For a summary of the case, read a letter from the Coalition of Catholics & Survivors to Boston Archbishop Sean O'Malley

CCS's letter to Globe reporter Walter Robinson

List of Selected Documents with Summaries & Links

Background on Walter Robinson's usual techniques

Victims' Rights Committee Report on the Foster Investigation

Documents from the Foster file (pdf version)

Summary of what this timeline shows:

After Paul R. Edwards accused the late Rev. William J. Cummings and Monsignor Michael Smith Foster, the Boston Archdiocese's top canon lawyer, of sexual abuse, the Boston Globe undermined Edwards' credibility by recklessly repeating false and damaging claims made by Foster's supporters.

In well over a dozen articles, the Globe exaggerated the reliability of these claims by consistently mischaracterizing Foster's highly organized supporters as "Edwards's friends."

The Globe maliciously implied that Edwards was faking his paraplegia without supplying any proof, support, or source for this defamatory implication.  

The Globe failed to correct its erroneous assertions about Edwards' personal history long after its reporters knew that these assertions were false.

The Globe and, in particular, Walter Robinson, were repeatedly cited in internal Church documents as both the source and the recipient of false information about the Edwards case.

The Globe repeatedly reported that it had gathered "evidence" and "documents" that "disproved" Edwards allegations, but refused to describe this evidence specifically or to make these documents public.

As the Globe itself repeatedly reported, the paper's attacks on Edwards led directly to the dismissal of his original lawsuit against the Boston Archdiocese.

Globe reporters tried to cover up their previous mistakes by distorting new developments in the Edwards case.

The Globe failed to amend its attacks on Edwards' credibility even after the Archdiocese gave up its doubts and settled with Edwards in response to his charge against Cummings.

The Globe's campaign to vilify Edwards as an inveterate liar caused him immeasurable suffering, ruined his business, forced him to seek treatment for suicidal depression, drove him out of his home state, and continues to prevent him from obtaining a full measure of justice in his dispute with the Boston Archdiocese.

8/14/02

With the help of his inexperienced first lawyer, Eric Parker, Paul Edwards files a lawsuit charging the late Rev. William J Cummings and Monsignor Michael Smith Foster, the judicial vicar of the Archdiocese of Boston (RCAB), with sexually abusing him during the 1980's.

8/15/02

Foster immediately assembles a high-powered legal and public relations team – four lawyers and Bishoff-Solomon Communications. Note: In 2003, Helene Solomon and Ashley McCown won a Clarion Award from the Association for Women in Communications for their successful efforts to manipulate media reporting on the Foster case.

8/15/02

Linda Amicangioli, a London-based public relations specialist and friend of Foster, organizes a campaign to discredit Edwards.  However, Amicangioli herself is later discredited in an investigative report in the Boston Herald:  Accuser wrongly maligned; Church ignored facts in Foster Case. 

8/15/02

Story is leaked to media.  Reporters begin to descend on Parker and on Paul and Shannon Edwards. 

8/16/02

On the advice of his lawyer, Edwards refuses to speak to the Globe and other media outlets; appears on WHDH TV.

 http://web1.whdh.com/news/articles/local/H2841/

8/17/02

Story breaks in print media.  

8/17/02

Foster examined by Church investigator, admits, contrary to repeated reports that later appeared in the Globe, that Edwards had visited his bedroom on several occasions; says he can’t recall if Edwards talked to him about Cummings. 

8/19/02

Globe mentioned in memo by Parker as source of doubts about Edwards’ allegations.  Parker has already been contacted by both the Globe and WHDH about emails sent by Amicangioli group. 

8/20/02

As Parker panics in response to negative media coverage and threats from Foster's lawyers, Edwards is admitted to Mass Medical Center, put under suicide watch.

8/21/02

Globe story on violations of accused priests rights mentions Foster’s case.

In Boston, Law imposed a ''zero tolerance'' policy in January that requires the removal of priests from ministry any time the archdiocese has reasonable cause to believe that the priest abused a minor.

That policy has led to the removal of the 20 priests, including most recently Monsignor Michael Smith Foster, the judicial vicar, who preempted his ouster by asking to be placed on leave as he fights an allegation that he abused a minor nearly 20 years ago.

8/22/02

1^st Globe attack on Edwards’ credibility.  Almost all information, which is supplied by Amicangioli group, is irrelevant or wrong. Globe reporters recklessly copy statements made by Foster's supporters without bothering to check basic facts.  Globe also initiates its long-term  practice of referring to Foster's supporters as "Edwards's friends."

After suggesting that Edwards had a "penchant for fanciful invention" that expressed itself in a tendency to fabricate "critical details about his career and health," Robinson uses the term "self-described paraplegic" in reference to a documented spinal condition that keeps Edwards largely confined to a wheelchair. [Note: When later confronted with documented evidence of Edwards' medical condition, Robinson asserted that his use of the term "self-described paraplegic" was not designed to shed doubt on Edwards' paraplegia. See email from Joe Gallagher to Walter Robinson.] 

