Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Was Coakley right in the Geoghan Case?

By

While Coakley focused on which case she could win, others saw this as an opportunity to make the public aware of Geoghan’s sexual abuse.

“Charging Geoghan with something and exposing him publicly might well have brought forward victims, witnesses, whistle-blowers, and evidence that could have resulted in a conviction and a tougher sentence,” said David Clohessy, national director of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests.

“What Martha Coakley did in 1995 I would consider negligent from the point of view of the public good,” said A.W. Richard Sipe, a former priest and psychotherapist who has written extensively about clergy sexual abuse. “Even if it was a misdemeanor, once you put it in the public eye, that’s what starts people coming forward.”

I can’t understand how one could argue for probation with the hope that the criminal would not re-offend when one could instead prosecute, albeit on a more difficult charge to prove, and expose this child molester for what he was.

I may be thinking too much with a mother’s heart on this, instead of looking at the legalese of it all, so I open it up to the group:

Was Martha Coakley right in her decision?  

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. If Martha investigated the claims of these boys and had reason to believe Geoghan’s law-breaking was likley limited to these three boys then a deal may have been her best path forward.  You’d need to see the facts and the efforts made by her office to make a judgment.

    <

    p>I wonder if they were thorough going back to parishes Geoghan used to work at over the years and asking.  If Martha failed to follow leads and identify others who were harmed by Geoghan then the deal is completely irresponsible.  

    <

    p>I wonder if she considered keeping it out of public simply becuase it cast a poor light on the Catholic Church. That consideration would be deplorable in my opinion because it means she thinks about favored status.

    • In sanctioning the 1995 probation agreement, Coakley, now the front-runner in a special election for the United States Senate, never pressed the Boston Archdiocese for any prior complaints against Geoghan. It’s not clear that the archdiocese would have readily obliged, but it was holding in its files thousands of pages of documents detailing abuse complaints against Geoghan made by dozens of victims dating back to the 1960s.

  2. It is heart wrenching to be confronted by case after case of child abuse- five years for Martha.  Those of us who have had friends working in the DA’s office know that many of the stories of abuse of children are almost unbelievable.  Martha Coakley’s  role and legal responsibility as DA was to bring cases that were winnable-period.  As much as her personal preference may have been to bring this man to justice in court, that was not possible and many would have criticized her, and justly, for wasting state time and money.  She would probably been accused by her very detractors now of grandstanding.  

    <

    p>Perhaps had Coakley brought this suit and lost the archdiocese would have been able to say that these cases are all frivolous and have no merit as proven by Geoghan.  Anyone who knows the history of the Catholic church in Massachusetts knows that in 1995 there was no way to persuade the church to do or hand over anything without a major public push and there was little probability that a losing case would do it.  

    <

    p>Since Coakley ultimately did pursue a winnable case against Geoghan and 4 other Catholic priests an argument can be made that  her patience and vigilance helped stop and prevent future abuse.  It was this self-restraint and careful monitoring and planning that allowed the bigger picture to come into view.

    <

    p>One wonders how long the Globe had this information and the timing of their “bombshell”?

    • not for the crime against the three Waltham brothers but for the swimming pool buttocks-touching case.

      <

      p>Martha’s view of the Waltham boys experience as an isolated case (or alternatively her hands off approach with the Catholic Church) narrowed her strategy of investigation.

      <

      p>She did not subpoena Father Jack’s record of complaints by minors and their parents.    

      <

      p>It’s quite clear in hindsight the Catholic Church would have fought the subpeona. Nonetheless, law enforcement’s fight  (Coakley’s Middlesex DA Child Abuse unit in particular) to make the Church accountable for its obstruction of justice would have been joined far earlier than it eventually was.  

      <

      p>In fact, it was the three Waltham boys mother whose civil action was the crack in the dam.  Too bad she’s not talking.  What would she say about the value of justice Coakley delivered in the case of her three boys?  

      <

      p>It was a private deal Coakley calls “stringent parole terms” but it was one year and there is evidence he violated his parole and another boy from Roxbury was victimized.  

      <

      p>The Catholic Church and the criminal justice system failed to protect these minors.  

      <

      p>It was the civil justice system that had the power to end the cycle of sexual exploitation of catholic girls and boys.  

    • It is heart wrenching to be confronted by case after case of child abuse- five years for Martha.

      <

      p>Sure but she’s not the victim here.  Kids are the victim.  She’s the adult responsible to bring justice.  

      <

      p>

      “I agonized over every one of those cases,” said Martha Coakley of her work as head of the Child Abuse Prosecution Unit

      <

      p>Agony. I’m sure she did fine work. Nonetheless, I’m not ready to put her on the cross next to Jesus.  

      <

      p>

      As much as her personal preference may have been to bring this man to justice in court, that was not possible and many would have criticized her, and justly, for wasting state time and money.

      <

      p>I’m sure she thought she was making the right decision by making a secret pre-trail parole agreement instead of prosecuting for phone harassment and trying to obtain a subpeona for Father Jack’s personnel records regarding minors’ complaints about his inappropriate behavior.

      <

      p>In hindsight, the public attention of a trial, even if it were only phone harassment (because the nature of the harassment would have become public knowledge) may have been just the thing to put the public on notice and keep Geoghan from victimizing other young boys, including the one in Roxbury who he was molested during his one year parole.  If you can’t stop a child molester from doing his thing, you can alert parents about his thing so they can keep their kids out of his sphere of influence.  

      <

      p>

      Since Coakley ultimately did pursue a winnable case against Geoghan and 4 other Catholic priests an argument can be made that  her patience and vigilance helped stop and prevent future abuse.  It was this self-restraint and careful monitoring and planning that allowed the bigger picture to come into view.

      <

      p>Sure, arguments can be made but they’ll sound a lot like excuse-making.    

  3. squarely on where the blame is in all this.

    <

    p>

    at the time of Geoghan’s probation, Cardinal Bernard Law, then the archbishop of Boston, and other church officials were holding thousands of pages of records documenting Geoghan’s decades of sexual abuse and the ineffective treatment he had received at psychiatric facilities.

    <

    p>They knew.  They had known for years.  They did nothing — in fact, they actively concealed.  And as for this:

    <

    p>

    Coakley, now the front-runner in a special election for the United States Senate, never pressed the Boston Archdiocese for any prior complaints against Geoghan. It’s not clear that the archdiocese would have readily obliged

    <

    p>Ha.  Talk about the understatement of the century.  What would be more accurate is “Based on past history, it is perfectly clear that the archdiocese would have absolutely stonewalled any attempt to get additional information, and would have to have been dragged kicking and screaming into court to pry out even a single document.”

    <

    p>Sure, it would’ve been great if Geoghan could have been charged earlier than he was.  But realistically, in the mid-1990s, with facts like those outlined in the story, it was not going to happen.  The value of charging him with “harassing telephones” or some other such trivial crime seems to me well informed by 20/20 hindsight, nothing more.  I have a hard time finding fault in Coakley for this one.

    • and highlighting the Archdiocese’s horrible role in all of this. Coakley did what she could, based on what she knew then, to keep this perv away from kids, and when more came out she put him away. I don’t think there’s much here other than the Globe trying to keep this a race by throwing dirt at the frontrunner.

      • “Throwing dirt”?

        <

        p>The Globe gave her a forum to centerpiece her chosen issue, and she bunted foul.

    • to aggressively pursue records and victim testimony regarding the archdiocese’s complicity in shielding sexual predators is one for the ages. And while it should come as no surprise to anyone that in a state like Massachusetts the political climate for blind justice in these matters might be inhospitable, that did not then and does not now excuse the AG’s failure to act ethically or absolve the AG of its responsibility for such failures.  

      <

      p>This parsing of who knew what the definition of “is” is and when did they know it is troubling.  The Boston Archdiocese effectively used the political leadership in this state to its advantage at the expense of abused children.   Letting candidate Coakley off the hook for her roles, both major and minor, is cynical political expediency.  Combine the self-serving mumbojumbo in this video with her stance on Fells Acre, post-conviction DNA, etc., and I have to say that civil rights and justice will not be served by Martha Coakley in Ted Kennedy’s senate seat.  Indeed, every time she speaks on these issues the more unsettling the notion is.  

  5. By leveraging the prospect of an indecent assault charge, Coakley said, she was able to negotiate what she believed were stringent conditions of probation.

    <

    p>One year probation and one year prohibition from unsupervised visits with children didn’t protect victims Roxbury boy and maybe Weymouth Boy.

    <

    p>It’s fine to say the Catholic Church would have rebuffed any attempts to subpoena elements of Father Jack’s personnel file relevant to predatory or inappropriate sexual contact with minors plus she would get a pass if she had done that – tried to subpoena the records – but she didn’t even try.  

    <

    p>Why not start with a subpeona relevent to the three boys from Waltham?  Fight that out.  Then go after the evidence revealing the pattern.  I don’t know how you could complete your investigation without asking for that information.  

    <

    p>

    Although Geoghan attended weekly meetings with a psychiatrist and was evaluated by specialists, court records show that he may have violated the probationary condition that said he was to have no further unsupervised contact with minors for a year. Those records include a 2002 civil suit that said Geoghan molested a Roxbury boy, later represented by Garabedian, in “approximately 1996.”

    “I can’t say with 100 percent certainty but I believe it more likely than not that the 1996 date is accurate,” Garabedian said.

    The records also include a 1999 Suffolk County criminal indictment that said Geoghan repeatedly groped a Weymouth boy during trips to Boston “in 1995 and 1996.” The criminal charges stemming from the boy’s abuse were dropped in 2002, after the boy decided he could not testify in open court, although he proceeded with a civil suit. However, the civil suit says the Weymouth boy was molested by Geoghan “from approximately 1992 to 1995,” before Geoghan’s probation began.

        • *[new] she’s saying she didn’t have the evidence to do more and she’s right (0.00 / 0)

          but isn’t it her job to get the evidence?  

          <

          p>And…

          <

          p>

          Why not start with a subpeona relevent to the three boys from Waltham?  Fight that out.  Then go after the evidence revealing the pattern.  I don’t know how you could complete your investigation without asking for that information.  

          <

          p>’Tis a pity, I think, that we are able to judge now on things we didn’t know then…

          <

          p>I have no idea how old you are, nor even if you are a New Englander to begin with… so it might be excusable for you, based upon age or residency in-state, to make these statemenst absent knowledge of just how differently the Catholic Church was viewed in Massachusetts prior to full(ish)-disclosure on priest abuse. (although, I’m quite certain that Law will take some things to his grave, may he rot…)

          <

          p>For one thing, while it’s entirely understandable to take a dim view of the church now, at the time in question (1995) nobody was fully aware of the scope of the problem and sheer pitilessness of the church with respect to victims.  That we are (now) aware that a pile of evidence existed, doesn’t mean Martha Coakley was required to know (then) about it… Especially since that 1995 charges weren’t for rape or even assault, but inappropriate touching.  Given the (then) view that specific crimes were limited to an individual, a view we (now) know was wrong, Martha Coakleys actions make sense to me.

          <

          p>Secondly, the Church was much richer in the early nineties and could field legal challenges much more easily than now.  Coakley, whatever her warrant, still had to take this into account.  Any other institution would probably have given up the ghost in the mid 90s for crimes committed in the 80s… but the Churches’ intransigence prolongued the issue for a long time. Even now, a full accounting hasn’t been made and nobody’s pressing them to do so…

          <

          p>Thirdly, prior to the uncovering of the scandal the church had a great deal more friends in high places.  Had Martha Coakley tried to compel further evidence she most likely would have been stymied and her career ruined.  Even if she had succeeded, she’d have probably have not gotten much farther in her career. Given the dearth of knowledge about the depth of depravity, Martha Coakley acted well, in my view.  I suppose that, if it had been Mike Capuano in this position you’d be talking up his pragmatic side, but whatever…

          <

          p>And, lastly, while the church, and specifically then Cardinal Law, was actively betraying Catholics left and right since at least the mid-80’s, such betrayal was not yet public and thus the church enjoyed a mostly benevolent view from both the the government and from the public.

          <

          p>Bernard Law was popular, vocal and a great friend of a great many politicos.  He was connected.  Nobody wanted to believe him capable of such callous and mercenary behavior. And nobody even considered taking him on based on accusations against a single priest.

