Fr. Joseph's Trial Tomorrow

Tomorrow Fr. Joseph Jiang finally has his day in court. Friends of Fr. Joseph will be there, believing in his full innocence and praying for his complete exoneration. Our hope is that he will be restored to his former role as priest with his reputation unstained and all charges against him shown to be false.

RFT Best Gadfly of 2013 Takes Up Fr. Joseph's Cause

The RFT named my husband Bill the Best St. Louis Gadfly in today's issue. The short article mentioned Bill's defense of Father and his strong belief in his innocence.
http://www.riverfronttimes.com/bestof/2013/award/best-gadfly-2065173/

Fr. Joseph Jiang Is Innocent!

As Fr. Joseph's  trial date draws near, we remain absolutely convinced of his total innocence. We will attend his trial and pray for his full exoneration.

Father's trial is still October 1st at 15 W. Church St., Bowling Green, MO  63334. Please attend if you possibly can!

Challenge For Kevin O'Brien

In a July 19th blog post,"Fantasy vs. Reality among Super-Catholics",  Kevin O'Brien claimed we know some things about the Fr. Joseph case for "certain".  One of the established facts claimed by Kevin particularly troubles us:

 "The parents became concerned about inappropriate contact between the priest and their 15-year-old daughter - stroking, physical displays of affection.  When they confronted the priest about this, he stopped seeing the family, asked for a transfer from St. Louis for "personal reasons", but eventually ingratiated himself back into the family, visiting them frequently."

http://thwordinc.blogspot.com/2013/07/fantasy-vs-reality-among-super-catholics.html

 

 

We wish to challenge Kevin on this "fact". Is it established by anything beyond the claims of the accusing girl and her family?

Archbishop Carlson denies allegation today!

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?

Great point by Jimmie Smooth

The strongest evidence that anyone has brought up thus far against Fr. Joseph is the twenty thousand dollar check. Without that check I don't think there would be much of a case. However, if I were in his shoes, I can understand giving that check (if he did). If I had been close friends with a family for a while, and they accused me in private of molesting their teenage daughter when I hadn't, I would be very nervous. Even if I had done nothing, all they have to do is say that I touched her inappropriately, and all of society would turn on me as child molester. Everyone here attacking Fr. Joseph proves that one false allegation can destroy a man's reputation and life. They wouldn't need to prove anything. They merely need to claim it. What if the family who accused me said that all they wanted was money (to pay for the psychiatrist of course)? I can see giving them a $20,000 check and telling them to leave me alone. The check does not prove his guilt. It may simply prove that he did not want the false accusations brought to the public. That is reasonable, because as his attackers have shown, the public does not care for justice; they want a scapegoat to persecute. I know I would not trust the public to bring justice if a family falsely accused me, why should he trust them either?

http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/mailbag/letters-to-the-editor/editorial-omitted-significant-allegations-in-priest-s-sex-abuse-case/article_a160c373-7f43-5f60-969f-18b356d92fad.html?mode=comments

Did attorney Ken Chackes cross a line?

Did yesterday's accusatory letter against Fr. Joseph in the Post-Dispatch cross a line? Is it legal for attorney Ken Chackes to influence public opinion in this way?

In the comments section of the article, Kevin Kestner raised a telling point:

 

Rule 4-3.6 Trial Publicity - (a) A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter. I would hope the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel would apply this rule to this lawyer, it seems like a textbook example of what NOT to do. If Fr. Chiang is guilty he wil be determined as such by a jury of his peers, trying your civil case in public during the pendency of the criminal case is nothing more than an ambulance chasing, jury pool contaminating move.