Sex abuse probe on hold

My guess would be that those that have been sexually abused (especially males) are much like a woman that has been raped. The legal system turns the victim into the criminal.

I can kinda understand why they might not want to come forward and be in the spotlight of a trial like this one will ultimately end up being. Then there is the media circus that will be hovering over the entire thing. I wouldn't want to do it either. 

Gotta agree with seven.  What budding, prospective bank vice-president, member of the country club, would want to go to court to disembowel a pillar of the religious community?  Even if he's entirely truthful, what repercussions and consequences await him?

This is assuming that Oliver is guilty, and in the legal sense at least, there seems to be some doubt about this.  At the moment, his alleged guilt depends on hearsay, somewhat unsolid accusation by the Party of Six, and anonymous phone calls.

I'm not saying Oliver is innocent, nor guilty.  We must let the legal process continue.  We'll see.  In either case, it's a sad situation.

Imagine the man who comes forth.  Forever more, in that small town, he'd be known as "that guy".  You know what I mean.

DF

__________

But according to an article on the 3rd, Oliver admitted, in a letter, that he had an inappropriate relationship with a young church member in the 1990s.

Is this not true?

You are correct.

http://timesdaily.com/stories/...plains-firing,193726

“Our pastor, Zeke Haselden, was approached by a person with some very disturbing information that involved our minister of music, Oliver Brazelle,” the letter sent to church members states.

 

The letter adds Haselden contacted the organization’s district superintendent and sought advice from an attorney through the North Alabama Conference of the United Methodist Church. A decision was then made to confront Brazelle about the allegation.

 

“Oliver admitted to us that he had an inappropriate relationship with a younger member of our church ...” the letter states. Brazelle was terminated July 27.

I think the Times Daily is the big loser here, and depending on the mood of the person the paper has smeared in print, may be a big loser in the financial way.  I can't believe the paper smeared the music minister without anything other than rumors of what some person with probably an apparenda told someone.  Apparently the first article was printed on hearsay.  Now no one will come forward to press charges at this point.  Sounds like somebody had an agenda against this man and the newspaper joined in.  I wonder if the music minister will sue the newspaper.

Now this man may or may not be guilty, but you can't have a newspaper printing a mans name accusing him of something that will smear his re****tion without sometthing concrete.  These articles would have never been printed, in my opinion, if the New York Times still ran this paper instead of some conservative family from Decatur of all places.

________

[Quote] "Oliver admitted, in a letter, that he had an inappropriate relationship with a young church member in the 1990s". [Unquote]

That statement by Oliver is about as concrete as you can get, & that alone can smear his reput*ation without the help of anyone else.

The TD printed what the church reported to the media. From what I understood, church officials fired Oliver before reporting it to the public.

What did they print that wasn't reported to them?

At the time of the first article,  it was not reported that the music minister admitted anything.  And it is ambiguous what he admitted to.   I'm just saying I think theyt jumped the gun on this story.  I think the paper has an obligation to be journalist instead of gossip mongers.

Has anyone considered the possibility that the 'accusors' could be lying?

Why would anyone admit to something like this, when the accuser was lying?

__

"[a]mbiguous," you say, but "improper," according to his own admission, as reported by church officials.  Instead of "improper," one supposes, the church officials could have gone into details concerning the alleged and admitted relationships, but that is not what one would have expected at this stage of development of the issue.  Notably, the accused has not anywhere denied the accusations against him, either the allegations initially considered by the church officials or the other allegations that have been made since then.

Yes. Of course the accusers could be lying. They could also be telling the truth. As I said before, time will tell. It always does.

Absolutely nothing. 

What about the local TV stations? They also reported it and still are reporting it. This story isn't exclusive to Times Daily.