In addition, Robinson includes the first instance of a much repeated accusation that Edwards had falsely claimed to have landed a part in the movie Jaws, but Robinson never specifies either that this anecdote came from Foster's supporters or that Edwards was seven years old when he allegedly made this claim.

Robinson also repeats claims made by Foster's supporters that Edwards had pretended to be deaf during high school, but Robinson fails to note that Edwards had taken a sign language course, nor does he explain why this second-hand anecdote was relevant to the veracity of Edwards' charges.

Robinson also reports that Edwards had falsely claimed to have been a police officer on Martha's Vineyard when in fact he served as a regular member of the Edgartown police force over the course of four summers.  If Robinson had bothered to do any checking, this fact would have been especially easy to ascertain.

Robinson also reports that Edwards had falsely claimed that his uncle had died and, paraphrasing Foster's supporters, writes, "The uncle, they quickly learned, was alive."  The uncle, who was actually a close family friend, did die, and Edwards later produced the man's death certificate during a interview with Boston Herald reporter Robin Washington.

8/22/02

Joseph Doherty, one of Foster’s four lawyers, reads the Globe over the phone to Parker.  Parker supposedly promises to withdraw as Edwards’ counsel if reports about Edwards prove true. See Doherty’s affidavit, filed 9/4/02:

While we were conducting our investigation, reporters from the Boston Globe were also conducting an investigation concerning Paul Edwards’ credibility.  The information obtained by the Globe was consistent with the information we were obtaining through our investigation.  They published their first story challenging the credibility of Mr. Foster’s [sic] allegations on August 22, 2002.  That afternoon, I spoke with Mr. Edwards’ Attorney, Eric Parker, and shared with him substantial additional information beyond what was had been reported in the Globe, that we had uncovered and that in our opinion established conclusively that his client suffered from life-long psychiatric problems that cause him to fabricate stories in which he was the “victim” of injury or illness or other harm.  Mr. Parker stated that he had been entirely unaware of the information in the Globe article and the further information that we provided to him.  He acknowledged that he had an ethical obligation to investigate the information himself and that if his investigation confirmed that his client’s allegations were not credible, he would immediately move to withdraw from the case as counsel for Mr. Edwards.

Although he had hired two private detectives to investigate Edwards, Doherty did not manage to uncover any evidence that might have shed doubt on the accuser's veracity, nor did find any proof of Edwards' supposed "love of injury."  Consequently, Doherty's affidavit consists almost entirely of second-hand recollections of remarks that were allegedly made by Edwards' long-estranged father, but that Edwards' father was not willing to swear to himself. 

Also, although the Globe constantly implied that Parker doubted his client's story, the only specific reason Parker ever gave for his withdrawal was that he was "disconcerted" by negative media coverage.

8/?/02

Having seen media reports, Delia Brennan emails Parker to confirm her conversation with Edwards in the early 1990’s about the Cummings rape; specifies that the abuse occurred on an overnight ski trip.

8/23/02

2^nd Globe assault of Edwards  Misreporting continues; no doubts relevant to Edwards’ charges are raised.  Globe reporters claim that they can't find anyone with a negative word to say about either Cummings or Foster even though some local Catholics condemned Cummings when he announced that he had AIDs in 1993. 

The lawyer for a former Newton resident who has accused two priests of molesting him in the 1980s said yesterday that he will seek to verify claims by his client that are now in doubt, even as new evidence arose that his client, Paul R. Edwards, misrepresented details of the allegations and of his own background.

Parker never gave any indication that he doubted Edwards' story.  No "new evidence" of Edwards "tendency to embellish" is included in this report. 

8/24/02

Herald reports on Foster supporters’ efforts to undermine Edwards: Victims’ Advocates Urge Caution; article contrasts sharply with attack mode adopted by the Globe.

8/25/02

Parker drafts motion to withdraw claiming that “subsequent to the filing of the plaintiff’s complaint, issues arose, central to the allegations contained in the plaintiff’s complaint, that prevent plaintiff’s counsel from serving effectively as plaintiff’s legal counsel in connection with this matter.”   Parker never disclosed what these "issues" were either directly to Edwards or to the public.

8/27/02

Still at Mass Med and terrified by Foster's threats to countersue him, Edwards signs Mutual Release, and also signs first draft of Dismissal with Prejudice.  Parker fails to explain why he is taking this action and what it means to the future of the case.  He only tells Edwards that going forward with the case would undermine the Edwards’ ongoing efforts to adopt a child and result in a countersuit by Foster that could cost the Edwards all of their assets, including their home.

8/29/02

Edwards is released from Mass. Med.  Parker warns Edwards that he may be arrested for filing a fraudulent claim, but doesn't explain how Edwards could be charged with a crime when he hadn't done anything wrong; instead, pointing to negative media coverage, Parker stresses Foster's enormous power.

