said it happened between August 10-17, 1985... then Kelly could check his records. If he had been in a conference in Rome during that time, he would have an alibi. So Kelly nor any other defendant could possibly defend themselves.

    You do understand that the statute of limitations is available because of how unreliable very old memories are... however with repressed memories... its a different story.... for me, this is horrifying.

     
  • Josh Morgan posted at 6:54 am on Sat, Apr 21, 2012.

    Josh Morgan Posts: 538

    Darrell, as I've stated in other postings......I don't believe polygraph testing is at all reliable. Scientific studies have proven that. And you are correct, even if innocent I would refuse to take the test. Many of the studies have shown that innocent victims had not passed the test. Conversely, many guilty individuals passed the test. I'm not going to take that chance. I'll let my past history speak for me.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 10:25 pm on Fri, Apr 20, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Josh Morgan stated...My opinion is based on scientific studies that conclude that polygraph testing is unreliable.

    I can imagine Josh... it is very convenient and allows one to feel comfortable in Kelly's conviction. A honest person would have to take your position to have no doubt that Kelly is guilty... I hope you are consistent Josh and take the same position on every polygraph test that says a person lies or tells the truth...The next time a man is arrested for killing someone after he fails the lie detector test... I hope you are the first in line to object to his arrest...
    Josh...one last question. If someone comes after you claiming repressed memories after 30 years... how will you defend yourself? Would you do as Mike Kelly did and offer a lie detector test since there is absolutely no other evidence you could possibly submit?... I guess the answer is “no” since it is so unreliable.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 10:11 pm on Fri, Apr 20, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    The god has spoken... All courts and lawyers who depend on this test are fools.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 8:35 pm on Fri, Apr 20, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Yes Ron... god has spoken...the FBI, the law enforcement agencies and even court houses that have approved of polygraph tests are all fools and idiots for relying on this witchcraft science....

    The bay area god has spoken to all the San Joaquin sheeple... now shut up , sit down and obey the gods who live in the bay area. They know best... they are gods.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 8:30 pm on Fri, Apr 20, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    The bay area god has spoken... listen all you Stockton Sheeple... This god knows all and you are wrong... he said so...so must be.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 8:27 pm on Fri, Apr 20, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Ron... Mr Reynard is god and knows all... There is ZERO reason to engage in a conversation where god the is person involved. You must be a sheep that he desires and not think for yourself... Mr Reynard ( I mean god) has spoken and of course, he cannot be refuted even with facts.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 8:22 pm on Fri, Apr 20, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Josh... The debate has just begun...

     
  • Bruce Reynard posted at 12:11 pm on Fri, Apr 20, 2012.

    Bruce Reynard Posts: 60

    It is outstanding that the Diocese has acknowledged their culpability and that of Father Kelly, It is unfortunate that the insurance company bears more than half of the impact.

    Seems to me that the Diocese needs quite a bit of incentive to consider their methods of cover up, and to punish Vicar General Monsignor Richard Ryan, Bishop Stephen Blaire and diocese attorney Paul Balestracci for their deplorable handling of the situation.

    I'm glad that the victim will have some of the incredible stress of the trial removed from his shoulders, and hopefully his family and friends will be able to support him in the decompression from the trial!

     
  • Bruce Reynard posted at 12:03 pm on Fri, Apr 20, 2012.

    Bruce Reynard Posts: 60

    "You have found NO other cases of sexual abuse/assault . , The only evidence SNAP and Manly have brought forth are "roughhousing" incidents"

    Incorrect.

     
  • Bruce Reynard posted at 12:02 pm on Fri, Apr 20, 2012.

    Bruce Reynard Posts: 60

    You keep making factually incorrect statements. There is no reason for anyone to focus any attention on your discussion points until you are able to stop misrepresenting reality.

     
  • Josh Morgan posted at 10:52 am on Fri, Apr 20, 2012.

    Josh Morgan Posts: 538

    Well, no more debate on this case. The Catholic Diocese has settled with the plaintiff. Over $3 million.

     
  • Ronald Brown posted at 10:39 am on Fri, Apr 20, 2012.

    gipper Posts: 116

    I am correct. If you are so worried about polygraph tests, you should be telling the Secret Service detail and advising their lawyers not to take them.


     
  • Ronald Brown posted at 10:37 am on Fri, Apr 20, 2012.

    gipper Posts: 116

    You hit on the vicar, Bishop, etc on possible pedophelia tendencies and their failure to deal with Kelly. However, you ignore the survey results that show that Father Kelly had NO sexual attraction to young children NOR were there cases of sexual actions or assault brought against him. . Do you discuss this?

    Moreover, you and SNAP (and people like Manly's team) have vetted Father Kelly's history as a parish priest from the time he was in Tracy to present. You have found NO other cases of sexual abuse/assault . , The only evidence SNAP and Manly have brought forth are "roughhousing" incidents. These incidents were looked at by the Diocese, revealed to Diocese officials (like Monsignor Ryan who discussed about this under oath). and they were not viewed as sexual in ANY manner when these individuals were asked under oath by Manly and his attorneys. Do you discuss this Mr Reynard?

    The allegations that have come forth from San Andreas and Calaveras are beyond the 10 year statute, and they are close to the one year marker from when they were filed with authorities. The allegations in either case at this point do not meet the burden of proof to move ahead on criminal charges. The only other course of action will be a civil trial.

    Do not worry Mr. Reynard. It is only a matter of time before more "repressed memories" come forward for the Diocese money. It is better than playing the lottery!!

     
  • Ronald Brown posted at 10:24 am on Fri, Apr 20, 2012.

    gipper Posts: 116

    You ignore my central point that Manly and his team had a criminal investigation before the civil trial. They did not object to the polygraph tests being used. Both times Kelly passed. There was simply the lack of burden of proof to move this further on a criminal trial. Do you or SNAP discuss that Manly and his team did not disagree with polygraphs as evidence in the criminal investigation as evidence? If they are valid as evidence in a criminal situation, why did they object in a civil situation?

     
  • Bruce Reynard posted at 10:16 am on Fri, Apr 20, 2012.

    Bruce Reynard Posts: 60

    "When used in Federal government cases, it has produced reliable results (especially regarding national security clearances). The worry about it being used (in these cases) by Dr. Applebaum as referenced in the journal is the invasion of privacy of thought."

    Incorrect.

