Lectures in which "mock trials" are performed and discussed, with students playing the parts of the accuser, accused and judge, should be useful.
The names, addresses and telephone numbers of the accuser, the accused priest and the person reporting the act will be sent directly to the prosecutor.
"What should be judged as 'credible' enough to open an investigation is the good faith of the accuser, not the accusation itself".
We've moved beyond "he said, she said" territory, but it's still the case that observers are left largely to their own evaluations of the veracity of the accuser and the accused.
"And it would be dereliction of duty not to conduct a public-records search for photographs of the accuser embracing the accused taken after the time of the alleged assault".
And in a court case, cross-examination of the accuser and the accused is well-designed to elicit the truth.
But how can you separate the credibility of the accusation from that of the accuser?
In that statement, the cardinal emphasized that during investigations of abuse by the archdiocese, "we have to respect the rights of all persons involved, the rights of the accuser as well as the rights of the accused".
Although I agree with the policy, I find it difficult to reconcile that the identity of the accuser is protected but not that of the accused!
I've lived with years of news reports about me being accused of fabricated, heinous acts, with few telling the story of the accuser getting arrested, and my innocence.
Finally, a word about the name of the accuser.