8/29/02

Dr. Ned Cassem, a Jesuit, member of Cardinal Law’s Commission for the Protection of Children and former head of the psychiatry dept. at Massachusetts General Hospital, signs an affidavit prepared by Foster's lawyers that describes Edwards as a “psychopath” or “sociopath” and advises Foster to “wear a Kevlar vest” and “learn how to use a gun.” Cassem never met Edwards and did not have access to his medical records.  Edwards has no history of violence and has never been trouble with the law.  In his affidavit, Cassem fails to provide any evidence to support his opinions.  Affidavit of Ned Cassem

8/30/02

Globe story on Parker’s withdrawal suggests that there may be a criminal investigation of Edwards’ filing of his lawsuit - Judge voices concerns on suit against priests.

Parker asked to be relieved as Edwards's lawyer in a motion filed Wednesday, a week after a Globe report raised doubts about Edwards's allegations that he was abused two decades ago by Monsignor Michael Smith Foster, now the archdiocese's chief canon lawyer, and by the late Rev. William J. Cummings.

Edwards was still in the hospital when Parker appeared in court.  Parker did not disclose this fact, and the judge apparently assumed that Edwards was unwilling to defend his accusations.  Parker did nothing to correct this misperception.  Instead, since he was, as he put it, "disconcerted" by negative media coverage, he abandoned his client without any legitimate cause.

8/30/02

Voluntary dismissal with prejudice filed.  Parker agrees to all demands made by the Archdiocese, but never provides any written justification or plausible rationale for his actions.

9/1/02

Globe publishes story complaining about mistreatment of Foster: Rights of priests at issue in abuse probes.

Ironically, the process has even ensnared Monsignor Michael Smith Foster, the archdiocese's chief canon lawyer. And in Foster's case, there is substantial evidence that the abuse charges against him may be baseless. Yet the archdiocese did not take even minimal steps to gauge the credibility of the allegations before casting Foster into the same category as the other 21. The day after he began his leave, a round of initial interviews by Globe reporters raised serious questions about the veracity of Foster's accuser.

The Globe never collected any "substantial evidence" showing that Edwards' accusations were false.

9/3/02

Frank Corso, an attorney and associate of Eric Parker, who never contracted to represent Edwards, writes to RCAB lawyer Wilson D. Rogers, with whom he has some sort of friendly relationship, to inform him that a Voluntary Dismissal, with prejudice, has been filed with the Suffolk County Superior Court.  Corso asks Rogers to have Foster sign the Mutual Release even though Rogers is not supposed to be acting as Foster's attorney. 

This and similar exchanges show that Foster secured the dismissal by agreeing not to countersue Edwards.  Even though RCAB policy prohibits countersuits, and even after he had signed the Mutual Release, Foster later reiterated his threats to take legal action against Edwards (See 11/1/02).

9/4/02

A false accusation – In a lead editorial, the Globe complains about the injustice done to Foster and Cummings; suggests that Edwards has a moral obligation to take back his accusation against Cummings. 

Paul R. Edwards, Foster's accuser, had a history of embellishment, as the Globe first reported on Aug. 22. And people who were in Foster's youth ministry in the mid-1980s quickly came to his defense. Edwards's lawyer abandoned the case last week. With Edwards's accusations growing weaker by the day, the withdrawal of the lawsuit was only a matter of time.

Now the archdiocese has an opportunity to show that a baseless accusation does not result in long-term harm. If Foster is willing, he ought to be returned to his job as the top canon lawyer in Boston.

In his lawsuit, Edwards also accused the Rev. William J. Cummings of abuse. Cummings died in 1994, but his memory is besmirched by the allegation. If it is baseless, then Edwards has a moral obligation to retract it.

Not all cases are quite so clear-cut as Foster's, however. The archdiocese needs to set up a procedure that provides priests with an assurance of legal help and offers them a clear path to the disposition of their cases.

Note: The Globe later refused to amend this editorial position in response to subsequent objections from advocacy groups.  See email from Joseph Gallagher, a member of the Coalition of Catholics & Survivors, to  Walter Robinson.  And the paper again refused to alter its position even after the RCAB settled with Edwards on the Cummings claim in 2003.

9/4/02

Doherty signs affidavit maligning Edwards’ credibility based on conversations with Edwards’ estranged father - Affidavit of Joseph Doherty.

9/4/02

RCAB reportedly receives a second lawsuit charging Cummings with abusing a ten-year-old boy in a Somerville Church in 1982. It’s not clear if a demand letter had been filed earlier. The lawsuit was filed in Suffolk court in June, but the RCAB claims to have had no knowledge of it until September. (A third lawsuit was filed in 2003.)

9/4/02

In an article on the withdrawal of Edwards' lawsuit, the Globe reports that the Suffolk County D.A. is investigating Edwards:

But the possibility that Edwards's allegations are unfounded will be reviewed by the Suffolk district attorney. ''We are reviewing the case to determine if there's evidence of criminal conduct,'' said David Procopio, a spokesman for the district attorney.  Man Drops Claims Against Two Priests.

