Posted on 02/07/2005 1:21:00 PM PST by Former Military Chick
EAST CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — Jurors weighing the fate of a Boston-area priest accused of raping a young parishioner went home Friday without a verdict after about seven hours of deliberations.
Five men and seven women began deliberations Thursday afternoon in the child sex-abuse trial of defrocked priest Paul Shanley, after the defense rested its one-witness case and lawyers delivered their closing arguments.
Shanley faces life in prison on two counts each of child rape and indecent assault and battery. A fifth count of child rape was dropped from the indictment Monday after Shanley's accuser was unable to testify about one of the alleged incidents.
The jury is set to return at 9 a.m. Monday morning, prompting observers to wonder about the effect a Super Bowl victory for the Patriots would have on the verdict.
Great watching it now!
It appears he is guilty on all charges.
FINALLY!!
All of Shanley's victims will have justice at long last.
Guilty of rape of a child, could there be a worse crime against a child, that does not include murder.
OOPS yep, the family in Florida who are accused of evil acts up on their adopted children.
This is a joke, right?
Indeed, he sat emotionaless while it was read. They ask that he be remanded to the prison, due to his excellent behavior. Bail has been revoiked he is off to jail.
Nacy on CourtTv says he ran out of the court to not show him being handcuffed.
You know, M Jackson should take note of this case.
Jurors have found disgraced priest Paul Shanley guilty of repeatedly raping a 6-year-old boy two decades ago.
Update soon
I hope he's convicted on all counts and goes to jail permanently.
But I just have to wonder what the commentator who thinks the football game is relevant has been smoking.
I'd like to know who was paying for his lawyer--and a lot more questions. I do know that his lawyer was a scumbag.
Hang around a courthouse long enough & you'll hear all kinds of speculation, rumor & gossip--heavy on the gossip.
Thank God. Sicko.
I've never been a courthouse-hanger. It must be interesting.
yep, many thought that his appearance thought he might gain sympathy from the jurors, I guess not.
So the only material evidence was the testimony of someone having "repressed memory" that he was molested 21 years ago, and he was convicted? I can't imagine why this was even allowed to go to a jury, let alone why he would be convicted.
Yup.
The trial on Court TV was most interesting.
What disgusted and nauseated me was the cross of the victim. I swear Shanley was getting off when his lawyer asked the victim to describe details of the sex act Shanley performed on the victim when he was six years old.
sw
It wasn't a repressed memory. He was not coached by a counselor to "remember" these acts then reported these acts after that. His memories of the rapes came back when he was told of Shanley's arrest and went to a counselor within 12-15 hours with these memories. "Repressed memories" was the defense theory of the case.
There was a civil suit last year in which dozens of boys claimed to be molested. The boys won their case against Shanley, including this victim in the current trial. I believe the civil suit was entered as evidence.
They had four other victims who were going to testify in the criminal trial, but they had to drop out - not sure why. It's a pretty frightening thing to relive abuse in trial and to be attacked by slimeball defense attorneys. A lot of the victims have drug and alcohol problems. Perhaps the prosecutors thought this was their most reliable witness.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.