     
  • Ronald Brown posted at 10:03 am on Fri, Apr 20, 2012.

    gipper Posts: 116

    When used in Federal government cases, it has produced reliable results (especially regarding national security clearances). The worry about it being used (in these cases) by Dr. Applebaum as referenced in the journal is the invasion of privacy of thought.

    You ignore my central point that Manly and his team had a criminal investigation before the civil trial. They did not object to the polygraph tests being used. Both times Kelly passed. There was simply the lack of burden of proof to move this further on a criminal trial. Do you or SNAP discuss that Manly and his team did not disagree with polygraphs as evidence in the criminal investigation as evidence? If they are valid as evidence in a criminal situation, why did they object in a civil situation?

     
  • Bruce Reynard posted at 9:50 am on Fri, Apr 20, 2012.

    Bruce Reynard Posts: 60

    The federal government is exempt from the The Federal Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988. The American Psychiatric Association states clearly that

    "the device yields results that are better than chance, but its modest accuracy and susceptibility to countermeasures mean that reliance on it should be limited, especially for the kinds of screening purposes favored by the federal government"

     
  • Bruce Reynard posted at 9:48 am on Fri, Apr 20, 2012.

    Bruce Reynard Posts: 60

    That is INCORRECT. The statements are from the American Psychiatric Association.

     
  • Ronald Brown posted at 9:40 am on Fri, Apr 20, 2012.

    gipper Posts: 116

    Mr. Reynard, The statements you have are from the American Psychological Association and not the American Psychiatric Association.

    Does the American Psychological Association also support repressed memory? You have another homework assignment to do.

     
  • Ronald Brown posted at 9:38 am on Fri, Apr 20, 2012.

    gipper Posts: 116

    Josh, What about the FBI and other government authorities?

    I am pretty sure the government is relying on them to find out the truth with the Secret Service situation in Columbia. If it is not credible, they should use their 5th Amendment and not take it.

     
  • Bruce Reynard posted at 9:13 am on Fri, Apr 20, 2012.

    Bruce Reynard Posts: 60

    I wonder if the people of Stockton, and especially the members of Catholic Diocese, are going to have the gumption to stand up and demand accountability from Vicar General Monsignor Richard Ryan, Bishop Stephen Blaire and diocese attorney Paul Balestracci for the devastating damage they have undoubtedly caused to many young boys by ignoring the psychologist's recommendation about Kelly?

    I certainly hope the people will make their concerns heard.

     
  • Bruce Reynard posted at 9:07 am on Fri, Apr 20, 2012.

    Bruce Reynard Posts: 60

    This is simply not a correct, or even factually based statement.

     
  • Josh Morgan posted at 9:05 am on Fri, Apr 20, 2012.

    Josh Morgan Posts: 538

    Ron, quite simply I don't believe a polygraph test should be used in a criminal or civil case. That is what non-partial scientific studies have concluded. And I'm certainly not going to use the attorneys or owners of polygraph testing companies as my sources.

     
  • Ronald Brown posted at 8:57 am on Fri, Apr 20, 2012.

    gipper Posts: 116

    Mr. Reynard, Polygraph tests are of greater weight than repressed memory.


    Have you finished your homework assignment yet?

     
  • Bruce Reynard posted at 8:54 am on Fri, Apr 20, 2012.

    Bruce Reynard Posts: 60

    Your staement that the polygraph is "a reliable method" is countered by The American Psychiatric Association which claims to be "the voice and conscience of modern psychiatry." Here's what their publication says with respect to the federal agencies that are using polygraph:

    [
    Skepticism about the polygraph extends beyond the courtroom. The Federal Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 generally prohibits employers from compelling workers to undergo lie-detector examinations, although there are a number of exceptions. Some states also restrict employers' polygraph use.
    Ironically, the federal government, which is exempt from the provisions of the federal statute, is probably the most frequent user of polygraph examinations in the country, primarily in assessments of persons seeking jobs or security clearances.

    A report on polygraph use by the National Research Council concluded that the device yields results that are better than chance, but its modest accuracy and susceptibility to countermeasures mean that reliance on it should be limited, especially for the kinds of screening purposes favored by the federal government .
    ]

     
  • Ronald Brown posted at 8:10 am on Fri, Apr 20, 2012.

    gipper Posts: 116

    Josh, I return to Mr. Brumbach's point. Polygraphs are being used as a reliable method of ascertaining the truth when there is disagreement on details of what happened. For example, I state that is used by the FBI and other goverment agencies when looking to discern the details of an incident.

    Also, you forget that Manly's firm allowed polygraph tests(administered by a former FBI employee who had performed these over a long period of time as an FBI employee), to be used when they were looking at this in a criminal investigation. Kelly passed both tests, and there was no criminal trial.


    If Manly and the court can agree upon the validty of polygraphs in a criminal trial, why not a civil case?


     
  • Josh Morgan posted at 8:07 am on Fri, Apr 20, 2012.

    Josh Morgan Posts: 538

    Darrell, I went to the link you provided and found this statement in the first paragraph of the article regarding polygraph testing:

    "In past times they were often used by police and government agents to interrogate suspected criminals, but as they have been proven to be extremely unreliable indicators of lying, their use has lessened in recent years (usually because of court rules prohibiting their use)."

    We are just going to have to agree to disagree on this subject. My opinion is based on scientific studies that conclude that polygraph testing is unreliable. Now the repressed memory issue is much more controversial and it is very easy to find studies both supporting and opposing the issue.

    I can also assure you that my mind is not clouded on this matter. I have no connections to the defendant, plaintiff or Catholic Church.

     
  • Bruce Reynard posted at 7:56 am on Fri, Apr 20, 2012.

    Bruce Reynard Posts: 60

    A polygraph is not physical evidence.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 6:58 am on Fri, Apr 20, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    It is common knowledge that there are many states that allow the lie detector tests with "the stipulations of both parties" (meaning both you and the prosecutor agree to admit the test results as evidence).

    California, Arizona, Nevada, Georgia, and Florida allow the tests if everyone agrees to them, but may put different emphasis on the tests accuracy. California, for instance, presents the results to the jury, and allows them to draw whatever inferences from it they wish.
    http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/admissability-of-polygraph-tests-in-court

    On July 25, 2002 a specific court case in California, a polygraph was allowed to be admitted by a defendant to help support her innocence … Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1,
    California.

    The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
    v. Jaleh WILKINSON, Defendant and Appellant.
    In re Jaleh Wilkinson on Habeas Corpus.

