Read on Twitter
@ChristineNiles1 @cryan2791 @BenedictCarter6 @BVMConsolatrix Here comes the complete email thread between Christine Niles amd myself. I added SM/CN to denote whose email it is and noted where I inserted a link. The order remains the same. 1/29
SQ: Just read your piece on the allegations of several SSPX priests. I& #39;m watching the video right now but have a couple of observations. BTW, I used to work for the SSPX. 2/29
During our conversation, Chione told me that he used to be the organist in St Marys but that he was let go. He chalked it up to "politics" and never once mentioned that he was let go because he knew about sexual assaults and was opposed to a coverup. 3/29
In fact, Tofari told me (and I picked up on this quickly) that Chione is an abrasive personality. I can see how he would wear out his welcome quickly. 4/29
But what makes no sense is why Chione would have been seeking reinstatement within the SSPX at St Marys and why he would have tried to get a job in Kansas City at St Vincent de Paul if he supposedly knew of this information. 5/29
If he did, in fact, know and sought to rejoin an SSPX parish, then he is as bad as those he is accusing. The fact that an alleged victim did not reveal the name means that Chione knows absolutely nothing. He is merely a bitter ex-employee. 6/29
CM "journalism" has never been accused of holding overly rigorous standards, and, alas, it shows throughout your piece. Not once did you ask an even remotely difficult question of the accusers. Not once did you ask for evidence. 7/29
Instead you come across as a gullible amateur. Do you really think that any sane person accused of sexual misconduct would document in writing a quid-pro-quo like Fr Angles allegedly did? 8/29
If Jacas "think[s] ...there& #39;s at least eight priests" who will be under criminal investigation, where are their alleged victims? How would she know this? Was she abused by "at least" eight priests? This is not something the authorities reveal to non-law enforcement. 9/29
Even if none of the victims wanted to be on the record, you could have done a shadow video with voice distortion. 10/29
You use the word "seduce" and the phrase "under cover of night" when speaking of Fr Novak in an article infused with innuendo of sexual misconduct. One easy inference, based on your word choice, is that Fr Novak had sexual relations with these women. 11/29
The use of "seduce" and "under cover of night" could not have been unintentional and is disgraceful. You went to Oxford; surely you could have thought of a different word given the context of your "report." 12/29
You claim that Fr James McLucas never denied the allegations against him in the grand jury report, a claim that is utterly false [link provided]. At best, this is lazy journalism, and, at worst, an intentional smear on his reputation. 13/29
You clearly did not know that Fr McLucas lived in Kansas City at St. Vincent de Paul Church and Academy for, I recall, around two years. He departed suddenly upon the release of the PA grand jury report. 14/29
(Hint, you could have found information that he was in KC on the Society& #39;s website.) 15/29
You claim that an investigator contacted Chione "...about the rape of Michael Gonzalez..." from 30 years ago. Doesn& #39;t that seem odd to you? Chione admitted that Gonzalez never told him the alleged priest& #39;s name. What good would it do to interview Chione? 16/29
How would he have even known who Chione was? And why would the authorities want to investigate Fr Angles, who now lives in another country, in a "statewide criminal probe"? That isn& #39;t how it works. Surely you learned that studying for your J.D. 17/29
There is most likely no DNA left from Gonzalez and they could not get it from Fr Angles. 18/29
Finally, there can be no criminal case pursued when one of the parties is dead, unrelated to the other party& #39;s doing. This may well have come from the hyper-imagination of Chione, but you should know enough to ask questions and call bullshit when you see it. 19/29
When did/will these investigations begin? They need DNA and the clock ticks from that point forward. Their names would be in a database.
Do you like defamation lawsuits? 20/29
Do you like defamation lawsuits? 20/29
CN: Dear Scott,
Nice try, but there& #39;s nothing we reported on that& #39;s defamatory. When you& #39;re done shilling for sexual predators, we can talk. Until then, I can& #39;t take anything you write seriously.
God bless. 21/29
Nice try, but there& #39;s nothing we reported on that& #39;s defamatory. When you& #39;re done shilling for sexual predators, we can talk. Until then, I can& #39;t take anything you write seriously.
God bless. 21/29
SQ: I don’t shill for anyone. I sent several bullet points which you’ve ignored. I’d love to talk. I can’t stand sexual predators, period. I’m simply pointing out what I see are weaknesses in your article and I don’t want anyone being smeared with false accusations. 22/29
As someone who knows some of the principals involved in your piece, I would think you’d be interested in talking. But if you hang your hat on Chione, you’re going to be disappointed. 23/29
Your defensiveness is troubling. Why can’t people question and have a dialogue about things like this? 24/29
I’ll give you this much, with the stipulations of my first email yet applying: there is a disturbing lack of common sense regarding the handling of these allegations. I frankly am shocked and disgusted by the handling of these issues. 25/29
I think your story has legs, but focus on facts and legitimate testimony and cut out the rumor mill stuff. 26/29
CN: There& #39;s no rumor mill. Nothing you raised calls into question the eyewitnesses& #39; testimony. We obviously spoke to many more people than simply Chione, so not sure what your point is. 27/29
What I see in your remarks is the same attitude I& #39;ve seen in so many SSPX defenders - more interested in attacking the messenger and protecting the institution than protecting victims and rooting out abuse.
A shame. 28/29
A shame. 28/29
I did not include my final emil which included a profanity which CN has already shared an which I do not think helpful to reintroduce. I never received a reply to any of the questions. 29/29
