@Phoenix32890,
Phoenix32890 wrote:Quote:Will Lynch is looking for justice in an unusual way. Charged with savagely beating the priest he says molested him as a child, he plans to try to use his trial to publicly shame the Rev. Jerold Lindner in court.
Law experts say he faces an uphill battle. However, priest abuse victims are cheering Lynch on and offering to donate to his defense fund.
"Somebody needs to be a face for this abuse and I'm prepared to put myself on the line," Lynch told The Associated Press in the first interview since his arrest last month. "There's nothing they can take from me that they haven't already taken."
Lynch is accused of luring Lindner to the lobby of a retirement home in May and beating him bloody in front of horrified witnesses. Lynch, 43, plans to plead not guilty at his arraignment on an assault charge Friday.
Lynch accuses the 65-year-old Jesuit priest of sexually abusing him and his younger brother in 1975 during weekend camping trips in the Santa Cruz Mountains. The boys, 7 and 4 at the time, were raped and forced to have oral sex with each other while Lindner watched, Lynch said.
Lindner has repeatedly denied abusing anyone and has never been criminally charged. He hung up Wednesday when the AP called him for comment.
In a deposition in the late 1990s, Lindner said he didn't recall Lynch or his brother, though the siblings received $625,000 in a 1998 confidential settlement with the Jesuits for alleged abuse by the priest.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101112/ap_on_re_us/us_priest_attack
I am not usually one who admires vigilantism, but in this case, I feel like standing up and cheering. I think that the Catholic Church has gotten away with "murder" far too long.
What do you think? What would you have done if you were Will Lynch?
(I wonder what the younger brother has to say about the original alleged offense.)
At age 7, I remained unarmed; defenseless,
except that
for sure, if
THAT happened,
I 'd have sounded off
damn loud when I got home.
I 'd have considered that a newsworthy event.
My mother 'd have called the police
very swiftly indeed.
(woud
not have waited for my father to get home)
The news account alleges anal sodomy.
That means police 'd assist in taking the complaining witness
to the hospital in quest of forensic evidence, which woud be found.
There 'd be no chance of more "camping trip
s" after the first offense.
If I were Lynch in the indicated circumstances,
I believe that I 'd defer to the police,
or if a criminal statute of limitations were in effect,
then I 'd take the responsibility for waiting too long.
(On the other hand, if I were willing to accept the moral
and legal consequences of my vengeance, then all bets r off.)
From the posted material, I know that some
allegations
were asserted; I know not of their ultimate merit.
The first boy who sued Michael Jackson for sexual abuse
and collected $20,000,000 in settlement, said after Jackson died
that his allegations
were false, his dad's (successful) idea to get a lot of money
and that Jackson did nothing untoward to him.
Jackson might have sodomized 1000 children, but
not HIM.
Do we know about the state of Mr. Lynch 's mental health ?
I have no information on that.
Most people posting on this thread tacitly accept guilt in the priest,
based on
the accusation. Shoud a defendant who
denies guilt
have any presumption of innocence?
I will offer this little thing, that I remember:
in a case years ago, there was a fellow who raised sexually-based
allegations, indirectly bearing upon his case.
He got a good settlement. (He did not deserve it, for several different reasons, but he got it anyway.)
Long thereafter, based upon unrelated aberrant behavior,
we found out that he was delusional.
To look at him and listen to him, he seemed
robustly in good health of body and of mind.
That came as a big surprize. Sometimes its hard to tell.
David