Posted on 06/21/2012 7:39:49 AM PDT by marshmallow
PHILADELPHIA — In its 12th day of deliberations, the jury in the landmark trial of a Roman Catholic Church official accused of covering up sexual abuses by other priests said Wednesday that it was deadlocked on four of the five charges in the trial.
“We, the jury, are at a hung jury status on all charges except for one,” jurors said in a note that was read aloud by Judge M. Teresa Sarmina of the Court of Common Pleas.
The judge instructed the jury to keep trying to reach unanimous agreement on all five charges. The church official, Msgr. William J. Lynn, is accused of two counts of endangering the welfare of children and one of conspiracy. A priest, the Rev. James J. Brennan, faces charges of endangerment and attempted rape. Deliberations will resume on Friday.
Monsignor Lynn, 61, served as secretary for clergy for the 1.5 million-member Archdiocese of Philadelphia from 1992 to 2004, in charge of recommending jobs for priests and investigating charges of sexual abuse. He is the first church official in the United States to be tried on accusations of enabling the depredations of priests, rather than committing abuses himself. Prosecutors said he had repeatedly played down credible accusations of abuse, lied to inquiring parents and parish officials about predatory priests and reassigned them to unwary parishes.
In a trial lasting more than two months, the prosecution offered abundant evidence, legal experts said, that the archdiocese had been lax in responding to credible reports of sexual abuses by dozens of priests, concealing them to avoid bad publicity and lawsuits, and that Monsignor Lynn had not taken forceful action to keep some of those priests away from children.
But prosecutors were hampered because most of the examples fell outside the statute of limitations. And they had..........
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Well the Times certainly looks like it's ready to convict.
Is must be hard to breathe with one’s head in the sand.
The way the church operates it wouldn’t be surprising if the next conclave of cardinals appoints Jerry Sandusky as Pope.
The statute of limitations is meaningless if the Church is involved? Is that what the judge is saying? And this was a “mid-level” official who was not really responsible for what went on?
The jury says that the judge’s arguments are difficult to understand. Hmmm.
My head’s just fine, I’m not defending pedophiles...
No the FACTS convict. Like the fact that one of the reassigned priests plead GUILTY to raping a 10 year old altar boy...
http://articles.philly.com/2012-05-24/news/31826947_1_sexually-abusive-priests-abuse-allegations-sexual-misconduct
Lynn, whose job included proposing priests’ assignments, is accused of endangering children by allegedly recommending that two priests be allowed to live or work in parishes despite signs they might abuse children.
His codefendant, the Rev. James J. Brennan, has denied charges he tried to rape a 14-year-old boy in 1996. The second accused priest, Edward Avery, pleaded guilty before the trial to charges that he sexually assaulted a 10-year-old altar boy in 1999.
Five years earlier, Lynn had included Avery on a list of former and active archdiocesan priests identified as guilty of sexual misconduct. Lynn knew Avery had been accused of molesting a teen in the 1970s.
I'm sure Lynn did an absolutely lousy job with these priests. No argument from me there, so you can put that straw man back in the cupboard. Problem is, this is a legal procedure involving legal protocol.
No, I’m just impatient with those who relentlessly defend child rapists.
The legal experts were merely giving their informed opinion which has no impact on the jury’s decision.
Ahhh.....do you mean "child rapists" or accused "child rapists"? Defense attorneys "relentlessly defend" accused child rapists and others charged with serious crimes, of course. They do have a right to a legal defense, yes?
I've never seen anybody defend actual "child rapists". That's quite an amazing assertion.
The legal experts were merely giving their informed opinion which has no impact on the jury’s decision.
Well, the Times certainly thinks their opinion is "informed" and you apparently concur. One can't actually say "these men are guilty", though, "so let's get on with the sentencing".
That's a bit too much, even for the Times but it tried its best.
I cited another news source.
I guess they are all biased when they communicate negative news about the church huh?
We can’t have the church’s brand tarnished! Nope!
Screw the children, save the church!
I guess not.
No "negative news about the Church" is being communicated by the Times in this article.
It's merely reporting, with more than a touch of exasperation, on a deadlocked jury which is deliberating on the guilt of the two accused on trial.
To take a line from your playbook..... I guess "innocent until proven guilty" no longer applies with respect to the Catholic Church, huh?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.