The Tactics of SNAP

These are some interesting tidbits that the Catholic League discovered about the tactics and strategies SNAP used to exploit the media.  Do you see a similarity with the jungle's methods?  According to Catholic League (the bold is mine):

 At the conference, Clohessy gave some tips on how to sucker the media and stick it to the Church. Attendees were instructed that the best way to get the media’s attention is to hold press conferences outside a chancery. That way when the event is over, reporters can quickly seek an interview with some diocesan PR person.

What really works, the gathering was told, is to play on the emotions of reporters. “Display holy childhood photos!” What if no photos are available? “If you don’t have compelling holy childhood photos,” Clohessy said, “we can provide you with photos of other kids that can be held up for the camera.” It doesn’t matter whose kids are in the photo–what counts is that the media be seduced.

Clohessy also instructed attorneys to conduct interviews in front of the parish where the priest was assigned. Why? This is a good way to get clients and entice whistleblowers to come forward when they see the interview on TV.

It is important, Clohessy said, to use “feeling words.” He offered some suggestions. “I was scared. I was suicidal.” He counseled that it is better to come across as sad, not mad; doing so facilitates making an emotional connection with the audience. It was also critical to use the word “kids” as often as possible. That pulls at everyone’s heart strings. 

Three of Archbishop Apuron's accusers read their written testimony in front of the chancery or church. There were lots of emotions displayed in front of the media, who was present there. The only one who did not stood in front of the chancery was Doris Concepcion because she was in Arizona.  Nevertheless, she displayed a lot of emotion on camera. The other three accusers were able to get in front of the chancery or church with the media surrounding them because one was residing in Guam, and the other two came to Guam. 

Also, notice that interviews with the media were also conducted at the Agat Parish.....just as David Clohessy instructed. It appears that the jungle was following the same tactics and strategies that David Clohessy had outlined in that 2011 conference.  Below is a photo of Walter Denton and Doris Concepcion outside the building where Archbishop Apuron was said to allegedly molest Denton and Quinata. The media was there to take photos and interviews.  Was this a coincidence or staged? 

Walter Denton, left, comforts Doris Concepcion during a prayer vigil outside the administration building of Mount Carmel School in Agat yesterday, June 9. The building was formerly the Mount Carmel Church rectory where Archbishop Anthony Apuron is alleged to have sexually abused Denton and Joseph Quinata, Concepcion's son nearly 40 years ago when he was a parish priest.

The media was brought to the place where the alleged victims say they were molested.  Protests were also conducted at the Cathedral and during the time the Archbishop said Mass.  

Childhood photos (called "holy childhood photos" by SNAP) were also put on public display in both the media and the jungle.  The tactics of the jungle is exactly the same as SNAP because they were together with SNAP.  The jungle have been working together with SNAP since the beginning.  According to Tim Rohr:

If you or someone you know was the victim of sexual abuse during these periods and at these locations, you no longer have to remain silent. In addition to the Vatican office of the Promoter of Justice (linked in the sidebar) we are in touch with SNAP and attorneys willing to assist you confidentially.

You can contact me directly at timrohr.guam@gmail.com or you can have a third party get in touch with me and I will put you in touch with our legal people.......... 

Regarding the case with Father Jiang, who was falsely accused of sexual abuse, Catholic League reported:

The court declared that “it has been established that the SNAP defendants conspired with one another and others to obtain plaintiff’s conviction on sexual abuse charges and that they entered into this conspiracy due to discriminatory animus against plaintiff based on his religion, religious vocation, race and national origin.” Moreover, the court ruled that “the SNAP defendants’ public statements about plaintiff were false and that they did not conduct any inquiry into the truth or falsity of these public statements, but instead made these statements negligently and with reckless disregard for the truth.”