The Suffolk County D.A. found no evidence of wrongdoing, but later refused to issue a public statement on the outcome of its investigation even after victim advocates emphasized the negative impact of this statement, which, in any case, violated the D.A.'s normal policy of refusing to confirm or deny investigations.

9/5/02

Edwards passes a polygraph test reportedly arranged and paid for by Frank Corso.  Richard C. Johnson, the attorney who conducted the test, and questioned Edwards about his allegations against both Foster and Cummings, concludes that the “polygraph results relating to each issue support the truthfulness of Mr. Edwards.”

9/7/02

Globe story on Foster’s “distressful ordeal:” Foster says he is 'disheartened' by church silence.

For Foster, the last three weeks have been a nightmare. Edwards, who has a long history of inventing stories, according to many of his childhood friends, went public with his lawsuit on Friday, August 16. Six days later, the Globe report raised serious doubts about the charges against both priests.

9/11/02

Foster cleared by Archdiocese, allowed to return to ministry. 

9/12/02

Edwards meets with Church investigator Sean Connor;  provides documentation showing that Globe articles were inaccurate.  Walter Robinson reportedly finds out about the interview immediately and calls Foster to let him know that he's been "double-crossed." 

Robinson somehow gets wind of this interview even though only Edwards, Connor, and Rev. Mark O'Connell were present.  Moreover, Robinson apparently knows enough about the meeting to tell Foster that he's been double-crossed, but not enough to report that most of the interview was spent correcting misinformation that had been reported in the Globe. 

Connor's interview with Edwards is summarized in Accuser wrongly maligned; Church ignored facts in Foster Case.

9/12/02

In an article on Foster's short-lived reinstatement, Walter Robinson repeats misinformation supplied by Foster's supporters; says that the Suffolk County D.A.'s office has launched a criminal investigation of Edwards. 

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. Moreover, parents and students who knew Edwards and the two priests offered evidence that raised serious doubts that the molestations could have occurred.

For example, Edwards said Foster molested him numerous times in his rectory bedroom at Sacred Heart Church in Newton between 1980 and 1985. But the pastor, as well as teenage friends of the accuser who worked in the rectory then, said visitors were not permitted above the rectory's ground floor. And they said it would have been extraordinarily difficult for the abuse to have occurred in such a busy rectory without it being obvious.

At this point, Foster had already admitted to the Church investigator that "adults and children moved about freely" in the rectory, and that Edwards had visited his bedroom on several occasions.  Also note that the Globe takes full responsibility for destroying Edwards' credibility.

An additional note: If the Suffolk County D.A. had actually investigated Edwards' allegations, the staff there would have immediately discovered that another lawsuit against Cummings had been filed in June.

9/13/02

After learning that Edwards had passed a polygraph test concerning his allegations against both Foster and Cummings, and after Edwards presents documents showing that almost all of the Globe's assertions about him were misleading or false, Bishop Lennon and other RCAB officials decide to reopen the investigation "in light of the new evidence."

9/14/02

Sean Connor emails Amy Strickland, one of Foster's lawyers taking her and Foster to task for supplying false information to Walter Robinson.  A promised letter to Strickland on media manipulation is missing from the Foster file.  Strickland responds that she will stop representing Foster if the inappropriate contact with the media continues.  Strickland is replaced by another canon lawyer within two weeks.

9/14/02

Ned Cassem writes memo to Deacon Anthony Rizutto falsely maligning Edwards as a "felon" and claiming that Edwards presents a danger to Cardinal Law and others. Cassem cites the Globe as the source of his misinformation. 

According to Cassem, Walter Robinson found out immediately that Edwards had been interviewed by Sean Connor, and Robinson called Foster to let him know that he had been betrayed.  Apparently, Robinson did not know or failed to disclose that much of the interview was spent correcting the misinformation that had been published in the Globe.

9/23/02

Another Globe story on Foster's "ordeal:" Church faulted on slow pace of probes.  The Globe again repeats the erroneous assertion that Foster's supporters have some sort of information that will "disprove" Edwards' allegations:

It has been more than five weeks since Paul R. Edwards accused Monsignor Michael Smith Foster and the late Rev. William J. Cummings of sexually abusing him in the early 1980s. But in all that time, more than a dozen people who insist they have evidence that will disprove the accusation against Cummings say they have never been contacted by archdiocesan investigators.

"Obviously, if Paul has made a false claim against Father Cummings - false because the incident could not have happened - then it totally undermines his credibility on what he says about Monsignor Foster,'' said Sharon Phinney, one of those witnesses.

Note that Phinney is described as a "witness" even though it's not clear what she might have seen.  Also, at this point the Archdiocese had already received another lawsuit against Cummings (a third lawsuit was filed in late 2003).  In addition, while the unidentified possessors of undefined "evidence" against Edwards' charges failed to produce any specific information, Edwards presented the Archdiocese with documents that conclusively disproved much of the Globe's reporting, and he had already passed a detailed lie detector test. 

