Interesting case involving molestation victim beating up perpetrator 35 years later

William Lynch was only 7 when he was on a camping trip with Reverend Jerold Lindner in 1975. Lynch's younger brother, only 4 at the time, was also on the trip. Lindner did unspeakable things to the boys, including forcing them to have oral sex with each other while he watched.

35 years later, in 2010, Lynch's life was in shambles. He had developed a drinking problem. His marriage failed. He felt no inner peace, still suffering from that molestation in the mid-70s.

Finally, he called the old-age home where Lindner lived. Lindner was 65 at the time, and despite a myriad of sexual abuse allegations against him, he never faced any charges. Lynch gave a phony name and claimed he needed to see Lindner to give him a message about a death in his family.

When Lynch saw Lindner in the lobby, he asked, "Do you remember me?"

Lindner said that he didn't -- which was probably true.

Lynch then approached him and beat the shit out of him. His last words before leaving: "Turn yourself in, or I'll fucking come back and kill you."

Authorities tracked down Lynch from phone records, and charged him with various felonies related to the assult. Prosecutors admitted that Lindner was likely guilty of molesting Lynch in 1975, but called this "vigilante justice" and tried to send Lynch to prison.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...#slide=1045346

I thought it was pretty certain that Lynch was going to get convicted, as he admitted to the beating. His only defense was that Lindner molested him and his brother back in the '70s, and it ruined his life.

Surprisingly, Lynch got off scot free:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...e-charges.html

I actually wish this happened more often.

There was no question here that Lindner was a scumbag molester and had actually committed the crimes that Lynch claimed. The statutes of limitations allowed him to skate away from so many crimes against chlidren without consequence, so I'm glad that this guy finally felt some pain for what he did.

Lynch actually feels some peace now, especially because he brought Lindner's name to the public, after he was living in relative obscurity.

This beating was not related to the Sandusky case, as it occurred more than a year before those allegations were made public.

If you were on a jury, would you convict Lynch of assault, especially if you were certain that Lindner really had molested him in the '70s?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

I actually wish this happened more often.

---

I'm pretty sure less child molestation would be a good thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

35 years later, in 2010, Lynch's life was in shambles. He had developed a drinking problem. His marriage failed. He felt no inner peace, still suffering from that molestation in the mid-70s.

---

O and based on that story, who touched Micon in his bad place?
I'm guessing it was the highscool wrestling coach.

If this case went to a jury, it is called jury nullification. It is a constitutional doctrine which allows juries to acquit criminal defendants who are technically guilty, but who do not deserve punishment. It occurs in a trial when a jury reaches a verdict contrary to the judge's instructions as to the law.

On a serious note I have two concerns:

A not guilty verdict would encourage more vigilante retribution and there is always the chance that the victim ends up attacking the wrong person for whatever reason. In this case, its the claim the assumed molestor had used a false name, its possible in some cases the wrong person is targetted.

The other concern is, not everyone who is molested ends up with a shambles of a life. Not everyone with a shambles of a life was molested.

Survivors should get counseling, society should be protected from molestors.

I wish I read this kind of shit more often. Anyway as a juror I could legally get this guy off I most certainly would. I hope this beating helps him deal with someone of his demons and get his life together, I'd imagine he's dreamt of fucking that asshole up for most of his life.

If I'm convinced that it happened, not guilty on an ass beating. If he killed him, I'd have to think more. By 42, he should have addressed his issues, however heinous the cause, but I'm not sending the guy to jail for an ass beating.

If the victim of the molestation was 22, and the perpetrator 45, I probably acquit on anything including murder, but none of my opinion has anything to do with the law, just emotion.

I generally have no interest in what the law dictates. I'm subject to it, as if I commit a crime, I understand it has authority to punish me accordingly, but what the law states doesn't touch my moral compass or how I'd rule given the latitude allowed jurors. Most often the law and how I feel align, but not always.

My only interest in the law is the punishment/benefit ratio of what it can impose on me if I go astray of it, but it holds no sway over me like dogma, where I seriously care for it's opinion.

Sounds like the motivations for the assault were beyond revenge. This father never had to go to court and face trial on these issues, the church settled with the two boys and admitted the molestation took place. Apparently there are up to a dozen other victims who have come forward but too long had passed to charge the pedo. Lynch stated in one of the articles that this was the only way he knew he could get the father into court to face what he's done. The father denied abusing the boys so the judge has allowed the defense to call up to 3 other witnesses who have been abused in the past to show a pattern of behavior. Ideally the abuse would never have happened but since it did, this entire incident is a thing of beauty, Lynch and his brother received money from the church for the abuse, he got to beat the shit out of his attacker, the fathers name and details of his abuse become public, Lynch gets off and even the prosecutor says the story of abuse is public and they won't refile for misdemeanor assault.

I think Lynch rules and I think this sets a nice precedent, him getting off. I'm not entirely sure that a pedophile knowing one of his victims could come after him later in life would prevent them from commiting the abuse but I sure as hell support the right for the victims to dish out a beating to these fuckers. Any idea how extensive the fathers injuries were?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peter mcneil

Sounds like the motivations for the assault were beyond revenge. This father never had to go to court and face trial on these issues, the church settled with the two boys and admitted the molestation took place. Apparently there are up to a dozen other victims who have come forward but too long had passed to charge the pedo. Lynch stated in one of the articles that this was the only way he knew he could get the father into court to face what he's done. The father denied abusing the boys so the judge has allowed the defense to call up to 3 other witnesses who have been abused in the past to show a pattern of behavior. Ideally the abuse would never have happened but since it did, this entire incident is a thing of beauty, Lynch and his brother received money from the church for the abuse, he got to beat the shit out of his attacker, the fathers name and details of his abuse become public, Lynch gets off and even the prosecutor says the story of abuse is public and they won't refile for misdemeanor assault.

