Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)
Options
Comments
-
-
Actually if a garda has been appointed to investigate accusations of a crime against someone, I would have thought they would follow up all leads.But he was not in charge! the local bishop was in charge. it isnt for a garda to contact all the victims of an abuser; He investigates the one reported to him on instruction froml the local inspector or superintendant and he files the report and he leaves his superiors get on with it.
Brady was involved in an investigation in allegations of child abuse. He didn't do a comprehensive investigation, not contacting the parents of other victims being a prime example.If brady was the local bishop at that tile then you have a point.
People are saying Brady may have suspected wrongdoing and should have told about it. But if so should Gilmore or Adams anot have told about wrongdoing too? and if you are calling on Brady to resign on the basis of what he might have done then why dont you apply the same principle to Adams or Gilmore?
I've done no such thing.so if it is obvious why are you saying he should inform people who were already informed when Brady got to hear about them?
But they would still have to investigate if there was any substance to each allegation so as they could get an idea of the scope of the crime.Yes and the gardai who eventyually handled the case and the DPP might have not confirmed over a hundred other cases but taken say thirty counts against Smyth. and individual gardai might onluy have take the statement of one or two victims and not have anything to do with other victims.
Good. so we're agreed then.They have but they do not have a role in the processing or judgement in criminal law.
they can make mlegally binding decisions under contract law maybe but that is a different matter.
What we are discussing here is in Ireland in criminal cases. the church do not decide on legal criminal guilt or punishment.
Brady, as any other person that would have known about the abuse, was perfectly entitled to report the abuse to the police. I've no idea how you could suggest that an adult who knows about abuse is not allowed report it to the policethe church had no locus standing the victims were minors. so it would be for the parents to go to the police. the church has as you say above no standing or authority in taking deciding on or processing criminal child abuse cases.
Agreed, once the police have investigated the claim of a crime.and it is up to the DPP not the police;
The child that Brady investigated would have been hearsay until the interview occurred. Why would he complete the investigation and follow up with the other children?Parents were not informed by Brady; Parents were informed by other people. Some parenbts were not informed at all . but in those latter cases they were not informed by the person in charge who is the o,ne in charge. To attribute to Brady the informing about all victims of smyth is ludicrous; He only knew about two cases for a fact. Hr was aware of suspicion of four more but that was hearsay. The only reason peoplke are bringing this up ois because today Brady is a cardinal. But they dont apply the same principle to the President of Sinn féin or to the Taniste Gilmore.
Fine, you're right, I'm wrong. The police still had to investigate the murder, which is the opposite of what you claimed.Which is not your later point! a different point. "The prosecution had investigated the other murder and decided not to prosecute. The family would have been informed at that stage as they would have had to identify the body"the family was not informed at that stage. any investigation if it took place on the murder in Naas happened AFTER identification. Mac Arthur think is the case and it is part of the grotesque, unbelievable, bizarre and unprecedented. GUBU events.
he was not tried for Dunne's murder as the state entered a plea of nolle prosequi AFTER the body was identified.
It is not a case of "could you identify this body as your son. thank you now you have identified Im informing you by the way he was murdered and we are not prosecuting"
Im pointing that out because you asked "Why would the gardai not investigate all accusations of child abuse?" it could be they did investigate all smyth cases or they didnt but in either case they dint do anything about the vast majority of them.
He was sentenced for abusing 20 children. It is believed he had over a hundred victims.
They followed all leads that they had, it's quite likely that they couldn't identify any other children that Symth abused.If you can read this, you're too close!
0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
So what? Many witness statements, or reports of a crime are hearsay. it would then be up to the civil authorities to establish the veracity of the claims and then collect non-hearsay evidence.but it constitutes hearsay!
here you go again. We aren't talking about taking a case, we are talking about reporting suspicion of abuse of children. There is no standing required to report a suspicion of abuse to the civil authorities.It is nnly the victim who could take the case. given the victiml is a minor it is only the parents;
What case? We are talking about reporting! Stop with the "taking a case" already. It would work something like this, the suspicion of abuse would be reported, there would be an investigation, if the suspicion proved to be true, or at least likely to be true a case would be built. At that point the priest may be involved as a witness, but at no point would he be required to have standing.the priests have no standing in a case. the gardai would have to go to the victims and press charges based on what the victims state.
This may well be the case, but from what we have heard so far, this was a choice that was removed from them by the actions, of lack of them, from those in the church with knowledge or reasonable suspicion of the abuse.In many cases the victims dint want to press charges just as they dont oin many adult cases of rape.