After the RCAB later settled with Edwards on the Cummings claim, the Globe refused to acknowledge its previous assertions that doubts raised about Edwards' charges against Cummings also shed doubt on his claims against Foster.

9/25/02

Another Globe story emphasizing Foster’s plight: Archdiocese eyes more legal rights for accused priests.

Since the abuse scandal erupted in January, the archdiocese has suspended 23 priests from service for allegations of past sexual abuse. There has been little controversy about many of the suspensions. But, in recent weeks, the Globe has reported on questionable evidence that led to the suspension of Monsignor Michael Smith Foster. Globe stories have also underscored the slow work by the archdiocese to investigate details of sexual allegations in Foster's case and others.

No "questionable evidence" was uncovered.  All of the relevant information gathered in the course of the RCAB's investigation strengthened Edwards' case.

10/6/02

Globe coverage whips up calls for Foster's immediate reinstatement.  For example, the National Catholic Register complains,

Few believe he is guilty, yet Msgr. Michael Smith Foster has been on administrative leave from the Archdiocese of Boston for more than a month.

His two suspensions are the result of sexual-abuse allegations so evidently baseless that the civil courts have dismissed them - with prejudice, meaning they can't be filed again - and the Boston Globe has run detailed exposés portraying the priest's accuser as a pathological liar.

10/9/02

Church investigator Sean Connor writes memo to Ned Cassem suggesting that Cassem’s affidavit in the Foster case is, to use Cassem's term, “fraudulent.”

10/17/02

Cassem writes back to Connor: “You are stuck on the wrong issue here—what are the facts, not what is the down and dirty truth.  You sounded like an enemy of Msgr. Foster.” Note from Ned Cassem to RCAB investigator Rev. Sean Connor

10/30/02

Foster reinstated without explanation.  RCAB fails to notify Edwards. RCAB announcement promises to disclose details some time in the future.  According to the announcement, "During this time care has also been taken so that the good name of each person involved in this process not be endangered by this investigation."

10/31/02

Globe reports on Foster's second reinstatement.  As usual, Globe reporters tie the Church's determination of Edwards' charges against Foster to its determination of Edwards' allegations against Cummings, noting that Edwards' supposed lack of credibility impacts both cases:

11/1/02

Another Globe story on Foster’s ordeal: Reinstated monsignor questions church policies.

When the Globe reported that Edwards had a history of fabricating stories, and that friends had offered statements contradicting parts of his allegation, Edwards withdrew his lawsuit and Foster was reinstated. But Edwards subsequently contacted the archdiocese, on Sept.13, with what church officials described as ''new information'' and Foster left active ministry a second time.

Note cause and effect described in first sentence--"when" has a causative connotation that is even stronger than "after," the Globe's other term for this chain of events. 

Also, even though the Church investigator interviewed Edwards after the RCAB learned that the accuser had passed a lie detector test, and even though Robinson somehow found out about this interview immediately after it occurred, Robinson never mentions either the polygraph or the fact that much of the interview was spent correcting the Globe's misreporting.

11/1/02

Peter G. Hermes, one of Foster's four lawyers, writes a letter threatening to take legal action against Edwards if he makes “any statements that Monsignor Foster considers defamatory.”  The letter indicates that Frank Corso is representing Edwards, but no contract was made to that effect, nor is there any other documentation indicating that Corso is actually Edwards’ lawyer.  As Foster himself noted in an earlier letter to Sean Connor, this threat to sue Edwards violated archdiocesan policy, and it also contravened the terms of the Mutual Release.

11/8/02

In its report on Foster's reinstatement, the Pilot, the newspaper of the Archdiocese of Boston, points to the Globe to explain the disintegration of Edwards' case:

Edwards claimed that while he was an altar boy, Msgr. Foster molested him repeatedly in a rectory bedroom at Sacred Heart Church in Newton between 1980 and 1985. His allegation lost credibility when The Boston Globe reported that Edwards had a history of fabricating stories and that several of Edwards’ friends had offered statements, which contradicted parts of his allegations.

11/18/02

Another Globe story on Foster’s exoneration: Cleared priest returns to altar; church marks justice system ties.

The allegations weakened after the Globe reported that Edwards had an extensive history of fabricating stories. Two weeks after Edwards filed his suit, he dropped the case.

Again, note the Globe's own reading of its role in undermining Edwards' lawsuit.

11/24/02

Another Globe story on Foster’s ordeal: Priest reinstated after false accusation is angry.

Foster, 47, the first priest accused of sexual misconduct this year to be cleared, remains astonished by what happened to him: He, along with the late Rev. William J. Cummings, was accused in an Aug. 14 civil lawsuit of molesting a former Newton teenager, Paul R. Edwards, during the 1980s.

But within days, evidence surfaced that strongly rebutted the charges by Edwards, who has a history of fabricating stories. Edwards dropped the lawsuit after his lawyer abandoned the case. The judge assigned to the case expressed ''significant concerns'' about the truthfulness of the allegations. A week later, on Sept. 10, the archdiocese decided the charges were unsubstantiated and Law ordered Foster reinstated.

...Foster said that he was not alone in being mistreated by the archdiocese. There is also the case of Cummings, who died in 1994.

''I never heard that they investigated anything in regard to Father Cummings,'' Foster said. ''And yet he has siblings. He has family members. His reputation was put on the line, and he couldn't defend himself. He's dead.

Note that the Globe has given up attributing the notion that Edwards "has a history of fabricating stories" to "Edwards's childhood friends"--now, even though every claim made by Foster's supporters turned out to be irrelevant and/or false, the Globe is reporting Edwards' supposed "tendency to embellish" as fact.

11/25/02

Another Globe story on Foster’s exoneration: Joyous at his vindication, a Newton parish welcomes Monsignor Michael Smith Foster

Foster thanked God, the Virgin Mary ''for her protection,'' the saints who inspired him during his 76-day ordeal, as well as his family, his friends, and his fellow priests for their support.

He also singled out one group in particular, moving up the traditional exchange of greetings of peace from the end of the Mass to the beginning, so he could go out in the aisles and hug some former members of his Sacred Heart youth groups from the 1980s. Members of the group were instrumental in contradicting Edward's allegations.

No one in Amicangioli group presented any evidence that contradicted Edwards' allegations.  All of the claims they made about Edwards proved to be unverifiable, irrelevant, or false.

12/13/02

Documents released by RCAB, which include hundreds of pages on Foster, contradict crucial elements of the Globe's reports on Edwards.  Rather than issuing any corrections, the Globe continues to malign Edwards and protect Foster.  For example, since it came out that that Foster had admitted that Edwards had visited his bedroom, Globe reporters Matt Carroll and Michael Rezendes try to minimize the importance of this revelation by including the following passages in a general story about newly released files:

The files contain an edited transcript of an archdiocesan interview with Edwards in September, in which Edwards described a friendly relationship with Foster that evolved into horseplay, wrestling, and incidents in which the two napped together in their underwear. During the interview, Edwards cited just one incident in which he said Foster became sexually aroused. [Molestation is not measured by the perpetrator's level of sexual excitement.] His account contradicted the numerous incidents of sexual molestation he had claimed in his lawsuit. [There is no contradiction; when a priest lays down half-dressed with a teenager, he is committing sexual abuse.  As noted by Foster lawyer Amy Strickland in an email included in the Foster file, the claims made in Edwards' lawsuit and the charges he leveled during the interview were "fundamentally identical."]

When church officials interviewed Foster in August, he answered ''yes'' when asked whether Edwards had ever been in his bedroom, but said he could not recall whether Edwards had ever sat on his bed. In that interview, Foster said it was common for adults and teenagers to visit the upstairs suites of priests, where they had both offices and bedrooms. [No mention made of previous Globe reports to the contrary.]

In an interview last night, Foster said Edwards's contradictory accounts are false. [No contradiction was established.] And while he said it is possible that Edwards might have been in his living quarters in the rectory, it would never have occurred without others being present - including Edwards's own parents during one Christmas party at the parish, Sacred Heart in Newton. [The presence of Edwards' parents on one occasion does not preclude sexual misconduct on another. Foster had already admitted that he had been alone with Edwards in his bedroom.]

Foster expressed incredulity that the archdiocese would release an incomplete file that appears to exclude almost all of the exculpatory evidence the archdiocese gathered between mid-September and Oct. 30, when the church finally cleared Foster. ''This is a helluva way to restore my reputation,'' Foster said, referring to the archdiocese's promise to take steps to do so.

The file never contained any "exculpatory evidence."  However, in his RCAB interview, which was included in this set of files, Edwards presented documents that directly contradicted statements made by the Globe.  For example, in response to the Globe's contention that he had lied about working as a police officer, Edwards brought a letter of recommendation in which Foster praised Edwards' work for the Edgartown police force.  This letter was included in the Foster file, but never mentioned in the Globe.  Also missing from this Globe story is any mention of the fact that the interview was arranged after the RCAB learned that Edwards had passed a lie detector test. 

As for the Globe's contention that there was some sort of "contradiction" between claims made in Edwards' lawsuit and what he said during his interview with the Church investigator, here's what Amy Strickland, one of Foster's legal advocates, wrote to the Church investigator on 9/14/02, after the investigator complained that Foster and his legal team were providing misinformation to Walter Robinson.

Click here to access the full email

12/13/02

Reports in the Boston Herald show that Foster lied in the course of the Church investigation and that Globe articles were incorrect: Accuser wrongly maligned; Church ignored facts in Foster Case.

The man labeled as falsely accusing Monsignor Michael Smith Foster of sex abuse was discredited by a flood of unsubstantiated allegations that church investigators - and in some cases Foster himself - knew to be untrue, the Herald has learned.

