Catholics Pray for D1B

[Rob Iola]

I dunno about that - quite a few church assets are now being paid out to the victims' lawyers, as you and I have both documented...

FIFY

Link? Where has D1B documented that the lawyers are getting the money?

[Cap'n Cat]

FIFY

Link? Where has D1B documented that the lawyers are getting the money?

No, you're right, Rob. Lawyers NEVER get money outta this kinda shit.

[Rob Iola]

Link? Where has D1B documented that the lawyers are getting the money?

No, you're right, Rob. Lawyers NEVER get money outta this kinda shit.

No argument here, but let's face it, if it wasn't for the dogged pursuit of the cases by some pretty sharp (and personally motivated) lawyers, the church by and large would've escaped with relatively minor outlays for counseling - the biggest hurdles to overcome were statute of limitation laws. It's very eye-opening to read the document archives that several dioceses have been compelled to publish:

http://www.minnpost.com/politics-policy ... et-around-" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I want this evil eradicated from the Church I love...

[JoltinJoe]

No, you're right, Rob. Lawyers NEVER get money outta this kinda ****.

No argument here, but let's face it, if it wasn't for the dogged pursuit of the cases by some pretty sharp (and personally motivated) lawyers, the church by and large would've escaped with relatively minor outlays for counseling - the biggest hurdles to overcome were statute of limitation laws. It's very eye-opening to read the document archives that several dioceses have been compelled to publish:

http://www.minnpost.com/politics-policy ... et-around-" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I want this evil eradicated from the Church I love...

It's interesting to note that almost every statement made by Anderson from this article from 2 years ago has proven to be false, and that this case was recently dismissed.

[Rob Iola]

No argument here, but let's face it, if it wasn't for the dogged pursuit of the cases by some pretty sharp (and personally motivated) lawyers, the church by and large would've escaped with relatively minor outlays for counseling - the biggest hurdles to overcome were statute of limitation laws. It's very eye-opening to read the document archives that several dioceses have been compelled to publish:

http://www.minnpost.com/politics-policy ... et-around-" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I want this evil eradicated from the Church I love...

It's interesting to note that almost every statement made by Anderson from this article from 2 years ago has proven to be false, and that this case was recently dismissed.

The case itself is irrelevant - I cite it merely as an example of how lawyers have had to be tenacious and persistant to get much of the evil into the light of day - if not then most of the cases would've been buried under confidentiality agreements or dismissed due to statute of limitation laws.

[JoltinJoe]

It's interesting to note that almost every statement made by Anderson from this article from 2 years ago has proven to be false, and that this case was recently dismissed.

The case itself is irrelevant - I cite it merely as an example of how lawyers have had to be tenacious and persistant to get much of the evil into the light of day - if not then most of the cases would've been buried under confidentiality agreements or dismissed due to statute of limitation laws.

Oh, I agree with you, that's why I said it is "interesting to note."

Also, I was tooting my own horn a bit, because relying completely on documents published on the NY Times website (which obviously the Times itself did not bother to read), I tore this case apart, completely, in just three days.

Here is a post I made on March 29, 2010, which proved that Anderson was not telling the truth about this case:

Jeff, the most troubling aspect of this story should be, at least, that the Milwaukee DA's office had information about Fr. Murphy in the 1970s and yet did not prosecute him. THAT's the story here. I wonder why no one is focusing on that? Wait! Could it be that focusing on the real story (i) doesn't advance an anti-Catholic agenda and (ii) that the background "sources" of this story (personal injury attorneys in Milwaukee) don't have any financial interest in exposing the failure of the DA's office because they are trying to sue the Church, and to gain leverage in the case by trying to involve the Pope?

