I have to tell you right away that I'm not a big one for conspiracy theories so writing about this next topic--The Pedophile Conspiracy in Connecticut--probably won't necessarily be my strong suit. However, I don't think a discussion of the Wiegand Case is truly complete without a discussion regarding this topic because many supporters of Linda Wiegand believe a Pedophile Conspiracy exists and have made it an important part of the discussion regarding Linda Wiegand's case.
The start of my research in this area begins with an article by Kris Millegan dated November 1, 2001 entitled "The Pedophile Network in Connecticut." Milligan states that there is a pedophile conspiracy reaching up to the top levels of government including recent President George Bush and Cheney and also including Warren Buffet, former President Gerald Ford and President Ronald Reagan. Millegan states that learning about the Wiegand case "led [him or her] into a labyrinthine world of judicial and political corruption with many tantalizing links to a national pedophile network closely identified with the Bush family."
This article goes on to say that this pedophile network silenced the state newspaper, The Hartford Courant, and prevented the paper from reporting fairly on Linda Wiegand's case when Lou Kiefer, Tom Wilkinson's lawyer, sued the newspaper and obtained a $300,000 settlement against it. My recollection is that this settlement came from Attorney Kiefer suing Connecticut and Vermont's Child Protective Services, but perhaps more money came from a lawsuit against the Courant. I'm not sure about this.
Most significant, this article asks why the Court sealed the Massameno Report which found evidence that Tom Wilkinson abused his children. It also asks why the Court sealed 30 hours of Ben and Jon Wiegand's taped testimony of the sexual abuse they allegedly experienced in the hands of Tom Wilkinson. Why wouldn't this information all come before the Judge at trial and be subjected to examination by experts and attorneys involved in the case? This is all quite puzzling.
But in Connecticut you don't have to go very far for puzzling behavior when it comes to how sexual abuse is handled. Specifically, Connecticut is the only state in the country with a hospital, not connected to the Catholic Church, The Institute of Living (IOL), which, starting in the early 1980s provided treatment to cure priests of pedophilia.
With the support of the IOL, these priests ended up returning to their posts in various Churches where they pretty much continued on to molest other children.
One of these priests, Father John Geoghan, of Massachusetts, was accused of molesting 130 children before he was arrested. Yet after treating him, the Institute still verified that he was sufficiently in control of his pedophilia to return to his ministry stating "We judge Father Geoghan to be clinically quite safe to resume his pastoral ministry..." Who were they kidding?
When the situation blew up in the face of the Institute of Living and The Hartford Courant exposed what was going on, Dr. Harold Schwartz, the Director of the IOL, blamed the Church stating "The Church didn't tell us the truth about the patients it sent us because it often didn't report the exact number of children these priests had molested." I don't know. This seems like a pretty pathetic excuse.
Granting that pedolphilia is incurable and that a molester is almost certain to molest again, does it matter if it is one child or ten that a priest has molested? Shouldn't a psychiatrist be the first to say that the fact that a priest has molested just one child should be enough to keep that priest from ever serving in a parrish again? In particular, shouldn't a psychiatrist with substantial experience in the treatment of pedophilia be the first to say that?
The IOL's refusal to acknowledge its failures when confronted and its pathetic, feeble excuses for its failure to protect children while providing treatment for pedophile priests says everything about the incapacity of the psychiatrists at the IOL to grasp the seriousness of the tragedy of sexual abuse. On the contrary, professionals like this at the Institute of Living apparently don't think that the sexual abuse of children is such a bad thing because they sure didn't take even the most minimal steps to protect such children from the perpetrator priests in their care who were abusing them.
Why is this relevant to the Linda Wiegand case? The answer is that Dr. Kenneth Robson, the psychiatrist who did the evaluation of Ben and Jon Wiegand and denied that the two boys were sexually abused, was affiliated with the Institute of Living, which I've shown has a history of being a hotbed of denial, a hospital that earned thousands and thousands of dollars from the Catholic Church by minimizing how damaging the sexual abuse was that Priests were perpetrating against children.
Supporters of Linda Wiegand want to talk about some conspiracy as if some complicated conspiracy was necessary to explain what they see as an injustice that occurred in this case. But no, there doesn't have to be some big conspiracy. All that is necessary is a bunch of people in positions of power, all of whom don't think sexual abuse of children is such a bad thing. Throw in a little misogyny and you're good!
"A bunch of people in positions of power, all of whom don't think sexual abuse of children is such a bad thing." That kind of sounds like a conspiracy, Catharine. But I guess you are saying that these people act independently, not in concert. They just happen to be on the same crappy page.
ReplyDeleteOne piece of evidence was spoken of publicly that pointed to possible pedophile conspiracy. It involved Anthroposophy, the philosophical group that Wilkinson was a member of. The allegation was not that members of Anthroposophy are necessarily involved in something sinister, but that it was used as a front.
The evidence was the deposition of a man who went undercover and, at the direction of Linda's investigator (former FBI bureau chief, Gundersen) infiltrated an Anthroposophy meeting. The man testified that the meeting was watched over by armed guards and that he had witnessed, among other things, the auctioning-off of children. This evidence was meant to substantiate that such meetings did occur. The man did not place Wilkinson at that meeting.
Wilkinson’s checkbook had been subpoenaed at one point. According to Gundersen, it showed large amounts of money going into his account, amounts that sometimes exceeded his yearly salary, and large amounts being paid out to Anthroposophy. So Gundersen was investigating possible linkage of this money to the front activities detailed in the deposition. I don’t know how far he got. The law suit which might’ve brought out such evidence could not get heard in the CT courts.
These satanists stick together. RIP Ted Gunderson. You're my hero.
ReplyDelete