          <

          p>An added note: in the early 90’s, you might remember, most of the appeals courts and the Supreme Judicial court, litigated appeals in the Fells Acre Day Care abuse case… There were appeals and reversals and all kinds of legal chaos ensues.  It was crazy in the extreme.  Most of the controversy around the case centered on childrens testimony and their ability to form an understanding of the accusations they were making (or, were oftentimes being made on their behalf…)  While we now know that the Catholic Church acted reprehensibly with respect to priests, victims and parishioners, I daresay a public trial of this accusation, in the mid-90’s, would have struck up such a tempest as to make the Fells Acre Case look like a mild summer breeze in comparison…

          <

          p>

          • Isn’t valid, either. I want a politician who’s willing to stand up for what’s right, not just what’s popular. This is exactly the view that ended up getting us in a war in Iraq, because too many Democrats were afraid to take on a popular president and a popular war at the time. Lives were taken from us because Democrats didn’t have the stomach to do what was right then — and lives were ruined in Massachusetts in the 90s because too many people were afraid to take on the Catholic Church.

            <

            p>It’s notable that Ted Kennedy was not one of those Democrats on Iraq — perhaps we should ensure someone is elected to this seat who will have the same courage and gumption to stand up for what’s right, not just popular, when the election comes ’round.  

          • I daresay a public trial of this accusation, in the mid-90’s, would have struck up such a tempest as to make the Fells Acre Case look like a mild summer breeze in comparison…

            It certainly would have, just as it did, years later. In fact Fells Acre, even if all the abuse allegations had been true, WAS a relatively minor case compared to the Pedophile Priests and the Church’s unbelievably irresponsible handling of them.

            <

            p>Much of your argument reminds me of how “no one could have foreseen” terrorists flying planes into buildings. Some of the rest seems to be saying, without objection, that there are different standards of justice for members of rich and connected organizations. I think it is true that there are such differences, but to excuse a failure to pursue evidence because of those differences is not a respectable philosophy.

            • In fact Fells Acre, even if all the abuse allegations had been true, WAS a relatively minor case compared to the Pedophile Priests and the Church’s unbelievably irresponsible handling of them.

              <

              p>My point exactly.  Fells Acre WAS  a relatively minor case that swept nearly the entire state judicial apparatus up with cases and appeals and reversals and more appeals and included commutation by an acting governor and several instances of intervention upon the part of the SJC.

              <

              p>I do not think that the final chapter has yet been written on the Archdiocese and the pedophile priests.  More tempests are aborning…

              <

              p>

              I think it is true that there are such differences, but to excuse a failure to pursue evidence because of those differences is not a respectable philosophy.

              <

              p>I am sorry that I left any such impression.   I do not think that Martha Coakley failed to pursue evidence.   I think that she did what I would have done in the circumstances.  I think that,  despite Geoghans later arrest and trial and jailing, Martha Coakley did the best with what she had, within the scope and breadth of the law.    That Geoghan was later tried and found guilty of further crimes does not make Martha Coakley fair game for criticism in this respect.  

              <

              p>My only other point was similar: changing attitudes about the Catholic Church ought not to be cast back to prior to revelation. It was, honestly, a different time.

              <

              p>But my main point is simple: Martha Coakley acted appropriately.  

              • Doing what she did with what she had may have been appropriate, if there were no more to get. The fact that the ‘inappropriate touching’ was not just one instance for each of the three Waltham children, but was a series of incidents spanning years already made him a serial abuser. Assuming that these were the only victims was a big dropping of the ball.

                <

                p>

                My point exactly.  Fells Acre WAS  a relatively minor case that swept nearly the entire state judicial apparatus up with cases and appeals and reversals and more appeals and included commutation by an acting governor and several instances of intervention upon the part of the SJC.

                I’m not sure what point you are trying to make. That Fells Acre was a big mess, and therefore going after the priests would have been a bigger one, and was not worth the turmoil?

                <

                p>It was a different time, but the main difference is that the Pedo Priest scandal had not surfaced yet. The scandal didn’t surface because the Church had lost influence; the Church lost influence because of the scandal.

          • Bernard Law was popular, vocal and a great friend of a great many politicos.  He was connected.  Nobody wanted to believe him capable of such callous and mercenary behavior. And nobody even considered taking him on based on accusations against a single priest.

            <

            p>Yes he was connected and friend of many influential people–a fact frequently and deeply exploited by Law and those in church leadership positions.  That said, however, there were plenty of people who believed that Law had been covering up for multiple pedophile priests for a long time.  To suggest there was only a single priest at the root of the concerns regarding the Boston Archdiocese’s historical behavior around pedophile priests is simply not true.   There had been longstanding anxiety around the church’s behavior going back years and years involving multiple priests.  It’s one thing to talk about hindsight but it’s entirely another to rewrite history.

            • Yes he was connected and friend of many influential people–a fact frequently and deeply exploited by Law and those in church leadership positions.

              <

              p>So you agree, then, that the lions share of the blame belongs on the shoulders of Laws and the church?

              <

              p>

              To suggest there was only a single priest at the root of the concerns regarding the Boston Archdiocese’s historical behavior around pedophile priests is simply not true.  

              <

              p>I suggested no such thing.  I suggested that it’s not clear that cornering one priest, on a relatively minor charge, would have traced itself to the root of the much  larger problem, as so many here have implicitly implied.  It’s the implied thesis on the post that started this thread.

              <

              p>

              There had been longstanding anxiety around the church’s behavior going back years and years involving multiple priests.  It’s one thing to talk about hindsight but it’s entirely another to rewrite history.

              <

              p> Father Porter, Father Manning, Father Geoghan.   I’m familiar with the litany.  It’s not quite accurate, however, to say that anxiety was centered on the church.  Patterns were beginning to be noticed, but it wasn’t until 2002 when the Globe blew the lid off the Churchs evil that people caught a glimpse of the scale of the problem.  I’m not defending the church here, I’m trying to get at the truth.  

              • The head of the Child Abuse unit of the Middlesex County DA’s office had a bird’s eye view into all priest pedophile complaints that punctured the criminal justice system.  

                <

                p>To equate what the Child Abuse unit knew with what the genernal public knew is pure punk.  

                <

                p>How did the Globe come to investigate the story?  

                • *[new] public knowledge and DAs knowledge two vastly different things (0.00 / 0)

                  The head of the Child Abuse unit of the Middlesex County DA’s office had a bird’s eye view into all priest pedophile complaints that punctured the criminal justice system.  