    Nos. B145982, B154520.

    July 25, 2002

    According to Kavinoky Law firm in California,
    California courts are open to the use of polygraph results under a number of circumstances.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 6:58 am on Fri, Apr 20, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Josh... there are so many comments you have made on line that make so much sense. There have been many cases where your logic, reasoning and conclusions drawn are not disputable. However, in this case, with all due respect that I have for you, I think something is clouding your judgment and I am genuinely confused. Instead of discounting the source, what specific details do you disagree with?

    At a minimum, the Plaintiff, in repressed memory cases should have to take the test... if he is good at lying, then he will pass it and it will actually help his case. If he is not good at lying, he will fail it and at least we would have some type of physical evidence.

     
  • Josh Morgan posted at 6:12 am on Fri, Apr 20, 2012.

    Josh Morgan Posts: 538

    Darrell, thank you for the link on polygraph testing. My only problem with the article is that it was written by a gentleman who owns a polygraph testing company. All of the articles I have researched were scientific studies done by scientific neutral parties. All you have to do is Google "validity of polygraph testing" and you will come up with pages and pages of articles.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 1:10 am on Fri, Apr 20, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Bella of Danville posted...Drip. Drip. Drip.

    I'm still waiting for the first bit of physical evidence that Mike Kelly did something wrong... all we have are foggy 30 year old memories of someone who is motivated by money.. I wonder if these Bay area fanatical rants and innuendos will ever end. Please provide evidence... anyone...please.

    I am also wondering when Ms Clark posted ... Drip. Drip. Drip... if she was describing what was dropping from her lip in anticipation of all the money that is soon to be awarded.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 1:01 am on Fri, Apr 20, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Mr Reynard... thank you for demonstrating absurdity. Mike Kelly was not convicted of any criminal act... this was a civil case... and I do thank you for deciding to hold your thoughts back... eye polution is a serious problem in our country and it is good of you to offer to prevent it.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 11:40 pm on Thu, Apr 19, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Mr Lennon stated...the truth stands. Kelly was liable for sexual assault on a ten year old boy

    Mr Lennon's bias and narrow focus clearly shines on the statement... no... the correct truth is the "VERDICT" holds in a civil case that was a result of “Repressed Memories” that some states like Texas would not even allow in their court. So the truth is, Mike Kelly was railroaded by the system
    ( in my opinion). Mike Kelly has never been convicted of any criminal act. Mr Lennon has stated Mike Kelly guilty before the trial began in vicious terms. Now that the money is in reach and the possible death of Mike Kelly a possibility, he now sounds so dignified... amazing what "money" and irrational revenge can do.

    Soon Mr Lennon can go back to San Francisco and enjoy the wonderful fresh air in a city that requires a lot money to live... until the next priest can be roasted. The joys of money never end...

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 9:54 pm on Thu, Apr 19, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Josh, if you are right, I think there will be thousands if up coming lawsuits against the FBI, employers, the department of defense as well all the trial awyers who as of today, think lie detector tests, done professionally, are the best tools to help determine truth as exists.

     
  • Bruce Reynard posted at 9:11 pm on Thu, Apr 19, 2012.

    Bruce Reynard Posts: 60

    Psychiatrists "generally" do NOT support their results. Psychiatrists are even more critical than Psychologists.

    The American Psychiatric Association claims to be "the voice and conscience of modern psychiatry." Here's what their publication says about Polygraph:

    [
    Concerns about the accuracy of the technique, especially the ability of evaluees to "beat the test" by altering their autonomic reactivity, have resulted in the exclusion of polygraph results in all but the rarest of cases.

    Skepticism about the polygraph extends beyond the courtroom. The Federal Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 generally prohibits employers from compelling workers to undergo lie-detector examinations, although there are a number of exceptions. Some states also restrict employers' polygraph use.

    Ironically, the federal government, which is exempt from the provisions of the federal statute, is probably the most frequent user of polygraph examinations in the country, primarily in assessments of persons seeking jobs or security clearances.

    A report on polygraph use by the National Research Council concluded that the device yields results that are better than chance, but its modest accuracy and susceptibility to countermeasures mean that reliance on it should be limited, especially for the kinds of screening purposes favored by the federal government .
    ]

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 8:51 pm on Thu, Apr 19, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    If anyone wants to understand the big picture and what this is all about from a legal perspective... please read this...

    http://www.opednews.com/articles/Repressed-Memory-Case-Tram-by-Joey-Piscitelli-120413-510.html

    The credibility of a "repressed memory" case of child sex abuse has been an ongoing dispute in legal and psychological arenas for decades. But currently the issue is being tackled in a Superior Court in Lodi , California. The victim, a 37 year old man who has regained his memory of his child sex abuse at Cathedral of the Annunciation in the 1980's, is prevailing in a major court trial that will have far reaching impact. The victim claims he was repeatedly abused by Fr. Michael Kelly; who has been kept in ministry clear up to the day of the recent court jury verdict against him.

    The case, John TZ Doe vs. Fr. Kelly and the Diocese of Stockton, has gone through the first of two phases of the judicial system. The first phase of the case was a jury trial which heard evidence from the plaintiff, defendant, witnesses and experts; and that jury was to decide if the plaintiffs recall of past repressed memories was accurate, and credible.

    The ten woman, two man jury found the defendant Fr. Kelly liable on multiple counts of assault and sexual abuse, based on the victim's testimony of his recovered memories.

    Although Fr. Kelly can not be convicted criminally for the sexual assault, because of the criminal statute of limitations, he was held civilly liable, which is governed by a different statute of limitations.

    Fr. Kelly has been removed from his position as a pastor of St. Joachim's Catholic parish in Lockeford, California. The leader of the diocese of Stockton, Bishop Stephen Blaire, has stated that he did not believe that the repressed memories of the plaintiff were true, and that is why the Diocese of Stockton stood behind Fr. Kelley, and fought the case in court.

    Since the diocese has lost the first phase of the court battle, the next phase has started. The second phase is a trial which will be heard by the same judge and jury as the first phase. At issue now is whether the diocese itself is negligent for having Fr. Kelly in ministry during the time period the plaintiff was sexually abused; and the evidence for this kind of negligence is usually based on whether or not the diocese had prior complaints, or knowledge of the priests conduct- before the victim was assaulted.


