Monday, October 31, 2011

Kansas City Star Refuses Paid Ad Giving Bishop Finn and Diocese Side In Child Porn Priest Case

One does not have to be called a blind defender of Bishop Finn up in Kansas City to wonder what is up with the Kansas City newspaper.

Father Z has KC Star refuses to report other side regarding Bp. Finn and Diocese. Refuses even to take paid ad.

I really think and explanation is in order from the paper.


bill bannon said...

Read the Diocesan Graves report. Once you do you will see that Donahue is leaving out so much nuance in his ad that the Star may have considered the quality too low to print. For example: Donahue states that Finn placed Ratigan away from children. He was placed with two Vincentian Fathers who reported to the Graves committee that Finn did not tell them Ratigan was restricted from children nor about the photos whereas Finn says he told them. Across the street is a separate Franciscan retreat house where Finn did tell the nuns the whole story. Good thing...because young people go there and apparently patents with their young. Donahue left out that the policeman was tricked into thinking there was only one photo and that it was of a relative. It was not a relative and it was part if what the Graves report said was a staged series of one girl whose diaper was further removed in each photo until in the final one, her private areas are visible. None of this was told to the policeman who then thought it was one family photo with too much nudity. So he gave the opinion that it was not porn. See pages 86 through 88 Graves report.
Donahue leaves out the fact that Finn agreed in court in a previous case (10million dollar settlement) to report allegations immediately henceforth.  That would have been 7 months before the photo call to one cop..... based on the May 2010 5 page report by Principal Hess to Msgr. Murphy
who apprised Finn of the report by Hess. Donahue leaves out way too many facts that are in the Graves Report which Finn commissioned from a law firm.

James H said...

Yeah I read the Graves report a couple of weeks ago. Good points there but I am not quite sure that Finn "tricked" a policeman. There seemed to be a lot of actions by the Vicar General here ( in fact looking at the evidence it seems if anyone woule be indicted he would before the Bishop) but that may be the one of the links to get the Diocese as a Corporate enity.

Of course one of the most interesting parts of the Graves Reports to me was about the attempted Suicide note. IF that notes says what the commision has heard it said the police dropped the ball here too

bill bannon said...

James H
Read my sentence says nothing of Finn tricking the policeman.
The peculiar thing in this whole mess is that at key moments, several people tried to not know and not see as much as possible:
1. In May of 2010 when Principal Hess met with Monseignor Murphy with her five page report, the Graves report says at the end of the meeting, he pushed the report back to her across the desk. He didn't want to possess it.
2. When he apprised Finn of Hess' mission, Finn did not call Hess to get a look at her report.
3. December of 2010, Finn did not look at the found photos and when it was suggested to the diocesan lawyer that he should look at them, he declined. When the female diocesan lawyer mentioned that a forensic computer person might find more photos, no leader followed up on her suggestion.

It was as though from the very beginning with Murphy
pushing the report back to Hess, people wanted to see or
know as little as possible perhaps for court case purposes.
Women were the heroes. Hess was risking her job from the beginning because Ratigan as pastor could fire her in a bad economy. The female diocesan managers stated that the police should be called in December. Were they listened to, Finn would be unindicted today.

bill bannon said...

correction: female diocesan manager...not....female diocesan lawyer....suggesting a forensic computer person.