For example, likely murder victim Father John Kerrigan. Knowing what we know now about him, (he was likely a serial child molester), and the possibility he was killed as a result of this.

I go back and forth on some like this. For instance, Dick Hansen. Was it a drug deal gone bad, as some people suspect, or a random act of violence?

IIRC in the past on these boards some people have struggled with sympathy for Jennifer Pratt's Mother due to how she came across in the segment(s).

Good call. I'm mixed on that too. All sensitivity aside, I do think she was just speaking some uncomfortable truth.

Kerrigan is one. If the allegations were true, Danny Paquette would be another.

Haven't given this much consideration, but I guess Father Kerrigan would be at or near the top of my list. Still, when I first saw the segment it hit me the wrong way as a lifelong Catholic.
Glen Hyde sounded like a piece of work, but not sure he was one worth murdering by whoever committed the act.
I don't excuse Danny Paquette's killer. I was very glad to hear when they were arrested. That struck me as an extremely cowardly killing.

Kerrigan is one. If the allegations were true, Danny Paquette would be another.

I hadn't heard about the Danny Paquette ones until now. :eek:

Kerrigan is one. If the allegations were true, Danny Paquette would be another.

That one is a curious case for sure. Th Unsolved Mysteries episode portrayed Danny Paquette in a rather sympathetic light due to the trauma if his mother's death and losing his kids later. It hinted that his ex wife was a real shrew who turned his kids against him. And it only interviewed Danny's immediate family who of course defended him so we only got one side of the story.

But according to his ex wife and other people around the town, he was abusive towards them both physically and sexually, in which case you probably couldn't feel very sorry for him. But Danny's family, particularly his older brother have suggested that the allegations were either exaggerated or not true at all so its hard to say.

Its also alleged that Eric Windhorst, the guy who shot him was tricked into doing so by his stepdaughter because she lied to him about things Danny had done and he was shooting him to be a hero. The fact that Windhurst later apologized to Danny's family for what he had done kind of leads me to think even he realized that he might have been duped by a snotty teenager who just hated her stepfather and wanted him out of the way for selfish reasons. and that the accusations weren't true.

But the family Danny married into would have to have been some real deceitful scuzballs to slander him like that, so its a little hard to believe. I think its pretty clear Danny Paquette had problems, but the extent of them we may never know. It would be one thing to have a temper or other emotional problems and be difficult to live with, but another altogether to be a sex offender and physical abuser. Its always possible Danny may have duped his own family as well and they genuinely believed he was innocent when he wasn't, no way to know for sure.

Father John Kerrigan is probably the most obvious choice. What I hate most about that is the grim reality that there are many, MANY John Kerrigans out there destroying children's lives and innocence, whether today or 50 years ago or long before that. And the way the church handles this is a whole other separate and infuriating can of worms. The torture and murder is hard for me to stomach in one sense but I just can't feel sympathy for Kerrigan. Not after doing what he did for decades and decades.

Part of me wanted to reply by saying Charlotte Pollis' mother. But I guess that's not being fair. No matter how unlikable and completely overbearing she was in the segment, the bottom line is that her daughter was missing and her son-in-law was a bum who had MANY issues. I have to feel sympathy for her but I don't have to like her. Sometimes I wonder if Charlotte looked at who she was married to and who her mother was and finally decided to disappear by choice just to save her sanity.

For example, likely murder victim Father John Kerrigan. Knowing what we know now about him, (he was likely a serial child molester), and the possibility he was killed as a result of this.

I always get the two confused.. Kerrigan and Rivera. Very similar cases, but Rivera is not suspected of any wrongdoing at all.

I doubt these two cases are connected at all. If Kerrigan was a vigilante/revenge case.. Have to give them credit for this.. They did a hell of a job, because he hasn't been found. Which would make this Murder 1 because it had to have been planned. You don't really 'luck' into performing a murder and the body not being found. Some planning has to be involved.

It seems the connection in these cases is they were both priests and a coat hanger was used.

Oh and someone has the theory that Kerrigan staged his own death. that's.. Weird.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm certainly not defending what the guy (allegedly) did. However, in no way can I justify vigilantism. I just don't trust the great unwashed to properly separate emotions to make sure that they've got the right person and the person did what they're going after him for.

Father John Kerrigan is probably the most obvious choice. What I hate most about that is the grim reality that there are many, MANY John Kerrigans out there destroying children's lives and innocence, whether today or 50 years ago or long before that. And the way the church handles this is a whole other separate and infuriating can of worms. The torture and murder is hard for me to stomach in one sense but I just can't feel sympathy for Kerrigan. Not after doing what he did for decades and decades.