    If the Diocese is found to have prior knowledge, or "should have had knowledge" of Fr. Kellys capabilities or tendencies towards child molestation, the Diocese could be held responsible for damages, which has sometimes resulted in the monetary award to plaintiffs in similar cases to be several million dollars.

    This particular case is sure to stir controversy, as experts witnesses on opposing sides of the "repressed memory" debate have testified adamantly concerning the differences in professional opinions on the existence of falsely claimed repressed memories.

    The Catholic diocese of Stockton insists that false memories dominate the accusations by clergy abuse plaintiffs in such cases, as do many psychologists and paid expert witnesses, who claim that the majority of the plaintiffs suffer from "false memory syndrome".

    Countering this opinion, are many expert psychologists who state that repressed memory of child sexual abuse is common, and that this case is a prime example of a credible claim of recovered memory. They dispute the theory that false memory is common.

    As the jury in this case has overwhelmingly decided in favor of the plaintiff, there is an indication that at least in this trial the 12 peers have decided that the evidence for the existence of accurate repressed memory is substantial.

    Many supporters of Fr. Kelly were very vocal about their disapproval of the jury's decision, and made no effort to suppress their disappointment and anger toward the court, jury, and plaintiff. The local newspapers in Stockton and Lodi have been inundated with conflicting comments and views on the issue of the accuracy of repressed memory; and the decision in this case will affect many pending claims against the catholic church based on similar repressed memory recollections of clergy child sexual abuse.

    As a clergy abuse victim myself, I can understand the pain the plaintiff in this case has endured during the trial, which is a very difficult process to endure. However, my case was not a case of repressed memory, which I can imagine may be even more difficult to experience; as the plaintiff has not had the time to process the emotions, effects, and the healing process is harshly interrupted.

    As the outcome of this trial approaches, I anticipate that there will be a whole new battleground of conflict erupting concerning the validity of repressed memory cases; and there will be numerous new arguments by psychological experts and attorneys regarding this case, and pending future cases.

    Joey Piscitelli is a 56 year old writer and child abuse victims advocate in the S.F. Bay Area. Joey is also a pagan witch, and a member of Mensa. Joey wrote the non-fiction book "A Witch Wins Justice" concerning his unprecedented jury court victory

     
  • Ben Sanacore posted at 8:44 pm on Thu, Apr 19, 2012.

    Ben Sanacore Posts: 104

    Excellent information on the polygraph examinations, Darrell. The interesting part is that Fr. Kelly passed not just one test but two, and they were administered by top notch testers. I know that I'm guilty of analogies in these discussions, but I'll give you one more. Why were innocent black people convicted of crimes in the Jim Crow South? There were cases where, like Fr. Kelly's trial, the evidence was severely lacking. People were found guilty; sent to prison; and some were executed. The unequivocal answer is bigotry. Yes, it was plain and simple bigotry. We're living in a different time, a different place, and a different set of circumstances involving justice and still despite the best efforts of those who cherish true justice people are destroyed by bigotry.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 8:42 pm on Thu, Apr 19, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Its interesting that the people who participate in the Lodi paper and use vicious language toward Mike Kelly and people who believe that justice was perverted, do their best to creative an atmosphere similar to a lynch mob.

    All are from the Bay area.... The plaintiff, Mr Lennon, Mr Piscitelli, and Bella Clark are from San Francisco, Danville and Martinez and Marin. They are here to agitate, disrupt and most importantly, to enrich themselves with money the Catholic church has in my opinion. I do not think they are child advocates at all. ( in my opinion)
    I have felt for years that the Bay area fosters a certain type of person and mentality that is somewhat different that than in San Joaquin Valley.

    It is obvious that these Bay area people do not like people who think differently than themselves.
    Their concept of justice and fairness is different. They all live, as does the plaintiff in very nice bay area neighborhoods that most people in Lodi could not afford. It is no wonder that the pursuit of money is important to the plaintiff and these people as it is important in the fabric of their lives (in my opinion)

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 8:23 pm on Thu, Apr 19, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Bella... that is your conclusion based on a civil trial.... Mike Kelly has not been convicted of any crime. One might wonder how any reasonable person could conclude anyone did anything when Zero physical evidence exists and the only evidence submittted was an unreliable 30 year old memory of one man.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 8:17 pm on Thu, Apr 19, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    How accurate is the polygraph?
    U.S. Government studies have concluded that the single-issue (one question) polygraph exam, conducted properly by a qualified examiner, is 87 to 95 percent accurate. It is the most accurate tool available today for determining truth or deception. Accuracy of the multi-question exam drops to around 80 percent due to a number of psychological factors.
    For an excellent review of the research involving validity and reliability, including pre-employment screening, see: The Accuracy and Utility; of Polygraph Testing. (1984) Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Defense, 1984. Complete reprints may be purchased from the APA National Office.
    http://www.jacktrimarco.com/faq.html

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 8:14 pm on Thu, Apr 19, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Josh Morgan stated...after reading about polygraph tests I wouldn't put any validity in the test for the plaintiff or the defendant. I just don't believe they are reliable for either party. Just my opinion...

    Evidently, there are some that disagree with Mr Morgan;s opinion...

    01. Private Sector
    Individuals, Families, Therapists and Employers use polygraph examinations to verify statements and find out the truth on a variety of issues including infidelity, drug use, addictions, sex offenses, employee theft, criminal activities, abuse and all other matters.

    02. Legal Community
    Polygraph is used extensively by attorneys who wish to provide the best possible defense for their clients. Most attorneys will submit their own clients to the exam, while others will use the polygraph to verify statements made by witnesses and other parties to litigation … Contrary to popular belief, polygraph is not per-se inadmissible in court proceedings. Admissibility standards are different in each jurisdiction. Some jurisdictions allow polygraph evidence, either stipulated or un-stipulated, some prohibit polygraph evidence altogether, and many others allow the judge to decide admissibility on a case-by-case basis.

    03. Law Enforcement, Federal Agencies, Military and Government
    Local Police, U.S. Military Branches and Government Agencies such as the FBI, CIA, NSA and Department of Defense all use polygraph examinations for applicant screenings, criminal investigations and matters of national security

     
  • Ben Sanacore posted at 7:40 pm on Thu, Apr 19, 2012.

    Ben Sanacore Posts: 104

    I'm waiting for the diatribes from SNAP and its supporters. Aren't you going to trash me and say I'm a mean guy? Aren't you going to threaten to report me to the moderator? Aren't you going to tell me "shame on you"? I'll anwer you before you post your diatribes. There is no shame in the truth. Try a little truth. You might find it to be mentally stimulating, and it might even lead to some reestablishment of critical pathways to developing a heart.

