396 Washington Street H294 Wellesley, MA 02481 

www.catholicsandsurvivors.net  Please reply to info@catholicsandsurvivors.net

 

Walter Robinson, Editor

Spotlight Team, The Boston Globe      

P.0. Box 2378

Boston, MA  02107

                                                                                                             December 7, 2003

 

Dear Walter Robinson,

 As you know, the Archdiocese of Boston has finally settled with Paul R. Edwards in response to his sex abuse allegations against the late Rev. William J. Cummings.  Unfortunately, even though this settlement indicates that the Archdiocese has abandoned its efforts to vilify Edwards as a pathological liar, Church officials still refuse to review his charges against Monsignor Michael Smith Foster.  Edwards’ credibility, which was the only issue raised in Foster’s defense, is no longer in question, but the Archdiocese continues to insist, without providing any justification, that the Foster case is closed.

 Given the central role that you played in undermining Edwards’ original lawsuit, as well as the pain that he continues to endure from your virulent attacks on his credibility, it is time for you either to justify your presentation of this story or to apologize to him and to the rest of the victim community for promoting such a distorted view of his case.  After all, in the many articles that you wrote about Edwards, you consistently argued that doubts raised about his claims against Cummings weakened his claims against Foster.  Now that the Archdiocese has explicitly recognized the strength of his charge against Cummings, it is only reasonable to expect you to explain why anyone should doubt his allegations against Foster, especially since the monsignor and his supporters persuaded you to publish so much false information about the case.

 Please keep in mind that you were specifically and repeatedly cited as both a source and a recipient of misinformation in the course of the Archdiocese’s internal investigation of  Edwards’ charges.  Moreover, we recently obtained memos and emails sent by various agents of the Archdiocese that provide fresh insight into your remarkably close relationship with Foster’s legal and public relations team.  We neither know nor care why you worked so hard to protect Foster, but the public deserves to understand the rationale you followed in reporting this highly significant and still unfinished story.  Consequently, we ask that you provide specific answers to the following questions at the earliest possible date. 

  1. You repeatedly reported that Edwards could not have been molested in Monsignor Foster’s bedroom in the rectory of Sacred Heart Church in Newton because there were strict rules that prevented visitors from going above the ground floor.  However, under questioning by Church investigator Sean Connor on August 18, 2002, immediately after the case was filed, Foster acknowledged that Edwards had been in his bedroom on several occasions.  In your many interviews with Foster after August 18, did you ever ask him if Edwards had visited his bedroom or did you simply repeat the uncorroborated and, as it turned out, false assertions made by Foster’s supporters?

  1. Drawing on statements made by Foster’s supporters, you repeatedly reported that Paul Edwards had “lied” about being in the movie Jaws, but you never mentioned that Edwards was seven years old when he allegedly made this claim.  Do you believe that it is proper to measure the credibility of  adult accusers in sex abuse cases by gathering second-hand information about stories that they supposedly told as very young children?

  2. In your first attack on Edwards’ credibility, you refer to him as a “self-described paraplegic.”  Do you, a seasoned journalist and editor, contend that your use of this term was perfectly innocent, that is, that you were not maliciously questioning his documented medical condition even though this phrase appeared in a passage under the heading, “A penchant for fanciful invention?”

  3. Throughout your extensive reporting on the Foster case, you constantly referred to Foster’s supporters as “Edwards’s friends” or “Edwards’s childhood friends.”  Since Edwards had not been in contact with most of these people for many years and since their only motive for speaking out was to protect Foster, wouldn’t it have been more accurate to describe these people as “Foster’s supporters” or “Foster’s friends?”

  4. In the Globe and in other forums, you claimed to possess some definite evidence that Edwards had pretended to be deaf during high school.  While the fact that Edwards took sign language courses has been documented, it’s still not clear where you got the idea that Edwards had feigned deafness or why you imagine that this assertion is relevant to an evaluation of  the credibility of his allegations.  To support the contention that Edwards had pretended to be deaf, you quoted the meandering musings of Deborah Bennett, a woman whom Edwards had rejected when they were both in their teens.  Could you explain why you would give credence to such a source?  Also, do you believe that second-hand retellings of harmless high school pranks should be brought up many years later in order to undermine the credibility of accusers in sex abuse cases?

  5. In the course of your reporting on Cummings, you never mentioned that many local Catholics condemned him when he announced that he had AIDs in 1993.  Do you believe that the fact that Cummings lived a double life—hiding his sexual activity while presenting himself as an upstanding priest—is relevant to public understanding of this story?  Also, without condoning the anti-homosexual agenda of the Catholic Church, wouldn’t it have been more accurate to acknowledge that Cummings’ sexual orientation had adversely affected his reputation rather than pretending, as you did, that he was universally revered?

  6. Based on the assertions of Foster’s supporters, you reported that Edwards had lied about  working as a police officer on Martha’s Vineyard.  Did Monsignor Foster, who knew that Edwards had been a member of the Edgartown police force, ever attempt to correct this misinformation?  Also, when people on one side of a legal dispute make unfavorable claims about people on the other side, do you believe that it is necessary to ascertain the truth of such accusations before reporting them as facts?

  7. In an email sent on September 14, 2002, to Amy Strickland, one of Foster’s four lawyers, Church investigator Sean Connor complained that Foster and his legal team had been supplying you with misinformation.  Did you have any idea at that time that you were being misled?  If you did know, did it ever inspire you to verify any of the statements made by Foster’s supporters?

  1. As you know, Edwards’ mistaken recollection of the location of the Cummings rape was independently corrected by two sources, Delia Brennan and the Rev. Rodney Copp.  Both Copp and Brennan have confirmed that Edwards told them during the early 1990’s that Cummings had raped him during an overnight ski trip to New Hampshire.  In light of this confirmation, as well as the Archdiocese’s explicit admission that Church officials no longer doubt Edwards’ charge against Cummings, do you still purport to have some sort of evidence to refute Edwards’ charges?

  2.  In “Church knew of second lawsuit when it rejected claim,” which was published on January 15, 2003, you finally acknowledged that you had been deceived both by the Archdiocese and by Foster’s supporters, but you also wrote: “According to people familiar with the church's investigation, and documents obtained by the Globe, the archdiocese, before exonerating Foster, received substantial information challenging Edwards's credibility from his own parents, other relatives, and longtime family friends.” Could you please describe this “substantial information?” 

    More specifically, could you tell us if the “documents obtained by the Globe” were the affidavit signed by Joseph Doherty, one of Foster’s lawyers, and the affidavit signed by Dr. Ned Cassem?  If so, you should know that both of these affidavits have been examined by experts on victims’ rights, and both have been discredited, which is hardly surprising since neither contained any direct or relevant evidence.  Indeed, Cassem’s affidavit, in which he stated that he had advised Foster to “wear a Kevlar vest” and “learn how to use a gun” to protect himself from Edwards, was so outlandish that the Church investigator suggested that it was, to use Cassem’s own word, “fraudulent.”  If there are additional documents, we would certainly be grateful to learn about them since we have studied all of the available information and have yet to find anything that challenges Edwards’ credibility.

Your circulation of so much misinformation about Edwards not only caused him immeasurable suffering, interfered with his business, and forced him to leave his home state, it also continues to block his path towards a full measure of justice in his dispute with the Archdiocese.  You should also keep in mind that it is too late to blame Monsignor Foster’s supporters for your voluminous misreporting.  You have, after all, already claimed credit for undermining Edwards.  For example, on September 12, 2002, you wrote, “But a week after Edwards made his charges, the alleged victim's credibility crumbled when the Globe reported that Edwards, now 35, has a long history of inventing stories about himself and others.”  Since the tendency to embellish that you pinned on Edwards turned out to belong, not to him, but to Monsignor Foster’s supporters, you certainly owe him and the general public a detailed account of  your reasoning.  Therefore, we expect you to reply to these questions without delay.

  

Susan E. Gallagher, Member, Coalition of Catholics and Survivors, signing for:

Susan Renehan, Founding Member

Lori Lambert, Founding Member

Anne Barrett Doyle, Founding Member

Joseph E. Gallagher, Jr., Founding Member

Cc:

The Victims’ Rights Committee for the Archdiocese of Boston

Survivors First

The Most Reverend Sean Patrick O’Malley, Archbishop of Boston

Rev. Sean M. Connor, Delegate of the Archbishop

Deacon Anthony Rizzuto, Director, Office of Child Advocacy, Implementation, and Oversight

Kathleen McChesney, Office of Child & Youth Protection, USCCB

Sig Gissler, Administrator, Pulitzer Prize Board

Martin Baron, Editor, Boston Globe

Christine Chinlund, Ombudsman, Boston Globe

 

For the Globe's still uncorrected editorial position on Edwards, see A False Accusation, a lead editorial published on 9/4/02

 

To see how hard the Globe worked to protect Foster, see its Internet Tribute to the Monsignor

 

For more information on Globe misreporting, visit parcc.org, the web site of a group of survivors and advocates who wrote a detailed letter to the Pulitzer Board complaining about Robinson's distorted reporting on the Edwards case.

 

Back to CCS Homepage