If you go through the documents, you will see that:

(1) Archbishop Weakland becomes aware of allegations against Fr. Murphy in 1993.
(2) He convenes an investigation of the allegations.
(3) In 1996, he writes two letters to Cardinal Ratzinger, one in which he outlines the information he has obtained against Fr. Murphy and the second in which he seeks authorization to initiate canonical charges against Fr. Murphy.
(4) In 1997, or about eight months later, Cardinal Bertone responds that the CDF has evaluated the allegations and GRANTS authorization to initiate proceedings against Fr. Murphy.
(5) On January 8, 1998, Fr. Murphy appeals to Cardinal Ratzinger to terminate the proceedings against him; he cites the canonical statute of limitations; that he is old and infirm; and that there are no allegations against him arising in the past 24 years. No one ever responds to Fr. Murphy.
(6) In Apil 1998, Cardinal Bertone writes to the Bishop overseeing the case. He says that the claims are not barred by the statute of limitations, but that the health of Fr. Murphy and the difficulty in proving old charges suggests that perhaps the Tribunal should resolve the charges by having Fr. Murphy agreeing to pastoral restrictions and assiging him to a retreat house to live out the rest of his life.
(7) The Bishop Superior responds on May 13, 1998 that he has considered requesting Fr. Murphy plead down to accept pastoral restrictions, but he feels that there was no effective way to address the harm and give justice to the victims other than a full canonical trial leading to defrocking.
(8) The Tribunal interviews victims throughout May and into June 1998. Fr. Murphy is questioned on June 30, 1998.
(9) On May 30, 1998, the CDF, the Bishop and others meet in Rome to discuss the case. The CDF expresses concern that, given the age of the cases and the relevant burden of proof standard, a conviction may be difficult to secure. Reference is also made to Fr. Murphy's frail health. The CDF suggests that the Tribunal direct that Fr. Murphy take a retreat to think about the gravity of his offenses and then return and demonstrate the sincerity of his repentance by accepting his guilt to the charges. No formal decision would be rendered during this time and the proceedings would be abated while he was on retreat.
(10) After testifying, Fr. Murphy goes on the retreat requested by the Vatican in July 1998.
(11) In August, the Bishop Superior writes that he has abated the proceedings indefinitely. It is clear he knows that Fr. Murphy is dying at this time, as he starts a discussion as to what arrangements should be made upon Fr. Murphy's death.
(12) The Tribunal advises Fr. Murphy's family that his funeral must be a small, private affair and that Fr. Murphy shall not be buried in priestly garb.
(13) Fr. Murphy dies on August 21, 1998 without a decision being formally rendered in his case.
(14) The family defies the Archbishop by conducting a public funeral with a priest from outside the diocese, and burying Fr. Murphy is his priestly robe.
(15) On August 27, 1998. the Archbishop closes the case against Fr. Murphy due to his death.
(16) On September 2, 1998, the Archbishop advises the Vatican that Fr. Murphy has died and its file may be closed.

The inference that the PI lawyers are trying to raise (and which it fed to the guillibe, biased NY Times writer) is that the Vatican acted to stop the proceedings against Fr. Murphy. This allegation/inference is categorically false.

[andy7171]

Here comes another retirement thread.

[93henfan]

It's past your bedtime Andy. Say a hail Mary and go to bed muthfucka!

[andy7171]

It's past your bedtime Andy. Say a hail Mary and go to bed muthfucka!

I say Our Fathers at bedtime asshole.

[93henfan]

It's past your bedtime Andy. Say a hail Mary and go to bed muthfucka!

I say Our Fathers at bedtime asshole.

I'm about to fire up XHamster and say a couple of Oh Babies.

[D1B]

The case itself is irrelevant - I cite it merely as an example of how lawyers have had to be tenacious and persistant to get much of the evil into the light of day - if not then most of the cases would've been buried under confidentiality agreements or dismissed due to statute of limitation laws.

Oh, I agree with you, that's why I said it is "interesting to note."

Also, I was tooting my own horn a bit, because relying completely on documents published on the NY Times website (which obviously the Times itself did not bother to read), I tore this case apart, completely, in just three days.

Here is a post I made on March 29, 2010, which proved that Anderson was not telling the truth about this case:

Jeff, the most troubling aspect of this story should be, at least, that the Milwaukee DA's office had information about Fr. Murphy in the 1970s and yet did not prosecute him. THAT's the story here. I wonder why no one is focusing on that? Wait! Could it be that focusing on the real story (i) doesn't advance an anti-Catholic agenda and (ii) that the background "sources" of this story (personal injury attorneys in Milwaukee) don't have any financial interest in exposing the failure of the DA's office because they are trying to sue the Church, and to gain leverage in the case by trying to involve the Pope?