     
  • Ben Sanacore posted at 7:35 pm on Thu, Apr 19, 2012.

    Ben Sanacore Posts: 104

    Fr. Kelly's attorney proposed having Fr. Kelly provide testimony via video. Mr. Manly declined the offer. Why? Because it looks worse when Manly can accuse Kelly of fleeing for reasons of guilt. Video testimony is used in criminal trials. Police may video tape questioning of those investigated and then play that video questioning to a jury during the trial of the defendant. It's done in criminal trials where the bar is much higher than a civil trial. As Manly tries to shape his version of reality for the jurors, he decided that what's used in a criminal trial can't be used in a civil trial. Isn't it all so very interesting how Mr. Manly maneuvers things, and this jury, who has demonstrated a complete lack of critical thinking once, will probably fall for it again. The trash and grab the money strategy and tactics show no signs of letting up.

     
  • Ben Sanacore posted at 7:20 pm on Thu, Apr 19, 2012.

    Ben Sanacore Posts: 104

    What a vicious pack of wolves! The persecutors won't rest until they see Fr. Kelly completely destroyed. It's not enough that they've harassed Fr. Kelly to the point that he has bleeding ulcers, but now they want even more destruction of anyone in the Catholic Church they can get.

    Mr. Brown, you've done a great job dispelling the distortions and unbelievable bias of SNAP and its advocates. I've been arguing with them for a long time, and they demonstrate a total disregard for truth. To them logic is an enemy and truth is a menace. Not one can even articulate any screening process or criteria they use to determine if an accuser is bringing forth false accusations.

    Notice how their accusations of evil have escalated from Fr. Kelly to Bishop Blaire to Cardinal Mahoney to Monsignor Ryan and others, and you can be sure that list will grow. If men and women of reason don't see a chilling resemblance to the Salem Witch Hunt, then we might as well give up all hope for truth and justice.

    They still haven't answered the questions posed repeatedly to them. When asked, they haven't denied that they hate the Catholic Church. When asked, they haven't denied that they believe all Catholic priests are pedophiles. When asked, they haven't denied that they hate Jesus Christ. When asked, they haven't denied that it gives them supreme pleasure to see a Catholic priest destroyed regardless of the lack of credible evidence. This group could never find the truth or get beyond their malice, because first they must have a heart.


     
  • Arabella Clark posted at 5:12 pm on Thu, Apr 19, 2012.

    Arabella Posts: 129

    Kelly didn't just tickle boys. To put it bluntly, he raped them.

     
  • John Bender posted at 5:11 pm on Thu, Apr 19, 2012.

    alleyes Posts: 3

    Some guy Father Kelly is.. someone whos supposed to be a "follower of God" and just goes out the back door and is a huge flight risk.. Youre not fooling anyone here that just shows the guilt you'll forever live with.. Im so sorry to those who have lived with this from that sick man.. God Bless

     
  • Arabella Clark posted at 5:11 pm on Thu, Apr 19, 2012.

    Arabella Posts: 129

    What are you talking about? Are you that delusional? Even the Diocese acted on the report and sent Kelly away for psychiatric evaluation. What do you think we have professionals for?

    If the Diocese thought that was grasping at straws, then they wouldn't have acted on the recommendation.

    I find your defense of him given the mounting evidence to be rather sad, actually.

     
  • Arabella Clark posted at 5:06 pm on Thu, Apr 19, 2012.

    Arabella Posts: 129

    I'm still waiting for you to talk about the shrink's evaluation of Kelly who told the diocese that he shouldn't work around kids.

    More victims come forward.

    Drip. Drip. Drip.

    It's also none of your business by the way, what I do for a living.

     
  • Arabella Clark posted at 5:04 pm on Thu, Apr 19, 2012.

    Arabella Posts: 129

    +2

     
  • Arabella Clark posted at 5:04 pm on Thu, Apr 19, 2012.

    Arabella Posts: 129

    How about that Vicar's testimony, huh?


    Lodi News today: http://www.lodinews.com/news/article_f305ce7d-5beb-5ea9-b67e-0c57e17709ae.html

    During testimony Wednesday morning, Vicar General Monsignor Richard Ryan, the second-ranking Stockton Diocese official, testified that a Bay Area psychologist recommended in a report around 2000 that Kelly be reassigned to a job in the diocese in which he wasn't around children and their families due to potential pedophiliac tendencies.

     
  • Josh Morgan posted at 4:55 pm on Thu, Apr 19, 2012.

    Josh Morgan Posts: 538

    Ron, after reading about polygraph tests I wouldn't put any validity in the test for the plaintiff or the defendant. I just don't believe they are reliable for either party. Just my opinion.

     
  • Ronald Brown posted at 4:30 pm on Thu, Apr 19, 2012.

    gipper Posts: 116

    Don't worry Mr. Lennon. You will not have to make way to find these people. The "repressed memories" will come forward looking for their share of the diocese money.

    It beats playing the lottery!!!


     
  • Ronald Brown posted at 4:28 pm on Thu, Apr 19, 2012.

    gipper Posts: 116

    Josh,
    Here is my answer from the Department of Justice whose job is to discern truth. I think you know the facts of the case, but they believe polygraph tests are the best way to discern the truth. Also, psychologists are not scientsts. Psychiatrists (medical professionals) generally support their results. I again ask the question. In the criminal investigation of this case, why did the prosecution allow the use of polygraph tests? By authorities and those who looked at it, it was ample evidence to dismiss the case.

    http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/18/11268779-some-secret-service-agents-agree-to-lie-detector-tests-in-prostitution-scandal


     
  • Bruce Reynard posted at 4:11 pm on Thu, Apr 19, 2012.

    Bruce Reynard Posts: 60

    +1

     
  • Ronald Brown posted at 4:10 pm on Thu, Apr 19, 2012.

    gipper Posts: 116

    Mr. Lennon, you are factually incorrect. You may not know this case has gone on for four and a half years. The civil trial only began when there was no evidence to move forward on a criminal trial. Mr. Manly's firm trusted the veracity of polygraph tests then, but they did not trust this in a civil trial. I guess "repressed memory' beats polygraph tests doesn't it Mr. Lennon.

    In addition, if Kelly was guilty, he could have left four and a half years ago and skipped himself the polygraph tests, depositions, etc? Why would he have gone through this?