If you want to stomach the murder and torture a little more, look up the case of Father Richard Lavigne. Not only did he get away with decades of sexual abuse, he got away with murdering a 13 year old boy he'd been molesting. He was a suspect for decades, but they couldn't bring charges, due to insufficient evidence.

He was protected from charges in any of the abuse in part by a local police chief or sheriff (I don't remember for sure which one it was), and the worst part was it turned out that he was also molesting two of the cop's nephews.

He finally confessed to it and died the same day, of Covid. I watched a two part video on him a few weeks ago and...I'll just say I thought it was too bad someone didn't pull a Kerrigan on him.

Sometimes I wonder if Charlotte looked at who she was married to and who her mother was and finally decided to disappear by choice just to save her sanity.

"Someone like that doesn't just get lost in a crowd..."

270542

"Someone like that doesn't just get lost in a crowd..."

270542

You are evil, and I laughed at that so I guess I am too.

You are evil, and I laughed at that so I guess I am too.

:devil::devil::devil:

I came here to also post Lisa Penz.

Also, Judge Leland Geiler

"Someone like that doesn't just get lost in a crowd..."

270542


I MEAN SHE WAS ENORMOUS

Jerry Diner (New York Coin Scam)

no, I can't think of any.

Jerry Diner (New York Coin Scam)

He was actually a NYC based standup comic who worked the clubs in the northeast in the late 80s and early 90s. He never made it big but anyone who followed east coast comedy from that era would definitely recognize his name.

Nancy Drake.

That woman made my blood boil. How this “church lady” could live with herself is beyond me.

What a vengeful old hag.

Anybody who fell for a scam because they were greedy or had silly superstitions-Spanish Lottery, NY Coin, Pyramid, wrap your money in this & I will relieve you of your bad luck curse etc. Tim Good is somebody you just shake your head at. The drunk idiot who got killed by the black dude he picked up.

Jenny Pratt's mom.

I certainly feel for Jenny. But her mom straight up sucks.

For example, likely murder victim Father John Kerrigan. Knowing what we know now about him, (he was likely a serial child molester), and the possibility he was killed as a result of this.

To say that he was "likely" anything is extremely presumptuous, there is virtually nothing to suggest that he was. And given a series of other killings or disappearances that had some relation to his I remain convinced his death was one of a series done by the same individual.

To say that he was "likely" anything is extremely presumptuous, there is virtually nothing to suggest that he was. And given a series of other killings or disappearances that had some relation to his I remain convinced his death was one of a series done by the same individual.

Not sure if you're thinking of Rivera, the other priest, or not...but Kerrigan was accused, and he was moved around in the exact same way the church moved around other known molesters. There's no evidence Rivera did anything wrong, but to say there's "virtually nothing to suggest" Kerrigan had is ignoring a lot.

That being said, I'm open to the possibility of it being the same individual. I don't think it's likely, but I think it is possible.

Not sure if you're thinking of Rivera, the other priest, or not...but Kerrigan was accused, and he was moved around in the exact same way the church moved around other known molesters. There's no evidence Rivera did anything wrong, but to say there's "virtually nothing to suggest" Kerrigan had is ignoring a lot.

That being said, I'm open to the possibility of it being the same individual. I don't think it's likely, but I think it is possible.

No, I am thinking of Kerrigan.
He was accused, key word, "accused", not convicted. The accusation was not made until nearly 3 decades after his disappearance, and only then in connection with a large civil suit. That civil suit was settled, ie. the jury never made a finding as to the veracity of the claims brought.
No criminal charges were ever brought either.
As to being "moved around", he worked in a series of small Montana towns that are fairly close together which is hardly unusual in that vocation.
The only concrete evidence we have that he was involved in anything unusual was his stay at the Congregation of the Servants of the Paraclete, which treated priests suffering a variety of issues. Beyond that, there are only accusations and claims. So not nothing, but also hardly enough to jump to such a conclusion.
In a similar time window we have a teacher going missing in the area, and an Episcopal priest that also knew Kerrigan went missing two years earlier. If Kerrigan was the only one missing it might be easier to assume it had something to do with the abuse allegations, but the other disappearances seem to indicate something else happened.

He was accused, key word, "accused", not convicted. The accusation was not made until nearly 3 decades after his disappearance, and only then in connection with a large civil suit. That civil suit was settled, ie. the jury never made a finding as to the veracity of the claims brought. No criminal charges were ever brought either.


By that logic, the majority of the Catholic priest molestation scandals that have occurred over the years, including when the church paid hush money, have never actually happened, because charges were never filed/it was brought up after the statute of limitations passed/there wasn't enough evidence/etc.

