34 Comments

• fatherelijah | Apr 24, 2012, 02:54 PM EDT

  Fr. Kelly is a "compulsive liar"!!!! I cannot emphasize that enough. Which is why he passed the lie detector tests. He has lied so consistently that his twisted conscience does not produce a physical-chemical impulse to bely his statements.

• oldboreen | Apr 21, 2012, 06:27 AM EDT

  To AlunPalmer-fair comment,glad that you at least agree that a man is innocent until proven guilty, well in a civilized society anyway.The accuser's evidence in court was inconsistant with his original statement. I'm sure you will agree that that fact alone raises very serious questions.

• helpchildren | Apr 20, 2012, 08:32 AM EDT

  Repressed memories are common among many trauma victims. Dissociative amnesia is a well known scientific phenomenon, listed in the DSM, which means it is accepted by the overwhelming majority of the pertinent scientific community. It is well known that some victims of war traumas, child abuse and accidents may forget their traumas and remember them accurately later. There is no solid evidence that trauma memories can be distorted. They are often remembered very clearly. Ex-priest Paul Shanley, who had allegations of abuse against him over four decades, lost a case based on the testimony of a victim who had recovered memories. The case was appealed and the Superior Court found that the theory of dissociative amnesia is generally accepted in the relevant scientific community and is supported by a wide collection of clinical observations and a survey of academic literature. The McMartin case lasted many years with several hung juries. There was no "manufactured evidence" in this case. The tunnels were found there, backing up the children's stories of abuse.

• IrelandNorth | Apr 20, 2012, 07:29 AM EDT

  So called "lie detectors" are notoriously inaccurate. Detecting galvanic skin responses, mainly perspiration and heart beat reactions to very questions, other factors tend to be misdiagnosed such as personality type, peronal nervousness, self-consciousness, socialphobia, etc. 'Belief' in innocence is nonsense. Proof is what matters. Burden of proof is weightier and more objective than the days of the 'Holy' (sic) Inquisition. Nothing holy about prejudiced subjectivity informed by instutionalised superstition.

• IrelandNorth | Apr 20, 2012, 05:35 AM EDT

  Help Children are you seriously suggesting that the McMartins were guilty" that case was the biggest load of manufactured evidence , replete with fictitious hidden bunkers, satanic rituals ever as the courts eventually found

• AMWilson | Apr 20, 2012, 02:10 AM EDT

  Fr Kelly, the will of God would seem to be that you go to jail. If you're guilty, then accept your penance. If you're innocent, then rejoice in your opportunity to suffer for the Lord's sake. Either way, show us you're a real Christian, turn yourself in, and follow the plan that the Lord has for your life.

• fatherelijah | Apr 19, 2012, 10:58 PM EDT

  OBpiper, I am a priest and I know that Fr. Kelly is guilty and he is known to be a compulsive liar. I have worked in the hard core prisons and seen plenty of violence. Believe me there are many guilty in prisons who will swear on their mother's grave that they are innocent. Fr. Kelly acts as if he is always innocent, but will quickly point the finger at someone else to take the blame off of himself. He has always been a coward and a pedophile.

• helpchildren | Apr 19, 2012, 10:18 PM EDT

  This article is incorrect. Research proves that recovered memories are often accurate and that they are often verified. (see recovered memory project - 110 Corroborated Cases of Recovered Memory - brown.edu) The McMartin case had hundreds of children alleging abuse. There were physical symptoms of abuse in many of the children. The majority of the jurors in the case believed the children were abused. The Catholic Church has been covering up this abuse for many years. Why is this article supporting them?

• OBPiper | Apr 19, 2012, 09:46 PM EDT

  Father Elijah, you don't appear to be a lawyer. You do seem to be an ideologue. Many who are guilty accept their fates in prison. IF Kelly is not truly guilty I'd have to wonder about his sanity if he were to willingly accept imprisonment as a child abuser effectively a sentence to torment, mayhem, and death. Do you know anything of U.S.A. prisons? And, if you are a Catholic Priest I find you jointly liable for perpetuating the celibacy fraud.

• fatherelijah | Apr 19, 2012, 09:39 PM EDT

  Fr. Kelly is a compulsive liar and always acts innocent in whatever he does.  He lies so pervasively that he often forgets what he lied about.  He is a backstabber and is guilty as charged.  Don’t believe this man for he has never served God, but rather he has always served himself.  No innocent man runs from his verdict only a guilty man.  He is scared beyond belief and does not want to be exposed any further, that is why his anxiety is so high.  He has no concerned for his victims.  I hope he reads these comments and makes his first act of courage in his life and come back to face justice.

