21 comments:

• Ronald Brown posted at 7:29 am on Mon, Apr 16, 2012.

  Posts: 116

  my mistake Mr. Schmidt. I will try and keep conversation and discussions more civil in the future.

  
  

  • Link

   

• Steve Schmidt posted at 5:20 pm on Sun, Apr 15, 2012.

  Posts: 2205

  Ron, I was using this new fangled "reply" feature to reply to Larry. It doesn't seem to work very well.

  • Link

   

• Ronald Brown posted at 10:10 am on Sun, Apr 15, 2012.

  Posts: 116

  Why? Because I use word like culpability? You should learn to read more often. It will make you less of a simpleton.

  
  

  • Link

   

• Steve Schmidt posted at 8:27 pm on Sat, Apr 14, 2012.

  Posts: 2205

  I'm intolerant of your abuse of the English language.

  • Link

   

• Lawrence Steinberg posted at 7:01 pm on Sat, Apr 14, 2012.

  Posts: 57

  This case is a perfect demonstration of libtard hipocrisy. All we here for 30 years is how we have to respect the rights of homosexuals, how we have to let them have sex with little boys, blah, blah, blah.

  THEN one Catholic priest turns out to be gay and all of a sudden teh tolerance nonesense is thrown out the window.Where are the protesters in the pinkk dresses protesting for Father Kellys freedpms?

  • Link

   

• Ronald Brown posted at 10:43 am on Sat, Apr 14, 2012.

  Posts: 116

  Mr. Schmidt, I am not talking about the Kelly case. I am talking about all the other cases in California and elsewhere.

  You and Mr. Manly are very much the same. You see the black robe of the priest, and you automatically assume culpability.
  

  • Link

   

• Steve Schmidt posted at 7:10 am on Sat, Apr 14, 2012.

  Posts: 2205

  Ron, I believe the statute of limitations has expired in the Kelly case.

  • Link

   

• Ronald Brown posted at 3:27 pm on Fri, Apr 13, 2012.

  Posts: 116

  With all the money that Manly looks likely to win and has won in the past, his firm can take on some pro bono cases that go after sociopath child molesters and prosecute them criminally as compared to civil suits.

  I doubt that will happen. Manly is in it only for the money. He is a shark in a suit, and he does not take prisoners.

  • Link

   

• Darrell Baumbach posted at 2:32 pm on Fri, Apr 13, 2012.

  Posts: 9403

  Just because the plaintiff said father Kelly did something, does not mean he did. The plaintiff could be in it for the money and faking it, or just as you can see in the previous two posts, a professional could have planted the memories. With Zero physical evidence, I can not imagine a two hour deliberation that involved the thinking process to evaluate the validity of the claim... I am amazed at the jury.

  • Link

   

• Darrell Baumbach posted at 2:25 pm on Fri, Apr 13, 2012.

  Posts: 9403

  Scientific American
  September 1997, vol 277 #3
  pages 70-75
  Elizabeth F. Loftus
  UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
  SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98195 USA
  
  Creating False Memories

  Elizabeth F. Loftus

  • Link

   

• Darrell Baumbach posted at 2:24 pm on Fri, Apr 13, 2012.

  Posts: 9403

  In 1986 Nadean Cool, a nurse's aide in Wisconsin, sought therapy from a psychiatrist to help her cope with her reaction to a traumatic event experienced by her daughter. During therapy, the psychiatrist used hypnosis and other suggestive techniques to dig out buried memories of abuse that Cool herself had allegedly experienced. In the process, Cool became convinced that she had repressed memories of having been in a satanic cult, of eating babies, of being raped, of having sex with animals and of being forced to watch the murder of her eight-year-old friend. She came to believe that she had more than 120 personalities-children, adults, angels and even a duck-all because, Cool was told, she had experienced severe childhood sexual and physical abuse. The psychiatrist also performed exorcisms on her, one of which lasted for five hours and included the sprinkling of holy water and screams for Satan to leave Cool's body.

  When Cool finally realized that false memories had been planted, she sued the psychiatrist for malpractice. In March 1997, after five weeks of trial, her case was settled out of court for $2.4 million. Nadean Cool is not the only patient to develop false memories as a result of questionable therapy. In Missouri in 1992 a church counselor helped Beth Rutherford to remember during therapy that her father, a clergyman, had regularly raped her between the ages of seven and 14 and that her mother sometimes helped him by holding her down. Under her therapist's guidance, Rutherford developed memories of her father twice impregnating her and forcing her to abort the fetus herself with a coat hanger.The father had to resign from his post as a clergyman when the allegations were made public. Later medical examination of the daughter revealed, however, that she was still a virgin at age 22 and had never been pregnant. The daughter sued the therapist and received a $1-million settlement in 1996.
  

  • Link

   

• Robert Chapman posted at 1:46 pm on Fri, Apr 13, 2012.

  Posts: 951

  CHA CHING $$$$$... Lots of money will make all the "suppressed memories" disappear. Just like sharks in bloody waters, wait for the line to form for others with "suppressed memories" to show up dreaming of riches. Beats the lottery, eh?

  • Link

   

• Ronald Brown posted at 1:16 pm on Fri, Apr 13, 2012.

  Posts: 116

  Josh, please read the judge's instructions to the jury. It was to put most emphasis on the testimony of expert witnesses. As I stated before, the "expert" on repressed memory stated that this was a valid concept. The plaintiff told different stories when deposed and when under oath in the trial. For example, he went into great detail about the assaults themselves and when they occurred. Yet, he contradicts himself to when these episodes occurred. The "expert" on repressed memory said that all details may not be accurate. I have said ths theory is bogus.

