“I don't believe that SOLT is basing their statement solely on the words of an ex-prostitute. My guess is SOLT is protecting their additional ‘sources.’”
I'm sorry, but SOLT’s involvement here is fatally and intrinsically compromised. They started out in the role (I hope, at least) of disinterested investigator, but in their public statement have gone over to the role of aggressive prosecutor, judge and jury. They remind me of the vile creature Nifong. They are, at the very best, confused. Their opinions are not worthy of credit at this point.
When they actually show some evidence, and that evidence can be poked and prodded, examined and challenged, then the process can move forward. Until then, they appear to me to be detractors or calumniators. And to be exhibiting rash judgment.
“I don't think Corapi has yet brought suit against SOLT (regarding their statement), has he?”
Why would he? It's very unlikely that he'd prevail against them in a US court. He is a public figure. He must not only prove the allegations false, but that they were made maliciously or with reckless disregard for the truth.
In that his accuser, who claims to be a party to the deeds of which he is accused, has absolute knowledge of the truth or falsity of her claims, if he can demonstrate in court by a preponderance of the evidence that the allegations are false, then demonstrating that she knowingly made false defamatory charges is tautological, and her malice and disregard for the truth are nearly tautological, as well.
On the other hand, no one at SOLT, to my knowledge, was a direct participant in the deeds of which Fr. Corapi is accused. Thus, they don't actually have absolute knowledge of the truth or falsity of the charges. They have what they think is damning evidence. In a case against SOLT, should Fr. Corapi show the allegations likely untrue, SOLT merely needs to plead gross stupidity to successfully defend. A defense which may have the advantage of being entirely true.
If they demonstrate that it wasn't particularly unreasonable for them to believe the allegations, even if disproven, there isn't a case to be made against them.
Again, knowing the likelihood of prevailing against SOLT is slim, why would Fr. Corapi pursue them in court?
“It will take time before more of this case comes out, and SOLT felt JC’s ‘followers’ could be harmed during that window of time, which could be significant in duration.”
If I give them the benefit of the doubt, this again represents their confusion. Having “convicted” him in their own minds, they believe they now have an obligation to protect others from him. Perhaps a little humility could go a long way, and they might understand that their own allegations aren't proof. A somewhat more circumspect statement from them could have had much the same effect to warn, but wouldn't have veered off the cliff of detraction/calumny/rash judgment. If I'm not entirely willing to give them the full benefit of the doubt (and there are good reasons not to do so), then I might think that they merely wish to destroy him for the crime of defending himself against unjust charges.
sitetest