Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

DancesWithTreetops OP t1_jeayoef wrote

Reply to comment by Malnurtured_Snay in Archdiocese of Washington and Abuse Cases TW: abuse by DancesWithTreetops

Using outside counsel to conduct an investigation makes a ton of sense. I have no issue with that at all. Additionally, I have no problem with the people who conducted the investigation. The person who headed up the investigation is VERY good at his job, ethical as hell, and a verifiable truth teller. But, there is no denying that the results are much easier to cover up when the investigators firm is being paid by the employer of the investigated. They can do whatever they want with the results of that investigation. Which sucks.

15

Malnurtured_Snay t1_jeba9q1 wrote

It must be very frustrating to know that competent investigators worked on this, and not be able to access their report. I'm sure the investigators are also frustrated because it might be difficult to work on something like this, speak to the victims, identify wrong-doers, possibly identify ways to make sure this doesn't happen again, and see everything swept under a rug.

Years ago I worked for an Episcopal church and as an employee had to attend a program called "Safeguarding God's Children" ... and it was essentially about behaviors we, as staff, needed to be on the look out from children, employees, or volunteers which might lead us to believe something inappropriate was happening. Now, this was 9 years ago? But I'm pretty sure the instructions we had that we were mandatory reporters and that we had an obligation to go directly to the police.

5

DancesWithTreetops OP t1_jebbfa9 wrote

They are bound by attorney client privelege. I am sure outside counsel wants to see justice done or whatever a resolution looks like for those affected. I dont really have a gripe with them. I spent twenty years doing protection work for the 1 percent. Keeping my mouth shut came with the job. I understand their position.

3