    As far as the Calaveras and San Andreas cases, these are being investigated. I believe the time statute (last ten years) has expired. It seems that the one year marker when the additional claims are drawing closer (September). If there is evidence that warrants a criminal trial (from authorities and police and not SNAP), then it should proceed.
    Otherwise, the only remedy will be for a civil trial. I again question the timing Mr. Lennon. These allegations only started coming in when the civil trial began, and there is no strong evidence from police department that criminal charges would be filed. I have said in previous posts that other "repressed memories" will come forward and look for their share of the Diocese money.

    SNAP and its associates have done a close vetting of all the parishes from the time of Fr Kelly in Tracy to present, and there have been no sexual abuse victims that have come forward!!
    I reiterate that SNAP and Mr. Manly were able to find several other assault victims in the Diocese of Los Angeles when the sex abuse case was being tried.
    Manly, SNAP and other groups have produced "roughhousing" cases. When asked under oath, each of these individuals said that NO sexual abuse or act happened.


    It is a sad day when "repressed memory" and emotional testimony has replaced medical expertise, physical evidence (or lack thereof) and failure to take a test used by the Department of Justice in determining culpability.

     
  • Josh Morgan posted at 4:04 pm on Thu, Apr 19, 2012.

    Josh Morgan Posts: 538

    Ron, here's a short paragraph on what I found from Wikipedia:

    Polygraphy has little credibility among scientists.[22][23] Despite claims of 90-95% validity by polygraph advocates, and 95-100% by businesses providing polygraph services,[non-primary source needed] critics maintain that rather than a "test", the method amounts to an inherently unstandardizable interrogation technique whose accuracy cannot be established. A 1997 survey of 421 psychologists estimated the test's average accuracy at about 61%, a little better than chance.[24] Critics also argue that even given high estimates of the polygraph's accuracy a significant number of subjects (e.g. 10% given a 90% accuracy) will appear to be lying, and would unfairly suffer the consequences of "failing" the polygraph. In the 1998 Supreme Court case, United States v. Scheffer, the majority stated that "There is simply no consensus that polygraph evidence is reliable" and "Unlike other expert witnesses who testify about factual matters outside the jurors' knowledge, such as the analysis of fingerprints, ballistics, or DNA found at a crime scene, a polygraph expert can supply the jury only with another opinion..."[25] Also, in 2005 the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals stated that “polygraphy did not enjoy general acceptance from the scientific community”.[26] Charles Honts, a psychology professor at Boise State University, states that polygraph interrogations give a high rate of false positives on innocent people.[27] In 2001 William G. Iacono, Distinguished McKnight University Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience and Director, Clinical Science and Psychopathology Research Training Program at the University of Minnesota, published a paper titled “Forensic “Lie Detection": Procedures Without Scientific Basis” in the peer reviewed Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice. He concluded that
    Although the CQT [Control Question Test] may be useful as an investigative aid and tool to induce confessions, it does not pass muster as a scientifically credible test. CQT theory is based on naive, implausible assumptions indicating (a) that it is biased against innocent individuals and (b) that it can be beaten simply by artificially augmenting responses to control questions. Although it is not possible to adequately assess the error rate of the CQT, both of these conclusions are supported by published research findings in the best social science journals (Honts et al., 1994; Horvath, 1977; Kleinmuntz & Szucko, 1984; Patrick & Iacono, 1991). Although defense attorneys often attempt to have the results of friendly CQTs admitted as evidence in court, there is no evidence supporting their validity and ample reason to doubt it. Members of scientific organizations who have the requisite background to evaluate the CQT are overwhelmingly skeptical of the claims made by polygraph proponents.

    In subsequent paragraphs it seems as though guilty parties have been able to pass polygraph tests and innocent parties have not passed. I would be suspicious of polygraph tests given to either Kelly or the plaintiff.

     
  • Tim Lennon posted at 4:01 pm on Thu, Apr 19, 2012.

    Tim Lennon Posts: 45

    I suggest all posters keep in mind that the jurors voted in the plaintiff's favor and found Kelly liable. Unanimously. As much as some wish to soil and question the motives of the plaintiff, the plaintiff's lawyers, the "emotional" jury, SNAP, etc. the truth stands. Kelly was liable for sexual assault on a ten year old boy.
    I suggest that we use this fact to reach out to all the parents and children of the Stockton, Modesto, Lockeford, etc area and make efforts to reach out and provide support for other children who may have been similarly injured by Kelly.

     
  • Bruce Reynard posted at 3:56 pm on Thu, Apr 19, 2012.

    Bruce Reynard Posts: 60

    I'll give you my thoughts when Kelly decides that fleeing from his crimes isn't the Christian thing to do, and comes back to this country. In short: don't hold your breath.

     
  • Ronald Brown posted at 3:30 pm on Thu, Apr 19, 2012.

    gipper Posts: 116

    Mr. Reynard, so nice to hear from you. Are you standing up for Ms Clark who cannot answer the questions I asked her?

    By the way, I am still waiting for your thoughts on polygraph tests. I think the Department of Justice thinks they are pretty valid in discerning the truth.

    Get back to me when you finish the homework assignment.

     
  • Tim Lennon posted at 3:27 pm on Thu, Apr 19, 2012.

    Tim Lennon Posts: 45

    Kelly fled to Ireland. Did he escape to avoid the criminal investigation or did he "take one for the team?" I mean, did Kelly have such truth of the indifference of the Stockton Diocese in protecting children that he was afraid to say it in public?

     
  • Bruce Reynard posted at 2:45 pm on Thu, Apr 19, 2012.

    Bruce Reynard Posts: 60

    "As for the psychologist, what is your professional background to vouch for his/her findings in the report?"

    Awesome handful of straw you've got there! Just going to hang onto that, are you then?

     
  • Bruce Reynard posted at 2:31 pm on Thu, Apr 19, 2012.

    Bruce Reynard Posts: 60

    It's really very good for The Church that this information has come out.

    Now the community will have the opportunity to speak up and oust people like Vicar General Monsignor Richard Ryan, Bishop Stephen Blaire, and Diocese Attorney Paul Balestracci, who allowed these atrocities to to continue in spite of the warning that they received from the psychologist's report.

    Hopefully future church leaders will have learned to follow such reports as the one recommending Kelly be removed from access to children. Hopefully new staff will better understand their obligation to report improprieties to law enforcement expeditiously!

