Gayle Benson’s Public Statement On Her Connection To The Catholic Church (1 Viewer)

That doesn't change the situation at all, though. If the Saints were really telling the church which pedophiles and rapists to out and which ones to keep quiet, none of the externalities matter whatsoever. _If_. I'm waiting to see what shakes out before passing judgement.
(posted this elsewhere, but fits here well)

Right now, what I'm clinging to is that Bensel & Company's actions are interpretable -- that what the plaintiff's attorneys are doing is just barely stretching the truth a bit and offering the absolute most negative interpretation of events possible in their filings.

Here's a speculative example. Let's consider two scenarios where Greg Bensel and Sara McDonald (Archdiocese PW) are in a meeting together working through a list of "on the bubble" names.

Scenario A:
McDonald: Now Greg, Father X was credibly accused in 1990. We investigated him internally for three years, but then his accuser recanted and said that he was mistaken after so much time had passed, and that it was actually another priest -- one that was convicted in 2012 and is already on the list. Should Father X still be on the list?

Bensel: In my opinion, Sarah ... with Father X, it looks like the circumstances support him being left off the list unless any more accusers comes forward.



Scenario B:
McDonald: Now Greg, Father X was credibly accused in 1990. We investigated him internally for three years and have come to believe that Father X is likely guilty of what he was accused of doing ...

Bensel: Sarah, let me stop you right there -- Father X was an old friend of Tom Benson from the 7th Ward days. Surely you can do Ms. Benson a favor and just leave Father X's name to the side for right now. If someone brings up charges, we can change course and add him to a future release. OK?


...

Now, to me ... if the emails reveal that a lot of things like Scenario A were going on, then IMHO it's not particularly troubling for Bensel and the Saints. That's basically technical advice as opposed to cherry-picking names.

If, on the other hand, a lot of things like Scenario B was going on ... that's a problem to say the least.
 
(posted this elsewhere, but fits here well)

Right now, what I'm clinging to is that Bensel & Company's actions are interpretable -- that what the plaintiff's attorneys are doing is just barely stretching the truth a bit and offering the absolute most negative interpretation of events possible in their filings.

Here's a speculative example. Let's consider two scenarios where Greg Bensel and Sara McDonald (Archdiocese PW) are in a meeting together working through a list of "on the bubble" names.

Scenario A:
McDonald: Now Greg, Father X was credibly accused in 1990. We investigated him internally for three years, but then his accuser recanted and said that he was mistaken after so much time had passed, and that it was actually another priest -- one that was convicted in 2012 and is already on the list. Should Father X still be on the list?

Bensel: In my opinion, Sarah ... with Father X, it looks like the circumstances support him being left off the list unless any more accusers comes forward.



Scenario B:
McDonald: Now Greg, Father X was credibly accused in 1990. We investigated him internally for three years and have come to believe that Father X is likely guilty of what he was accused of doing ...

Bensel: Sarah, let me stop you right there -- Father X was an old friend of Tom Benson from the 7th Ward days. Surely you can do Ms. Benson a favor and just leave Father X's name to the side for right now. If someone brings up charges, we can change course and add him to a future release. OK?


...

Now, to me ... if the emails reveal that a lot of things like Scenario A were going on, then IMHO it's not particularly troubling for Bensel and the Saints. That's basically technical advice as opposed to cherry-picking names.

If, on the other hand, a lot of things like Scenario B was going on ... that's a problem to say the least.

I have to disagree. If it shows the Saints were involved in any way with choosing which people were on or off the list, that would be awful. That's so much worse than PR advice. That has so many implications and I think they would rightfully be lambasted.

All you really want to see them involved in is how to brand the message that the archdiocese puts out.

However, I really think they shouldn't be involved at all.
 
Well ... in any case, either Gayle Benson or the plaintiff's lawyers are being untruthful. I'd say "lying", but I'm sure the e-mails are reasonably interpretable in multiple directions. One side is stretching the truth more than the other.

It's also possible that Gayle has NOT seen all communications between Bensel and the Archdiocese.
 
Hey, I get it.

But I am little confused about why someone or some entity that wants to be part of the solution should run from it.

What Gayle Benson has described is absolutely what any crisis manager worth his/her/its salt for a real non-profit would say to do -- own everything, be transparent, make amends, establish safeguards, and move on -- which is what (from my distance, anyway) the Archdiocese has done. Hell, it seems like they're doing more than the Boy Scouts.

I give the organization credit for being willing to be involved, as opposed to running and hiding and worrying about PR like so many do. I can't imagine most other organizations doing the same thing for their communities -- maybe the Rooneys in Pittsburgh, or the Mara/Tisch ownership of the Giants -- trying to do the same.

This is a hideous problem, and it's easy to run and hide and let somebody else take care of it. But that's not going to help the innocent victims, or to protect the innocent going forward. The Saints are as involved in the community as any NFL team (and I have a very close-up view of the Eagles, Giants and Jets), and if that means not just doing the easy stuff for PR reasons, good for them. If they decided this was something they needed to do, I have no beef here.

Allowing the PR team to get involved gave them the bad PR which they are now improving with a better PR strategy which I believe will improve PR.
 
It’s odd how so many stations that first reported on this story aren’t giving this part of the story the light of day.

I suppose it’s true, nobody writes stories about houses that aren’t on fire.
 
Dont do personal business on your company's resources when it has nothing to do with it. Any advice given should have been done with private resources, Bensel is licensed legal counsel that would have been within reason. Not a good look for the Saints at all! Even if the Saints are cleared of any wrong doing, if the accused is found guilty then some people will still have questions about who within the Saints org knew or knows what amount of information because they were involved in the PR messaging.
 
Dont do personal business on your company's resources when it has nothing to do with it. Any advice given should have been done with private resources, Bensel is licensed legal counsel that would have been within reason. Not a good look for the Saints at all! Even if the Saints are cleared of any wrong doing, if the accused is found guilty then some people will still have questions about who within the Saints org knew or knows what amount of information because they were involved in the PR messaging.

Yeah, lost in everything is how sloppy the whole thing was. All of that business should have been done from personal or burner email accounts.
 

There's nothing really new in this but I wonder why SNAP wants these emails made public if the plaintiff's attorneys already have them. Aren't they already in the hands of the people that could benefit from them? Do they just want to smear the Saints and Mrs. Benson? I really don't see what making them public would accomplish besides that.
 

There's nothing really new in this but I wonder why SNAP wants these emails made public if the plaintiff's attorneys already have them. Aren't they already in the hands of the people that could benefit from them? Do they just want to smear the Saints and Mrs. Benson? I really don't see what making them public would accomplish besides that.

If Ms Bensons last letter tells us the truth, they wanted money from the Saints. That's the benefit. Otherwise this would be simply a court matter assuming relevance to a case.
 
If Ms Bensons last letter tells us the truth, they wanted money from the Saints. That's the benefit. Otherwise this would be simply a court matter assuming relevance to a case.
I remember that now. It had slipped my mind.
 

There's nothing really new in this but I wonder why SNAP wants these emails made public if the plaintiff's attorneys already have them. Aren't they already in the hands of the people that could benefit from them? Do they just want to smear the Saints and Mrs. Benson? I really don't see what making them public would accomplish besides that.
The plaintiff lawyers believe it gives them some type of leverage. For example,the Saints putting pressure on the church to settle to prevent the e-mails from going public. Whatever the reason, it has nothing to do with the search for truth and everything to do with lawyer greed.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom