Wednesday, July 04, 2012

Four Corners, the Armidale Express and Father F

This one made me very angry. Consider the following. Was I wrong to be angry?

On Monday night, ABC Four Corners ran the following story -  Unholy Silence. You will find the transcript and video here. I was interested if depressed because this was a very local story from my home area. On Wednesday, 4 July, the Armidale Express carried this story by Janene Carey Disgraced priest lives comfortably among us. The story began:

A SHOCKING exposé aired by the ABC’s Four Corners on Monday night dropped a prominent Armidale resident into the spotlight of allegations about a child sexual abuse cover-up within the Catholic Church.

The man, a former priest who was defrocked in 2005, was called “Father F” throughout the program due to a court order from 1987 that prevents the media from revealing his name, and was shown on the streets of Armidale with his face pixelated.

Although allegations have been repeatedly raised that Father F molested altar boys in Moree and Parramatta during the 1980s, he has never been formally convicted.

It ended with this statement:

Ms Mary Ann Jolley
ABC 4 Corners

Dear Mary Ann,

Your email of the 14th June mentions the tragic case of Mr Damian Jurd. Whilst I have only recently become Bishop of the Diocese, I have been made aware of his plight. I offer my deepest sympathies to his family and friends.

As far as I can ascertain, the Diocesan Authorities became aware of alleged incidents of abuse by (‘Father F’) on the 13th August 1987 when he was arrested. He was immediately stood down from all public ministry. The Church paid for his legal fees since every person accused of a crime is entitled to a defence.

(‘Father F’) was later permitted to undertake ministry in the Parramatta Diocese since the charges against him were dismissed and since a Clinical Psychologist’s 1998 report indicated that he did not present any problem to children.

I have no knowledge of any sessions between (‘Father F’) and Rex Brown as you mention.

(‘Father F’) last worked as a priest in 1992 when on the 1st of July his priestly faculties were removed by the then Bishop of Armidale and he was forbidden from any undertaking any public ministry. The diocese took this course of action because, although the charges against him were dismissed, there were continued rumours about him. Subsequently the Church’s Special Issues Resource Group (forerunner to Towards Healing) formed the opinion that he should not undertake public ministry due to these continued rumours.

(‘Father F’) was formally laicised on the 18th November 2005 and no longer has any priestly status in the Church.

Yours faithfully,

Most Reverend Michael Kennedy
Bishop of Armidale

On Wednesday evening, the Armidale Express issued the following statement on its Facebook page headed Clarification:

"The Armidale Express would like to make it clear that the person identified as ‘Father F’ in the story "Disgraced priest lives comfortably among us", published on Wednesday July 4, has never been employed as a journalist or in any other capacity by this newspaper, its sister paper, The Armidale Extra, or by our parent company, Fairfax Media.

In the past, Father F has occasionally contributed unpaid articles to the Armidale Express, however, the paper’s management decided to cease accepting Father F's copy in April 2012 after being informed about his background.

Although the ABC Four Corner's program about Father F showed our office and stated that he was a "regular contributor to local newspapers and employed to enter family homes gathering information for a survey funded by the Federal Government", in fact he is a regular columnist for another Armidale newspaper.

Father F's contributions to us were ad-hoc and dealt with historical subjects, and at no time was he ever requested by us to enter people's homes to gather information.

The Armidale Express, The Armidale Extra and Fairfax Media have no on-going relationship with Father F in any capacity."

I saw the clarification as it was posted and responded with an angry comment. Let me explain why.

The question of Father F's guilt or innocence nor the crimes he allegedly committed were not the reason for my response. Rather, it was anger at the Express itself.

Leaving aside the way the clarification identified Father F, to my mind it was disingenuous even hypocritical. I quote: "Father F has occasionally contributed unpaid articles the the Armidale Express."  If Father F is the person that seems to be implied by all the comments, the Express welcomed his contributions and ran them every week. And why not? To my knowledge, the then editor knew nothing of the matters revealed on the Four Corners story, nor did others connected with the paper including myself. I was a weekly columnist on the Express for a number of years. Father F wrote quite well on historical topics of local interest.

