tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post1453031802187145343..comments2023-10-22T09:32:13.417-04:00Comments on Big Trial | Philadelphia Trial Blog: Reporter's Notebook: Did Mom's Testimony Help or Hurt Son's Case?Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04116104602505815614noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post-26386802448140369612012-04-17T13:26:24.265-04:002012-04-17T13:26:24.265-04:00She didn't say she didn't believe her son ...She didn't say she didn't believe her son (today). She said she'll never know (for sure, under oath) what went on in that room. That is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.<br><br>The only two that know are her son and a Catholic priest, and Catholic priests have been lying about child rape forever, and we have absolute proof of two liars just this year - Cardinal Bevilacqua and Fr Avery.PatOhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12461865437824551724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post-7335207028091479692012-04-17T13:22:21.565-04:002012-04-17T13:22:21.565-04:00GBullough,I have read that Pennsylvania law has so...GBullough,<br><br>I have read that Pennsylvania law has some restrictions on the expert witnesses in cases like this that are unique to Pennsylvania, and I believe that they might not allow such witnesses, which is unfathomable.PatOhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12461865437824551724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post-53624973688515928222012-04-16T22:48:26.258-04:002012-04-16T22:48:26.258-04:00I did wonder why the prosecution put her on the st...I did wonder why the prosecution put her on the stand. Her final statement indicating she didn't believe her son certainly seemed damaging. I wondered if she had told the prosecutors that in advance. She did corroborate several facts though. And maybe they wanted the jury to see how entranced she was with the priest and what a precarious setting it was for the 14-year old boy. But whether or not she hurt his case, she most certainly hurt him. And that must have garnered substantial sympathy from the jury. I hope so anyway. And in that event, I'm concluding she helped his case.SarahTX2http://www.blogger.com/profile/13127925134697324637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post-469511507442696772012-04-16T11:18:08.619-04:002012-04-16T11:18:08.619-04:00Its not just predatory clergy. Parents worry about...Its not just predatory clergy. Parents worry about the mythical "stranger danger" roving pedophile who snatches their kid from the store, backyard, and yes, schoolyards. Pedophiles seek out single moms and troubled families; families where the parents are distracted and the children are starved for adult attention. "Mark's" family met that profile to the "t." And Brennan's grooming of that family was completely consistent with that pattern. What makes the catholic priest story singular is not the fact that some of them are child predators--child predators are in all walks of life. What makes it unique was the institutional enabling and cover-up by the RCC hierarchy. It is difficult to imagine any other institution where child predators were harbored, protected, and assisted. Priests that dissented from church doctrine were promptly disciplined. Priests that molested or fondled children were ignored and protected. It's sickening.kopridehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14033734864815154844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post-37499378434547492352012-04-16T10:25:39.081-04:002012-04-16T10:25:39.081-04:00Any number of expert witnesses can be called to ex...Any number of expert witnesses can be called to explain how some predatory clergy insinuate themselves into the lives of the families whose children they are grooming for abuse. I hope that happens. Too many believe that abusers are just creepy guys who hang out on the margins of schoolyards. In more cases than not, though, we've found that abusive clergy have been the fun, charming, affable young priest who goes by "Father (first name)," comes to dinner without a collar, takes the kids places, etc., etc. And we know quite a few survivors whose parents didn't believe them when such a priest abused their kids.GBulloughhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10736543279476310879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post-53693174171591079462012-04-15T20:57:59.457-04:002012-04-15T20:57:59.457-04:00Great insight. I'm wasn't there but I felt...Great insight. I'm wasn't there but I felt the same thing when I read the characterization of mom's testimony. She basically corroborated her sons testimony and established that Brennan had an inappropriate relationship with her whole family, including her son. The defense lawyer's reaction showed he was so enamored with himself and his argument about the mom's doubt (and reasonable doubt) that he missed the impact of both witnesses testimony. The prosecution's theory is that mom served her boy up to her drinking partner in return for some attention from the cool priest. Nothing the mom said is inconsistent with that theory. Reasonable doubt assumes a reasonable person. A reasonable person would not have let her son have sleepovers with her troubled drinking buddy. Neither her doubt now nor her confidence then was reasonable.kopridehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14033734864815154844noreply@blogger.com