In 2006, lawyer Mitchell Garabedian lodged a claim against the Rev. Charles Murphy that he improperly touched a female minor 25 years earlier. Father Murphy swore his innocence, the archdiocese ruled the allegations lacked substance, and the woman dropped her suit on the eve of trial.
According to Brian McGrory of the Boston Globe: "When Murphy triumphantly returned to the pulpit of his sun-splashed church in South Weymouth, the applause could be heard across the South Shore. Father Charlie, as he was known, was back — back cracking cornball jokes from the altar, back as a fanatical hockey fan, back as the mad plow driver clearing the parking lot at the hint of snow. He was also back ministering in prisons and helping the deaf, a man of the cloth to his core."
As if he had not done enough harm, in April 2010, lawyer Garabedian, who had lodged the first complaint, brought another. Only this time, the accusation was not about a 25 year old alleged assualt, it was about a 40 year old alleged assault. And this time, the alleged victim wasn't female, he was male.
Put aside the absurdity and injustice of asking a presumptively innocent man to defend himself against 40-year-old charges (all evidence of alibi -- "I was somewhere else that day" -- would have long disappeared), does it seem not just bizarre but other-worldly that an attorney would first accuse this priest of long ago abusing a female and then, when that didn't work, a male?
Father Murphy was forced to cancel a long-planned party celebrating his 50th anniversary as a priest and he started a downward spiral that would eventually kill him.
It took the diocense almost six months to dismiss the charges. Brian McGrory says that's about five months too long. But Father Murphy's supporters knew the truth: ". . . prominent friends and everyday parishioners who refused to give up their faith. They hired a lawyer, who in turn brought in a private investigator, who discovered that the alleged victim was mired in financial problems, had a long list of liens placed against him, and faced massive credibility issues even within his own family."
By the time the diocese restored Father Murphy, he was finished. ". . . when Murphy reappeared at St. Francis Xavier in South Weymouth to say Mass, he couldn’t summon the strength to deliver a sermon."
Brian McGrory: "They brought Murphy to a hospice in Haverhill a couple of weeks ago after doctors determined there was nothing left to be done. There was no cancer, no apparent physical disease, just a broken 77-year-old heart that refused to mend."
"And that’s where he died Saturday evening, a wisp of the man he once was. Garabedian lost his compass on this case, and thousands of people all over Massachusetts lost a truly wonderful priest."
We commend Mr. McGrory for a well-written piece. But the irony seems lost on Mr. McGrory about his own paper's role in harming this good priest. How? By doing what, I am sure, it would claim was just it's job. It reported the following on April 3, 2010: "The man's attorney, Mitchell Garabedian, said the abuse happened when Murphy was at St. Agatha Parish in Milton in the early 1970s. Garabedian said Murphy abused his client over the course of a year, starting when his client was 14, in places including the church rectory. Garabedian said his client, now 53, hoped the church was closely monitoring Murphy." See here.
Yes, the Globe was just doing what every newspaper does. They destroy innocent men by reporting sex accusations. The general public doesn't understand that an accusation is just that -- an accusation. All they see is that yet another priest is accused of fondling yet another boy, and their reaction is, "Castrate him!" In the court of last resort -- the breakfast table where Mr. and Mrs. Average Bostonian read the Globe -- the trial against Father Murphy was over even before it had begun.
And then the truth finally came out -- but not before an innocent man was destroyed. Then it's very easy to blame the false accuser, the lawyer who lodged the charge, the diocese for investigating too slowly . . . you name it, everyone except the paper that was "just doing its job" by repeating an unfounded accusation even though the man accused was not able even to defend himself in the press.
If Mr. McGrory wants to know what caused Father McGrory to die of a broken heart, he need look no further than the Boston Globe's glass house.
See here: http://www.patheos.com/community/deaconsbench/2011/06/15/falsely-accused-priest-dies-of-a-broken-heart/
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
11 comments:
These cases are why we used to have statutes of limitations in place. It is ridiculous to expect a man to defend himself against a 40 year-old allegation of sexual assault, and even more ridiculous that the system asserts that "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" could ever exist in such a case, where it is one word against another.