I am guessing this is pure speculation on your part. Do you have anything to suggest that this is the case? We have evidence that the children were sworn to secrecy. Now, I know you are going to argue that that secrecy was only relative to the internal church investigation, but I call bull on that. Are you familiar with the term "mental reservation?" It is a phrase the church uses when it say something ambiguous, knowing that a person is likely to take the wrong meaning from it, but choosing not to clarify the meaning. Given that the church has admitting to using "mental reservation" do you think it is more likely that a) None of the children abused who reported the abuse to the church authorities wanted to take it further or, b) the church, when swearing the children to secrecy, took advantage of their mental reservation trick and choose not to tell them the secrecy only related to the church investigation. See. I can speculate too, though I think my speculation, given the church's behaviour in this matter seems somewhat more likely.It could be they went to a priest or even to a non priest and told about rape and said dont tell anyone else .
That will depend on the circumstances. First of all, you are again speculating that the child, and remember we are talking about children here, did not want to press charges. Secondly, you are conveniently ignoring the fact that we are talking about children here. Person who legally cannot vote, drink alcohol, refuse medical treatment or consent to sex. If they aren't allowed to do these things because they are not considered mature enough to be able to deal with them, why should they be considered mature enough to decide that they don't want the fact that they have been raped or sexually abused to be reported to the civil authorities or even their parents?Should the other person betray their confidence and contact the police in all probability they will deny the rape and lose the friend for betraying their trust as well.
The police should have been made aware, as should the parents. At that point the children would have received the support they needed which may have enabled them to, or convince them that, a complaint should be made. There is no need for a victim to be bullied or badgered. I am getting quite tired of the hearsay argument, it is very poor. Much evidence collected in the first instance is hearsay, it points the authorities in the direction it needs to go in to collect evidence that is not hearsay.should the police bully or badger the victim into taking charges the other person (priest or non priest) would have no part in the case because their evidence is hearsay; they were not present to witness the act and only heard about it.
You simply can't know that. Had the allegations been reported, which would NOT require standing, an investigation could have been carried out. Primary evidence and witness statements could have been gathered.in all likelihood a case would collapse. especially if the perpetrator claims people have been spreading rumors.
Really? How about because it is the right thing to do? You don't know the case would collapse, nor do you know the victim would lose friends.what ios the pointin reporting a crime if the case would collapse and the victim lose friends.
I am not aware of that type of case, so I can't comment. I would be interesting in reading more about them, however. Perhaps you would be kind enough to point me at some sources.sililar cases happened in hospitals , particularly mental institutions , where patients raped other patients. Nurses did not call in the gardai; they informed their superior and left it at that. If they were called in to an investigation they gave their evidence and left it at that. they did not go to the gardai and in must cases nobody was charged with a criminal offence. Had someone been charged i dont know what their role would be if they just heard about the rape from another nurse or patient. If they later became matron it isnt a resigning matter is it?
A couple of points. First of all, hearsay evidence is admissible in some circumstances, so please stop acting like it can never be used. Secondly, even if the confession cannot be used in a legal proceeding, evidence gathered, as a result of the confession can be used. So, to take your priestly confession, a man goes to confession and confesses to raping a child. The priest, being a decent human being reports this to the police. He, like most priests in the confessional, knows who the confessor is. The police begin an investigation to establish the credibility of the confession. They find that it is credible and find other evidence proving the crime and the rapist is successfully prosecuted.to go back to you legal point. a similar case has been made about confession namely that priests should provide reorts to the police should pedophiles confess to them. In the unlikely event a pedophile confessess to a priest and suppose the priest gave up his vocation and tolfd the gardai what would happen? Nothing! The police cant use the priests evidence at all as it is hearsay. the priest cant identify the pedophile except by voice maybe has no name, address, description maybe does not even know if they are male or female.
The confession does not have to be used, the hearsay evidence does not have to be used. Both can be valuable simply for providing some direction for an investigation.
I reckon you are a fairly bright person, you seem to have a reasonable grasp of the law, but I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are not trying to be intentionally misleading, even though that seems the most likely scenario here.
You are being disingenuous again. We are not talking about an adult making an informed decision not to press charged and having those wished honoured. We are talking about children, who are not considered competent to make those decisions.Now today when a priest is given information their first reaction should be "please take this to the gardai. i have no role in criminal cases. " A psychatarist should also probably say the same. But even after the church had it for ten years One in Four didnt have a policy
of manditory reporting of rape. does hte rape cricis Centre have it? I dont know but i doubt they report all victims coming in to them to the gardai.
I know medical staff have a positive duty to report suspected child abuse. I was involved with victim support a long time ago, and even then we were told in training that any suspicion of child abuse we came across had to be reported.
I don't understand how anyone could seriously argue that suspected child abuse should not be reported.
Really? First of all, very few witnesses to crimes have what you call standing. I have witnessed, and reported several crimes. I can assure you I was never asked what business it was of mine to report the crime.Maybe maybe not; My point isnt about reporting or convicting. It is about helping victims and possible prevention of further victims.
And how would you suggest not reporting a crime helps prevent further victims?