Continuing, and again I quote: "In fact he is a regular correspondent for another Armidale newspaper." I wonder what the fact that Father F wrote a column for the Armidale Independent  - a fierce competitor - has to do with anything except to demonstrate a holier than thou attitude.

The reference to "unpaid articles" made me smile. It adds to the vision of a local scribbler carried in the paper as an act of grace and favour. In fact, the Express paid none of its regular contributors including yours truly, and I contributed over 150 weekly columns!

To quote further:  "the paper’s management decided to cease accepting Father F's copy in April 2012 after being informed about his background." Really? So in April Armidale's main media outlet took the allegations about Father F sufficiently seriously to stop accepting his contributions.

I fully accept that local newspapers can face difficult choices when it comes to dealing with allegations about locals. Yet surely it is a little odd that a newspaper should wish to claim in its defence that they stopped dealing with a contributor having been informed of his background two months before the story broke nationally? And then the focus of their coverage is on, and I quote: "A SHOCKING exposé aired by the ABC’s Four Corners on Monday night dropped a prominent Armidale resident into the spotlight of allegations about a child sexual abuse cover-up within the Catholic Church."

In my response on Facebook, I described the Express clarification as mealy mouthed. It struck me as back-protection that would have made any of our politicians proud Was I wrong? I'm still cranky.

Postscript

Just in case I was being unbalanced, I watched the whole Four Corners program again. It's not pleasant viewing. The paper's concern is something I hadn't actually noticed the first time, the juxtaposition of a piece of commentary with a picture of the Express window. I think that I stand by my comments.

Postscript two

Tonight's ABC 7.30 Report has just reported on the matter. You will find the transcript and video here, at least for the moment.  It made me really uncomfortable because we are now dealing by trial by media. You will get a more balance picture if you look at the comments on this on both side.

Armidale is a small gold fish bowl. This matter has to go to a full police investigation for the sakes of all those involved.

Postscript three:

In a comment tonight on the discussion thread on this post, I wrote:

"First of all, a heartfelt thanks to all of you for your courtesy in discussing this difficult topic. You have educated me.

After coming home tonight, I did some more web searches triggered by comments including that relating to the Broken Rights, Janene's latest story and kvd's comments. For reasons that I will explain properly in a postscript on the main story, I am withdrawing from coverage of this matter for the present. However, I will leave the comment thread open.

I am not quite sure how to number all the anons! However, one informed anon commented, and I quote, "Jim, if you read the witness statements, court transcripts, spoke to families involved, etc, I don't think you would remain so impartial." I did not read this as a criticism, rather an objective observation.

I am not opposed to use this blog for campaigning purposes, but when reporting or examining issues of principle, my value add lies in impartiality, in my ability to delineate issues. This holds even when I am angry as I was with the Express. I asked readers for their judgments as a consequence.

As a part time blogger in a fast moving case like this one, I am not equipped to report in a conventional sense. I am not a newspaper. Further, some of the reporting that I might do even just providing links to past stories, is likely to threaten the chances of a fair trial.

As was noted, there is a difference between revenge and justice. If justice cannot be obtained by any other means, then there is a case for the use of direct action or the media to redress the balance. But there is also a question of balance.

Consider kvd's report on Mr Hadley. Does anybody believe that this (Mr Hadley's actions) will aid justice? To my mind, it is far more likely to have the opposite effect by impeding the chances of a fair trial, indeed even increasing the chances of a dismissal of any charges.

As I said, I will try to outline my views in a little more detail in a postscript on the main post."

I meant very sincerely what I said about my commenters. I stuck my head above the parapet on a sensitive issue, and the whole thing could have collapsed in a flame fight of type that we have seen too often before in the blogosphere. It did not. Instead, I gained a greater understanding.

I have grouped the comments that follow under headings to make it easier to understand the differing issues as I see them.