  It looks like the jury believed the "expert" on repressed memory over other witnesses. This combined with the emotional testimony of the plaintiff sealed the 12-0 verdict.

  • Link

   

• Darrell Baumbach posted at 11:15 pm on Thu, Apr 12, 2012.

  Posts: 9403

  Josh Morgan stated...Darrell, it sounds as if you attended the trial. I'm trying to wrap my brain around the fact that the jury voted 12-0 in favor of the plaintiff.

  Josh, I think Tim Lennon already gave us the answer. He said the turning point was not any testimony that was given by the questions the attorney's asked of the witnesses. Mr Lennon was in court and observed, then drew his conclusion. He said the plaintiff had an outburst in court where he yelled out to father Kelly, “YOU RAPED ME” among other things. In other words, the jury witnessed an outburst, that was the turning point. SO in my view, that indicated emotion and feelings played a big part in eliminating the thinking that needed to happen. Why else would it take only two hours to deliberate. Had I been on the jury, I guarantee I would have voted not guilty "IF" only two hours had gone by. I would have requested reading of testimony and debated the issues.

  Two hours? All 12 voted to convict? Tim Lennon said an emotional outburst was the turning point?
  I was shocked that Tim Lennon said what he said.

  Maybe I am wrong? Who knows... but I cannot imagine a 12-0 vote after two hours unless they decided by emotion and thinking was thrown out the window. How about a debate in the jury room about the validity of repressed memory syndrome since the entire case was dependent on it. That would take at least 2 days if I were there.
  

  • Link

   

• Josh Morgan posted at 8:29 pm on Thu, Apr 12, 2012.

  Posts: 518

  I've posted twice on this subject and every time it gets kicked to the archives and I don't get a response. I don't know Father Kelly, don't know the plaintiff and am not a Catholic. How does one explain a 12-0 vote by the jury in favor of the plaintiff? Both sides were represented by experienced attorneys who have had sexual abuse cases in the past. I just can't wrap my head around a 12-0 vote by neutral individuals with no relationship to either party. Please, someone explain that to me. Darrell, did you attend the trial? If so, can you shed some light on the subject?

  • Link

   

• Darrell Baumbach posted at 4:32 pm on Thu, Apr 12, 2012.

  Posts: 9403

  Mr Brown...thanks for your post, you made some good points...

  I thought that in addition to the expert witness, there was many things going on. For example, rough tickling is one characteristics of people who abuse kids...they put a witness on that said that he thought he broke father Kelly's jaw during a time of tickling. So obviously, they wanted the jury to make a leap that father Kelly tickled roughly, child abusers tickle roughly, therefore father Kelly is an abuser... no evidence at all, but it plays on the mind of the jury....that is why I claim emotion and feelings played a big roll in the verdict, thinking process was almost eliminated as evidenced by the 2 hour deliberation.

  I also question why the jury had 10 females. Woman, being more loving, nurturing and caring than men in my opinion, are more likely to react to emotional testimony than men. The vast majority of testimony was emotional. If I were Manly, and knew there was no physical evidence and had to depend on emotion, I would push to have as many people as possible who would react to emotion.

  Obviously my opinions may be totally wrong, these are just thoughts that crossed my mind in trying to explain to myself this bizarre case.

  • Link

   

• Darrell Baumbach posted at 3:53 pm on Thu, Apr 12, 2012.

  Posts: 9403

  Mr Schmidt....all people hate rapists. Unfortunately it is very very easy for you to think most priests are rapists, especially if they happen to be Catholic. In other words, the only evidence you need it the black robe a Catholic priest wears...guilty

  • Link

   

• Ronald Brown posted at 11:21 am on Thu, Apr 12, 2012.

  Posts: 116

  Mr. Schmidt. You really a funny guy. Unfortunately, this matter is not funny.

  The whole evidence of sexual assault is based on the "expert" witness of the psychologist who put forth the repressed memory hypothesis. You ignore my fact that the evidence he told under deposition about the sexual assault contradicts what he said under oath. However, according to the psychologist, "repressed memory" means that all details are not accurate. However, the plaintiff was pretty precise on the details of the sexual assault in the rectory, motel, etc. Why couldn't he have clearly remembered when the incident occurred and not contradicted his prior testimony? It seems the repressed memory theory is bogus.

  If Mr. Manly believed that his client was telling the truth, why not let him take a polygraph test? This was something that the defense offered (and was willing to pay for), but the plaintiff's attorney did not let the plaintiff take.

  At best, the evidence against Kelly is dubious if not apocryphal. I reiterate that your posts are solely aimed at spewing anti-Catholic rhetoric.

  
  

  • Link

   

• Steve Schmidt posted at 10:15 am on Thu, Apr 12, 2012.

  Posts: 2205

  No Ron, I have proven that I am someone who hates rapists. I understand this makes me unpopular in some quarters.

  • Link

   

• Ronald Brown posted at 8:48 am on Thu, Apr 12, 2012.

  Posts: 116

  Mr. Schmidt you have proved on your posting to be someone who hates Catholics and everything the Catholic Church stands for.

  The case was won on the "expert' witness of the repressed memory. It seems incredible that someone can block out memories for 20+ years and then remember them so clearly after such a long time. The facts are that information he stated in deposition contradicted with what he said during the trial (regarding the dates when sexual assualt happened).
  I should maybe contact her, and talk about my repressed memory of how I lost my $600 million lottery ticket when I sue the state of California 20 years from now.

  This case was all about money pure and simple. Manly is a shark in a suit, and he does not take prisoners.

  
  

  • Link

   

• Steve Schmidt posted at 4:02 am on Thu, Apr 12, 2012.

  Posts: 2205

  Chuckle.... Plenty also did not believe that OJ was guilty. Faith over facts, I guess.

  • Link