The Herald report also exposed the falsity of Amicangioli and the Globe's claims that her group had information that contradicted Edwards' allegations:

Amicangioli, who organized the campaign of former friends, told the Herald following Foster's second reinstatement last month she only had "third hand" stories of Edwards' embellishments - a contradiction to her testimony in Foster's file that she knew "first hand" Edwards was lying.

12/14/02

SNAP calls for a reopening of the Foster case: Victims' group urges new probe of Foster.

12/27/02

Attorney Carmen Durso stages a press conference to call for reopening the Foster case.

12/28/02

Rather than acknowledging its previous misreporting, the Globe's report on the press conference reiterates the paper's previous fabrication of a disparity between Edwards’ lawsuit and what he said in his interview with Church investigator Sean Connor:

Edwards said in the August lawsuit that he was molested numerous times by Foster between 1980 and 1985 at Sacred Heart Church in Newton. The Winchendon resident also said he was anally raped by the Rev. William J. Cummings, who died in 1994. However, in an interview with a church investigator in September, Edwards said he and Foster had napped together in Foster's bed at the rectory.  Edwards yesterday was unable to explain the differences between what he said in the lawsuit and what he told the church.

Apparently, even though the Globe had access to the email in which Amy Strickland described Edwards' accounts as "fundamentally identical," and even though this same email explicitly warned Foster and his lawyers to stop supplying misinformation to Walter Robinson, the Spotlight Team elected to invent a new inconsistency in order to justify its previous attacks on Edwards' credibility.

Also, even though new information released by the Archdiocese and reported in the Herald already showed, contrary to reports in the Globe, that Edwards had visited Foster's bedroom, had worked as a police officer, did not pretend to be deaf, and does suffer from a documented medical condition, the Globe failed to correct any of its earlier misreporting.  Instead, adopting a passive voice rather than, as it had earlier, taking credit for undermining Edwards, the Globe stated:

Edwards, 35, said at a news conference that he stands by his charge that there was an ''inappropriate'' sexual relationship between Foster and himself when he was a teenager, even though serious questions have been raised about the credibility of the allegations and the archdiocese found Edwards's charges unsubstantiated.

 1/3/03

Survivors and advocates meet with  Walter Robinson to demand corrections on the Edwards story – See email from Joe Gallagher, who attended the meeting, to Walter Robinson.

1/15/03

RCAB reveals 2^nd lawsuit against Cummings

Forced to report on this lawsuit, Robinson finally acknowledges that he had been deceived by both the Archdiocese and by Foster's supporters in Archdiocese knew of 2d lawsuit when it rejected claim.  However, Robinson also writes:

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.

Robinson never identifies who his sources--"people familiar with the investigation"--are, nor does he ever specifically describe  these "documents"  or this "substantial information."  There is no information in the RCAB's file that sheds any serious doubt on Edwards' credibility.  In fact, the hundreds of pages on Foster released by the Archdiocese shed serious doubt on the veracity of Foster and his supporters.  These doubts are never reported in the Globe.  Moreover, rather than coming clean about his own role in distorting Edwards' history, Robinson further clouds the story by chalking up his own misreporting to his usual sources, an unidentified group of "childhood friends."

For a critique of Robinson's misreporting, see http://faculty.uml.edu/sgallagher/blamingothers.htm.

1/15/03

Boston Herald article on Ned Cassem’s intervention in the Edwards case: http://faculty.uml.edu/sgallagher/cassem.htm

1/17/03

On Beat the Press, a program on WGBH2, Robinson continues to malign Edwards with uncorroborated assertions about his credibility.

2/1/03

A group of advocates, activists, and survivors sends letter to Pulitzer Prize Board protesting the Globe's inaccurate and insensitive reporting on the sex abuse crisis in the Church.  The letter details the Globe's misreporting (and refusal to make corrections) on the Edwards case.  The Globe reportedly provided a detailed response to this complaint, but the Pulitzer Board refused to allow the protest group to see it.

2/12/03

Speaking at a public forum at Boston College, "Media & the Crisis in the Church," Walter Robinson responds to criticism from the audience by reiterating his unfounded attacks on Edwards' credibility.

4/3/03

Harvard's Nieman Foundation gives the Spotlight Team the Taylor Family Award for Fairness in Newspapers in specific recognition of its reporting on the Edwards case:

Ellen Hume, a consultant and former reporter for The Wall Street Journal and Los Angeles Times, initially nominated The Globe for the award. "This series has been excruciatingly difficult because it involves sensational charges against scores of long-time community priests throughout Massachusetts," Hume said. "The Globe has kept with the story, but it has tried to represent all sides, including the church's responses."

Another nominator said the reporting by The Globe represented the essence of fairness in the media. "The Globe's Spotlight Team uncovered one of the worst scandals of modern times: the sexual abuse of children by members of the clergy. A few months later, after the scandal has spread around the world, [The Globe] launches another investigation to clear two priests who appear to have been falsely accused of that crime."