The Catholic Church

The Armidale Diocese has announced an inquiry into the matter and rightly so. Leave aside broader issues including legal questions, we appear to be dealing with a failure in due process in the previous investigation. This demanded impartial investigation as well as natural justice on both sides. I may be wrong, but an objective inquiry is required to determine the facts. This includes natural justice for Father F.

Failures in Legal Process

I am very careful in this area because I lack facts and do not have time to do the proper analysis. Have there been failures in general legal process in handling this matter?

Use of the Media to seek Justice

Are people entitled to use the media to seek justice denied through the courts or other systems? I would have thought clearly yes. That right is central to a free society. Note I said justice. More on that in a moment.

Role of Armidale's newspapers

This was actually my entry point, my anger at the Express clarification. Based on my commenters, I haven't validated the claims, the facts appear to be these:

  • The allegations about Father F including some evidentiary material, were supplied to Damian Jurd and Daniel Powell when Christian Knight was Express editor. Armidale Independent Editor Joanna Harrison was informed at least twelve months ago. The allegations were also supplied to Matt Taylor, the Express editor who replaced Christian Knight.
  • The papers continued to run material from Father F for a period, although according to the Express clarification, the paper dropped Father F when the paper was informed of the allegations in April. By contrast, the Independent continued to use his material. Neither paper launched any form of news investigation.

Subject to one qualification that I will come to in a moment, my sympathies are with the papers on this one. It's very hard being a local paper in a gold fish bowl. All sorts of allegations cross your desk about locals. That's the nature of local life. Further, the presumption of innocence has to hold, while journalist resources are limited. So you make judgements.

My qualification is the Express.

The clarification said, and this was one of the things that got me angry, "the paper’s management decided to cease accepting Father F's copy in April 2012 after being informed about his background." It seems to me, and maybe I am being too simplistic, that if the Express took the allegations sufficiently seriously to stop publishing Father F because they had been informed of his background, then they actually did have a duty to investigate them from a journalistic viewpoint.

A Question of Justice

Once the story broke, once it became clear that investigations were underway, the whole game changed. At least it did if you are interested in justice rather than revenge.

Whatever the results of any investigations or court cases, this whole thing has destroyed Father F in that one area in which he has rebuilt his life, his role as a local historian in the community that he loves and identifies with, that is central to his sense of self. Now maybe that's fair, although fairness in that sense is arguably linked to revenge rather than justice. Consider only justice. That's two edged, justice to both sides.

The media feeding frenzy since the Four Corners story has gravely damaged Father F's chances of getting any form of fair trial should a trial result. Let me quote from a comment by kvd:  

Just to note that driving around today, flicking radio stations, I listened to 2GB's Ray Hadley read - in full - that record of meeting which was published yesterday. He'd apparently had legal advice, so instead of "Father F" he was using (repeatedly) the name of the fellow.

He completed his recitation with the note that he was not at liberty to take either calls, or emails/texts on the subject - but the name was mentioned probably a dozen times.

Just mentioning it for the record.

Now with that type of coverage, how does Father F get a fair trial? 

39 comments:

distance runner said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
distance runner said...

Hi Jim,
(previous comment deleted due to grammar. :-) )
I share your concerns. I watched the program twice too, thought that the commentary about him doing research in people's homes was quite separate to the Express. It seemed to be the next sentance/ point.

C

Anonymous said...

Hi Jim,

Both papers have known about the allegations for years. Concerns were brought to the Express in the late nineties. The Independent was also informed about him relatively recently.

The saddest thing is what's happened to journalistic ethics. Both papers have had a national news story under their noses for years, but no one could be bothered to actually find out the facts. When confronted, their reply was simply, 'he was found not guilty (which is factually incorrect)and that nothing could be done.

The information was out there and it wasn't hard to find.

