Originally Posted by LamportsEdge

Jayze he must have had some right dopey lawyers if that point didn't occur to them around the time of arraignment or during the trial Oh- and a point of order, Mr Prime Minister, he wasn't a 'caretaker of children' but responsible for the supervision of those in caretaker of children position.

A small distinction but perhaps a crucial one?

Lynn was a supervisor of the caretakers of children until 2004. He was charged with child endangerment under a law revised in 2007 to include those who supervise the caretakers of children. That means that he was prosecuted retrospectively.

Furthermore:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/25/us...buse-case.html

the judge erred in allowing testimony about accusations that were beyond the statute of limitations

Religion News Service | Faith | Leaders & Institutions | Monsignor William Lynn sentenced to 3-6 years for Catholic sex abuse cover-up

legal experts say he could have a strong case

That must be why the church has stopped paying his lawyers.

Originally Posted by LamportsEdge

That must be why the church has stopped paying his lawyers.

Since when? The Archdiocese of Philadelphia has described his sentence as excessive and has asked parishioners to pray for him. So there's no evidence that the Archdiocese has hung him out to dry.

Correction: I've just read this.
No bail for Msgr. Lynn, judge affirms - Philly.com

Msgr. Lynn sentenced to three to six years in prison - Philly.com

Under state guidelines, Lynn will have to serve at least three years in prison before being eligible for parole.

Even then, his chances at getting out after serving the minimum could be slim. The state parole board has been reluctant to grant early release to inmates convicted of sex-crimes involving children.

Lynn has been convicted and imprisoned for failing to prevent paedophiles from abusing children, not for abusing children himself. Given that he was not charged with a sexual offence and the fact that he is not in a supervisory role means that he won't have the opportunity to repeat the offence he was convicted of, why would the board be reluctant to grant him parole?

According to the link I provided above, other lawyers in the firm that represent Lynn will continue representing him.

Msgr. William Lynn denied bail amid appeal | 6abc.com

But Lynn's legal team is shrinking as the Philadelphia archdiocese caps its budget for his appeal. Lindy is stepping down after eight years representing Lynn, while two of the four lawyers who defended him at trial will continue "largely on a pro bono basis," the archdiocese said.

Lynn's lawyers are "strongly convinced that there were many errors at trial and the sentence is disproportionate to other punishments meted out to administrators for this same charge," the archdiocese said in a statement. "We hope that the ultimate decision in Monsignor Lynn's regard is just and merciful."

He doesn't need as many as four lawyers to be able to exercise his right of appeal anyway.

Why has he received a harsher sentence than others convicted of the same offence?

Judge: No bail for Msgr. Lynn - Philly.com

Lynn's attorney, Jeff Lindy, decried the ruling and Lynn's conviction on one count of endangering the welfare of a child.

The appeal would center on the fact that the state's child-endangerment law has never been applied in the manner that it was in Lynn's trial, he said.

"The previous district attorney, Lynne Abraham, no stranger to being tough on crime, said the old [endangerment] law should not be applied to Monsignor Lynn and people like him. The law doesn't extend that way," Lindy said. "Well, a new D.A. comes in and says it does apply. So you have a conflict there in the District Attorney's Office."

That is definitely a cause for suspicion. If his conviction is not overturned at state-level then it may be overturned at federal level. It wouldn't be the first name that a wrongful conviction has taken place in the south of the US.

Originally Posted by davidcameron

Msgr. William Lynn denied bail amid appeal | 6abc.com

He doesn't need as many as four lawyers to be able to exercise his right of appeal anyway.

Why has he received a harsher sentence than others convicted of the same offence?

Judge: No bail for Msgr. Lynn - Philly.com


That is definitely a cause for suspicion. If his conviction is not overturned at state-level then it may be overturned at federal level. It wouldn't be the first name that a wrongful conviction has taken place in the south of the US.

Originally Posted by davidcameron

Lynn was a supervisor of the caretakers of children until 2004. He was charged with child endangerment under a law revised in 2007 to include those who supervise the caretakers of children. That means that he was prosecuted retrospectively.

Furthermore:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/25/us...buse-case.html



Religion News Service | Faith | Leaders & Institutions | Monsignor William Lynn sentenced to 3-6 years for Catholic sex abuse cover-up

With only 3 to 5 he's got off lightly.

A woman working for that Archdiocese has also been up in court.

All she did was steal money, but she's been given a stiffer sentence - 2 to 7 years. She's the one I'd feel sorry for.

Originally Posted by Old Mr Grouser

This is great news, OSB.

And another cleric, Bishop Finn of Kansas City in Missouri, is coming up for trial because he didn't report one of his priests to law-enforcement officers - Prosecutors in Bishop Finn case seek access to diocesan records - KansasCity.com - he is saying that he's in the clear because he'd appointed one of his priests to deal with that sort of thing.

An employee of the Catholic Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph says the bishop commented that

"boys will be boys"

when he was told about lewd images of children on a priest's laptop computer. The Kansas City Star reports that diocese computer director Julie Creech described her conversation with Bishop Robert Finn during an Aug. 17 deposition. A partial transcript of the deposition was filed Thursday in a civil lawsuit in Jackson County Circuit Court. That lawsuit alleges the Rev. Shawn Ratigan abused a 9-year-old girl months after the diocese learned of the photos on his computer. Ratigan has pleaded guilty to federal charges of producing child pornography. Finn and the diocese are charged in state court with misdemeanor failure to report suspected child abuse. Finn has pleaded not guilty.

Partial transcript of the Aug. 17 deposition shows Creech said:

"He did indicate that, you know, sometimes priests do things that they shouldn't, and he said, you know, he said,

'Sometimes boys will be boys.'

I really got the feeling that maybe he didn't understand or didn't — I don't think he saw what I saw, so I felt like I was maybe upset — I think I was upset in a different way than he was because of what I had seen."

- - - - - - - - - -

Julie Creech is now backing away from her deposition claiming she had 'misspoken'! According to her attorney:

The statement Julie Creech attributed to Bishop Finn during her deposition that “boys will be boys” is not consistent with her recollection of any conversations she had with the bishop concerning the Shawn Ratigan matter. Following the deposition, Julie realized she had misspoken. She understood that pursuant to the rules of civil practice, she would receive a copy of the deposition transcript and have the opportunity to acknowledge and correct her mistaken testimony. Because the deposition was so recently completed, Julie has not yet had a chance to do that, so we were certainly surprised to learn that an unverified copy of her testimony was attached to a pleading in a civil case.

I saw that Andrew. Reminds me of the claim that a priest with pictures of little girls was only curious about the anatomical difference.

And to be fair it has to be mentioned that Rowan Williams has spoken out about an abuse controversy in the Anglican Diocese of Chichester

BBC News - Archbishop of Canterbury condemns child abuse failings