                  <

                  p>Which would be clever of you had the Archdiocese of Boston confined their criminal activities to Middlesex county, which stretches from Cambrige (northwest of Boston) to Lowell… and doesn’t, duh, include Boston proper.   That would involve the DA of Suffolk county.  If, as you continue to alledge, this was such a slam-dunk case why didn’t the DA of Suffolk county meet with any more success than the DA of Middlesex county??

                  <

                  p>Honestly, now… I get that you don’t like Martha Coakley.  Fine.  Don’t vote for her.  But stop making an ass of yourself in your attempt to not vote for her.  

                • But stop making an ass of yourself in your attempt to not vote for her.

                  <

                  p>Enough with the name-calling, please. Thank you.

                  <

                  p>The three Waltham boys was a case that walked into her office. There were other cases, about 900 a year by her count.  Tell me Father Jack and Father Manning were the only two.

                  <

                  p>Suffolk DAs office also handled child abuse cases.  Tell me not of them in the 1990s did not involve a Catholic priest.  

                • The three Waltham boys was a case that walked into her office. There were other cases, about 900 a year by her count.  Tell me Father Jack and Father Manning were the only two.

                  <

                  p>If there is a hero in any of this it is the mother of one of the Waltham boys, who later sued the church and was instrumental in leading the Globe to the chase.  It took her a few years too…

                  <

                  p>You ought to ask yourself, if you wish to be honest, what’s the rate of conviction in proportion to the charges and what that says about the whole thing.   Up until the late 90’s when Martha Coakley prosecuted Shanley and the early 00’s when she first successfully prosecuted Geoghan, a great many charges were either settled by the church, were acquitted or could not go to trial because of the refusal of witness to testify.

                  <

                  p>No one will ever catch me arguing that the situation was not, to be brutally frank, one gi-normous pile of epic fail all around.   The legal profession as well as the medical and mental health professionals were all far behind the curve on pedophilia in general and the Catholic Churchs mendacity and mercenary behaviour in particular.    

                  <

                  p>But you’d be hard pressed to look at all the participants and make an honest case that Martha Coakley was negligent.  That she didn’t do what you now wish to define as enough doesn’t, frankly, cut it.

                  <

                  p>

                  Suffolk DAs office also handled child abuse cases.  Tell me not of them in the 1990s did not involve a Catholic priest.

                  <

                  p>… and…   If you keep going with this line of thought you’ll come closer and closer to understanding my position.  You have to give up you knee-jerk antipathy to Martha Coakley first, but if you give it the ole college try, you’ll get there…

                • But stop making an ass of yourself in your attempt to not vote for her.  

                  <

                  p>LIGHTIRIS:  (In a most sniveling manner.)  In upholding my sacred duty as a civic-minded BMG member, I do wish to call your attention to this application of the donkey synonym.  I trust you will take appropriate action.  Thank you and have a happy holiday.  (winks)

                  <

                  p>  

                • Honestly, now… I get that you don’t like Martha Coakley.  Fine.  Don’t vote for her.  

                  <

                  p>People are not posting here for your benefit or detriment, so the fact that you “get it” isn’t terribly relevant.  We all “get it” and we all have a decent idea on who supports whom.  You are not obligated to respond to any of the comments that criticize Martha Coakley or anyone else.  Neil is under no obligation to stop posting because you are frustrated and/or you “get it.”  Stop responding if it bothers you so much.  Show some self control.  Good grief.  

      • Things we miss may not have been so glaringly obvious once they’ve gone awry, but that doesn’t mean we weren’t negligent in our duties. Negligence is negligence in the end.

        <

        p>For Martha Coakley to say she couldn’t have done things differently isn’t credible; I want a politician who can admit to mistakes. I think a lot of other people do, too.

        • that’s not really a valid excuse. Never has been. (0.00 / 0)

          Things we miss may not have been so glaringly obvious once they’ve gone awry, but that doesn’t mean we weren’t negligent in our duties. Negligence is negligence in the end.

          <

          p>But you (and others) aren’t arguing that she was simply negligent: you’re arguing that she ought to have known she was being negligent.  The argument, such as it is, is simply that, “well, gosh, isn’t it glaringly obvious that Geoghan was a monster? There’s no possible way that any thinking person could have failed to see that. Therefore Martha Coakley must be an idiot.”

          <

          p>I’ve been at pains to point out where this logic fails but equal pains, it seems, are taken solely for the emotional balm of cutting down Coakley.  

          <

          p>

          For Martha Coakley to say she couldn’t have done things differently isn’t credible; I want a politician who can admit to mistakes. I think a lot of other people do, too.

          <

          p>What, exactly, would you have her do differently?  Try the case in public…?  As I’ve already pointed out, though Geoghan was a sick criminal, even sick criminals are allowed due process and basic rights in court. That was Martha Coakley’s job.  It was not to be public avenging angel…

          <

          p>Martha Coakley was not negligent.  In this case she made no mistakes.  If that led to an outcome you don’t desire well maybe you just need to get over that.  

          • There’s no possible way that any thinking person could have failed to see that. Therefore Martha Coakley must be an idiot.”

            Nobody called her an idiot. I doubt that anyone here even thought that. You insult us by putting words in our mouths. Cut it out.

          • But you (and others) aren’t arguing that she was simply negligent: you’re arguing that she ought to have known she was being negligent.

            <

            p>She caught someone who plead guilty to child abuse, someone who was not young and had plenty of access. Anyone who was caught doing such a thing at such an age has almost certainly done something similar before. There is no needed ‘hindsight’ to know that much.

            <

            p>Now, a prosecutor’s job is a busy one, a District Attorney’s job is probably much busier than that. Pleas are a necessary tool and getting things done as quick as possible is often needed in that environment. I just don’t think the case you do that on is child abuse, at least not without pulling all the stops in investigating the predator, especially one with so much access, which Martha Coakley certainly did not do.

            <

            p>

            I’ve been at pains to point out where this logic fails but equal pains, it seems, are taken solely for the emotional balm of cutting down Coakley.

            <

            p>Insofar as Martha Coakley has been cut down, she’s been the one swinging the axe, running a Niki-Tsongas-like campaign (except that, of course, even Niki Tsongas got out to talk with the voters more often).