If you go through the documents, you will see that:

(1) Archbishop Weakland becomes aware of allegations against Fr. Murphy in 1993.
(2) He convenes an investigation of the allegations.
(3) In 1996, he writes two letters to Cardinal Ratzinger, one in which he outlines the information he has obtained against Fr. Murphy and the second in which he seeks authorization to initiate canonical charges against Fr. Murphy.
(4) In 1997, or about eight months later, Cardinal Bertone responds that the CDF has evaluated the allegations and GRANTS authorization to initiate proceedings against Fr. Murphy.
(5) On January 8, 1998, Fr. Murphy appeals to Cardinal Ratzinger to terminate the proceedings against him; he cites the canonical statute of limitations; that he is old and infirm; and that there are no allegations against him arising in the past 24 years. No one ever responds to Fr. Murphy.
(6) In Apil 1998, Cardinal Bertone writes to the Bishop overseeing the case. He says that the claims are not barred by the statute of limitations, but that the health of Fr. Murphy and the difficulty in proving old charges suggests that perhaps the Tribunal should resolve the charges by having Fr. Murphy agreeing to pastoral restrictions and assiging him to a retreat house to live out the rest of his life.
(7) The Bishop Superior responds on May 13, 1998 that he has considered requesting Fr. Murphy plead down to accept pastoral restrictions, but he feels that there was no effective way to address the harm and give justice to the victims other than a full canonical trial leading to defrocking.
(8) The Tribunal interviews victims throughout May and into June 1998. Fr. Murphy is questioned on June 30, 1998.
(9) On May 30, 1998, the CDF, the Bishop and others meet in Rome to discuss the case. The CDF expresses concern that, given the age of the cases and the relevant burden of proof standard, a conviction may be difficult to secure. Reference is also made to Fr. Murphy's frail health. The CDF suggests that the Tribunal direct that Fr. Murphy take a retreat to think about the gravity of his offenses and then return and demonstrate the sincerity of his repentance by accepting his guilt to the charges. No formal decision would be rendered during this time and the proceedings would be abated while he was on retreat.
(10) After testifying, Fr. Murphy goes on the retreat requested by the Vatican in July 1998.
(11) In August, the Bishop Superior writes that he has abated the proceedings indefinitely. It is clear he knows that Fr. Murphy is dying at this time, as he starts a discussion as to what arrangements should be made upon Fr. Murphy's death.
(12) The Tribunal advises Fr. Murphy's family that his funeral must be a small, private affair and that Fr. Murphy shall not be buried in priestly garb.
(13) Fr. Murphy dies on August 21, 1998 without a decision being formally rendered in his case.
(14) The family defies the Archbishop by conducting a public funeral with a priest from outside the diocese, and burying Fr. Murphy is his priestly robe.
(15) On August 27, 1998. the Archbishop closes the case against Fr. Murphy due to his death.
(16) On September 2, 1998, the Archbishop advises the Vatican that Fr. Murphy has died and its file may be closed.

The inference that the PI lawyers are trying to raise (and which it fed to the guillibe, biased NY Times writer) is that the Vatican acted to stop the proceedings against Fr. Murphy. This allegation/inference is categorically false.

Catholic church justice!

Anderson is 100 times smarter and more successful than you.

You really think this is over?

[D1B]

Here comes another retirement thread.

Really?

Say a hail mary, dipshit.

[D1B]

The case itself is irrelevant - I cite it merely as an example of how lawyers have had to be tenacious and persistant to get much of the evil into the light of day - if not then most of the cases would've been buried under confidentiality agreements or dismissed due to statute of limitation laws.

Oh, I agree with you, that's why I said it is "interesting to note."

Also, I was tooting my own horn a bit, because relying completely on documents published on the NY Times website (which obviously the Times itself did not bother to read), I tore this case apart, completely, in just three days.