• AlunPalmer | Apr 19, 2012, 09:25 PM EDT

  To Oldboreen, I think the RC church is wrong on most of it's doctrines, especially all those relating to sex, but I think that Father Kelly is most likely innocent. There, happy now?

• OBPiper | Apr 19, 2012, 09:23 PM EDT

  I am inclined to go with the sentiment of the author. I was raised Catholic, have no tolerance for the "Roman" imposition of celibacy in what was once the Celtic Church, my church, and know the correlation between ludicrous celibacy and sexual child abuse, but I've practiced law over 32 years and I have to find reasonable doubt as to guilt with the evidence here. Let's be less focused with crucifying who we suspect to be past abusers and get on with crucifying the official perpetrators of oppression of women and forced asexuality/dysexuality within the Church!

• pilib04 | Apr 19, 2012, 08:31 PM EDT

  LilPaddy, Micheal Kelly "fled" to Ireland. Doesn't sound like an innocent man to me. Mr. Kelly is quite guilty. I don't refer to child rapists as Father!

• pilib04 | Apr 19, 2012, 08:29 PM EDT

  Nicolleta, it's not that he is a "priest", it's that he ran away!

• pilib04 | Apr 19, 2012, 08:28 PM EDT

  This MAN has escaped to Ireland to avoid prosecution for rape. What makes him any different from any other rapists is that he raped children! He Ran!!! Probably had help from Benedict who is busy now attacking American religious women.

• MelanieSakoda | Apr 19, 2012, 03:58 PM EDT

  While there was no witnesses to the plaintiff's abuse in the lawsuit against Father Michael Kelly, the plaintiff's parents corroborated parts of what the plaintiff recalled. For example, the parents were able to confirm that Kelly had indeed babysat with the plaintiff. Also, other witnesses reported being disturbed by the priest's interactions with minors, testimony which was similar in nature to elements of the plaintiff's testimony. These additional witnesses were instrumental in establishing the credibility of the plaintiff's recovered memories. Melanie Jula Sakoda Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) SNAP East Bay Director Toll Free Phone: 1-877-SNAPHEALS (1-877-762-7432) melanie.sakoda@gmail.com 925-708-6175

• Murph46 | Apr 19, 2012, 03:44 PM EDT

  The post attributed to me at 10:16 is MOST ASSUREDLY NOT ME!Please fix it!

• Nicoletta | Apr 19, 2012, 03:34 PM EDT

  I do not whether this man is innocent or guilty. I do know that the fact that he is a catholic priest makes him guilty in the eyes of the media, and thus the world. Thank you Patrick Roberts for writing an article defending a priest.

• OmahaSeamus | Apr 19, 2012, 02:31 PM EDT

  I pretty much agree with Katie Murphy. Father Kelly may be innocent. The church shuffles priests who are obviously guilty off to new parishes. The church has thus destroyed its own credibility. And by lumping good and evil priests together they make the public suspicious of all priests. This makes abuse charges against priests believable. By protecting the guilty the hierarchy is exposing the innocent suspicions of guilt.

• LilPaddy | Apr 19, 2012, 01:56 PM EDT

  If the charges had been true.... there would have been many more victims who would have come out of the woodwork.... My belief.. Fr. KELLY IS NOT GUILTY!!!

• oldboreen | Apr 19, 2012, 01:31 PM EDT

  A mesage to our anti-Catholic contributors, always very active on this site, never miss an opportunity lads! Is Father Michael Kelly guilty of child abuse? Or is it more a case that you want him to be guilty,tried or not?

• Messiah | Apr 19, 2012, 01:25 PM EDT

  I am a Clerical Abuse Survivor. I Suffered Repressed Memories. the Pries in the end after 6 years pleaded Guilty of the Crimes against me. the archdiocese of Dublin Suppressed Decades of Records of that Priests Paedophilia so he Could challenge he criminal statutes of Limitations in Ireland. they deceived the Murphy tribunal and it failed due to that deception to expose the Cover-up which if he Statutes Fell mean he Majority of he Pries in he Murphy Report would be non-chargeable. I is Repressed Memories are a Direct Symptoms of Clerical Abuse of caused by the Fear and False Guilt of the Victim. Oft times the Recovery of the Memories in Later Life Leads to Suicide Attempts and Successes. the Cover up has Led to my 12 Year Persecution by the Catholic Church Internationally.