This week's Independent says it all. National news story? No coverage at all. In fact, they CONTINUED TO PUBLISH Father F! Surely any journalist worth their salt would jump at a chance to help those who fell through the cracks and to jump on board such a big story? I feel sorry for the inexperienced journalists, but really. The Independent should have the title 'newspaper' revoked and replaced with 'brochure'.

At least the Express should be acknowledged for covering it - even though their entire coverage was based on the 4C story. (wouldn't you try to get a local comment of your own? - not even a vox pop).

Father F's activities have been an open secret in town for years. All praise to those who followed up on it - and there are a small few. Shame on those who are paid to follow up on such things, but, for whatever reason, couldn't be bothered.

Evan said...

I think you were right to be angry.

I think there are two important principles here:
1. People are entitled to presumption of innocence. Even if the media likes to presume guilt (except in relation to themselves of course. What an independent arbiter for journalism - cue outrage, all those dedicated, ethical and professional journalists just pouring out an avalanche of high quality copy? Why the very idea!)

2. The person bringing the complaint should always be welcomed even if not believed. They should be welcomed and helped to come up with details - not easy after years and in incredibly stressful situations. For young people or children this is even more important (that a child's testimony can be dismissed by a judge is simply appalling.)

Both are important. A rule of thumb: the younger the person the more likely they are to be telling the truth. Not universally true but useful as a rule of thumb

Jim Belshaw said...

I think that's right, C.

Anon, I wasn't actually aware of the stories about Father F. I found your comments interesting if again making me sad. In fairness to the Express and Independent, these are not easy matters to handle.

Evan, both your points strike me as fair.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for your sober comments Evan. You will notice that I have steered clear of the adjectival in regards to Father F, but, you are right, I am angry.

Call me old fashioned, but journalism used to be a privilege - you were an agent of truth with the consequent responsibilities. I realise this is idealistic, but I'd like to bet it's still the reasons why most journos get into the trade.

I agree the presumption of innocence is important - except when your research reveals there can't be a presumption of innocence any longer and a grave injustice has been done.

The web has made research easy these days. It didn't take long to compile much of the evidence you saw on Four Corners.

Publishing this guy with a byline has had a devastating effect on some of the victims and their families. I'm angry because I know it rubbed their noses in it on a weekly basis and the editor was told of this. Her lack of concern for this is what spurred me to research it - I can thank her for that.

I do feel sorry for her, because she wouldn't have had access to legal advice and very few, if any, experienced people around her to consult with. The Express, though, has less of an excuse. They have the historical knowledge and the resources. As you noted Jim, the fact they say they were tipped off in April should have given them ample time to get the scoop of their lives - not to just skulk away from the story because it was all too embarrassing. 'Not an easy matter to handle' - perhaps, but certainly not impossible. Yes, journos are expected to do too much for too little these days, but I'd still prefer to respect my newspapers rather than pity them.

Jim Belshaw said...

I wrote a full comment and then lost it in a connection crash!

I have added a link in the story to tonight's 7.30 report coverage. I thought that this would have done credit to a Current Affair. It wasn't reporting at all.

Anon, in fairness to Janene, a former colleague when I was an Express columnist, I think that she is a very good journalist.Her on-line response to some of the more rabid comments preserved the party line without the added crap.

In my mind, I distinguish between the events leading up to the 4 Corners story and later developments. With 4 Corners, you have to read the transcript to avoid distortion created by the visuals - like the shot of the Express office. That said, this was clearly a matter that needed to be investigated and, unlike the 7.30 Report, there was a clear body of evidence.

What has happened since is more like a lynch court. We need a police investigation now for everyone's sake including Father F.

Anonymous said...

Hello Jim. It is true that both papers knew of Father F's alleged offences-I personally gave a hard copy of the Broken Rites article relating to Damian Jurd and Daniel Powell to the Express at least 18 months ago when Christian Knight was editor; I also informed Matt Taylor of this matter several months ago. I alerted the editor of the Independent, Joanna Harrison, to the article at least 12 months ago, and provided her with details of the Broken Rites web address. I am glad that you are angry - so am I. Let's maintain the rage and transform anger into action. Let's demand a full, independent inquiry. Cheers.