            <

            p>

            In this case she made no mistakes.

            <

            p>I question the intellectual curiosity and veracity of thought of anyone who thinks any prominent state official during the 90s couldn’t have done anything more to prevent or stop the sexual abuse scandal years earlier, most especially state prosecutors. It is ludicrous to think someone like Martha Coakley made “no mistakes” in this regard. You could argue that her mistakes were understandable, or not huge, but you can’t argue that she made none of them and claim any sort of intellectual honesty. Of course she made mistakes. I don’t think this one is so catastrophic that it should cost her the job, but it should be something that she could say, years later, “Well, I wish I had investigated it a little further.”

            • In this case she made no mistakes.

              I question the intellectual curiosity and veracity of thought of anyone who thinks any prominent state official during the 90s couldn’t have done anything more to prevent or stop the sexual abuse scandal years earlier, most especially state prosecutors.

              <

              p>IN THIS CASE she made no mistakes.  Is that clear enough for you?

              <

              p>This one generalization of yours is the crux of the whole, increasingly silly, debate: in the dark you bump into a tree and assume the forest to be self-evident.  You then fault others who fail to extrapolate to the conclusion you now believe to have been self-evident all along.

              <

              p>And you question my intellectual curiosity and veracity of thought…?? That’s some chutzpah you got there…

              <

              p> I’m quite certain that Martha Coakley has made mistakes.  I am equally certain that in regards to this particular case, regarding the pleas in 1995 of Paul Geoghan, she acted appropriately.   Both Martha Coakley and I focus on the one case, and we’re faulted for not recognizing the repeated criminality of both the Church and the priest.  That’s some veracity of thought you got going there… more, apparently, than you can juggle all at once.  

              • She had a man who had inappropriately touched three children – not once, but many times – over a period of years. She knew that. Why assume that he’d taken up this hobby with the first touching of one of those three, or that he did not inflict it on any others? I’m sure she knew how unlikely that was. I say that assumption was a mistake.  

              • it gives me no pleasure to bring serious pwnage to others in the BMG community… I often like to say “I’m sorry, but” to people before I strenuously disagree with them. They may be more likely to take that criticism constructively, or to heart. I’m sure I’m not the only one who’s ever started a post like that on BMG.

                <

                p>In this case, you failed to make a convincing argument because there isn’t a convincing argument to be made: she absolutely could have done more, “IN THIS CASE” or in general. Writing your text in capital letters, underlined, bold-faced and italicized won’t change that fact.

                <

                p>As I said, I don’t think this is the straw that should break the camel’s back; I don’t think she should lose an election because of a mistake she made around a decade ago. It’s just one thing people should look at among many as they come to their determination of whether or not Martha Coakley deserves their vote.  

            • Then why does she have no responsive answer to the question that asks WHY…

              <

              p>Q: Why couldn’t you get the church records?

              <

              p>

              Martha: They were not available to us. They didn’t… um, we tried in a prior case, we just tried, uh against Father Manning. They were not relevant to this particular charge. Uh we knew that umm, well first of all we didn’t know the church had other records at the time, there was no way to know that.

               

  7. She was a prosecutor. She acted like a prosecutor. She brought forward the charges she though could stick. I get that.

    <

    p>The fact remains that thousands of children were abused by hundreds of priests over a period of decades — and the leadership of the institution that enabled and protected them has emerged largely unscathed. A succession of prosecutors, like Tom Reilly and Martha Coakley, have made these same prosecutorial decisions. And Cardinal Bernard Law remains uncharged, unprosecuted, and enjoying a comfortable Vatican appointment in Rome. Once again, the voices of those defending the victims have been, basically, ignored. It appears to me, from her comments, that today — in spite of all the evidence of all the horrific abuses — she still thinks she made the right decision. In short — her current answer is the answer of a prosecutor, while she is in the heat of a primary campaign to be a senator.

    <

    p>I think the salient question is not so much whether or not she made the correct decision in 1995. In my view, the more important question is how she looks back on that choice today, given the full benefit of 20-20 hindsight.

    <

    p>In my view, she is responding as a prosecutor, rather than as a senator. She correctly describes the tree, and  misses the forest. This is not the first time, nor is it likely to be the last.

    <

    p>I support Mike Capuano because I think he demonstrates senatorial behavior, in a way that the other candidates (including Martha Coakley) do not.

    • that she was asked about the forest?  My guess, though I haven’t asked the reporter, is that he was asking very tree-ish questions.  Are you sure that maple was really a maple; how many oaks were in that particular grove; that sort of thing.  A forestry response to those questions would have been justly criticized as evasive.  She was apparently (judging from the article) asked very specific questions about this very specific case, and she answered them.

      <

      p>I see nothing here that she should have done differently.

      • I am sure at a debate she will be asked to explain in detail her actions surrounding the case.

        <

        p>Martha Coakley had the first clue and evidence to take down a serial sex offender, and failed to pursue it as far as it could have been pursued until a private attorney did through a civil suit.

        <

        p>That is the major #marthacoakley fail that I read in this story. Why not prosecute and if you don’t win, you don’t win, but you put him and everyone else on notice. Also, we have all seen in molestation cases, an effective way to find other instances is to go public with the charges. A secretive plea agreement did nothing to shed light or look for the truth in this case.  From an expert:

        <

        p>

        “Charging Geoghan with something and exposing him publicly might well have brought forward victims, witnesses, whistle-blowers, and evidence that could have resulted in a conviction and a tougher sentence,” said David Clohessy, national director of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests.

        <

        p>Tough timing with her last ad being about protecting children. I don’t think that will be on the air much longer if at all.

      • This is a lengthy on-the-record interview with a reporter, not a courtroom. Neither she nor I need “evidence that she was asked about the forest.”

        <

        p>An important aspect of the office to which she aspires — some might say the most important — is to handle interviews like this in way that:

        <

        p>

        1. Conveys a chosen message (describes the forest), and
        2. Reflects the facts (describes the tree), and
        3. Does so without being evasive

        <

        p>I described, in a comment on a different thread, how I think she should have answered differently:

        You know, Michael, it’s easy to second-guess a situation with the benefit of fifteen years of hindsite. Had I known then what we all know now about the full extent of this terrible abuse, I might well have been more aggressive in my actions. I did the best I could given the facts available to me at the time. I might add that my efforts were successful.

