Excuse me for a moment while I scream. The recent circumstances surrounding the candidacy of Jeff Perry for the US Congress has my head spinning.
In 1991 a 14 year old girl was illegally strip-searched...Okay nice euphemism but she was actually sexually assaulted... by Scott Flanagan, a Wareham police officer while Police Sergeant Jeff Perry stood by, as close as ten feet away and did nothing to stop it and then tried to cover it up.
Flanagan forced the girl to lift her shirt and bra, as he stuck his hand down her pants. She screamed for help.
These facts are indisputable. The State Police Report puts him there.
In 1992 Flanagan again assaulted a 16 year old girl in Wareham. Perry wasn't present this time, however later that evening he accompanied Flanagan to the victims house and threatened her parents.
He only reported his awareness of the assault, after the girls parents came forward to report it.
Yet Jeff Perry has consistently denied any wrong doing. Excuse me, I feel the scream coming on.
Can some one tell me the difference between this man's badge and a Bishop's ring? Can someone tell me the difference between Jeff Perry's behavior and Cardinal Law's?
He was a man in power who allowed the abuse of children and actively covered up. It is simple, if Perry had stopped the assault in 1991 and reported Flanagan, the 1992 assault never would have happened.
No difference between Law protecting and moving a Father Geoghan. None.
Now, Flanagan's first victim steps forward to hold Perry accountable to the truth, as he is running to become a United States Congressman. I know there are plenty of punch-lines to write about accountable congressman, but I'm not in a joking mood.
The assault from the right on this victim for coming forward is frightening. The comments posted by people on the Herald and Globes are horrifying. Most blaming the victim while blaming liberals for being soft on crime. What?
The hypocrisy makes me scream. Because it shows the basic truth, that conservatives want to stop the sexual assault and abuse of children, as long as it makes liberals look bad. Otherwise we will stand with our own.
Don't make the mistake that I only attack conservatives on this point. I have pointed out Martha Coakley's free pass given to Geoghan while she was a DA. And I'm always horrified by the Democrats support of Rep. Fagan.
But it is the right who consistently claims that the left, with their buddies in the ACLU, who don't go to proper lengths to hold criminals accountable.
But now they are throwing their support behind Cardinal Law for Congress.
I will repeat, if Perry had stopped the assault in 1991 and reported Flanagan, the 1992 assault never would have happened.
Just look at Charlie Baker running to stand by Perry's side. He says that Perry has done a good job explaining the 1991 incident. Clearly the reports show Perry has done the opposite. In the same story, Senator Scott Brown is reported as saying that Perry has "run an honest campaign."
I've been trying to help a group, CORSAL, for years to eliminate the statutes of limitation of sexual abuse of children. Eliminate it. The right points to, rightfully so, the Democrat Eugene O'Flaherty has been our biggest obstacle. He co-chairs the Joint Judiciary Committee and refuses to release it from committee for a vote.
But when they talk about Perry, they say, well this happened almost twenty years ago, as a way to minimize the abuse.
Judged by Charlie Baker's response, I can only guess that he is in O'Flaherty's corner.
Because, at the risk of being redundant, if Perry had stopped the assault in 1991 and reported Flanagan, the 1992 assault never would have happened.
I really wish I could fine more people who stop viewing the sexual abuse of children a left or right issue and simply see it as wrong. And do everything they can to stop it.