Excerpt from the Boston Globes series on Shanley:
Shanley's alleged victims in the Boston Archdiocese included a 42-year-old South Shore man who received a $40,000 settlement from the archdiocese in 1991 after notifying church officials that he had repeatedly been anally raped by Shanley in about 1972, when he was 12 or 13.
The alleged victim, who asked that his name not be used, said he met Shanley after responding to a newspaper advertisement the priest had placed encouraging troubled teenagers to contact him for counseling.
The man, whose mother had recently died, agreed to have Shanley pick him up near his house.
"I thought we'd just talk," the man said, "but he brought me back to his apartment and sodomized me. It was really bad. I was bleeding, and he brought me to the train and gave me money to get home."
The man said he felt he couldn't refuse to meet with Shanley again because Shanley made veiled threats about notifying his family of their relationship. "He'd say things like, `It would be a shame if this information got out to your parents,"' the man said.
The abuse ended, the man said, when he had a "breakdown" triggered by one of Shanley's telephone calls.
"He called me at home and I couldn't stop crying, I couldn't stop shaking. Then he stopped calling. I think after I snapped he left me alone. I'm sure he was able to tell from that conversation that he was dealing with someone who was losing his stability."
The experience left him "a mess" he said.
http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/stories/040702_boston_shanley.htmWhy did they not use this victim? He has a very solid story.
As you can see from my posts, I have no doubt that he is guilty as charged, but I questioned the method with this delayed recall witness.
They have enough to hang this guy ten times over from the further reading I have done since I made that post.
Many in the public however who only heard what I did on the MSM may well question this as I did.