        <

        p>Let me offer an analogous situation — President Bill Clinton’s inadequate response to the genocide in Rwanda. Here is what he said (I’m quoting from a piece in The Atlantic, but the statement was widely circulated):

        We come here today partly in recognition of the fact that we in the United States and the world community did not do as much as we could have and should have done to try to limit what occurred.

        <

        p>That is a prototype for the behavior I want to see from a candidate for senator — especially when that candidate touts their commitment to protecting children as a centerpiece of their campaign.

      • I take issue with her decision, but I don’t think it makes her a bad AG. I do, however, think it highlights qualities that would make her a bad Senator.

        <

        p> I agree that we’re aided by hindsight in this particular instance. But we’re electing a Senator here. I don’t ask that my candidate has superpowers, but I don’t think a little foresight is too much to ask for.

        <

        p>Being a lawyer is very different from being a lawmaker. An AG’s responsibility is to uphold the law, a legislator is charged with protecting the public good.  The entire premise of the legislature is based on the understanding that the law is very often flawed or incomplete. Understanding that, and finding ways to promote public welfare regardless, are essential qualities in a Senator. 

        <

        p> It looks like even this far back, Martha was afraid to stick her neck out. If she had, like others have said, it’s likely that other victims would have come forward and further evidence may have accumulated. At the very least, parents would have had fair warning about a potential danger to their children. And someone would have finally made a stand against the Catholic church’s denails and evasive tactics.  

    • for Martha Coakley to make the opportunity “in a lengthy interview” to answer the detail questions as well as provide a ‘forest’ perspective on her own initiative.

      <

      p>Wouldn’t it be refreshing and senatorial to hear Coakley give a few paragraphs on why church leaders were/were not held accountable?  

    • The only thing I can think of is failure to report, but even that is usually in the context of having direct contact with the alleged victims.  From a prosecutorial standpoint I can certainly understand prioritizing going after the actual abusers.

      • …mail fraud and racketeering to continue conspiracy.  He is a mandated reporter and failed in that capacity.  Heck, I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that there’s a reading of RICO that could apply here.

        • I understand people are outraged by how he handled this, but I’m not keen at throwing multiple charges at him just to see what sticks.  I am not aware of him obstructing investigations, not complying with subpeonas, or anything like that (though my memory of the details is fading).  I’m also not sure if mandated reporting applies to second-hand information.  In other words if a non-victim reports to him is he obligated to report to authorties or is that only if the victim himself tells him?  I honestly don’t know the law well enough.  I have no idea what mail fraud you’re refering to.

          • The Globe did absolutely fantastic coverage.  It’s true Law affirmatively concealed hundreds upon hundreds of child molestations and failed to protect children by moving the priests from parish to parish.  I think the biggest problem with prosecuting him was statute of limitations.  The only reason they got Shanley was that the clock stopped when he moved out of state.  

            <

            p>Google News Archive Boston Com

            • the conspiracy angle?  Seems to me that’s not all that much of a stretch.  The gymnastics the Archdiocese went through to hide these guys, knowing full well they were predators, seems to speak to a conspiracy, doesn’t it?

              • the legal issue with the RICO angle is the necessity to prove that the organization was created with criminal intent. That’s clearly a stretch for the Boston Archdiocese. A more aggressive prosecutor might have pursued angles such as “conspiracy to obstruct justice”, but we’ll never know.

                <

                p>Perhaps some of our attorneys here can shed more light on the legal rationale for why Cardinal Law and the Archdiocese were never prosecuted.

        • Here are two of the many well-reported pieces detailing the sorry saga at the time — Why Isn’t Boston’s Cardinal Law in Jail and But Why Isn’t Bernard Law in Jail? (Part 2).

          <

          p>Massachusetts did not have a Mandatory Reporting law in 2002 — significantly, in part because the Catholic Church (and Cardinal Law) lobbied hard against it.

          <

          p>The second piece highlights a key factor:

          This message may finally be getting through. It’s been suggested that Massachusetts Attorney General Thomas Reilly was being soft on Law to protect his elected position among Catholic voters. Similarly, the Los Angeles Times reported that L.A. District Attorney Steve Cooley went far too easy on Los Angeles’ Cardinal Roger Mahony because, as a Catholic himself, Cooley was too conflicted to zealously pursue the investigation. But the tide seems to be turning, and finally prosecutors have begun to empanel grand juries to investigate criminal wrongdoing in the upper echelons of the church. While only individual priests and no church leaders have so far been charged with crimes, over a dozen states have started to turn their criminal law machinery on the supervisors.

          • The Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 119, § 51A act was enacted in 1983, but did not name priests as mandatory reporters until a 2002 amendment.

            • Priests were excluded from the bill at the direct request of the Catholic church, including Bernard Law. They were, apparently, fine with making sure that therapists had to report abuse — just not priests.

  8. And I appreciate the difficult choices that the circumstances of individual cases force on prosecutors.  

    <

    p>I am curious, however, if, in all the cases that came before her, this was the only allegation of priestly misconduct? If not, how were the others handled? Did the possibility of a larger problem occur to her?

    <

    p>Was any of this already covered?

  9. This case just hammers home for me what I’ve been seeing for a while now. Martha’s just not cut out to be a Senator. Not only does she lack experience and expertise, but–more importantly in my opinion– she lacks the courage and foresight to move beyond the law as it stands and take decisive, transformative action to change the status quo. And that’s exactly what we need in a Senator-courage and foresight. For an AG, it’s acceptable (if not desirable) to follow the letter of the law and pursue a quite plea bargain with a sex offender. But I want this Senate seat filled by someone who’s willing to stand up, use their power to its full advantage, and fight for the best possible outcome, even if it’s through unconventional means. Coakley could have used her office to ensure Geoghan never had the opportunity to molest another boy. Instead, she took the safe route and refused to prosecute.

    <

    p>I agree with BrooklineTom that Coakley is missing the forest for the trees. And it seems to be a pattern with her. One only has to look back as far as her ludicrous statements about the house HCR vote, and her inability to recognize legislative strategy when it’s staring her in the face (and being explicitly outlined by her competitors, the news media, and almost every prochoice member of the house.)

    <

    p>I think Coakley is too literal and rigid for the Senate. It’s a job that requires flexibility, creativity, and the courage to occasionally toss the rule book and go with what works. From what I’ve seen, she’s simply not capable.