I understand that whatabouttery is what you do best, and that without whatabouttery the church really doesn't have an argument, but seriously ISAW, no one is buying it.To be honest would this have helped in the smyth case or in a similar non priest pedophile abuser case ? Id hgave to say yes it probably would. doe it mean Cardinal Brady hospital matrons garda commissioners etc. should resign . i dont think so . Should Adams or Gilmore resign because they knew about
botched assassinations where the wrong person was killed or where children died and didnt inform on the people they were told were responsible?
MrP0 -
-
-
-
-
-
So what? Many witness statements, or reports of a crime are hearsay. it would then be up to the civil authorities to establish the veracity of the claims and then collect non-hearsay evidence.
no it wouldnt! the civil authorities can use this as evidence nr can they rely on it as having any legal standing.
All it is doing is saying "maybe a crime happened here". And I havez already stated that Brady has to answer as to why he didnt inform the PARENTS not the "authorities" but the PARENTS who had standing. Now the PARENTS dint decide to take a case. Should they resign too?here you go again. We aren't talking about taking a case, we are talking about reporting suspicion of abuse of children. There is no standing required to report a suspicion of abuse to the civil authorities.
the whole issue is about a case being taken against Smyth and who was responsible that it was not taken sooner!
There is no point in informing the authorities unless you expect the authorities to decide to act on wrongdoing!
There is no point in informing the authorities unless you expect the authorities to decide to act on wrongdoing!What case? We are talking about reporting! Stop with the "taking a case" already. It would work something like this, the suspicion of abuse would be reported, there would be an investigation, if the suspicion proved to be true, or at least likely to be true a case would be built.
If the reporter is leaving it up to authorities to decide then Brady repôrted to his superiour just as a nurse might and he left it to them to decide. You can criticise him for that if you want but is not reporting rape toi the police a matter to resign? If so the Rape crisis centre One in Four and all sorts of other people should resign. Do you think they should, Or that Gilmore or Adams should resign?
You cant be a witness to something you did not witness.At that point the priest may be involved as a witness, but at no point would he be required to have standing.This may well be the case, but from what we have heard so far, this was a choice that was removed from them by the actions, of lack of them, from those in the church with knowledge or reasonable suspicion of the abuse.
From what we have heard so far in the cases we dont know about . We dont know the full facts. But in the case we do know about Bomlands the pârents did not report the crime to the Gardai as far as i know. I dont think we should attack the poarents for that. do you?I am guessing this is pure speculation on your part. Do you have anything to suggest that this is the case?
so you dont knw the actual facts. Rather then assemble innocence you assume guilt. i dont have to prove my speculation. If you alleged guilt it is for you to provide evidence to prove it.We have evidence that the children were sworn to secrecy.
that TWO were sworn to secrecy about the Church process.
If the church didnt process the other four how d you know someone else never learned of it and decided also not to go to the RUC or gardai?
you dont know. All you know is the church people who know about the first two didnt contact the pother four. This includes not just Brady. But only Brady is being targeted. why ? clearly because he is a Cardinal. Posters have on this thread admitted their hatred of the church and their interest not in the victims but in attacking the Church.Now, I know you are going to argue that that secrecy was only relative to the internal church investigation, but I call bull on that. Are you familiar with the term "mental reservation?"
i have not made that secrecy argument above. In addition I have heard of "mental reservation". It does not apply in the above investigation. If you can show where it sdid apply please do so. Can you?Given that the church has admitting to using "mental reservation" do you think it is more likely that a) None of the children abused who reported the abuse to the church authorities wanted to take it further or, b) the church, when swearing the children to secrecy, took advantage of their mental reservation trick and choose not to tell them the secrecy only related to the church investigation. See. I can speculate too, though I think my speculation, given the church's behaviour in this matter seems somewhat more likely.
Given you have at least one set of parents who were informed where does that leave them in your "it is a trick" scenario?That will depend on the circumstances. First of all, you are again speculating that the child, and remember we are talking about children here, did not want to press charges.
no that the parents having being informed of the crime didnt want to. In cases of criminality it isnt for them to decide. charges have to be taken. But they wont hold if the parents are not co operating with the gardai. i have no intention of replacing the Bishop with the pârents and attacking them for not reporting it either.Secondly, you are conveniently ignoring the fact that we are talking about children here. Person who legally cannot vote, drink alcohol, refuse medical treatment or consent to sex.
just as unborn children cant but I many dont regard they as having a right to life.If they aren't allowed to do these things because they are not considered mature enough to be able to deal with them, why should they be considered mature enough to decide that they don't want the fact that they have been raped or sexually abused to be reported to the civil authorities or even their parents?
Again if the parents OR the victim refuses to co operate with the gardai then N0 case will stand up in court.The police should have been made aware, as should the parents. At that point the children would have received the support they needed which may have enabled them to, or convince them that, a complaint should be made.
