Will Lynch - ABC News Photo
On July 5th, 2012, a Santa Clara California Supreme Court jury found Will Lynch not guilty of all charges of beating the serial molester priest Fr. Jerold Lindner in 2010. The landmark jury case decision has earned global attention, as Lynch had admitted he did beat the priest who raped 7 year old Will and his 4 year old brother 37 years ago. The world was waiting to see what the jury would do, and how a group of 12 peers react to a serial rapist priest pressing charges for assault against his former child victim.
The DA of Santa Clara expected a slam dunk on the charges of assault and elder abuse filed against Lynch. The trial was turned into a circus during the past two weeks, as dozens of demonstrators protested outside the court, and many of them stated they were also rape victims of the priest as well.
The testimony of the misguided priest was thrown out of court, as the priest was put on the stand by the prosecutor, and he then denied he molested anyone. The cleric was then accused of committing perjury by the defense when he made this claim, resulting in the priest invoking the 5th ammendment of silence. The defense attorney then filed a motion for mistrial. This led to the judges decision to mitigate the states damages, and toss the testimony, instructing the jury to ignore the priests statements. Then the trial proceeded, and the jury had Lynchs fate in their hands. They acquited Will, despite the DA's insistance that the jury stay on point.
Now that the Lynch trial is over, the prosecutor of Santa Clara has made claims that the trial and verdict supports "Vigilante Justice". But the jury of his 12 peers concluded Will Lynchs trial with a verdict they deemed was proper. But let's not call it "Vigilante Justice", and we shouldn't say we condone violence to correct violence.
That said, the California law statutes concerning child sexual abuse are a failure. Will Lynch was prosecuted for hitting the accused unconscionable child rapist Fr. Lindner, but the prosecutors, and the "pedophile-friendly" justice system in Santa Clara County -- was totally useless to prosecute the accused sex offender, Fr. Jerold Lindner.
Maybe the California lawmakers will wake out of a stupor now. The inescapable underlying issue that is unofficially and plausibly being redirected is definitely the antiquated "statute of limitations" on child sex abuse cases.
To quote activist and former first lady Eleanor Roosevelt:
" Justice cannot be for one side alone, but must be for both".
This proclamation was tantamount to the principle matter of contention in this trial by Lynch, but obviously not the legal and focal intent of the District Attorney. The District Attorneys office should learn from this trial, and make it a priority to help change the law, instead of complaining that victims of rape should not seek vindication.
Although the DAs office is content with doing absolutely nothing at all to vindicate the child rape victims of Lindner, this conduct does not serve justice, nor does it protect children who are still exposed to Lindner. That absence of responsibility is absurd, and it is also an indication of lop-sided thinking, and lop-sided justice. But obviously, the jury didn't agree with the way the law protected the serial rapist priest; and the jury must have been offended that the prosecutor went guns-a-blaring against a man that was raped at 7 years old by the unconscionable Jesuit cleric.
Although Lynch, now 44, had previously admitted striking the priest that the DA themselves even stated in court "did molest" seven year old Will; the jury was left with deciding a case above and beyond the scope of a simple "rule of law". Fr. Lindners record of accusations of raping at least a dozen other children would weigh heavily on any conscionable jurist.
The Jesuit Catholic Order has paid several million dollars in sex abuse settlements for the civil claims filed against Lindner; and Lindner has never been punished -- again the direct result of the inadequate and flawed statute of limitations for criminal prosecution.
The current statute states in essence that a child victim of sexual abuse has only 7 years from the date of the victims 18 th birthday to file charges for prosecution. This antiquated limit is obsolescent; modern psychology and medicine have rendered the statute deleterious for several reasons.
The primary reason for the much needed correction in the statute is the fact that most children do not know that they have a clock ticking from the date they are molested to file criminal charges. Additionally, it is a known fact that most victims do not come forward with accounts of abuse for well over a decade; the result of shame, guilt, self loathing, embarrassment, and confusion, to identify just a small sample of reasons.
1 | 2