    • on your thought:

      <

      p>

      For an AG, it’s acceptable (if not desirable) to follow the letter of the law and pursue a quite plea bargain with a sex offender. But I want this Senate seat filled by someone who’s willing to stand up, use their power to its full advantage, and fight for the best possible outcome, even if it’s through unconventional means. Coakley could have used her office to ensure Geoghan never had the opportunity to molest another boy. Instead, she took the safe route and refused to prosecute.

      <

      p>More than anything, being a Senator requires you to be an advocate for the people. She did nothing of the sort during her work on this case. We must elect someone who will fight for us. Martha has had the opportunity to prove she is a fighter and an advocate for the people, and she has failed.

      <

      p>The squeaky wheel gets the grease, and I want some M***** F****** grease.  

      • More than anything, being a Senator requires you to be an advocate for the people

        .

        <

        p>Which “people” might include the accused as well.  Or would you prefer that Martha Coakley simply ‘string em up’ once she decides they’re guilty??

        <

        p>

        She did nothing of the sort during her work on this case. We must elect someone who will fight for us. Martha has had the opportunity to prove she is a fighter and an advocate for the people, and she has failed.

        <

        p>A lot of people failed wrt to prosecuting the Archdiocese of Boston. Mike Capuano, who is  (like Coakley) a Roman Catholic, was in the HoR during the height of the revelations and the resulting resignation of Cardinal Law. What did he do? Wht did anybody do?  

        <

        p>I’m presently reading Ted Kennedy’s memoir,’True Compass‘.  In it he describes getting his first communion from the Pope himself in the late ’30s. He also tells of when, in the late 40’s, his brother Bobby was troubled by certain Catholic doctrines.  Upon relating his discomfort to this father, Joe Kennedy, Bobby was told, “Well, if you really feel strongly, let’s call the Archbishop and tell him.”  Bobby said, “Yes, I really feel uncomfortable about this.”  

        <

        p>So they called the Archbishop of Boston at the time and were given an audience.

        <

        p>That’s the kind of juice the Kennedy’s had.  One wonders what, if anything, they said to Cardinal Law when they heard about the abuse…  But it’s clear that they had access that Martha Coakley did not.  I don’t fault the Kennedy’s.  I don’t know what went down.  Nor do I fault Coakley.  She did her job well…

        <

        p>And, lest we forget, part of her job, perhaps the most important part, is to protect the rights of the accused. And it’s for you that she does this…  

        • But it’s clear that they had access that Martha Coakley did not.

          <

          p>In her post forum interview yesterday, Coakley talks about having received the Father Manning records in the same time frame three Waltham boys complaint was on the table.  Her office clearly had some access, as opposed to no access.  

          <

          p>Furthermore getting an audience for a conversation about dogma is probably handled differently than a meeting about a priest, records request or subpoena.  

          • In her post forum interview yesterday, Coakley talks about having received the Father Manning records in the same time frame three Waltham boys complaint was on the table.  

            <

            p>Father Manning was charged with sexual assault. He was acquitted.   Geoghan, at that time, was not charged with sexual assault.  Perhaps, given what we now  know, he ought to have been, but he wasn’t.  Within the bounds of the law as it was written then, Martha Coakley aggressively prosecuted Manning, and lost, and as aggressively as she was able, prosecuted Geoghan for an entirely different crime.  You’re grasping at equivalences that don’t exist.  

            <

            p>

            Furthermore getting an audience for a conversation about dogma is probably handled differently than a meeting about a priest, records request or subpoena.  

            <

            p>I’m merely pointing out that, should one wish to fault Martha Coakley, though, in truth she was perhaps the most aggressive state official at the time, there are other findings of equal or greater culpability… That is, if you believe that silence equals complicity.  Certainly you candidate, Mike Capuano, was in a position to do something about the situation, whether it be in the form of legislation or backroom wheeling-n-dealing.  I’d be interested to know what he’s done either for the victims of abuse or against the Catholic Churchs intransigance…  

            • as aggressively as she was able, prosecuted Geoghan for an entirely different crime.

              <

              p>No, she failed to attempt to get Geoghan’s record, public and private (personnel, Boston Police Department, DSS) that would have exposed Geoghan as the sexual predator he was and not merely a phone harasser. The record was there.  She didn’t look for it.  She didn’t even try.  

              <

              p>Moreover, she tells an untruth when she says the pre-trial parole agreement protected other kids. It did not. Geoghan  victimized the Roxbury boy while he was on parole for harassing the three Waltham boys.  

              • No, she failed to attempt to get Geoghan’s record, public and private (personnel, Boston Police Department, DSS)

                <

                p>The case in question was not a Boston case.  It was in Waltham.  As Martha Coakley, and others, have noted, there were no DSS records as Geoghan was not a caregiver/parent/foster parent.  No need.

                <

                p>I continue to think that Martha Coakley acted appropriately.

                <

                p>

                She didn’t look for it.  She didn’t even try.  

                <

                p>Explain to me where she would be compelled to?    If you’re going to get all ‘moral imperative’ on me, I’ve been pointing out that others, closer the Cardinal, ought to have been similarly impelled.  I do think silence equals complicity.   From where I sit Martha Coakley, though not as loud as perhaps you would now wish, was not silent, especially when compared to others….  

                <

                p>There’s very little reason to be critical of Martha Coakley, unless of course, you’re searching for things to be critical about…

                <

                p>… chirp…

                • See how obnoxious that subject line is?  Why don’t you stop doing it.

                  <

                  p>Coakley knew to ask for Manning’s records from the church and got them. Explain how not asking for Geoghan’s records from the church is oki-doki.  

  10. I can’t understand how one could argue for probation with the hope that the criminal would not re-offend when one could instead prosecute, albeit on a more difficult charge to prove, and expose this child molester for what he was.

    <

    p>Massachusetts has a difficult history with respect to prosecuting sexual abuse cases.  Fells Acre Day Care comes to mind. The article in question also mentions a 1994 case Coakley lost against another priest, Father Manning, who was cheered, by his parishioners, upon acquittal.