Anonymous said...

Thank you other anon. I know there's a few people out there doing the same thing, but I don't know who most of them are. Jim, if you read the witness statements, court transcripts, spoke to families involved, etc, I don't think you would remain so impartial.

If I wanted a lynch mob, that could have been arranged long ago. I don't. I want him brought to justice.

Unfortunately the only way to achieve this has been through the media. After the 4 Corners story we now have police investigations, church investigations, and the long-shot of a Royal Commission to bring out the wider picture here. This makes it even sadder that our own papers never researched Father F. Indeed they said 'nothing could be done'. There was so much smoke but no one looked for the fire.

We now have two people on this site alone saying they brought it to the papers' attention. The papers, as supposed investigative bodies, have failed not only by an act of omission, but by commission. They have helped legitimise someone who has admitted he is a paedophile in open court. They might not have paid him to go into people's homes, but they have introduced the community to him as the media have said, as a 'prominent' member of the community. This would have helped him land the job with Roy Morgan on behalf of the Commonwealth govt to go into peoples homes over a number of yeas as part of the Living in Australia survey. I know at least two of those homes have children.

Please don't think I hate Janene, I certainly don't. It's just that reporting on an Armidale story entirely (literally) by reference to the work of other journalists (who aren't even based here) strikes me as either inexperienced or, more likely, scared of litigation because of a lack of legal advice.

MickR said...

Jim

You are right, I'm sure, about the Express. It has been a rag for years and I seldom look at it.

Like you, I know Father F and share his deep interest in history but I had no idea other than (for the past year) a vague notion that 'something had happened in Moree' many years ago.

However, I do think this matter needs to be aired, and since it seems the Church won't air it, who is going to do so if not the media?

'Trial by media?' 'Presumption of innocence?' Normally I'd worry about the first and insist on the second.

However it seems as though Father F has 'fessed up' under oath. If that's true then he accepted his guilt and so innocence need not be presumed.

I wish I knew how to bring justice for the victims and their loved ones without programmes like Four Corners. If the Church cannot deal with issues like this properly (and let's face it, the Church has a hell of a lot to answer for in this regard) then 'trial by media' is probably better than no trial at all. Of course there are huge risks of getting it wrong. Yherefore I'd rather Four Corners be on the case than something like A Current Affair.

All in all, I find this a hugely difficult issue and can only express my sympathy for all those innocent people affected by this horrible story.

Cheers

Mick

Anonymous said...

Hi again Jim. Three cheers for Four Corners! A credible team with the courage and integrity to handle this issue so capably. How disappointing that our local press have been so manifestly weak. This is a wonderful opportunity for Michael Kennedy to show some real leadership - to publicly state his unequivocal position on paedophile clergy in his diocese, to make all church records on these matters public, to cooperate fully with the police and provide full assistance to affected victims and their families. Please Bishop Kennedy - restore a little of my faith in your institution.

Anonymous said...

Congratulations Janene. Now she's doing real journalism.

Anonymous said...

Just to note that driving around today, flicking radio stations, I listened to 2GB's Ray Hadley read - in full - that record of meeting which was published yesterday. He'd apparently had legal advice, so instead of "Father F" he was using (repeatedly) the name of the fellow.

He completed his recitation with the note that he was not at liberty to take either calls, or emails/texts on the subject - but the name was mentioned probably a dozen times.

Just mentioning it for the record.

kvd

Jim Belshaw said...

First of all, a heartfelt thanks to all of you for your courtesy in discussing this difficult topic. You have educated me.

After coming home tonight, I did some more web searches triggered by comments including that relating to the Broken Rights, Janene's latest story and kvd's comments. For reasons that I will explain properly in a postscript on the main story, I am withdrawing from coverage of this matter for the present. However, I will leave the comment thread open.

I am not quite sure how to number all the anons! However, one informed anon commented, and I quote, "Jim, if you read the witness statements, court transcripts, spoke to families involved, etc, I don't think you would remain so impartial." I did not read this as a criticism, rather an objective observation.

I am not opposed to use this blog for campaigning purposes, but when reporting or examining issues of principle, my value add lies in impartiality, in my ability to delineate issues. This holds even when I am angry as I was with the Express. I asked readers for their judgments as a consequence.

As a part time blogger in a fast moving case like this one, I am not equipped to report in a conventional sense. I am not a newspaper. Further, some of the reporting that I might do even just providing links to past stories, is likely to threaten the chances of a fair trial.

As was noted, there is a difference between revenge and justice. If justice cannot be obtained by any other means, then there is a case for the use of direct action or the media to redress the balance. But there is also a question of balance.

Consider kvd's report on Mr Hadley. Does anybody believe that this will aid justice? To my mind, it is far more likely to have the opposite effect by impeding the chances of a fair trial indeed even increasing the chances of a dismissal of any charges.

As I said, I will try to outline my views in a little more detail in a postscript on the main post.

Evan said...

It is worth saying perhaps that I know several people who were sexually abused as children (or more correctly who have told me this - given the stats we all know people who were abused as children). Though this was by family members not clergy.

These abused people usually share the concern for people to be given a fair trial. Although there are great difficulties with admissability of evidence eg. having to give precise dates for occurrences that occurred years ago and in childhood. The idea that the abused are vengeful is not accurate at all in my experience.

I do think that when other institutions close down we need the media to investigate. I do think that there are responsible ways for the media to do this. Free of sensationalising and melodrama. It is possible to present the impact of rape without resorting to cliche.

This is an enormously emotional and difficult area. But I do think we can remain fair minded while intensely emotional - in situations like this it is incredibly important that we do.

Anonymous said...

What is father f's real name please? Just all this talk and media frenzy about a former catholic Priest. One cannot help but wonder what his name is, especially when I think many do know his name now thanks to the report but four corners

Vicky said...

I love four corners and i adore their reporting style. They are amazing at finding information and they are VERY good at investigations. They did a report on people smugglers and they tracked a people smuggler in Australia.As the host said if a tv program can find a people smuggler in Australia what is left for the police.

I am guessing Armidale being a tight knit community the identity of "father F" will very quickly be found out especially how news spreads very fast in community like that.

MickR said...

Those who know Father F's name cannot reveal it for legal reasons. To do so would run the risk of us going to gaol while he walks free. What's the point of that?

Also there would be an increased risk of vigilante activity which could have disastrous consequences for the object of the activity and thence for any perpetrators.

Those who need to know already know.

I know that many in Armidale have known for years that there was something a bit iffy in this man's background, but no one I know had anything like the gruesome details that have recently come out.

Still there's some good news, Father Brian Lucas admitted on Radio National yesterday that Father F did admit to criminal acts at the now-famous Sydney meeting. This makes two of the three priests confirming the admissions. Lucas didn't report it because no names of victim's were revealed.

Well, for F...'s sake, is he stupid or what? If I see someone doing a break in to someone's house but don't know the name of the householder, should I not report it?

To answer my rhetorical question. Of course he's not stupid, he would rather a rapist walk free possibly to offend again than Mother Church to look bad.

Perhaps he did it for Father F's sake.

Anonymous said...

Hi Jim. Just for the record- at about the same time as I informed the Express and the Independent of the Broken Rites research, I also spoke with a police officer at the Armidale station re this matter. It was my understanding that this police officer took notes about our discussion as we were speaking on the telephone. I urge everyone to check out the Broken Rites Australia website - it is appalling and terrifying stuff but essential reading for anyone who still thinks that the catholic church has the capacity to respond honestly and impartially in these matters. And what has Mayor Ducat or local member Torbay had to say on these matters? There can be no more important matter to a community than child protection. You are a community leader, Jim. You've written many times of your affection for the New England. How about you lead the charge for real justice for these very damaged children and their very damaged families? Be fearless- don't go silent now. Cheers.

Jim Belshaw said...

Hi all. I will respond later today to comments, but could I ask something of all the anons? Please attach initials to your comment, they don't have to be yours, so that I can properly target my responses!

marcellous said...

The acts to which (in a general kind of way only) FF has admitted, either in the interview with Lucas et al in 1992 or in the trial of Daniel Powell for demanding money with menaces (FF's testimony in this trial will not be able to used against him because of section 128 of the Evidence Act) all happened more than 20 years ago.

The means by which FF obtained access to boys was his role as a priest. This no longer applies. Just entering people's houses as a local historian or Roy Morgan pollster would be most unlikely to give a similar opportunity. Is there even any suggestion that he attempted to exploit these opportunities in this way? His age by now would also make a difference to any chances to inveigle himself into a position where he could do the same sort of thing now.

Evan said...

Mass media isn't a good way to communicate suffering and change people's views - it generally reinforces them.

Stuff of the calibre of Go Back To Where You Came From is rare and hard to do.

Another approach is a campaign not about the individuals concerned but the cover-up. So a campaign about the attitudes shown by Brian Lucas and the institution in general.

And this can lead to a discussion about institutional reform rather than moralising about individuals. I think it is the institutional change that needs to happen. This means the less powerful having a voice through other channels than those with power over them. This applies to families as well as religious, military and other institutions too.

With media campaigning adopting this approach I do think it would be possible for the media to play a role in a way that doesn't prejudice legal proceeding and that doesn't is still able to communicate individual stories to some extent.

Keen to hear others' thoughts.

Tina said...

Umm I highly doubt you would go to goal for revealing his name. Think about it from a practical point of view, I highly doubt one would be bother to go through the computer networking world to identity the person to reveal his identity. Then to go to court to press charges

alanon said...

Trial by media is not the ideal. But thank GOD for Four Corners, the Sydney Morning Herald, The Australian etal for pursuing this issue and treating it with the seriousness it warrants. If the catholic hierarchy and the judiciary had responded appropriately to the Jurd's initial complaint about their son being sexually assaulted,Four Corners may not have had their story.

Anonymous said...

The next tip of the iceburg has popped up in WA with Allan Keith Huggins 'Clinincal Psychologist' formerly employed by the Diocese of Armidale and former counsellor at O'Connor High and former College Master at Earle Page College UNE is facing multiple charges of Sexual Child Abuse ahead of further investigations into other states where Huggins worked. These are linked! I can't say how yet but I know it for fact!

bob mcdonald said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Evan said...

Hi Bob, I don't doubt there are paedophiles in the police force and in any other group.

The stats on incest make this basically certain.

But the stuff on the Illuminati I don't buy. This is quite separate and to my mind muddies the waters.

bob mcdonald said...

Hi Evan , so you have read the ,reports and stories about the ordli tempus orianus or whatever they are they are spoken about everywhere in this regard ,I urge you if you haven't read her court case story to do so ,if you have read it ,and have that opinion then maybe you still take fluoride sorry if I am wrong but the evidence is everywhere the stories are in their thousands ,they are all compremised by their un lawful oaths ,much like the Jesuits ,and indeed the catholic churches oaths to rome and canon law and not moral law and not humane law and not even lawful I don't get it ?

bob mcdonald said...

And Sorry I like your story up to the end bits ,and I agree I would be angry with the paper ,they sure didn't want to talk to me when I rang them along with the police . court house in Armidale and Tamworth ,and the police in Sydney who are on and off the case ,anyway thanks

bob mcdonald said...

How can we trust the church or god when they betray our trust ? How can we trust the police who are supposed to protect when they rape and murder people then cover it up ?How can we trust the judges the solicitors if they work for the same people the judge does ?if were happy to normalise sex with kids then I need say no more ,moral people are now being discriminated against because they don't except reality ,have you read kinseys paedophiles ? or soddam and gomorah /anal nerve this is absolute B/S what is going on here and I don't care what they say or do I am innocent !

bob mcdonald said...

Let us know when anyone can answer the question have you spent an hour studying DR REINA MICHAELSON Young Australian of the year 99? her story of trying to ALERT the dumb sheep about ritual abuse and the people ?? anyone Then make your comments the church sucks and the laws suck ,and the commonwealth of Australia sucks because it is owned by USA and is a corporation ,up yours scumbags !who did this to our country the same ones who rape our kids ,amazing what a bit of study does ,the truth is easy to except ,if you have a shread of decency and a large does of morality others just don't and won't get it .

Jim Belshaw said...

Bob, while this is an open blog, I took your first comment off-line because of the references to Father F. I was uncomfortable with them because this is a current court case and the comments might therefore inadvertently breach the law.

bob mcdonald said...

What you actually think there is even a slightest chance of him being found innocent ? after all he did confess in court to abusing boys did he not ? and he still roams free ,as does our mister blissett I do not understand your appraisal at all but what can I do ,but please tell me how my truth ful comments may break the law ,and tell me too about the right of free speech thanks

Jim Belshaw said...

Bob, I'm sorry for the very slow response on this. I'm not close to the full court details beyond the Express reports, but as I understand it, comments on a current court case outside factual reports risk contempt of court.

BOB MCDONALD said...

Jim that's ok better late than never , Jim with all due respect , I find it quite amazing that you are not close to the court details ,I know your story is or was more about the Armidale papers ,but the fact remains that the paedophile in question has admitted he molested children early on , both to the 3 priests ,and to the courts ,and quote "I sucked off their dicks once a month for 12 months ' ,Jim you can not be in trouble if I quote truthful and factual comments that are well recorded in many places ,I can say he is a paedophile because he admitted the above facts . this is one of the most tragic story's I have ever read ,and my heart goes out to all his victims especially the children of the deceased , personally I think the courts are a total disgrace and I can not see justice coming ,and as I think I mentioned before ,our x judge here in Tamworth RAY BLISSETT clearly has blood on his hands , had he not been corrupt and yes I can say that too because it is fact ,at least 2 people would be alive today and at least 6 victims would not have been raped , I think also that if we continue to see the courts and the church protect these animals is the only word that should be used for them that sooner or later people not unlike me will probably deal out our own justice ,Does anyone know where he is ????? anyway Jim with the police involved themselves in the rape and cover up of children through it seems according to the www the masonic groups well what chance do our children have ? DR Reina Michaelson's story is very confronting wow a satanic ritual cult in the police force who would believe that ,and connected to big name celebrities as well like Graham Kennedy for a start , I really hope you don't delete this Jim you can check the facts for your self and you should have done that anyway I despise paedophiles ,and I hope you feel the same way thanks again for allowing me to have my say .

Anonymous said...

Has anyone seen the dentist lately?
Yes another one in the linked chain has popped up and got himself arrested.

Father F
Allan Huggins
Mr Dentist

Who is looking over their shoulders now...?

Anonymous said...

I am studying this and other relevant cases , can you tell me what is the relevance of Mr Dentist ? or have you been to the Dentist lately ? Sorry if I have missed something obvious .

Anonymous said...

Read this re Mr Dentist

http://www.police.nsw.gov.au/news/media_release_archive?sq_content_src=%2BdXJsPWh0dHBzJTNBJTJGJTJGZWJpenByZC5wb2xpY2UubnN3Lmdvdi5hdSUyRm1lZGlhJTJGNDEwNjcuaHRtbCZhbGw9MQ%3D%3D

Anonymous said...

Father John Farrell and fathe Paul Rex Brown was known by Bishop John Steven Satterthwaite I know this because in 1984 I told them about me so did a youth worker initial LA a Marist brother. In fact brown was transferred from Lismore as he was molesting kids then Kyogle. He was put in charge of the prespetry in tweed heads and to look after a youth refuge were he could invite other priests to molest, rape and kill kids souls for his pleasure.