I dont disagree with that BUT
when the parents wer made aware they didnt act -what have you to say about them?
When Rape cricis centre or One oin four were made aware IN 2005 for exapmle -they didnt report it - what have you to say about them?There is no need for a victim to be bullied or badgered. I am getting quite tired of the hearsay argument, it is very poor.
If the victim of rape or the parents in the case of rape of a minor wont co operate do you suggest the case be dropped? If not how do the gardai get the victims t co operate? and if the rape crisis centre or One in Four dont report rapes should the gardai go after them?
And if the rape crisis centre or One in Four dont report rapes?Really? How about because it is the right thing to do? You don't know the case would collapse, nor do you know the victim would lose friends.I am not aware of that type of case, so I can't comment. I would be interesting in reading more about them, however. Perhaps you would be kind enough to point me at some sources.
Not to cases because such cases would not happen.
Funny how people want law against openly gay teachers in ethos schools changed in spite of the fact that no teacher has ever been sacked for being homosexual isnt it?
so dont play the "no cases" card on me!
http://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/Reports/rSexualOffencesMentally.htm
section 34
http://voices.yahoo.com/are-hospitals-required-report-rape-5861562.htmlIt should also be provided that a person is not guilty of the offence if at the time the offence is alleged to have been committed, he did not know, and had no reason to suspect, that the complainant was suffering from mental handicap or mental illness as defined.Every hospital has its own policy on rape. There are some hospitals which are required to report any rape, regardless of patient confidentiality. Other hospitals are not allowed to report a rape to the police until the patient agrees to it. Patient confidentiality is becoming more common, but there are still hospitals which do not follow this procedure. According to the Rape Crisis Center of Syracuse University, some hospitals may call the police if the rapist used a gun or knife in the attack. The only way to really know for sure whether or not the rape will be reported is to have an understanding of what the specific hospital's policies are on rape.A couple of points. First of all, hearsay evidence is admissible in some circumstances, so please stop acting like it can never be used.
I accept it could sometimes be admitted. NOT in proving a rape however!Secondly, even if the confession cannot be used in a legal proceeding, evidence gathered, as a result of the confession can be used.
Yes but why should the church the gardai or you assume guilt?
In fact the church procedure does assume guilt and immediately suspends any accused priest.So, to take your priestly confession, a man goes to confession and confesses to raping a child. The priest, being a decent human being reports this to the police. He, like most priests in the confessional, knows who the confessor is.
1. he doesnt report it
2. he does not know who the person is
We cant have priests or even non priests running around saying "i think Mrs x might be a pedophile"The police begin an investigation to establish the credibility of the confession. They find that it is credible and find other evidence proving the crime and the rapist is successfully prosecuted.
nonsense. they would have nothing to go by! If a priest or a non priest suspected someone then they would have to go by what they witness outside a confession box. Unless they actually witness abuse by seeing it themselves it is all circumstantial.
the idea of a big police "confession squad" arresting loads of pedophiles is nonsense!The confession does not have to be used, the hearsay evidence does not have to be used. Both can be valuable simply for providing some direction for an investigation.
WHAT direction? No description of the crimlial or victim, evidence, address, crime scene, time of crime, date of crime
WHAT?I reckon you are a fairly bright person, you seem to have a reasonable grasp of the law, but I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are not trying to be intentionally misleading, even though that seems the most likely scenario here.
Im not! I cant see any relevance to a priest reporting a rape to gardai. Nor a psycharitrist or solicitor or any one else privileged . Al thought in the latter cases they might have an actual description or address.You are being disingenuous again. We are not talking about an adult making an informed decision not to press charged and having those wished honoured. We are talking about children, who are not considered competent to make those decisions.
And their ADULT parents on hearing of the crime deciding NOT to go any further.I know medical staff have a positive duty to report suspected child abuse.
1. Not to the gardai
2. In 1975? to the gardai?I was involved with victim support a long time ago, and even then we were told in training that any suspicion of child abuse we came across had to be reported.
victims support dint exist in 1975! And if the suspiscion was reported by yu did you follow it up and investigate all other cases of suspected abuse by the same person? If the person lect your area did you check the gardai in the new area were investigating the pêrson or did you cntact the victimls support in that area? If not should you resign?I don't understand how anyone could seriously argue that suspected child abuse should not be reported.
TO THE GARDAI. Brady reported it . judst not to the gardai or the parents. He assumed the system would deal with it just as you assumed the victims support system would.Really? First of all, very few witnesses to crimes have what you call standing. I have witnessed, and reported several crimes. I can assure you I was never asked what business it was of mine to report the crime.
Yes. but if you dint report it and assumed another person had done so should you now resign?
I didnt suggest that.And how would you suggest not reporting a crime helps prevent further victims?0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement