From the Washington Post: There was never any doubt that William Lynch throttled the priest. Lynch even conceded as much the moment he took the witness stand.
But a jury acquitted Lynch of felony assault and elder abuse on
Thursday, bringing a stunning conclusion to Lynch’s 37-year desire to
confront the priest he says molested him in a tent on a 1975 camping
“Mr. Lynch drove 50 miles, used a fake name, put on gloves and beat up
and bloodied an elderly man,” Rosen said. “We charged Mr. Lynch for the
crimes that he committed.”...
Lindner also testified and denied abusing Lynch. He later invoked his
Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and would not testify
further for fear of a perjury prosecution. The judge ordered Lindner’s
testimony stricken from the record.
In a deposition in the late
1990s, Lindner said he didn’t recall Lynch, who received $625,000 in a
1998 confidential settlement with the Jesuits after alleging the abuse.
According to alleged sexual assault victim ( it his word against the priest, there was no trial and no criminal charges brought against the priest and the priest denied the allegations):
Jurors told the San Francisco Chronicle and San Jose Mercury News that
Lynch’s detailed claims of abuse at the hands of Jerold Lindner weighed
heavily in their decision, despite prosecutors’ pleas to focus solely on
the afternoon of May 10, 2010 when Lynch punched Lindner several times....
Lynch countered that he only wanted the priest to sign a confession
and started punching Lindner after the retired priest “leered” at him
the same way he looked at Lynch during the alleged molestation during a
1975 camping trip.
Lynch previously declined a plea bargain and
said he hoped to use the case to publicly shame Lindner and bring
further attention to the Catholic Church clergy abuse scandal. Lynch has
said memories of the priest have tormented him for years, and he
struggled through alcohol abuse, nightmares, divorce and other problems.
He tried to commit suicide twice.
I'm sorry but what if the priest was innocent? And even if the priest did sexually assault Lynch, Lynch accepted $625,000 so the case would not go to court. If he wanted to shame the priest, he should have done it in open court instead of accepting the money. Further, what kind of man beats up a frail old man just because Lynch didn't like the way he looked at him.
The judge was wrong to admit into evidence that the priest sexually assaulted Lynch and that made the jury biased. Lynch was nothing more than a vigilante who took the law into his own hands after he accepted $625,000 to make the case go away.
The judge and jury in this case got it really wrong.
(BTW, if the priest did sexually molested Lynch, I certainly don't approve of it and I am in no way sticking up for the priest, I am just commenting on this as a law case.)
"9-year-old slams Rahm over Chicago schools."
9 minutes ago