    What a great opportunity for the people of the church to show their commitment to the idea of cleaning up the tarnished image that these molesters have created for the church!

     
  • Ronald Brown posted at 1:12 pm on Thu, Apr 19, 2012.

    gipper Posts: 116

    What shocking bombshell Ms. Clark? He testified that he knew about the roughhousing incidents, but no sexual abuse cases have come forward.

    As for the psychologist, what is your professional background to vouch for his/her findings in the report? What has been your training Ms. Clark? Is this person someone who believes in dubious theories like repressed memories like you? Come forth and let us know your professional qualifications and why you stand by this report so much.

    As I have stated, Kelly was examined for possible sexual attraction to children. The report found that Kelly had NO attraction to children whatsoever.

    Since you mention WWII, are you a historian as well? I am just trying to gauge your professional qualifications. All I can say for certain is that you are a rabble rouser and lack any type of qualification.

     
  • Julia Scriven posted at 1:11 pm on Thu, Apr 19, 2012.

    Tricia Posts: 1

    First of all, I don't know anyone likes child molesters or pedophiles! I was the victim of a drunk driver and spent several days in the hospital and my car was totaled. However I do not look at everyone who drinks alcohol as an alcoholic or a drunk driver. In the same way I do not look at all priests who tickle etc., to be child molesters or pedophiles. It is amazing to me how testimony becomes twisted to benefit the attorney. I believe this has all gotten way out of hand and an innocent man's life has been taken away from him. In the same breath I have great sympathy for the plaintiff who has been molested by some other person.

     
  • Arabella Clark posted at 12:34 pm on Thu, Apr 19, 2012.

    Arabella Posts: 129

    What are your thoughts on the Vicar's testimony yesterday? Not too pretty.. I have read the same story in the Boston Globe concerning other priests- disturbing psychological evaluations; the church hustles them off for hush-hush psychiatric treatment, and don't let the parishioners know.

    The Bishop and the Vicar are also responsible for this mess.

     
  • Arabella Clark posted at 12:33 pm on Thu, Apr 19, 2012.

    Arabella Posts: 129

    The refusal of people here to acknowledge and take in the bombshell that the Vicar has disclosed reminds me of the people who lived near the concentration camps in World War II who claimed they heard and saw nothing.

    Get off the polygraph issue!! The Vicar drops a shocking bombshell about Kelly's disturbing psychological evaluation, and yet some people here seem to be terrified to deal with it.

     
  • Sarah Bennett posted at 12:19 pm on Thu, Apr 19, 2012.

    sbennett Posts: 1

    Reason for Mahony's absence:

    From the Lodi News story dated April 18, 2012: Mahony is in Rome for an event called Ad Limina, in which bishops from California, Nevada, Utah and Hawaii give a "state of the diocese" report to Pope Benedict XVI.

    It's an event that takes place every seven years, so Mahony is at the Vatican to report on the first six of those years in Los Angeles, which were on his watch before he retired, Hennigan said.

    http://www.lodinews.com/news/article_9dbe3470-b30e-53be-92c4-1d8740a31459.html

    Tim knows this...as you can see, he posted a comment on that story...Nice try though.

     
  • Ronald Brown posted at 12:06 pm on Thu, Apr 19, 2012.

    gipper Posts: 116

    Mr. Reynard, the judge also asked them to take into account expert testimony over other information in this case. I am still trying to wrap my arms around how a jury can take two hours to discuss and make a decision when the following is present- an "expert" on repressed memory, two board trained psychiatrists with very difering views of the client's mental state and the failure of the plaintiff to take a polygraph test when the defense offered and the defendant was willing to. Can you explain how this was done so quickly?

    In previous posts, Mr Reynard, you point out that polygraph tests are not credible when discerning truth and cite the APA as evidence. It comes to light that lawyers from the Department of Justice are using polygraph tests to discern the truth of what happened with the prostitute situation in Columbia. If polygraphs could be trusted and used by the Department of Justice, shouldn't they be considered for evidence in this case and others like it where veracity is being discerned? This is just food for thought....


    http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/18/11268779-some-secret-service-agents-agree-to-lie-detector-tests-in-prostitution-scanda

     
  • Bruce Reynard posted at 11:41 am on Thu, Apr 19, 2012.

    Bruce Reynard Posts: 60

    It is absolutely outstanding that Judge McNatt told jurors "that if they believe that Kelly left the country with the intent to suppress evidence, they have the right to distrust or completely disbelieve anything Kelly said in deposition."

    It's nice to see that the jury is allowed to be a jury of reasonable adults, every once in awhile.

     
  • Bruce Reynard posted at 11:20 am on Thu, Apr 19, 2012.

    Bruce Reynard Posts: 60

    "helped destroy an innocent man"

    What a load. The only people who helped destroy the child molester Kelly, were Kelly himself, and Vicar General Monsignor Richard Ryan, Bishop Stephen Blaire, and Diocese Attorney Paul Balestracci, who knew of the psychologist's report, and could not be bothered to lift a finger to help children who were having their lives destroyed by Kelly.

    Shame on you, Leanna.

     
  • Arabella Clark posted at 10:26 am on Thu, Apr 19, 2012.

    Arabella Posts: 129

    Mr. Pierre: look at the handwriting on the wall. Attacks on Manly and SNAP are a waste of energy. Look at the handwriting on the wall.

     
  • Arabella Clark posted at 10:25 am on Thu, Apr 19, 2012.

    Arabella Posts: 129

    Mr. Pierre: Believe you me, if you'd do any reading, any time a shrink says someone who has potential pedophiliac tendencies and is told that he shouldn't work around children, it is EXTREMELY serious. Talk to criminal profilers and law enforcement about this.

     
  • Arabella Clark posted at 10:24 am on Thu, Apr 19, 2012.

    Arabella Posts: 129

    I just don't get it. You defend someone who a psychologist described as having pedophiliac tendencies, who lies to his parishioners about why he was going away for a while, this is just nuts. Why on earth are you attacking SNAP or anyone who is trying to make you see reality? Don't you see that the Church thought it was serious- they sent him away for psychiatric help!! In thousands of cases all over the country, this is what the Cardinals and vicars did. When are you going to see that this is just like all the other cases? Do some reading.

     
  • Arabella Clark posted at 10:21 am on Thu, Apr 19, 2012.

