« Miss Surf City Sunday | Main | Salty, Dawg »

Comments (13)

1. Mike says:
   October 1, 2007 13:15

   So what? Your sister paper, the Pasadena Weekly, interviewed Tom Doyle on June 8th of 2006, and never disclosed that he is a well-paid witness for plaintiff attorneys like your pal, John Manly. Marci Hamilton and Richard Sipe are also well-paid witnesses whose names regularly pop up in the press -- probably in the OC Weekly or your other sister papers -- but you don't see them identified as being on the payroll. Nor is there any mention of their close ties to SNAP. A bit hypocritical of you, Gus, doncha think? Readers are smarder than you think.

2. Gustavo Arellano says:
   October 1, 2007 13:26

   You'll have to try harder, Mikey. First off, Pasadena Weekly is not part of the Village Voice Media family--they belong to our evil rivals, Southland Publishing. Secondly, I've never interviewed Sipe or Hamilton for a story--can't speak for the other papers, so you'll have to send inaccurate comments to them. Lastly, are you Manly's accountant? Do you have access to my MySpace page? Otherwise, how do you know what Manly pays or who my pals are? Disclosure is a two-way street, Mikey--so do tell!

3. Carolyn says:
   October 1, 2007 14:34

   Thank you to Gustavo Arellano for following the Elizabeth Loftus story, and for his previous article on her.

   Loftus’ research is irrelevant when it comes to sexual abuse – something she herself was forced to acknowledge under oath. While she has been a successful defense witness in numerous trials of alleged abusers, the prosecutor in the child rape case of the notorious Father Paul Shanley, subsequently convicted, drew damaging admissions from her.

   Loftus admitted that she had never conducted experiments with deep trauma because of the questionable ethics involved. Suggesting traumatic sexual abuse is far different from her traditional work of suggesting people were lost in a mall as children, or that they saw Bugs Bunny at Disney World when Bugs Bunny is a Warner Bros. character, or that they got really sick as youngsters from eating hard-boiled eggs or dill pickles. Loftus acknowledged that she is not an expert in the sexual abuse of children, indeed has never treated anyone with therapy for anything, and has no expertise in child development.

   The so-called false memory syndrome championed by Loftus and others is rebutted convincingly in a series of essays in the book, “Misinformation Concerning Child Sexual Abuse and Adult Survivors,” edited by Whitfield, Silberg and Fink. It is an outstanding collection, heavily footnoted, debunking the false memory defense.
   

4. Mike says:
   October 1, 2007 14:39

   "I didn't do it!" says Gus. Cop out. Pick a newspaper, any newspaper. The point is that your demand for disclosure of possible conflict of interest is a one-way street. As long as the subjects of the story are plaintiffs, their attorneys or their well-paid witnesses, no disclosure is needed, right? If you disagree,why don't you say so instead of saying, "Uh, it wasn't me"? Honesty is a two-way street, Gus.

5. Gustavo Arellano says:
   October 1, 2007 14:55

   Speaking of cop outs, love how you didn't even bother to apologize for your Pasadena Weekly error or respond to my questions in my previous post. Sorry, Mikey: until you address your idiocy, no response from me on anything else.

6. Mike says:
   October 1, 2007 15:32

   I'm sorry, Gus, that you were hurt by my confusing your conglomorate with the one down the street from you. I should have referenced the Tucson Weekly, which listed you as a contributor in 2002. On July 18, 2002, the TW ran a story in which Richard Sipe was quoted as saying basically that priestly celibacy can lead to child abuse. Yet there was no mention that Sipe was at the time, and still is, a highly-paid witness for plaintiff attorneys. No special knowledge needed to discover this stuff; read a few court documents and you can figure it out for yourself. Now that the apology is made, and a closer link established, why not come out and tell folks that, as a journalist who happily receives awards from organizations of journalists, you seem only to care when possible conflict of interest involves people like the UCI prof, and not Richard Sipe? Please, no more, "It wasn't me!" And the name-calling hurts, Gus. As you've said, let's try to keep this focused on the topic...

7. Gustavo Arellano says:
   October 1, 2007 15:44

   Stop attributing feelings to me, Mikey. I wasn't hurt at all by your mistake; I just want readers to know that person hurling accusations at me can't get his facts straight. You still can't, Mikey: before running my ¡Ask a Mexican! column, the only time I wrote an article for the Tucson Weekly was back in 2004, when they reran a story I did for the OC Weekly on Tucson Bishop Manuel Moreno. Again: better luck next time. Me? I'm tired of having to correct you, so no more responses from me on your comments. Call it a cop out if you must (and undoubtedly will), but our comments above will show readers how fatigued one can get constantly correcting lil' Mikey. Now go eat your Quaker Oats!