    <

    p>And, as much as I’d like to have had Geoghan exposed to the public much earlier, I’m not entirely comfortable with the proffer of this as a mandate for a District Attorney.   While it is certain that Geoghans life might have been ruined earlier, and deservedly so, I don’t think that a DA should try cases in the public, solely for public consumption. I remember Tawana Brawley.  The Duke Lacrosse team trial also comes to mind here.   Passions are inflamed all to easily and it only takes an over-eager DA, and a willing newsrag (I’m looking at you Herald…) for things to get out of hand all too quickly.

    <

    p>

    I may be thinking too much with a mother’s heart on this, instead of looking at the legalese of it all, so I open it up to the group:

    <

    p>As unfair as it is for Geoghan to get away (at that time) and for the continued escape of the Catholic Church I’m still glad to live in a country that eschews show trials and (virtual) public hangings in favor of the rule of law, for that is what guided Martha Coakley: the rule of law.

    <

    p>We might wish to fault her for dry technicalities and legal strictures, but I thank her.   She could easily have used any of these cases to raise her profile and salve some emotional scars but, had she done so, the Commonwealth would have been much the worse…  So to answer your question: Yes.  Martha Coakley was right in the Geoghan case.  

    • to offer a plea over trying someone in court?

      <

      p>Certainly, pleas may be more common in most cases, but it’s not against the rule of law to go after someone in court. You could make an argument that it’s ‘showboating,’ or something akin, but that’s a wholly different argument than arguing on the rule of law.

      <

      p>As for my own opinion on ‘showboating,’ I first think there are numerous ways to avoid it as much as possible, mitigating the effects of it (ie keeping information wrapped tightly to avoid leaks, the way investigations are gone about, etc.) but I will add that if public proceedings encourages more people to come forward, then better to do it than not, since there’s still a jury to come up with a final verdict in the end.

      <

      p>You brought up the Duke rape case and I say that’s the perfect case of justice prevailing: the boys were found innocent in the end and their names were cleared. It also taught, I think, a good public lesson for people who obsess over those kinds of cases (the Nancy Grace fangirls); people should be viewed innocent until proven guilty. Just because someone is being investigated or tried, doesn’t mean they’re guilty, which is a fact people should have pounded in their head.

      • how is it the rule of law (0.00 / 0)

        to offer a plea over trying someone in court?

        Certainly, pleas may be more common in most cases, but it’s not against the rule of law to go after someone in court. You could make an argument that it’s ‘showboating,’ or something akin, but that’s a wholly different argument than arguing on the rule of law.

        <

        p>Certain participants in this discussion aren’t faulting Martha Coakley for for the case at hand, plea or no.  Rather, they fault Coakley for her egregious negligence in not singlehandedly exposing decades of Church malfeasance.   How dare she!

        <

        p>Whatever specific outcome that were to be desired, be they full exposure of the church or full punishment for each and every one of Geoghans crimes, the fact remains that neither the Catholic Church nor the complete panoply of Geoghans crimes were put before Martha Coakley, Middlesex County DA..   Specific charges, in a specific place, regarding specific laws were proffered and dealt with aggressively.   Now, certain of those anti-Coakley folks are angry that she patently failled to be aggressively zealous to the extent that she reached beyond the bounds of her mandate and warrant to affect the immediate and full disclosure of heinous crimes.  

        <

        p>But that’s the rule of law: litigating, fairly and evenly,  even when we don’t like the specific outcomes.  Treating a man we now know was a sick uncontrollable monster as though he had rights… That’s the rule of law, plea or no.

        <

        p>A comparable (that is to say equally vapid) criticism I could make of Mike Capuano would be to fault him for not singlehandedly stopping passage of the PATRIOT act…  What was he thinking?  Or course he ought to have known that the bill was bad…   How dare he merely vote against it!!!  He should have stopped it and exposed George Bush for the mendacious clown we all now know him to be…

        <

        p>… chirp.

        <

        p>

        • Certain participants in this discussion aren’t faulting Martha Coakley for for the case at hand, plea or no.  Rather, they fault Coakley for her egregious negligence in not singlehandedly exposing decades of Church malfeasance.   How dare she!

          Nobody here is saying or implying that Coakley had knowledge that would have exposed the whole mess. What is being said is that if she’d pursued the Waltham case a little more diligently, the mess would have come to light earlier, saving some children a mountain of grief.

          • Nobody here is saying or implying that Coakley had knowledge that would have exposed the whole mess.

            <

            p>Did you accidently cross-post from another thread?  Are you  paying attention?

            <

            p>

            What is being said is that if she’d pursued the Waltham case a little more diligently, the mess would have come to light earlier, saving some children a mountain of grief.

            <

            p>Umm…  How is that any different from my ‘strawman’ argument?? Twice now, my head espolodees… Perhaps I used stronger language for effect, or you used weaker language for lesser effect, but we’re plainly in agreement.

            <

            p>Using your language “the mess would have come to light earlier” STILL puts the onus on Coakleys’ shoulders.

            <

            p>

            • Maybe then you’ll understand the huge difference between

              they fault Coakley for her egregious negligence in not singlehandedly exposing decades of Church malfeasance.   How dare she!

              and

              if she’d pursued the Waltham case a little more diligently, the mess would have come to light earlier, saving some children a mountain of grief.

              Are you so invested in casting scorn at any criticism of your candidate that you you really cannot see it?

      • You brought up the Duke rape case and I say that’s the perfect case of justice prevailing: the boys were found innocent in the end and their names were cleared

        <

        p>I brought up the Duke case to point out that justice would have prevailed, much earlier, and without undue duress upon the accused, if the prosecutor in the case (a man who now, I believe, is no longer even a lawyer) had treated them, from the get go, as though they had the same rights as you and I.

        <

        p>So we can simply have justice prevail, or we can have lots of heat and light and some degree of chaos and then justice can prevail… which is better?    Which one is the rule of law?  Which one is more of a ‘loose guideline’ for the law… ?

        <

        p>

  11. and among them are quite a few state prosecutors, DAs and AG(s).

    <

    p>This definitely should have been followed up on. I, for the life of me, can’t find it credible that only a newspaper like the Boston Globe could have busted the sexual abuse scandal open, one of the most disturbing, massive things that has ever occurred on these shores IMO.

    <

    p>I honestly can’t assess what I think should be Coakley’s slice of the blame, but she certainly did fail in this case, which could have shed the light years sooner, saving who knows how many children from sexual harassment, abuse and rape.

Archives