Our system is insane.
That is ridiculous, but not untypical in such cases. A lot of the priestly-abuse cases are very old, some even involving priests that are already in retirement.
BTW, my title in your link-list is incorrect.
"proof beyond a reasonable doubt" does not exist in child sexual abuse accusations.
Just the accusation suffices. Then it's plea bargain time.
Where have you been?
that's a sad story. as a survivor of sexual abuse by a priest myself, I cringe when I hear a false accusation story like that. It really takes credibility away from the ACTUAL cases of rape and molestation by priests.
Since this guy was a priest, there could have been a very simple and thorough vindication of this man: his bishop could have opened up the Secret Archive files for that Diocese--to the public. anything that happened upwards of 40 years ago would have been included, since at that time it was common for someone who was abused/raped by a priest to simply go to their Bishop and not the police, and report the abuse.
to more fully understand this, go to wikipedia and search "Crimen Sollicitacionis". The Church has been lying and covering up for pedophiles since AT LEAST 1962.
The coverup and complicity should be the real story of the Church, not isolated abuse incidents.
Thank you Anon at 11:57. I appreciate your comment. Rape is a reality, and no victim of that crime should ever be told that his or her victimization isn't important.
Your reaction to the story is the same we routinely get from rape victims about false rape claims. Every rape lie diminishes the integrity of every legitimate claim.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-13799019
MP accused of rape cleared....
I wonder how that MP feels about the possibly of women's prisons being closed down.
Anthony Weiner basically exposed the hypocrisy of the left in that he is another example of completely inappropriate behavior by the liberal left.
The media shoved down the public's throats the Catholic church pedophilia scandal, and here we have one of their own committing questionable behavior.
And no, I am not comparing child abuse to twittering dongphotos. My point is that the media was on a witch hunt against the CC.
The Statute of Limintations should be 2 weeks in an alleged rape case and perhaps a bit longer if it's a minor after the minor turns 18.
And as far as I'm concerned a she said/ he said case is unprovable so the man should not even be on trial if that's all they have. The defendant doesn't have to do anything or testify and his lawyer doesn't even have to put on a defence. The DA has to prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt and a female's accusations mean nothing on their own. In every other criminal case there is proof to get a conviction. If a robber robs someone there may be witnesses to it or if he's a suspect the cops may seach him or his house and find the stolen goods.If an accusation was all that it took to get a conviction then many people would be accusing someone they hated of robbing them but you never see a conviction in these cases and in fact the person is rarely even arrested and charged.
My point is that the media was on a witch hunt against the CC.
Of course, the Catholic church is a powerful and wealthy organisation and may just pay off people making accusations rather than get the bad publicity.There were probably a few cases of homosexual priests who may have been guilty of something and the church kept records on them something that later came back to haunt them(public school teachers were just fired and there were no records as to why and besides it's harder to sue a government entity than a private school). And at the time, homosexuality was considered a mental disorder so the church would send these few priests to psychiatrists to be "cured" and then to another parish.But once that first shyster was successful in shaking down the church you knew that it would cause a avalanche of these cases.
I've heard of priests stealing church money and spending it on whores or girlfriends, losing it gambling,falling down drunk, fixing raffles, fucking the church secretary, hitting students and I'm sure there may have even been a murder in there etc. but I never once heard of a priest fiddling around with a kid. Strange isn't it for something the media wants people to think was a common occurance.We all know how people gossip and how it's almost impossible to keep things secret so why weren't people even talking about this?
What happened to priests is the same thing that happened to the average man who went from being trusted to being a suspect.
And as far as I'm concerned a she said/ he said case is unprovable so the man should not even be on trial if that's all they have.
***
That's the answer, but prohibiting he said/she said cases is probably never going to happen.
This, I think, is the ultimate cause of the bad behavior of the Michael Nifongs of this world: the attitude is, "We prosecute based on zero evidence all the time, so what's the big deal about going a tiny step further and prosecuting based on a totally non-credible witness?"
When you lower the bar that far, it is difficult not to lower it all the way to the dirt.
Post a Comment