8. Mike says:
   October 1, 2007 16:26

   Gotcha.

9. Russ Bianchi says:
   October 1, 2007 17:33

   For daily global vetted coverage of the ongoing criminal cover up, of less that 3,500 red hats and miters of my Church, including Brown of Orange, Mahony of LA, Rivera of Mexico City, Barnes of San Bernadino, Leveda formerly of Portland & SF and now CDF Prelate, Walsh of Santa Rosa, George of Chicago, Egan of NY, Law & O'Malley of Boston, Brom of San Diego, to name only a few, and hoisting billions of dollars in bills on 1.1 innocent Roman Catholic global laity, I suggest:
   
   www.bishop-accountability.org/abusetracker

   What can the laity do against this EVIL cabal of enablers, still hiding and protecting many hundreds of ordained abusers, rapists, sodomites, oral copulators, physical assaulters, kidnappers, murderers, & mental torturers of hundreds of thousands of children, over multiple decades?!

   DONATE NO MONIES!!!... until these guilty are all canonically censored, removed from office, and like pedophile founder Marciel of the Legionnaires of Christ, placed under house arrest, in a remote, dark, cold, hard labor and bad food monastery, FOR LIFE, or alternatively, if they refuse, swiftly and irrevocably EXCOMMUNICATED, to play 'cat & mouse' with law enforcement, without hiding behind armies of laity paid for lawyers & PR agencies, for their overt clear GUILT, and ongong obstruction of civil and criminal justice.

   Where is the Federal enforcement of RICO (Rackateering In Criminal Organizations)?! Because that is exactly what the Roman Catholic Church Curia are!

   No Bishop Accountability?

   No Laity Monies!

   Respectfully submitted,

   Russ Bianchi
   Lay Member of the Diocese of Monterey, CA
   russ@adepthq.com

   Mr. Bianchi is a Mass lector, Communion Service lay presider, daily Mass penitent and family man who is not a sexual abuse victim, in no litigation with his Church, has never spoken with a victim of his Church, and does not support any abuse victims' advocacy groups or belong to one.
   Mr. Bianchi does have family members, as well as close frineds who are vocationed, monastic, cloistered, ordered, academic, secular, and yes, even Curial, in his Church.
   

10. Debby Bodkin says:
    October 1, 2007 20:02

    Mike is back and obviously has lots of information to share with OC Weekly readers and spies for Matt Cunningham.

    Mike, is it possible that you can do some investigative research about the report Mon. Urell made to Social Services in 2002 concerning Michael Pecharich. There were NO criminal charges filed but there were criminal charges filed against another Michael, a former 10 year teacher at Santa Margarita Catholic HS in May 2002.

    See the post at http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/ex-cathedra/the-sad-catholicism-of-jubal/

    Maybe you can use some of your inside connections to assist with finding out if the documents submitted by the Diocese of Orange are legitimate or if the General Counsel confused several Diocesan employees named "Michael".

    Chances are since this whole story has too many holes and Mon. Urell is anxiety stricken, it may be Mon. Urell REFUSES to commit perjury in a deposition or court of law. That would cause anyone severe anxiety, enough to require escaping to Canada.

11. mike says:
    October 1, 2007 20:49

    BTW, for being such a stickler for accuracy, Gussy, you totally flubbed your Quaker Oats joke. Mikey ate LIFE cereal. Wilfred Brimley was the Quaker Oats dude. No problem, just simple, well-known Americana. Stick to telling folks about selling oranges.

12. Mexico Joe says:
    October 1, 2007 23:32

    Mike you resort to discrimination when you’re beaten with words by the OC weekly guy. "You lose in my book"

    Matt you’re two faced with the blog you run. I'm sorry your friend is on the run in Canada. But you don't have to take it out on me by revoking my blogging ability. You said the donkey show was too much to talk about on your site! Well I'm not the priest taking field trips with children to Mexico looking to see the Donkey show. Further I'm not the bishop being asked about the Donkey show. Brown was!

    Mike and Matt are you lovers? I won't judge you guys if you are gay.

    Do you work for the same person?

    It's one or the other!

    
    Joe
    

13. Murphy says:
    October 2, 2007 08:30

    Granted, crime reporter Srisavasdi didn't say that Dr. Loftus had a history of testifying for Catholic clergy defendants accused of molesting children. Loftus is well-paid for her expert testimony. She charges $500/hr. door-to-door. In the Ferguson murder trial on '05 her fee was $11K. And who knows what Scooter Libby paid for her testimony.

    Most reporters know (or should) what kind of quote they'll get from Loftus on child sex abuse allegations. The charges can't be verified, they're false memories, etc. The problem? If she says anything else, this could be used to impeach her in a future deposition. And why should she risk any future $500/hr fees?