I'm not saying he was absolutely guilty. But given the history of priests and the Catholic church of pulling this stuff, I can't say I would doubt it. Especially when you factor in that a priest from Montana spent nearly a year at the Congregation of the Servants of the Paraclete, in New Mexico, which (although this was not their planned reason for existing, nor was it their only service) was used heavily by the Catholic church to send priests who had those problems for "rehabilitation." It was so rampant and widely known that they ended up having to close the facility, as well as many others they ran, after lawsuits regarding priests who had been "treated" there.

Direct quote from an article on him:

"The priest, who was 58 when he disappeared, had also been assigned to St. Patrick Parish in Butte in 1954-55, St. Francis Parish in Hamilton in 1955-56, St. Lawrence Parish in Walkerville from 1959-62, St. Rose Parish in Dillon from 1962-64, St. Ann Parish in Butte in 1964-65, Little Flower Parish in Browning in 1965, Holy Rosary Parish in Bozeman in 1965-66, St. Michael Parish in Drummond from 1966-72, St. Bartholomew Parish in White Sulphur Springs from 1972-77, St. Joseph Parish in Choteau from 1977-80 and St. James Parish in Plains from 1980-84."

Thirteen transfers, all around the western and central part of the state, over the course of 30 years, none lasting more than six years. And three times in 1965.

Another direct quote from the article:

Authorities were aware back then of the allegations of sexual abuse of children involving Kerrigan, according to Joe Geldrich, who was Lake County undersheriff when the priest disappeared, and became sheriff in 1985.

“Oh yeah, we sure were,” Geldrich said. “He’d been moved all over the state.”

So no, it didn't "just come out" in the form of a class action suit. Law enforcement was aware of it at the time.

Here is the article which I have quoted:

https://www.greatfallstribune.com/story/news/crime/2015/06/05/ronan-priest-disappeared-accused-sex-abuse/28533921/

When you add together the year long stay in NM, the class action, the movements, and law enforcement stating they were aware of abuse back in the 80s....it's not a good look.

By that logic, the majority of the Catholic priest molestation scandals that have occurred over the years, including when the church paid hush money, have never actually happened, because charges were never filed/it was brought up after the statute of limitations passed/there wasn't enough evidence/etc.

I'm not saying he was absolutely guilty. But given the history of priests and the Catholic church of pulling this stuff, I can't say I would doubt it. Especially when you factor in that a priest from Montana spent nearly a year at the Congregation of the Servants of the Paraclete, in New Mexico, which (although this was not their planned reason for existing, nor was it their only service) was used heavily by the Catholic church to send priests who had those problems for "rehabilitation." It was so rampant and widely known that they ended up having to close the facility, as well as many others they ran, after lawsuits regarding priests who had been "treated" there.

Direct quote from an article on him:

"The priest, who was 58 when he disappeared, had also been assigned to St. Patrick Parish in Butte in 1954-55, St. Francis Parish in Hamilton in 1955-56, St. Lawrence Parish in Walkerville from 1959-62, St. Rose Parish in Dillon from 1962-64, St. Ann Parish in Butte in 1964-65, Little Flower Parish in Browning in 1965, Holy Rosary Parish in Bozeman in 1965-66, St. Michael Parish in Drummond from 1966-72, St. Bartholomew Parish in White Sulphur Springs from 1972-77, St. Joseph Parish in Choteau from 1977-80 and St. James Parish in Plains from 1980-84."

Thirteen transfers, all around the western and central part of the state, over the course of 30 years, none lasting more than six years. And three times in 1965.

Another direct quote from the article:

Authorities were aware back then of the allegations of sexual abuse of children involving Kerrigan, according to Joe Geldrich, who was Lake County undersheriff when the priest disappeared, and became sheriff in 1985.

“Oh yeah, we sure were,” Geldrich said. “He’d been moved all over the state.”

So no, it didn't "just come out" in the form of a class action suit. Law enforcement was aware of it at the time.

Here is the article which I have quoted:

https://www.greatfallstribune.com/story/news/crime/2015/06/05/ronan-priest-disappeared-accused-sex-abuse/28533921/

When you add together the year long stay in NM, the class action, the movements, and law enforcement stating they were aware of abuse back in the 80s....it's not a good look.

The quote from the Sheriff is somewhat evasive, it mainly says he was aware that Kerrigan had moved around. If authorities were aware of these accusations then why were no charges brought or warrants issued? The UM segment does not present any information on the matter either.
I am certainly not convinced, to each their own.

By that logic, the majority of the Catholic priest molestation scandals that have occurred over the years, including when the church paid hush money, have never actually happened, because charges were never filed/it was brought up after the statute of limitations passed/there wasn't enough evidence/etc.

I'm not saying he was absolutely guilty. But given the history of priests and the Catholic church of pulling this stuff, I can't say I would doubt it.