Note: In June 2004, Ellen Hume responded to evidence of the Globe's misreporting on Edwards, not by actually looking at the coverage, but by pointing to the Pulitzer Committee's decision to dismiss advocates' complaints about the Globe's distortions of the story.  Although she implied that she had seen the Globe's response to the Pulitzer protest, Sig Gissler, the Pulitzer administrator, later insisted that she should not have been allowed to see the document, which is, for reasons Gissler could not explain, supposed to be kept secret.

Bob Giles, curator of the Taylor Award, likewise cited the Globe's undisclosed response to the Pulitzer protest as justification for honoring the paper's fairness.  However, Giles refused to provide any specifics, and he also refused to identify the second nominator quoted in the Nieman Foundation's press release.

Hume promised to look into the question further at a later date, but she has apparently been too busy collaborating with the Neiman Foundation and developing a "Media and Values" project at the Center for Media & Society at UMASS Boston to explore the ethical issues raised by the circumstances under which the Globe was chosen for the fairness award.  For guidance on these initiatives, Hume can look to Helene Solomon, Foster's award-winning PR rep, who serves on her advisory board.

8/25/03

The Coalition of Catholics and Survivors writes to Archbishop Sean O'Malley asking him to review the RCAB's handling of the Edwards case.

9/17/03

After Edwards requests his file from the Archdiocese, as he was permitted to do under the abuse policy adopted in May 2002, the Archdiocese silently rewrites the policy so that all accusers are denied access to their files.  In a conversation with Susan Gallagher, a member of CCS, the night before the story appears, Globe reporter Ralph Ranalli claims to have no knowledge of the Edwards case.

Ranalli's front-page story on the unannounced policy alteration fails to mention that the Coalition of Catholics and Survivors discovered the change in the process of advocating for Edwards.  While the source of the story is noted by the Herald and by WBUR , all information about Edwards and CCS is excluded from the Globe's account.

9/23/03

CCS receives a letter from O'Malley stating that he has "ordered a full review of the case."  Church spokesman Christopher Coyne later says that the term "full review" did not mean "full review," but only a re-examination of Edwards' charges against Cummings. Church to Review Case

9/24/03

After speaking with Susan Gallagher, a member of CCS, about the RCAB's policy changes, as well as the Globe's failure to report on the way the change came about, Eileen McNamara writes a column detailing the RCAB's violations of victims' rights.  However, McNamara, who is fully aware of the Globe's misreporting on Edwards, also avoids any mention of Edwards and CCS.

10/30/03

National Public Radio reports on the mishandling of the Edwards case.  In the course of an interview with NPR reporter Anthony Brooks, Robinson again defends his unfounded attacks on Edwards' credibility.

12/1/03

The RCAB settles with Edwards but later claims that it is only acknowledging his credibility in relation to the charges against Cummings.  In meeting with the settlement arbitrator, Edwards provides a clear and consistent account of Foster's misconduct.  Afterwards, Archdiocese spokesperson Christopher Coyne insists without explanation that the Foster case is closed.

12/3/03

Having previously trumpeted its own role in destroying Edwards' credibility, the Globe makes no mention of any of the 23 articles it had earlier published on the Edwards/Foster/Cummings case in Church settles case with another alleged victim of clergy abuse, its report on the RCAB's settlement with Edwards on the Cummings allegations.  For an more accurate report, see the Boston Herald's Victim Hopes for Peace.

12/7/03

CCS writes to  Walter Robinson asking him to account for his misreporting on the Edwards case.  Copies of the letter are emailed to various editors and reporters at the Globe, including Martin Baron, the editor-in-chief, and Christine Chinlund, the Globe's ombudsman, but no one at the Globe responds.

12/8/03

CCS writes to Archbishop O'Malley asking him to let the public know of the results of his "full review" of the Edwards case.

 6/15/04

Here's a way to evaluate the what the Globe did to Paul Edwards:

Jury Instructions: Elements of Defamation (Plaintiff is a Public Figure) ².

In order to prevail on his claim for defamation, the plaintiff must prove to you by a preponderance of the evidence the following elements:

1) The defendant published a statement of and concerning the plaintiff;

2) The defendant’s statements were defamatory in that they tended to hold the plaintiff up to scorn, hatred, ridicule, or contempt, in the minds of any considerable and respectable segment of the community.

3) S/he suffered actual injury or harm as a result of the publication in question.

Once the plaintiff has proven the above elements, s/he must then prove by clear and convincing evidence the last element:

4) The defendant published the defamatory statement with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity of the statement. "Reckless disregard" means that the defendant or the defendant’s agent entertained serious doubts as to the truth of the publication.

The element concerning proving that the defendant knowingly or recklessly published the false and defamatory statement requires a higher burden of proof, namely proof by clear and convincing evidence.

--Notes on the legal definition of defamation of a public figure from "Chapter 6: Defamation,"  Jody L. Newman, Massachusetts Superior Court Civil Practice Jury Instructions (1997)