• SingleDonald | Apr 19, 2012, 12:09 PM EDT

  After reading all of the comments below mine, I am fortified in my thinking that:1) Statutes of Limitations should be respected. 2) "Repressed Memories" are feminist guilt trips, and largely fabricated. 3) The recent incident, involving Father Michael Kelly, sounds very credible. I remember things very well, from Catholic Grade School. I was never sexually abused, and would have reported such to my parents, if it had occurred. These "Repressed Memories", I believe, began when feminists, guilt ridden over earlier consensual activities, sought to crucify the man involved. Never mind that they were both adults, or that they were near age minors, at the time. The woman, years later, had an "axe to grind", and sought to attack her partner. This attitude, like the imposition of "dating bans", in the workplace, reinforces the notion of women being "infants/children", who need the protection of surrogate "mommy/daddy"-the company or courts. That is why CREDIBLE accusations, like the one leveled against Father Kelly by the young man in his 20's, should be taken seriously. Likewise, lame accusations of events which allegedly occurred in 1985, 1975, 1965, etc. should be dismissed out of hand, with one exception. Although these long ago events should not result in criminal or civil liability, they can serve as a foundation. That is, if many such incidents from the past come to light now, they can buttress complaints against an accused, over something he supposedly did, in the recent past. I wish everybody would take a more sensible approach to the problems of sexual abuse.

• markday | Apr 19, 2012, 11:51 AM EDT

  Tihe problem I have is that this is not a news article. It's an editorial. The guy might be innocent, but there should be some in depth reporting here, not just one reporter's opinion. Editors, get a clue...

• GraydonWilson | Apr 19, 2012, 11:41 AM EDT

  There are basically three levels of proof in the law — absolute certainty, beyond a reasonable doubt and preponderance of the evidence. Absolute certainty is rarely possible and isn't ever required. Beyond a reasonable doubt --- required in criminal cases --- is a very high level of proof but has often been shown to be erroneous, especially in emotionally-charged cases or where the prosecuting attorney is clever and manipulative. A preponderance of the evidence --- the standard required in civil cases, as was this case --- is simply another way of saying that the claim is probably true. Getting a jury to say it probably happened is really not so difficult in many, many cases. But that does not mean it was actually so.

• eiriamach | Apr 19, 2012, 11:30 AM EDT

  Repression of traumatic memory is real, and psychotherapists have plenty of evidence for it. But whether the memory of abuse is repressed or not, it survives, and the law should deal with it. We cannot expect child victims to understand the crime and pursue their recourse to the law; many times they cannot even speak to their parents about the abuse they suffered. Fear, shock, and disillusion about the abuser can drive their memories "underground" for years. Statutes of limitations in child abuse cases are wrong. We must expect that many victims will become adults before they can take their abuse cases to law enforcement and the courts. I'm shocked that anyone involved in law enforcement would dismiss the return of a memory repressed in childhood as "imagination." There are few enough trials and convictions of sexual abusers. We should not presume that alleged victims are liars or fantasists. Let juries decide the facts.

• Porickseantuny | Apr 19, 2012, 10:54 AM EDT

  As a former assistant DA, I say repressed memory equals imagination. Some comments miss the point. If the so called non repressed cases were good they would have brought them into the trial or tried those cases first. While lie detectors can be beaten it is hard to do with a good operator. the most the liar will get is an "inconclusive" result. It is particularly hard to pass multiple exams.

• Murph46 | Apr 19, 2012, 10:49 AM EDT

  Something rotten in Denmark here!