Exactly. And the majority of the time, children who are abused by priests repress those incidents for years and years, past the point of the statute of limitations. So nothing can legally be done once they're finally able to acknowledge and try to deal with what's happened to them. That puts a huge damper on any sort of healing process when your abuser can't face any sort of punishment.

Those incidents still happened and the trauma is very real. Very few of these priests are actually charged. And when the church isn't paying out hush money to the families, they're transferring them to different Catholic churches where it suddenly becomes someone else's problem. The whole ordeal is disgusting beyond belief but it continues to happen.

If authorities were aware of these accusations then why were no charges brought or warrants issued?

You are aware that priests were NEVER charged for any of that stuff, back then, right? It was always covered up. It's been incredibly well documented. You underestimate the pull of the Catholic church, ESPECIALLY in that time frame. In addition, in a lot of instances, LE actually aided in keeping charges from being brought.It happened during the stuff that went on in the Boston Archdiocese. And a great example is Richard Lavigne. He murdered a boy he'd been molesting in 1972. Other than that boy, he had molested countless others. The sheriff in the town actively protected him, and it later turned out that among the victims were the sheriff's own nephews. He was moved around, sent to rehabs, and finally defrocked, but it took until the late 90s or early 00s for that to happen. As for the murder he was suspected of, he finally admitted to it last year, and died after they charged him, the next day.

You are aware that priests were NEVER charged for any of that stuff, back then, right? It was always covered up. It's been incredibly well documented. You underestimate the pull of the Catholic church, ESPECIALLY in that time frame. In addition, in a lot of instances, LE actually aided in keeping charges from being brought.It happened during the stuff that went on in the Boston Archdiocese. And a great example is Richard Lavigne. He murdered a boy he'd been molesting in 1972. Other than that boy, he had molested countless others. The sheriff in the town actively protected him, and it later turned out that among the victims were the sheriff's own nephews. He was moved around, sent to rehabs, and finally defrocked, but it took until the late 90s or early 00s for that to happen. As for the murder he was suspected of, he finally admitted to it last year, and died after they charged him, the next day.

Yes, which is why I don't take civil suits filed decades after the fact as gospel. The burden is lower in a civil suit than in a criminal trial. I don't underestimate the pull of the church, on the contrary most people greatly overestimate it. If the church was half as powerful as people like to think it would not be going bankrupt as a result of civil actions.
In law it is not possible to use the example of some other criminal as evidence that another person is guilty. Its simply not relevant.

If the church was half as powerful as people like to think it would not be going bankrupt as a result of civil actions.


The Catholic church of today is far different than the Catholic church of the latter half of the 20th century. They have nowhere near the pull they used to, today, and it's due (in part) to things like these abuses finally coming to light. No one talked about rape and molestation in years past. Funny thing is, the "jokes" and stories were always there about priests and little boys/altar boys. It was rampant even before the big scandals broke in the news (like the Boston stuff). As a Catholic growing up in the late 80s/early 90s, I know I certainly heard it. Wonder where that stuff came from...

Again, all of this is well documented.

You're obviously convinced he was innocent, and that's fine. None of this matters, because he's very likely dead at this point, one way or another.

Cheers.

The Catholic church of today is far different than the Catholic church of the latter half of the 20th century. They have nowhere near the pull they used to, today, and it's due (in part) to things like these abuses finally coming to light. No one talked about rape and molestation in years past. Funny thing is, the "jokes" and stories were always there about priests and little boys/altar boys. It was rampant even before the big scandals broke in the news (like the Boston stuff). As a Catholic growing up in the late 80s/early 90s, I know I certainly heard it. Wonder where that stuff came from...

Again, all of this is well documented.

You're obviously convinced he was innocent, and that's fine. None of this matters, because he's very likely dead at this point, one way or another.

Cheers.

I would say that is looking at the telescope through the wrong end. The church did not decline because of this scandal, but because the church declined it became possible, even fashionable, to attack the church justified or not. And no doubt quite a few lawyers have used the genuine crimes of some and the suffering of their victims as a profitable avenue for civil actions.
But lets not overestimate the pull of the church even in the last century, being greater than is not the same thing as being meaningful. The US has always had a separation of church and state, as well as an underlying hostility to the Catholic church.
Jokes and other stereotypes are frequently all out of proportion to reality, more of a cultural artifact than a statistical measure. Numerous examples of this abound.
I am far from convinced that he is innocent, but on the other hand I still believe that the accused has a right to a presumption of innocence, and right to a trial by their peers in a court of law with due process as opposed to being guilty until proven innocent in the court of public opinion and Twitter.
If I had to guess he was likely involved in something (hence the time spent in New Mexico) but this is a guess, without evidence. Moreover, its hard to reconcile that with both the circumstances of his disappearance, and those of other persons and priests specifically in the same time frame.