Oaths of Silence Forced On Fr. Brendan Smyth's Victims

[Christine Murray]

the church in effect tainted the information gathering Catalpa , thus despoiling chances of criminal cases.

[Catalpa]

the church in effect tainted the information gathering Catalpa , thus despoiling chances of criminal cases.

No they didn't.

As has already been pointed out these 'Oaths' would have no legal standing under Law.

It's highly likely that the unfortunate victims of this man did not want the abuse they endured released into the public domain at the time.

And as far as I know they still don't.

[Nodin]

No they didn't.

As has already been pointed out these 'Oaths' would have no legal standing under Law.

It's highly likely that the unfortunate victims of this man did not want the abuse they endured released into the public domain at the time.

And as far as I know they still don't.

emmmm, thats sheer speculation. As one is now sueing the Cardinal, your last idea is clearly wrong.

[Catalpa]

emmmm, thats sheer speculation. As one is now sueing the Cardinal, your last idea is clearly wrong.

Is he?

I didn't know that

- what's his name?

[Christine Murray]

my understanding, Catalpa is that the teens did not have legal advisors at the meetings.

[sondagefaux]

Is he?

I didn't know that

- what's his name?

She. Her name hasn't yet been revealed by the media.

Cardinal Brady is being sued in a personal capacity as well as in his role as head of the Catholic Church in Ireland by the female victim who Smyth brutalised and sexually abused between 1970 and 1975, on occasions when she was taken on church outings. She brought a case against the church in 1997 and it has been in the High Court ever since.

Cardinal Brady is, according to court affidavits, accused of: "1. Failing to report to An Garda Siochana the fact of formal signed complaints against Fr Brendan Smyth of sexual assault and paedophilia on other children made to the church authorities investigated by them at interviews -- at which the second named defendant was present and participated -- on March 29, 1975, and April 4, 1975, respectively.

"2. Failing following such interviews to take any adequate steps to ensure that Fr Brendan Smyth did not continue to perpetrate sexual assaults on children including the plaintiff.

"3. Requiring and causing the two children, the subject matter of the inquiries held on the March 29, 1975, and April 4, 1975, to sign under oath undertakings that they would not discuss the interview with anyone except priests who had permission to discuss it.

"4. By failing in its duty to report complaints against Fr Brendan Smyth negligently deprived the plaintiff and others of appropriate medical treatment."

The Sunday Independent has learned that for 10 years the solicitor representing the woman had unsuccessfully attempted to force disclosure of documents relating to the handling of her case by the church. In 2007, the solicitor sought and received documentation from gardai who by then were examining documents relating to abusing priests. These documents finally disclosed the meetings at which Cardinal Brady was present. The case is still before the High Court.

In an affidavit before the High Court last December, the woman's solicitor said the victims were made to "sign under oath undertakings that they would not discuss their interview with anyone except priests who had permission to discuss it".

By 1975 there had already been an enormous number of complaints about Smyth's abuse of children in Ireland, the UK and the US. At least one priest, Fr Bruno Mulvhill, had raised the complaints with the Irish hierarchy as early as 1968. It later emerged that Smyth had been abusing children from the 1940s but was continuously moved and allowed to go on abusing right up to the 1990s when his extradition from the Republic was finally sought by the RUC and he was convicted and imprisoned. It was the scandal that arose after it emerged that the RUC's extradition warrant had sat for months in the Attorney General's office in 1994 that led to the collapse of the FF/Labour coalition government. Fr Smyth died in prison in 1997.

The plaintiff, according to the affidavit, "suffered sustained and continued to suffer from very severe personal injuries, distress, trauma, loss and damage by virtue of the negligence and breach of duty of the defendants".

It says the defendants: "Caused, permitted, allowed or condoned church activities and in particular children's outings when they knew or ought to have known that it was unsafe to do so;

"Caused, permitted, allowed or condoned the organisation of such outings by a servant or agent of whom they knew or ought to have known had paedophile tendencies or was, in fact, a paedophile;

"Caused, permitted, allowed or condoned access to children and in particular to the plaintiff herein by a servant or agent who they knew or ought to have known presented a grave risk to children;

"Caused, permitted, allowed or condoned the plaintiff to assist in church-related activities in circumstances of great danger of which they knew or ought to have known of;

"Required the plaintiff to assist in church-related activities in which they knew or ought to have known she was likely to be sexually assaulted which in fact occurred;

"Caused, permitted, allowed or condoned a servant or agent to have unlimited, unregulated and unsupervised access to young children and particular to the plaintiff herein which access was utilised for repeated sexual abuse;

"Failed to protect children and in particular the plaintiff herein from sexual assaults by their servants or agents;

"Exposed the plaintiff to the immediate danger of ongoing sexual assaults which in fact occurred; and faced the plaintiff in a real apprehension of immediate battery being committed on her."