• Murph46 | Apr 19, 2012, 10:16 AM EDT

  Here's my experience with "repressed memories." A young man I knew, not a friend really, but some one I would occasionally have some meaningful conversations with, told me that he now knew why he was so socially awkward, ascribing his awkwardness to sexual abuse by his parents. I asked how he knew this. He told me his new therapist helped him to uncover repressed memories. I asked how many times he had seen this therapist so far. He said once. I asked is it true that your parents were overprotective of you because the neighborhood was "bad," making you play by yourself in the back yard. I knew this from previous conversations. He answered yes. I asked: When these repressed memories were "opened," did you feel anger towards your parents? He answered along the lines of "not especially." Do you think playing by yourself could have caused you, as a shy person, to become socially awkward? He answered yes. Do you think you're completely socially awkward or more of a very shy person, lacking in confidence, not sure of yourself? He answered shy, not sure of myself. I suggested that he not talk about "sexual abuse" with anyone until he had seen another therapist, and that he be very skeptical about these "repressed memories." I also suggested that he get some training in social assertiveness. When we talked a few weeks later, the second therapist thought the sexual abuse thing was overreach but would explore that topic if called for as things progressed. The social training helped, and he had gone on three dates, two pretty good, one bad. ... Certainly in some cases repressed memories are real, but they must be treated with skepticism until other evidence is found.

• Mercyneal | Apr 19, 2012, 09:57 AM EDT

  HermitTalker: the "lie detector tests" were administered not by official law enforcement but by someone hired by Kelly's lawyer. As many cold blooded murderers have known to pass lie detector tests with flying colors, that is why they are NOT admissible in criminal cases. Additionally, you have conveniently left out the fact that the Modesto Bee and the Union Democrat are now reporting that the Calaveras Sheriff's office have been investigating a number of victims' complaints. NONE involve false memories. Indeed the young man who came forward in 2011 is in his twenties. He NEVER forgot what happened to him at age 10. Nor have the other victims who have come forward. Bishops ALWAYs back their predator priests. Ever read about the letters Boston Cardinal Law wrote to predator priests he kept around, with the full knowledge that they had molested boys? That's why Law was forced to STEP DOWN. If you think a bishop defending one of his priests means that Kelly is innocent, I have a bridge to sell you. Also you haven't included that parents DID go to the diocese to complain about Kelly with kids. That's why Kelly was sent to a "treatment" center for six months. Kelly lied to the congregation and said he was going away for ulcers. Sorry, it is inexcusable that ANYONE skips out on a trial. VERY stupid move on his part, as now his fleeing is making national news. If he had just stayed in California, we wouldn't be reading about this in the international press. By the way: did you happen to read the Union Democrat? They say that the District Attorney and Sheriff are weighing the option to extradite Kelly. There is so much that is NOT being included in the press. If you only knew...

• KatieMurphy | Apr 19, 2012, 09:47 AM EDT

  Who knows but the real issue is still how the hierarchy hid these creeps instead of dragging them to the police in chains............There are also several news items on the web that say the vatican explicitly told their people to hide these vile crimes.......................Also, religious extremists arer the prime type of people who can beat lie detector tests. Pathological liars, they so believe what they say that there is zero emotion when lieing.............My commnent on the viciouss hiding and even moving of known molester priests by the hierarchy - its not just keeping the collection plate full. Its that most likely the hierarchy are guilty of the same offenses against children in their past.

• hermitTalker | Apr 19, 2012, 09:36 AM EDT

  See my comments yesterday on this. The Grady horror story as noted would be the possible spook for finding him guilty. He passed two detector tests, his bishop backed him after investigating. Surely some parents would have come forward to offer serious evidence from their perspective. The repressed memory syndrone is as noted bunk, totally discredited. I say, they have ruined his life, so extradition from his family where he is going through this trauma is the best for all of them now. It is so easy for an outsider who has never been in such a situation to lecture or give advice. Suicide has sadly been the solution for too many embrarrassed by the vultures.

• eiriamach | Apr 19, 2012, 09:22 AM EDT

  Whether he is innocent or guilty, he was wrong to flee the jurisdiction of law-- there's no question, no room for doubt about that. The US legal system provides convicted criminals with multiple appeals processes. He did his case no good by escaping the reach of the court.

• Mercyneal | Apr 19, 2012, 08:40 AM EDT

  Mr. Martin: Your article fails to include that a second, much younger victim came forward in 2011 to say that he had been raped by Kelly at St. Andrew's Church in San Andreas, California in 2002. This was NOT a case of repressed memory. Additionally a number of other victims have come forward to the Calaveras County Sheriff's office recently. The Sheriff is investigating. Indeed the Modesto Bee reported on April 18, 2012 that the District Attorney and Sheriff's office are weighing extradition for Kelly. I repeat- none of the new cases involve repressed memory. Hope you will catch up on your reading on this case!! Thanks