Why did they wait so long?

Not sure where to place this so mods do what you must.


We have heard of not only accusations but payments to accusers, guilty pleas by the attackers and even lawsuits involving multiple victims.
en.wikipedia.org...
From the church.

Sometimes these victims, usually young boys at the time of the event, don't come forward until years later. In at least one case the victim kept quit for over 35 years.

Robert Mizic, 47, said his life was taken away as an altar boy 35 years ago

www.foxnews.com...

These boys have no proof except their word.


The purpose of this thread is to illustrate the double standard that we are seeing.

In these cases, at lest here on ats, we see thread after thread of members believing these boys without any proof.

But the same can not be said when it's a women making the accusation to a non clergymen.

Why is that?

Why would any of us believe ANYONE without proof?

Why are we here so quick to believe a boy about sexual assault years after the fact, but not a girl?

I thought maybe because people don't trust the church so they would sooner believe them of wrong doing?
But no, even the Christians and Catholics here at ats never seemed to want to defend the priests.

So what is it? What is the difference between a guy accusing the church of molestation 35 years later and a girl accusing someone of assault years later?


I made this thread to ask this question because of all the people here who are saying, " if ford is telling the truth, why didn't she come out sooner?"

My answer is the same for anyone that is a true victim of sexual assault. The reason they don't come forward right away is shame and fear.

I agree 100%. This is sickening to watch.

originally posted by: scraedtosleep

These boys have no proof except their word.


The purpose of this thread is to illustrate the double standard that we are seeing.

In these cases, at lest here on ats, we see thread after thread of members believing these boys without any proof.

You comparing the word from 15 years-old church boys to some sex-addicted woman who had restraining orders from ex-boyfriend?

The real bugger of a question is...
"Why Won't He Try That On Me!?!"

Go and see if the world you think is standing firm... Is truly standing firm.

a reply to: vinifalou

no, I clearly said that I was talking about adult men that claim to have been molested when they were boys.

Years after the fact.

Because there is evidence. Not only did the church admit to it, in some cases they kept records.

a reply to: scraedtosleep

I would say it's a matter of timing and possible motive.

In the case of the Catholic boys I can only think of one possible motive for lying: money. If you have a decades old molestation charge, it would be hard to win a lawsuit in court without evidence. If you were lying, you would have to hope that the Church would just want to quietly settle to avoid publicity. On the other hand, if you're telling the truth what you want is publicity, because money isn't going to change what happened.

In this current case, you have to be at least a little suspicious of the timing. This woman could have accused him at any point in his career. Her accusations come at a time when the Democrats are hell bent on stopping, or at least delaying, Kavanaugh's nomination. She's getting financial and legal support from the Democrats. She's making money on this no matter what happens, and the Democrats can oppose his nomination based on something other than his qualifications. That's got to at least raise an eyebrow.

Of course, these sorts of accusations should all be taken on a case by case basis.

That's stupid.

There are everyday cases of misgivings going on within the church, not just examples from 35 years ago.

Not to mention, it's really not difficult to explain you were in X church at X time studying under X bishop (w/e these idiots call themselves) for X amount of time and that X location is where it happened.

Being drunk at some party, at some house, at some time during the summer of 69 (hehe) does not qualify as "evidence". Nor does being drunk at some party, going up the stairs wasted, and being schmoozed by an assailant you hope is the guy you are destroying along with his friend. I don't buy it, no way, no how. Fk that lie detector test too, this is the same FBI that that creepy fker and his mistress got fired from.. I bet the test never even happened.

You will never get proof regarding something that may or may not have happened 30 freaking years ago and since our country operates on a innocent until proven guilty model (rightly so) this entire dog and pony show is pointless.

Just confirm him and move on for gods sake.

NVM

originally posted by: SR1TX
That's stupid.

There are everyday cases of misgivings going on within the church, not just examples from 35 years ago.

Not to mention, it's really not difficult to explain you were in X church at X time studying under X bishop (w/e these idiots call themselves) for X amount of time and that X location is where it happened.

Being drunk at some party, at some house, at some time during the summer of 69 (hehe) does not qualify as "evidence". Nor does being drunk at some party, going up the stairs wasted, and being schmoozed by an assailant you hope is the guy you are destroying along with his friend. I don't buy it, no way, no how. Fk that lie detector test too, this is the same FBI that that creepy fker and his mistress got fired from.. I bet the test never even happened.

The vast majority are with you on that.

Isn't "interest" compounded daily?

When it is waned, actual 'time' elapses.

Screw the (V) and Yea! for company™/Church™/BigOil™/BigPHarma™ and anything We can stick a ™ or ® ON!!!

If You aren't making $$, You're ¢o$ting $$$...

Wakie! Wakie!

a reply to: scraedtosleep
Why are you comparing a single case of a woman with repeated cases of thousand boys worldwide?

If there is no proof, then why is the church paying some of the victims, relocating their accused bishops, and refusing to break confession seals?