Here's an article from the LA Times. Just as they blast Boston's Cardinal Law, they almost hide their own Bishop's vindication from Police:

Here's the story.

Police Clear Mahony of Alleged 1970 Molestation by MARK ARAX

FRESNO -- A Fresno police investigation has cleared Cardinal Roger M. Mahony of allegations that he sexually abused a female student at a Catholic high school 32 years ago, the department's chief of criminal investigations said Thursday.

Lt. Dwayne Johnson said the three-week investigation uncovered no evidence of a crime and that no further action would be taken. He said Mahony was interviewed in person about the alleged incident, which he denied had taken place, and that he cooperated fully with detectives.

The accuser, a 51-year-old Fresno woman, has a history of mental illness.

"We couldn't find a single thing to substantiate the allegations," Johnson said. "We even went back to students and staff at the high school at the time and they couldn't remember any event like this occurring."

The cardinal's office said in a statement that he "welcomes the confirmation by the Fresno Police Department this afternoon of his previous denial of this allegation." The statement also said Mahony was grateful to the department "for conducting a professional and thorough investigation."

Mahony's accuser said he had molested her on campus grounds during school hours while she was a student at San Joaquin Memorial High School in 1970. She said she was knocked out during a fight outside the band room. She said that when she awoke, the bottom half of her clothes had been removed and that she saw Mahony's face hovering over her. She said she passed out again. (Although the woman said her name could be published, The Times generally does not use the names of those who say they have been sexually abused.)

Even as the woman insisted that her account was true, she conceded to reporters that it lacked details and sounded farfetched. She told The Times last week that she was diagnosed with schizophrenia in the 1970s and was still taking medication to ease the symptoms. She said she was motivated to press forward with her allegations, in part, because the state is cutting her disability payments and she needs a cash settlement from the church.

She also said that nearly everyone she has encountered in her life?from her parents to her high school classmates to her former co-workers?had either molested, abused or emotionally mistreated her.

Woman's Case Quickly Unraveled

The allegations against Mahony, which surfaced last week, quickly made headlines across the country in the midst of what has become a nationwide child-abuse scandal in the Catholic Church.

The Fresno woman said the climate of suspicion and heightened awareness encouraged her to come forward last month and talk to a priest at St John's Church. The priest took her claim to police.

But almost as soon as the woman appeared in front of local TV cameras last week, it was evident that the allegations were sketchy and that she had trouble talking in a coherent manner. She said her mental problems, despite taking the drug Risperdal for schizophrenia, had grown worse in recent weeks as people have knocked on her apartment window and threatened her.

Fresno Diocese Interviewed Woman

Lt. Johnson said the woman's psychiatric history made the investigation more complicated. Any impulse to dismiss her claims outright because she suffers from schizophrenia, an illness characterized by delusions, was outweighed by the fact that victims often suffer emotionally and mentally from sexual abuse.

"These are always difficult investigations, and we never comment on the mental state of the alleged victims. But we do look at their credibility and the credibility of the accused," he said.

E-mails from Mahony and his staff, which were obtained last week by the media, indicated that the Fresno diocese had tape-recorded a two-hour interview with the woman. The e-mails showed that Mahony and his staff were confident that the accusations would not stand up under scrutiny.

"Good work!" Mahony e-mailed his attorney and media relations director March 28. "It will be key to get the [woman's] transcript in the hands of both the Fresno PD and the LAPD. They should then interview her themselves."

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), April 12, 2002

Answers

There's no real interest in truth here. The Catholic Bashers just want to bash. The facts are that less than .3% of Priests are pedophiles and the 95-98% of us are living chaste & celibate lives as good priests.

-- Father Chris LaBarge (marydelfr@starband.net), April 12, 2002.

Why can't you just get rid the AOC and be done with all this mess ? I mean, there's nothing in the bible about the AOC anyways.

-- Tony (test@123.com), April 14, 2002.

What is the "AOC"? Accronyms are to be first written out before they are used. Please respect the reader. Use proper writing skills.

The Mahoney case is a clear example of mass hysteria getting way out of hand.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), April 14, 2002.

AOC stands for Age of Consent, the lowest age a child can consent to sex, get rid of this along with the Child Molestation laws and you get rid of these witch hunts.

-- Tony (awalker@teknett.com), April 14, 2002.

Tony writes:

"AOC stands for Age of Consent, the lowest age a child can consent to sex, get rid of this along with the Child Molestation laws and you get rid of these witch hunts. "

In response to Dennis' request, I'll respond to Tony.

Tony, you have missed the point of this thread. I'll spell it out for you: newspapers consistently placed the accusation of Cardinal Mahony on the front page. This thread begins with the LA Times' admission that the earlier accusations were false...and so this article shows up as a minor story in the LA Times. The truth is that recanting false accusations doesn't sell newspapers as effectively as false accusations.