Here is a post I made on March 29, 2010, which proved that Anderson was not telling the truth about this case:

Jeff, the most troubling aspect of this story should be, at least, that the Milwaukee DA's office had information about Fr. Murphy in the 1970s and yet did not prosecute him. THAT's the story here. I wonder why no one is focusing on that? Wait! Could it be that focusing on the real story (i) doesn't advance an anti-Catholic agenda and (ii) that the background "sources" of this story (personal injury attorneys in Milwaukee) don't have any financial interest in exposing the failure of the DA's office because they are trying to sue the Church, and to gain leverage in the case by trying to involve the Pope?

If you go through the documents, you will see that:

(1) Archbishop Weakland becomes aware of allegations against Fr. Murphy in 1993.
(2) He convenes an investigation of the allegations.
(3) In 1996, he writes two letters to Cardinal Ratzinger, one in which he outlines the information he has obtained against Fr. Murphy and the second in which he seeks authorization to initiate canonical charges against Fr. Murphy.
(4) In 1997, or about eight months later, Cardinal Bertone responds that the CDF has evaluated the allegations and GRANTS authorization to initiate proceedings against Fr. Murphy.
(5) On January 8, 1998, Fr. Murphy appeals to Cardinal Ratzinger to terminate the proceedings against him; he cites the canonical statute of limitations; that he is old and infirm; and that there are no allegations against him arising in the past 24 years. No one ever responds to Fr. Murphy.
(6) In Apil 1998, Cardinal Bertone writes to the Bishop overseeing the case. He says that the claims are not barred by the statute of limitations, but that the health of Fr. Murphy and the difficulty in proving old charges suggests that perhaps the Tribunal should resolve the charges by having Fr. Murphy agreeing to pastoral restrictions and assiging him to a retreat house to live out the rest of his life.
(7) The Bishop Superior responds on May 13, 1998 that he has considered requesting Fr. Murphy plead down to accept pastoral restrictions, but he feels that there was no effective way to address the harm and give justice to the victims other than a full canonical trial leading to defrocking.
(8) The Tribunal interviews victims throughout May and into June 1998. Fr. Murphy is questioned on June 30, 1998.
(9) On May 30, 1998, the CDF, the Bishop and others meet in Rome to discuss the case. The CDF expresses concern that, given the age of the cases and the relevant burden of proof standard, a conviction may be difficult to secure. Reference is also made to Fr. Murphy's frail health. The CDF suggests that the Tribunal direct that Fr. Murphy take a retreat to think about the gravity of his offenses and then return and demonstrate the sincerity of his repentance by accepting his guilt to the charges. No formal decision would be rendered during this time and the proceedings would be abated while he was on retreat.
(10) After testifying, Fr. Murphy goes on the retreat requested by the Vatican in July 1998.
(11) In August, the Bishop Superior writes that he has abated the proceedings indefinitely. It is clear he knows that Fr. Murphy is dying at this time, as he starts a discussion as to what arrangements should be made upon Fr. Murphy's death.
(12) The Tribunal advises Fr. Murphy's family that his funeral must be a small, private affair and that Fr. Murphy shall not be buried in priestly garb.
(13) Fr. Murphy dies on August 21, 1998 without a decision being formally rendered in his case.
(14) The family defies the Archbishop by conducting a public funeral with a priest from outside the diocese, and burying Fr. Murphy is his priestly robe.
(15) On August 27, 1998. the Archbishop closes the case against Fr. Murphy due to his death.
(16) On September 2, 1998, the Archbishop advises the Vatican that Fr. Murphy has died and its file may be closed.

The inference that the PI lawyers are trying to raise (and which it fed to the guillibe, biased NY Times writer) is that the Vatican acted to stop the proceedings against Fr. Murphy. This allegation/inference is categorically false.

Father Murphy molested hundreds of handicapped boys and the catholic church, again, failed to protect children and only thought of the church.

Andy, Hen, Rob Iola and Joltin Joke help pay the legal bills for pedophiles and they forced their children into this evil church.