    Arabella Posts: 129

    Mr.Pierre: Did you read what the psychologist said? Are you tin hat much in denial ? The psychologist recommended that he NOT be around children! It is VERY SERIOUS BUSINESS when someone has pedophiliac tendencies. Schools; colleges, cub scout troops ALL SCREEN for this. They NEVER HIRE anyone who has even the slightest SUGGESTION of these tendencies. This is why they have the screening process. If you had a child who had a teacher who was evaluated and the psychologist warned the school that the teacher should not be around children because of this, you would hit the roof.

    This is VERY BAD FOR KELLY. Shame on him for saying he was going to be treated for ulcers instead of the fact that he was being sent to St. John Vianney Center is a nonprofit organization serves clergy and religious professionals with behavioral disorders and psychiatric illnesses

     
  • Arabella Clark posted at 10:17 am on Thu, Apr 19, 2012.

    Arabella Posts: 129

    I am just reporting what the papers say. Did you happen to read the Vicar's testimony from yesterday? Quite the eye-opener. Sadly, we've heard this story so many, many times.

     
  • Dave Pierre posted at 9:54 am on Thu, Apr 19, 2012.

    DPierre Posts: 18

    So your story went from "away on a retreat" to "may be on retreat."

    Nice try.

     
  • Dave Pierre posted at 9:51 am on Thu, Apr 19, 2012.

    DPierre Posts: 18

    It says "potential" tendencies, but then again, I don't expect a great level of reading comprehension from you people.

     
  • Dave Pierre posted at 9:44 am on Thu, Apr 19, 2012.

    DPierre Posts: 18

    Tim - Your dishonesty never ceases to astound.

    The truth is that Cardinal Mahony was originally asked to appear at a different date than now. Mahony is under no obligation to keep an "open calendar" for John Manly, a vicious anti-Catholic who once compared being a Catholic priest to being a train conductor carrying prisoners to Auschwitz.

    But then again, you're with SNAP, a dishonest organization with a long and mean-spirited history that actually does very, very little for victims of abuse.
    http://www.themediareport.com/hot-topics/snap-survivors-network-of-those-abused-by-priests/

    -

     
  • Arabella Clark posted at 9:24 am on Thu, Apr 19, 2012.

    Arabella Posts: 129

    Here's what the Irish Independent says of Kelly's whereabouts:


    http://www.independent.ie/national-news/irish-priest-who-fled-us-after-sex-abuse-finding-protests-innocence-3085592.html

    Yesterday, the Irish Independent called to this house but Fr Kelly was not there. It is believed he may be on retreat nearby.

     
  • Arabella Clark posted at 9:19 am on Thu, Apr 19, 2012.

    Arabella Posts: 129

    To reporter Ross Farrow: An Irish newspaper today quotes Kelly family members saying that Kelly "is away on a retreat." They said nothing about him being treated for ulcers. Let's see if I can dig up the story.

     
  • Arabella Clark posted at 9:09 am on Thu, Apr 19, 2012.

    Arabella Posts: 129

    From the news story above:

    During testimony Wednesday morning, Vicar General Monsignor Richard Ryan, the second-ranking Stockton Diocese official, testified that a Bay Area psychologist recommended in a report around 2000 that Kelly be reassigned to a job in the diocese in which he wasn't around children and their families due to potential pedophiliac tendencies.

     
  • Arabella Clark posted at 9:06 am on Thu, Apr 19, 2012.

    Arabella Posts: 129

    Also, just a suggestion: You might want to rethink your use of the phrase "You people." It' not considered good form or etiquette in comments sections to call people that. Have you READ WHAT THE VICAR SAID YET?

     
  • Arabella Clark posted at 9:04 am on Thu, Apr 19, 2012.

    Arabella Posts: 129

    How are we spinning it? Did you READ THE LODI NEWS STORY today or are you too afraid to? READ IT. READ WHAT THE VICAR SAYS. This has NOTHING to do with me or SNAP. This was TEN years ago.

    Also, I am not very impressed with your most unChristian-like vicious manner. You remind me of a kid who puts his fingers in his ears to drown out the reality of what is going on him.

    We are quoting the news story. If you are so angry about this news, then you should CALL UP THE VICAR AND GET ANGRY WITH HIM. IT'S HIS TESTIMONY; NOT OURS.

     
  • Arabella Clark posted at 9:02 am on Thu, Apr 19, 2012.

    Arabella Posts: 129

    I am quoting the VICAR who is quoting the psychologist. Why are you ignoring the Vicar's testimony that a psychologist said Kelly shouldn't be around children because of his pedophiliac tendencies? This is in a newspaper report. I don't know Kelly and have never met him.

    For you to attack me in such a harsh un-Christian and rough manner says a lot... I thought the Church taught people to be kind to one another. But you and your relative with the same last name, well the more vituperative you sound, the more anxious you seem underneath.

    READ WHAT THE VICAR HAD TO SAY. I have NOTHING to do with this case or Kelly.

     
  • Leanna Mattea posted at 8:54 am on Thu, Apr 19, 2012.

    posey29 Posts: 6

    Get a life Arabella (Cinderella's wicked stepsister). You aren't a psychologist, a social worker, medical personnel....just a **&## disturber. You have helped destroy an innocent man (no, he was only reported for tickling and roughhousing, that doesn't constitue molestation).

     
  • Leanna Mattea posted at 8:50 am on Thu, Apr 19, 2012.

    posey29 Posts: 6

    Get a life

     
  • Leanna Mattea posted at 8:49 am on Thu, Apr 19, 2012.

    posey29 Posts: 6

    You people should be fiction writers. You take a comment and then spin it to make up your own story.

     
  • Arabella Clark posted at 8:43 am on Thu, Apr 19, 2012.

    Arabella Posts: 129

    Wow! Isn't this the first time a member of the Church has admitted that a psychologist said Kelly had pedophiliac tendencies and should be kept away from children? YIkes!!

     
  • Tim Lennon posted at 7:57 am on Thu, Apr 19, 2012.

    Tim Lennon Posts: 45

    Cardinal Mahony retired a year ago, yet he is in Rome to give a "state of the diocese" report to the pope. Strange excuse since Mahony has no diocese. Unless Mahony is going to report on the diocese of his fishing cabin in the hills.
    More likely, Mahony is afraid to testify under oath, afraid to tell the truth. He harmed a lot of children by his complicity in moving hundreds abuser priests around, like O'Grady. What does he know about Kelly?

     
Readers Choice Awards 2014
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