Originally Posted by JayFoster (Post 878162)

This is real simple:

Child Molester/People Helping Child Molester Cover Up Crimes: Jay, can you help us?

Me: No.

Anything other than that is absolutely stupid and disgusting. Think about if this was your kid they were helping this sick priest and the Church with pr with. How would you feel?

Originally Posted by ChrisXVI (Post 878163)

Hard to argue that... I’d like to know the depth of the involvement though. There was apparently an awful lot of correspondence on the topic for just telling them to do the right thing.

Originally Posted by AsylumGuido (Post 878160)

Statement from the New Orleans Saints

While there is current litigation relative to the New Orleans Archdiocese and clergy sex abuse, our comments are limited only to the scope of our involvement. The New Orleans Saints organization has always had a very strong relationship with the Archdiocese. The Archdiocese reached out to a number of community and civic minded leaders seeking counsel on handling the pending media attention that would come with the release of the clergy names in November of 2018. Greg Bensel, Senior Vice President of Communications for the New Orleans Saints, was contacted and offered input on how to work with the media. The advice was simple and never wavering. Be direct, open and fully transparent, while making sure that all law enforcement agencies were alerted. The New Orleans Saints, Greg Bensel and Mrs. Gayle Benson were and remain offended, disappointed and repulsed by the actions of certain past clergy. We remain steadfast in support of the victims who have suffered and pray for their continued healing.

Further, the Saints have no interest in concealing information from the press or public. At the current discovery stage in the case of Doe v. Archdiocese, the Saints, through their counsel, have merely requested the court to apply the normal rules of civil discovery to the documents that the Saints produced and delivered to Mr. Doe's counsel. Until the documents are admitted into evidence at a public trial or hearing in the context of relevant testimony by persons having knowledge of the documents and the events to which they pertain, the use of the documents should be limited to the parties to the case and their attorneys. If admitted into evidence of the case, the documents and the testimony pertaining to them will become part of the public record of the trial of the case.

Originally Posted by JayFoster (Post 878165)

Unfortunately, we may never know.

And you're right, the depth would be interesting and I hope it's not worse than this stupid, bone-headed move already.

I just don't get the concept or what went through Bensel's mind when he said, "Hmmmmm. . .I think it's a good idea to help them with pr about child molestation."

Jesus.

Originally Posted by jeanpierre (Post 878168)

Originally Posted by AsylumGuido (Post 878170)

Don't forget that Goodell claimed to have over 10,000 pages of "evidence" when all he had was 10,000 pages of documentation out of which a dozen could be construed as "evidence" if many dots went unconnected.

The 276 items of correspondence were likely every email, regardless of subject, that ever passed between Bensel and the archdiocese over the years. The AP needs to be patient and any correspondence that does pertain to the case will be released once accepted as relevant evidence. Any other correspondence is private and does not have any need to be shared.

I know how the media works and this is a part of it I will never miss.

Originally Posted by vpheughan (Post 878172)

You mean " In Their Opinion, Go off half cocked, Jump to conclusions because they KNOW EVERYTHING and have an agenda and or Deadline"?