[JoltinJoe]

Oh, I agree with you, that's why I said it is "interesting to note."

Also, I was tooting my own horn a bit, because relying completely on documents published on the NY Times website (which obviously the Times itself did not bother to read), I tore this case apart, completely, in just three days.

Here is a post I made on March 29, 2010, which proved that Anderson was not telling the truth about this case:

Catholic church justice!

Anderson is 100 times smarter and more successful than you.

You really think this is over?

Anderson is an ambulance chaser from one of the worst law schools in America. You might have even been able to be admitted to law school from which he graduated.

What I do helps people. I help businesses survive and keep people employed, and I make a fair living in the process. Anderson just cares about the money.

[JoltinJoe]

Father Murphy molested hundreds of handicapped boys and the catholic church, again, failed to protect children and only thought of the church.

Another lie, as you know but repeat it anyway. I know you recall that we established that Murphy molested probably 29 deaf boys, maybe as many as 39 -- not "hundreds."

[D1B]

Father Murphy molested hundreds of handicapped boys and the catholic church, again, failed to protect children and only thought of the church.

Another lie, as you know but repeat it anyway. I know you recall that we established that Murphy molested probably 29 deaf boys, maybe as many as 39 -- not "hundreds."

Fuck you Pedophile Defender. It's in the 100's, at least.

No one gives a fuck what your church says on this issue. Your church is filled with liars and scumbags.

[D1B]

Catholic church justice!

Anderson is 100 times smarter and more successful than you.

You really think this is over?

Anderson is an ambulance chaser from one of the worst law schools in America. You might have even been able to be admitted to law school from which he graduated.

What I do helps people. I help businesses survive and keep people employed, and I make a fair living in the process. Anderson just cares about the money.

You're a two bit hack who hates Anderson cuz he's sticking it your church like your priests stuck it to children, handicapped children and altar boys.

He is way smarter and more successful than you.

[JoltinJoe]

Another lie, as you know but repeat it anyway. I know you recall that we established that Murphy molested probably 29 deaf boys, maybe as many as 39 -- not "hundreds."

**** you Pedophile Defender. It's in the 100's, at least.

No one gives a **** what your church says on this issue. Your church is filled with liars and scumbags.

Fact: 29 allegations were made to the prosecutor which were corroborated. Another 10 were made that were not corroborated, and this was after accusations against him were made public. That means he molested somewhere between 29 and 39 boys.

The number of 200 was used by Anderson because, in all the years Murphy was at the school for the deaf, about 200 kids attended during those years. So he just made up the claim that every boy was abused. You two deserve each other.

[Rob Iola]

I say Our Fathers at bedtime asshole.

I'm about to fire up XHamster and say a couple of Oh Babies.

This is a prayer thread. The correct response is Oh God or Sweet Jesus.

[Cap'n Cat]

**** you Pedophile Defender. It's in the 100's, at least.

No one gives a **** what your church says on this issue. Your church is filled with liars and scumbags.

Fact: 29 allegations were made to the prosecutor which were corroborated. Another 10 were made that were not corroborated, and this was after accusations against him were made public. That means he molested somewhere between 29 and 39 boys.

The number of 200 was used by Anderson because, in all the years Murphy was at the school for the deaf, about 200 kids attended during those years. So he just made up the claim that every boy was abused. You two deserve each other.

Not enough for you, Joe??

[Cap'n Cat]

I say Our Fathers at bedtime asshole.

I'm about to fire up XHamster and say a couple of Oh Babies.

Try this one, 93: Tiava's Tube.

[JoltinJoe]

Fact: 29 allegations were made to the prosecutor which were corroborated. Another 10 were made that were not corroborated, and this was after accusations against him were made public. That means he molested somewhere between 29 and 39 boys.

The number of 200 was used by Anderson because, in all the years Murphy was at the school for the deaf, about 200 kids attended during those years. So he just made up the claim that every boy was abused. You two deserve each other.

Not enough for you, Joe??

Hey dumb, dumb, if the claim that it was "hundreds" was not important, Anderson would not have made it.

