BishopAccountability.org
	Monsignor Urell And Trial-By-Media Red County September 27, 2007 http://www.ocblog.net/ocblog/2007/09/someone-relying.html Someone relying on regular media coverage of Monsignor John Urell and the Jeff Andrade trial could be forgiven for believing the monsignor broke down during his deposition one day and was hustled him onto a Canada-bound plane the next day by the Diocese of Orange. After all, that is the impression being fostered by the reporting on this story. My friend Steve Greenhut, for example, deploys the word "fled" with the rigid discipline of a propagandist. Those relying on media coverage of the trial can be forgiven for not knowing that six weeks elapsed between the time of Monsignor Urell's un-completed deposition and his entering Southdown Institute in Canada. By relying on media coverage, you wouldn't know that Monsignor Urell underwent a progressive deterioration during that interval, to the point where his friend and subsequently attorney Patrick Hennessey took him to a doctor, who diagnosed Monsignor Urell as suffering from acute anxiety disorder and requiring immediate hospitalization and treatment. Here's an example from a Sept. 25 article in the Toronto Sun (H/T to Gustavo Arellano at Navel Gazing): Halfway through his pretrial testimony, though, a distraught Urell broke down crying and was given a break from testifying in order to regroup. But he did not return to the stand the next day as ordered. Instead, he headed north to Canada, and to Southdown. Nothing like accurate reporting, eh? If you were a reader, you'd think Monsignor Urell was on a plane the very next day -- not six weeks later. The former creates a very different picture than the latter, and shoves the reader into viewing Monsignor Urell as a fugitive from justice. Either that was the reporter's intent, or it's just ignorance. Neither of which is a good excuse. After all, aren't reporters the professionals? The again, this one was likely just regurgitating local coverage. It's understandable those relying on media coverage would believe Monsignor Urell is a "key witness" in the Andrade trial and that his completed deposition is critical to case of the plaintiff's attorney. After all, that's what the media says -- despite the fact that sexual abuse cases involving lay people like Mater Dei Coach Jeff Andrade didn't go to Monsignor Urell. Despite the plaintiff's attorney John Manly agreeing in early September -- before Msgr. Urell went to Southdown -- that if he couldn't finish his deposition, his testimony in the Ryan DiMaria case and his incomplete deposition would be sufficient. Would such an agreement been made if Msgr. Urell were a "key witness" as the attorneys suing the Diocese claim? Jeff Andrade has already admitted to having a sexual relationship with the plaintiff when she was a Mater Dei student half his age. How critical can the testimony of a priest who has not involved the matter be? In fact, someone relying on media coverage of this case could forgiven for thinking Monsignor Urell is on trial, not the actual abuser. Or that this trial involves victims of sexual abuse by the clergy -- neither of which is the true. And what "order" for Monsignor Urell to return to the stand the next day? There is none, as far as I have been able to tell. More generally characteristic of media coverage of this case is an unquestioning acceptance of Manly's and his cohorts' insistence that Monsignor Urell's testimony is critical to the their case against Jeff Andrade -- who, I repeat, has already admitted to the relationship with Jane Doe. When the abuser has copped to the abuse, how "critical" can the testimony of a priest who didn't even handle lay abuse cases be? It would be refreshing to see the media ask a basic question like that. Someone relying on media coverage could also be forgiven for thinking the Diocese sought to suppress Bishop Tod Brown's deposition, when in fact they were willing to release the entire deposition except the nature of Msgr. Urell's illness and where he was being treated. Someone relying on media coverage could also be forgiven for thinking the Diocese of Orange was conspiring to keep Monsignor Urell from finishing his deposition. This excerpt from the above-referenced Toronto Sun article is a good illustration how this impression is created by the echo chamber effect of different media outlets feeding off each other's reporting: In a recent Associated Press report, one of the plaintiff's lawyers, Venus Soltan, said she believes the diocese wants to suppress Urell's testimony because of his extensive current and historical knowledge of sexual-abuse allegations, including four pending cases that involve alleged sexual molestation at the same school where her client alleges the sexual abuses against her took place, Orange County's Mater Dei High. Here, the Sun reporter regurgitates an unsubstantiated allegation from a different news outlet by one of the plaintiff's attorney -- presenting it at face value and worded (intentionally or not) in such a fashion that the average reader will take it as fact. I'm not terribly surprised at the slanted, quasi-sensationalist coverage. After all, Manley and his associates are great sources for reporters, and the Diocese has sat on its hands and allowed Monsignor Urell to twist in the wind. And that works for John Manly. He and his fellow attorneys want to keep the Monsignor Urell stories going for as long as possible. It doesn't matter that he is, in reality, peripheral to their case and they don't need him to finish their deposition. Manly's strategy is to fan the media flames and create the public perception that Monsignor Urell, at the urging the Diocese, "fled the country" in order to avoid disgorging heretofore secret tales of abuse. manly is ratcheting up the pressure on the Diocese to settle for more and more money rather than go to trial. Manly's conducting this trial in the media in hopes of getting more money, and publicly flaying Monsignor Urell is a means to that end. Not that one would know it by reading the media coverage.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.