Your "solution" ignores the fact that witch hunts are not committed by people who want to ignore the basic truth of US Justice--we are innocent until proven guilty. Cardinal Mahoney was the object of a witch hunt. He is innocent, though the press presented a libelous story to the public.

Just as racial profiling is wrong, targeting priests as if they were the only child abusers on the planet is similarly wrong. Those priests who have abused children are a small minority, and they shouldn't be hunted down as if no other child abuser existed.

I, as a Catholic, don't want special treatment for priests (positive or negative). I want all accusations of child abuse to be followed through with equal effort, regardless of the occupation of the alleged offender. Justice must not be dispensed based on political goals is fascism.

I, as an American, believe that crimes should be handled with criminal courts, not civil courts. I also believe in a presumption of innocence for all accused. This is a fundamental presumption of American Justice.

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), April 15, 2002.

First of all, I am not fat, second, I am right about the bible and you just can't except it. There will be alot of innocent priest that would be put into prision for false accusation, I don't care if they did the crime or not, but the chances are they will be put in jail, because child word is more importent then innocent of the accuse.

-- Tony (awalker@teknett.com), April 15, 2002.

Forget about being right about the bible, that's in a different thread.

-- Tony (awalker@teknett.com), April 15, 2002.

I understand what this thread is about, I didn't took the time to read it first, I was assuming it had to do with this centry church scandial, drop the replies, but at least think on what I said.

-- Tony (awalker@teknett.com), April 15, 2002.

Tony writes:

"I don't care if they did the crime or not, but the chances are they will be put in jail, because child word is more importent then innocent of the accuse. "

What planet are you from? Do you even know what the trials are about?

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), April 15, 2002.

Back to the main point:
The LA Times gave a deranged woman's accusation against a Catholic prelate front-page splash attention. Many good people don't even read newspapers anymore, if they ever did. They see this headline and assume it has all the truth.

A few days later the Cardinal is exonerated and cleared of any suspicion whatsoever. He thanks the news media in a short interview. The facts are then sent to page 17 of the LA Times; where nobody ever pauses for a second look. Those who glanced at a headline near the checkout in their supermarket last week fail to hear the good news. They only registered the bad news. Then they repeat that for the rest of their lives as a truth!

I maintain that in these troubled times we Catholics must pray with all our hearts to the Holy Spirit, our Advocate. No human device is enough to guard the Catholic Church against attack. God alone is her champion. Our faith is in Him, not in the courts of men, nor in the malicious, paganistic society we live in.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 15, 2002.

Gene

Sounds like a lot of other papers I have seen. The apology is buried on a back page somwhere where no one ever looks after the front page splash of guilt towards some innocent person. So the public assumes the guilt for a long time til someone proves the innocence for a VERY long time. Many people have had careers ruined this way. Only in America.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), April 15, 2002.

What's ironic here is that Dennis falls silent on judging the LA Times for clearly biased reporting. It appears that character assassination is OK with Dennis as long as it is against his enemies.

It's also ironic that this behavior of marginalizing the victim (in this case of character assassination) is something that some newspapers accuse the Church of doing to it's victims! How can newspapers publish blatant hypocrisy?

Dennis, with your years of logic school education, why do you stand by these biased newspapers?

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), April 15, 2002.

" I as an American, believe that crimes should be handeled with criminal courts, not civil courts".

Matt, does this mean you don't believe a person's right to be compensated, after the criminal trial is over. In any particular case?

David

-- David (asdzxc8165@aol.com), April 15, 2002.

David asks:

"Matt, does this mean you don't believe a person's right to be compensated, after the criminal trial is over. In any particular case?"

No, I didn't mean to infer this. But I do believe that crimes should be prosecuted using criminal law as the primary weapon to deter criminal activity. Some people argue that criminal punishment is not a strong enough deterent, and that civil suits "hit" people where it hurts. In my view, if criminal law isn't a strong deterrent, we should adjust our penal code.

I'm no expert in law; but I also find it troubling that the bar for guilt is said to be lower in civil court. Where is "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" in civil court?

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), April 15, 2002.

Matteo,

The difference court systems have different burdens of proof. To be found guilty in criminal proceedings, the state must show beyond a reasable doubt that you are guilty of the crime charged. Beyond a reasonable doubt is a difficult burden to meet. In a civil case the plantiff muct show a PREPONDERANCE of the evidence that the defendant is responsible for any damages. Numerically, a preponderance of the evidence is a showing of a 51 certainity that the defendant is responsible, Beyond a reasonable doubt requires a showing of guilt closer to 100 percent.

Civil law suits are private suits between 2 or more citizens. Civil law is the area by which private indivuals resolve their differnces with the help of the courts.

Criminal law involves a citizen or a bussiness and the state. The remedies available in civil courts are generally limited to money damages. The remedies in criminal courts may involve a money fine and/or a prison sentence.

I agree the civil court system is abused sometimes, but it is necesarry for some people. If you lied about me and had me put in prison for a couple of years. I would prove my innocense, and then file a suit against you for malious procecution and false imprisonment. I should be entitled to damages for lost wages, lawyer fees, emotional trama, loss of consortium....etc, and I would also ask a jury for punitive damages against you. Punitive damages are to deter you from doing this kind of thing in future. Like punishing damages. I hope this helps.

God bless you.

David

-- David S (asdzxc8176@aol.com), April 15, 2002.

Peno code ? You know something, I can't understand society, when there's something that's illmoral, they pass laws, when laws don't work, they make tougher, what makes people think that being tough on crime is going to solve the problem, we tried it with drugs, it doesn't work, maybe it's our approach tour the problem that needs to be forcus. But what if the problem is the same within the government and the prosuters ? What would happen then ?

-- Tony (awalker@teknett.com), April 15, 2002.

Tony writes:

"Peno code ? You know something, I can't understand society, when there's something that's illmoral, they pass laws, when laws don't work, they make tougher, what makes people think that being tough on crime is going to solve the problem, we tried it with drugs, it doesn't work, maybe it's our approach tour the problem that needs to be forcus. But what if the problem is the same within the government and the prosuters ? What would happen then ? "

I don't know what you mean by "prosuters" and "forcus." Please explain this.

Also, do you question that penalties for crime help lower crime rates? Every punishment for a crime is meant to increase the cost to the individual who commits the crime. Obviously, a "tough-on-crime" legal system isn't the only piece of the puzzle; but it is an important part of a society's effort to discourage the would-be criminals.

Telling people that sexual abuse will be punished by tough action helps discourage any would-be abuser.

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), April 15, 2002.

Sure, being tough on crime may prevent outcomes of crime behavor, but it also makes the crime far more servere, in otherwords, for every action there is an oposite reaction, see what I'm saying ? So being tough on crime doesn't always make things better, it may make things worst. It's how you handle the matter that really counts. You see, you may be thinking that you are actialy protecting society or your children, but the truth is, you are really murdering them, the tought law that you pass, creates an entorprise of drug loards and a corrupt systom, you may not see it at your end, but it's happing where you can't see them.

-- Tony (awalker@teknett.com), April 16, 2002.

Tony,

I'd still like an explanation of "prosuters" and "forcus."

So, are you saying that we should legalize sexual abuse?

Based on your random posts on the forum, I doubt seriously that you even care what you are writing about. Why bother posting?

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), April 16, 2002.

You should only illegalize it in the society and boarders that you are in. Not a different state or country, because that would not solve the problem. Don't worry about the explations, those were nearly misspells, not to go with english as you can tell.

-- Tony (awalker@teknett.com), April 16, 2002.

"Don't worry about the explations, those were nearly misspells"

I'm not worried about misspellings. I don't know what word you misspelled! Could you tell me?

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), April 16, 2002.

Lights in every window. But nobody is home. With a PC, no less! LoL!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 16, 2002.

prosucute and focus, is that any clearer ?

-- Tony (awalker@teknett.com), April 16, 2002.

OK, now your statement becomes:

"But what if the problem is the same within the government and the prosecutors? What would happen then?"

What problem would be the same?

Mateo

PS--What is your native language/country? Just curious...

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), April 16, 2002.

I just saying, that there is no solution to the problem because the problem will aways be there. If it does move to such a higher degree such as government and social workers, who's going to enforce the systom then ? Surely not the government or the prosucuters, because they are the ones that is responsable for the job. Laws isn't always the solution, we must be responsable and creative, otherwise you will never get rid of it, not that I don't think you can, good and evil is all about balence, not a matter of winning.

-- Tony (awalker@teknett.com), April 16, 2002.

Tony,

Your argument is fatalism/defeatism. You seem to believe that crime is inevitable. It is not. We can reduce crime.

You might be interested to know that ten years ago, people had the same view of crime in NYC. No one believed that crime rates could be reduced. Do you know what the mayor did? He increased the number of police officers, re-organized the force, and successfully cut crime to a fraction of the previous rate.

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), April 16, 2002.

That's not the scary part, the scary part is it is already happing. Yes, NewYork may be a good example, but it doesn't mean it can happen everywhere, your solution is if it works for them then it will work for us as well, that's not always the case.

-- Tony (awalker@teknett.com), April 16, 2002.

Some more thought, not sure if they rid the problem, it could be it just move else where or they had a better solution tour dealing with the problem.

-- Tony (awalker@teknett.com), April 16, 2002.

Tony,

You post suggests that you have not read my words which contradict the position that you believe me to have. Please read other people's posts before responding.

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), April 16, 2002.

Ok, lets make a deal, I will present you with a problem, then I'll let the rest deside and I will never return.

-- Tony (awalker@teknett.com), April 16, 2002.

Why don't you start a thread? We've already wandered off the topic enough.

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), April 16, 2002.

Good ideal

-- Tony (awalker@teknett.com), April 16, 2002.