The RFT reports this morning that Archbishop Carlson has "filed a formal response to the suit, asking the courts to dismiss it, arguing that neither he nor the Archdiocese of St. Louis is liable."
http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2013/08/archbishop_robert_carlson_sex_abuse_motion_dismiss.php
In his response, Archbishop Carlson "vehemently denies" one of the allegations made by the accusing family. If that allegation is false, aren't all their allegations called into question?
Lucy, Archbishop Carlson has vehemently denied the charge in Count VI of the Civil Suit, which is that by requesting the check back, he willfully sought to destroy evidence.
ReplyDeleteArchbishop Carlson's denial could apply either to the claim that he asked for the check back; or to the claim that by doing so he willfully sought to destroy evidence.
As worded, his denial appears to be that he had any intention of tampering with or destroying evidence - which is the substance of Claim VI. He has NOT denied asking for the check back. At least not clearly. Remember that this response was a legal response worded very carefully.
It seems very unlikely to me that he would call the family and not ask for the check back. Perhaps he did not intend this to be tampering with or destroying evidence. But I can't imagine him calling them and not trying to get that check.
The archbishop could clear this up, however, and simply state exactly what he's denying.
At any rate, as you know, I have spoken out elsewhere against tarring the alleged victim. The case looks very bad for Fr. Jiang. I could be wrong, but after ten years of this, we Catholics should not jump to quick conclusions.
I do admire you for supporting a man you admire, a man who may indeed be innocent. I simply hope and pray that the trials happen and that the truth comes out.
Kevin, perhaps Archbishop Carlson never called the family at all. I agree he should clear this confusion up now.
ReplyDelete