The affidavit states that the victim continues to suffer from the trauma of the violent sexual abuse which began when she was 14 and continued until she was 20. It states: "She complained of sleep disturbance, nightmares, reduced energy, mood swings, flashbacks and hyper vigilance. The plaintiff also suffered from a sense of estrangement, an absent sex life and distress even at the mention of sexuality. Her symptoms further included fear, nervousness, diarrhoea, choking sensations, muscle tension, increased heart rate and breathing difficulties. The plaintiff complained of thoughts of death, loss of concentration, interest and appetite. She avoids closeness to people including her husband and is fearful of rejection. Her marriage and quality of life have been greatly affected. The plaintiff was deeply distressed and overwhelmed by sexual abuse from the time she was 14 to 20 years of age."

Cardinal Brady is sued by victim of serial abuse priest - National News, Frontpage - Independent.ie

[sondagefaux]

The actions Cardinal Brady was involved at the time were not illegal and were part of a process to uncover what had Fr Smyth done to those boys.

Brady was present at a meeting in which two alleged victims of Smyth gave evidence that they had been sexually assaulted and raped by Smyth. Brady therefore had grounds for reasonable suspicion that Smyth had committed serious crimes.

It was a crime in 1975 to fail to report knowledge of a crime.

The failure to report that Smyth had raped a child was known as misiprision of felony and was a crime in Ireland until the late 1990s.

[sondagefaux]

Brady must go

end of.

There's more.

The lawyer, Brian Coady, of Murphy Coady Solicitors of Navan, Co Meath, wrote to the cardinal in January 2008, after examining the files unearthed by the gardai.

In his affidavit to the High Court last December, Mr Coady said: "I made it clear in my letter of January 25, 2008, enclosing the particulars of negligence that those allegations were made against the second named defendant (Sean Brady) in his personal capacity and not in his capacity as Catholic Primate of All Ireland. I also requested that the second named defendant indicate if he had any objections to same.

"However, the second named defendant client failed to indicate his position. I begged to refer to the copy of the letter of January 25, 2008, upon which marked the letters BC2 I have signed prior to the swearing thereof."

He wrote again in June last year. His affidavit to the High Court on this date reads: "By letter dated June 16, 2009, this firm again wrote to the second named defendant's solicitors seeking their consent to the amendments proposed by the statement of claim. I beg to refer to a copy of this letter upon which marked the letters BC3. I have signed my name prior to the swearing thereof.

"The plaintiff continued to wait for a response to the said letters in order to admit this application to be heard by the Master of this Honourable Court and to reduce costs. The second named defendant was aware of his personal involvement in and at all other details of the enquiry from the outset of proceedings and also knew that until September 2007 the plaintiff was unaware of same.

"In the circumstances the plaintiff assumed that he would consent to the amendment and gave him every opportunity to do so. However, at the date of swearing the second named defendant has not done so. In the circumstances, I believe the plaintiff has no option but to bring this motion before this Honourable Court."

Brady has known since the beginning of 2008 that a plaintiff would be alleging his personal responsibility for the harm caused by Smyth after 1975.

In plain English, Brady has known since the beginning of 2008 that the plaintiff's solicitors in this case wanted to sue him personally.

He failed to respond to their request to amend the documents that would have permitted this, forcing them to go to the High Court and put in a formal application.

[Akrasia]

There are two issues here.

1st The actions Cardinal Brady was involved at the time were not illegal and were part of a process to uncover what had Fr Smyth done to those boys.

I would say given the legal implications of such accusations and the undoubted shame and embarrassment of his victims that many of them were quite relieved that the abuse would be kept under wraps and not publicly revealed.

Please remember that only a small number of abuse cases are ever brought to court. Indeed its sad to relate that many victims of sexual abuse never reveal what happened to them to anyone at all. This is only slowly changing.

In and of itslelf Cardinal Brady is in the clear on this one unless it can be shown he had a further part in these proceedings and then attempted to block any further investigation into Smyth's activites.

2nd It is an absolute scandal that the Church allowed this individual after that to be placed in positions where his abuse of children could continue.

If Cardinal Brady was shown to have decided to place him in those positions (knowing what kind of a disturbed individual he was) then his position would be untenable.

But so far nothing has emerged to indicate that he did.

utterly disgraceful post.

How can you suggest that forcing two rape victims to sign an oath of confidentiality was in their own best interest.

How can you suggest that Brady was part of the process to convict Smyth when he went on to continue to abuse children with the protection of the church for another decade after this cover-up.

[sondagefaux]

Summary of the case.

Cardinal Brady 'did not tell gardai of sex abuse' - National News, Frontpage - Independent.ie