Despite that B.J. was never a member of the Boy Scouts of America or an altar server, he must have hung around them. According to news report, B.J. was there when he witnessed Father Brouillard fondling the boys while they were swimming.
B. J. then claimed to have met Father Brouillard while he was walking to the store alone one day. The priest asked him to come with him to teach him some survival skills. And despite the fact that he had seen this priest do inappropiate things to his friends while they were swimming, he nevertheless went with him. Father Brouillard brought him to Lonfit River, tied him to a tree, and raped him. According to The Guam Daily Post (the bold is mine):
As a mother, I would certainly noticed if my child had gone missing for a few days and were spitting up blood for three days. B.J. admited that he stayed in the jungle for a few days to heal and was spitting up blood. So, my question is......where were his parents? While he stayed in the jungle healing, did his parents not noticed that their 12 year old child was missing for a few days? Did they not report their missing child to the police?"I never told anybody back then. Who was gonna believe me? Back then it was very strict," B.J. said.He said he went home that day and showered and went to sleep "feeling dirty." The next morning, he said he went to the jungle and stayed there for a few days to "heal.""For three days I was spitting up blood," B.J said.The man became nauseated when thinking about Brouillard taking his innocence."I can remember everything," he said.B.J. held the secret for 45 years until he heard about other victims coming forward mentioning sexual abuse by Brouillard at Lonfit."I realized I wasn't the only one. That's what made me come out," B.J. said.
He was asked what made him come out? His answer was "I realized I wasn't the only one." I found this a strange answer. Why? Because he already admitted that he was there and witnessed Father Brouillard fondled the other boys while they were swimming. He could have gotten together with any or all of those boys to report Father Brouillard, but he did not.
However, Father Brouillard was reported. Someone did report him. A retired police officer knew about the case and even spoke about it in the news, but Archbishop Flores moved him to the United States.
A child who is spitting out blood would be alarmed and run to their parents for help. And a parent who sees his child spitting up blood would rush him to the hospital.
ReplyDelete"I realized I wasn't the only one."
ReplyDeleteHmmmm. Where have I heard that before?
Anonymous at 12:48 PM I didn't know that the statement "I realized I wasn't the only one" could only be made by one person.
DeleteTo be honest: I'm not surprised to hear different victims say that because it is something a lot of people say once they find out that others share their (usually bad) experience. I don't think every one of those who have filed a lawsuit has a legitimate case BUT I do believe that MOST of them are genuine complaints.
Just about all these claims regard abuse that happened many years ago. And some of the accused priests have since died. How does a judge or jury decide on the validity of these claims? What is the evidence? Seems like it will boil down to the alleged victim's word against the priest's word. Just honestly wondering how these lawsuits will proceed.
DeleteWould be tough to find impartial jurors since just about everyday there is news reports about priest sex abuse claims, CCOG protests, demands for the sale of the RMS and expulsion of the NCW. Doesn't help when a news article repeats all previous sex abuse claims and all the alleged gory details. As others have mentioned, if you keep repeating lies, after a while, people will believe the lies as the truth.
Dear Anonymous at 2:20 pm,
DeleteThey also have a problem finding a judge. All of them excused themselves.
They may have to bring in a judge from outside of Guam and let him/her oversee these cases. That would work well if they have no ties to Guam or to anyone involved in this mess. Both the jungle and the Apuron supporters should be happy to have outsiders. Right?
Deletemy dear diana and anonymous May 19, 2017 at 2:20 PM, as to the validity of these claims, as far as for what brouillard did to us, yes i said us, at least the us that he abused, we can validate each other
DeleteDear Anonymous at 8:06 pm,
DeleteIf you can all validate each other, something is wrong with all your allegations. Father Brouillard abused boys from DIFFERENT parishes. If you are all CONNECTED in that you all KNOW each other, the allegation may be questionable and even unreliable.
True, Father Brouillard admitted to sexually abusing boys on Guam decades ago. I seriously doubt he remembers any of these boys' names. How does a judge discern what lawsuits are truly valid if Father does not even remember these accusers' names?
DeleteSo it is very possible that some of the lawsuits may be fraudulent. There may be hundreds of men from that time period of when Father Brouillard was a priest on Guam. What is to stop these hundreds of boys from filing a fraudulent lawsuit just to try to cash in?
When the first lawsuit does make into a courtroom, the first issue that will be brought up would be the constitutionality of the law. The law that removed the statute of limitations which permitted claims to be filed in court.
What a mess.
Find it difficult to accept understand how a middle aged guy intendes to file a sex abuse case to make a cash profit if case not true. What kind of person does that?
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 9:11 am,
DeleteThe lure of money can tempt people to do sinful things.
Serious sin to make a statement against another should it not be true. It will place the immortal soul in a state of serious moral sin. All who file must examine their conscience to determine if their cases are true. Seriously it is serious moral sin if not true.
DeleteMajority of these cases are to make money from Church accounts.
DeleteImpossible to determine events in a room in 1972.
Diana I saw what you put and this is a attack on the church because look at the timeline all the way back to hon because look whose been on the attack Timmy because it started when Timmy demanded it and then he said it on the radio when the decree was being thought he said that he's finding truth in it and even when archbishop was still having his article talking about the Sunday reading and his name was on the umatuna and then a month later he was being sued and then when he said that the seminary was part of the church on Guam hon and Byrnes knows the truth that we in the way have been telling the truth its an attack against the church on Guam and they just don't want to hear the truth Byrnes just want to continue the attack against the church
ReplyDeleteDear God is one,
DeleteI do not think that Archbishop Byrnes is allowing attacks on the Church. Tim Rohr has been doing that all along. Those who oppose the NCW only want to hear what they want to hear.
Why are all of them listening to Tim Rohr it seems he has a lot of hate for the Church,and it look like he getting all the people against their own Church
ReplyDelete