29 is a lot, but remember Anderson's objective here was to create the appearance that Murphy's abuse was so prevalent that the Church leaders obviously were concealing it, so as to create an argument about a conspiracy -- at least in the public's mind. Saying "29" over 40 years doesn't get that job done. In fact, when the number is less than one a year, it helps to understand how Murphy operated so long without getting detected.

There were so many lies about this case when it was filed ago. I nailed the entire case in three days, simply by actually reviewing the documents on the New York Times website that the Times itself ignored. Remarkable now, that even though the case has been DISMISSED, and I have been proven correct, you oafs refuse to admit that I was right.

Pathetic.

[Cap'n Cat]

Not enough for you, Joe??

Hey dumb, dumb, if the claim that it was "hundreds" was not important, Anderson would not have made it.

29 is a lot, but remember Anderson's objective here was to create the appearance that Murphy's abuse was so prevalent that the Church leaders obviously were concealing it, so as to create an argument about a conspiracy -- at least in the public's mind. Saying "29" over 40 years doesn't get that job done. In fact, when the number is less than one a year, it helps to understand how Murphy operated so long without getting detected.

There were so many lies about this case when it was filed ago. I nailed the entire case in three days, simply by actually reviewing the documents on the New York Times website that the Times itself ignored. Remarkable now, that even though the case has been DISMISSED, and I have been proven correct, you oafs refuse to admit that I was right.

Pathetic.

Wanna know what's "pathetic", Joe?

This:

"29 is a lot, BUT...."




Sorry, Joe, but, on this issue, you spent your equity years ago.

"29 is a lot, BUT..."

[JoltinJoe]

Hey dumb, dumb, if the claim that it was "hundreds" was not important, Anderson would not have made it.

29 is a lot, but remember Anderson's objective here was to create the appearance that Murphy's abuse was so prevalent that the Church leaders obviously were concealing it, so as to create an argument about a conspiracy -- at least in the public's mind. Saying "29" over 40 years doesn't get that job done. In fact, when the number is less than one a year, it helps to understand how Murphy operated so long without getting detected.

There were so many lies about this case when it was filed ago. I nailed the entire case in three days, simply by actually reviewing the documents on the New York Times website that the Times itself ignored. Remarkable now, that even though the case has been DISMISSED, and I have been proven correct, you oafs refuse to admit that I was right.

Pathetic.

Wanna know what's "pathetic", Joe?

This:

"29 is a lot, BUT...."




Sorry, Joe, but, on this issue, you spent your equity years ago.

"29 is a lot, BUT..."

What a duffus you are. Your side tells great, big fibs like it was "hundreds," and then when someone calls you on the lie, you call them a "pedophile defender." By doing this, you basically claim a privilege to lie. This is precisely why Anderson makes up his facts. He depends on suckers like you to bite hook, line, and sinker, and expects that anyone who tries to unmask his lies will get the "pedophile defender" label. Good job, Anderson's monkey scribe.

By spent my equity, what you really mean is that I was proven right.

[D1B]

Wanna know what's "pathetic", Joe?

This:

"29 is a lot, BUT...."




Sorry, Joe, but, on this issue, you spent your equity years ago.

"29 is a lot, BUT..."

What a duffus you are. Your side tells great, big fibs like it was "hundreds," and then when someone calls you on the lie, you call them a "pedophile defender." By doing this, you basically claim a privilege to lie. This is precisely why Anderson makes up his facts. He depends on suckers like you to bite hook, line, and sinker, and expects that anyone who tries to unmask his lies will get the "pedophile defender" label. Good job, Anderson's monkey scribe.

By spent my equity, what you really mean is that I was proven right.

It's a fact that only 25% of child sexual abuse cases are ever reported. Fact.

Using catholic numbers, that means he's well into 3 figures.

IMO, the number of unreported cases arising from the church is far more than 25%, probably closer to 50% due the unusual and unprecedented sophistication and coordination of the coverup, coupled with the hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue to execute it. The catholic church makes the Italian Mafia look like girl scouts.

Finally, Joe, you are a sick person who seriously need professional help. I'm here if you need me. So is Cap'n.