I think Lynch rules and I think this sets a nice precedent, him getting off. I'm not entirely sure that a pedophile knowing one of his victims could come after him later in life would prevent them from commiting the abuse but I sure as hell support the right for the victims to dish out a beating to these fuckers. Any idea how extensive the fathers injuries were?

---

:this

The worst part of this whole thing was that the molester was able to dodge prosecution because of the stupid statute of limitations laws.

This case draws attention to that issue, and hopefully the law will be changed to remove statutes of limitations from sexual abuse cases.

Lynch set out to do this with full knowledge that there was a good chance he would go to jail, but decided it would be worth it, as his actions would expose Jerry Lindner's actions to the public. He also thought it would bring attention to the fact that current law doesn't allow these guys to be prosecuted after the statute of limitations had run out, despite a mountain of evidence against him.

Had Lynch not attacked Lindner, the guy would have gotten off completely for his crimes and would have remained mostly unknown to the public. The law completely failed Lynch, and he had to take matters into his own hands. The result was exactly what he was hoping for.

I thought this thread might be about this:

Woman Claims To Authorities That Zimmerman Molested Her As A Child

"A woman, who is a relative of George Zimmerman, claims he sexually molested her throughout her childhood, according to an interview released by prosecutors Monday.

"We would watch movies in front of the TV and we would all lay in front of the TV and we would have pillows and blankets," the woman claims. "And he would reach under the blankets and try to do things and I would try to push him off but he was bigger and stronger and older. It was in front of everybody and I don't know how I didn't say anything but I just didn't know any better."

http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/nationa...162584406.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peter mcneil

I wish I read this kind of shit more often. Anyway as a juror I could legally get this guy off I most certainly would. I hope this beating helps him deal with someone of his demons and get his life together, I'd imagine he's dreamt of fucking that asshole up for most of his life.

---

I'm not sure given the context of this story that using the phrases "fucking that asshole up" or even "ass beating" is appropriate. It could lead to some confusion regarding either the initial act or the retribution.

The fact that there is a statute of limitations on child molestation (in my opinion the most heinous crime imaginable and the perpetrators are virtually untreatable) is mind-boggling. Look at the facts of cases and it's clear that this is a crime where victims have a habit of coming forward much later in life.

Kind of indifferent toward this. The ass beating is ok, but is it? You know someone is going to copycat this and end up killing the molester. The person who kills him will be sent to jail, and were right back where we started.

IMO the one thing that makes this case relevant is the statute of limitations. They should see how ridiculous it is. Change it now, before the next kid who got molested doesn't HAVE TO beat the molestor to death, and goto jail, or even face such a risky trial.

Not to mention an ass beating is really nothing. Send this pedophile to jail and get him an ass beating every single day. After that he'll understand what he did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsearles22

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peter mcneil

I wish I read this kind of shit more often. Anyway as a juror I could legally get this guy off I most certainly would. I hope this beating helps him deal with someone of his demons and get his life together, I'd imagine he's dreamt of fucking that asshole up for most of his life.

---

I'm not sure given the context of this story that using the phrases "fucking that asshole up" or even "ass beating" is appropriate. It could lead to some confusion regarding either the initial act or the retribution.

---

Is it an attempt at humor or are you really concerned about the appropriateness of his word selection?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sloppy Joe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsearles22

I'm not sure given the context of this story that using the phrases "fucking that asshole up" or even "ass beating" is appropriate. It could lead to some confusion regarding either the initial act or the retribution.

---

Is it an attempt at humor or are you really concerned about the appropriateness of his word selection?

---

Are you trolling me because you think it will put you in others good graces or simply because you are bored?

Obvious attempt at humour, IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsearles22

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sloppy Joe

Is it an attempt at humor or are you really concerned about the appropriateness of his word selection?

---

Are you trolling me because you think it will put you in others good graces or simply because you are bored?

Obvious attempt at humour, IMO.

---

Your existence is a failed attempt at being human.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

William Lynch was only 7 when he was on a camping trip with Reverend Jerold Lindner in 1975. Lynch's younger brother, only 4 at the time, was also on the trip. Lindner did unspeakable things to the boys, including forcing them to have oral sex with each other while he watched.

35 years later, in 2010, Lynch's life was in shambles. He had developed a drinking problem. His marriage failed. He felt no inner peace, still suffering from that molestation in the mid-70s.

Finally, he called the old-age home where Lindner lived. Lindner was 65 at the time, and despite a myriad of sexual abuse allegations against him, he never faced any charges. Lynch gave a phony name and claimed he needed to see Lindner to give him a message about a death in his family.

When Lynch saw Lindner in the lobby, he asked, "Do you remember me?"

Lindner said that he didn't -- which was probably true.

Lynch then approached him and beat the shit out of him. His last words before leaving: "Turn yourself in, or I'll fucking come back and kill you."

Authorities tracked down Lynch from phone records, and charged him with various felonies related to the assult. Prosecutors admitted that Lindner was likely guilty of molesting Lynch in 1975, but called this "vigilante justice" and tried to send Lynch to prison.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...#slide=1045346

I thought it was pretty certain that Lynch was going to get convicted, as he admitted to the beating. His only defense was that Lindner molested him and his brother back in the '70s, and it ruined his life.

Surprisingly, Lynch got off scot free:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...e-charges.html

I actually wish this happened more often.

There was no question here that Lindner was a scumbag molester and had actually committed the crimes that Lynch claimed. The statutes of limitations allowed him to skate away from so many crimes against chlidren without consequence, so I'm glad that this guy finally felt some pain for what he did.

Lynch actually feels some peace now, especially because he brought Lindner's name to the public, after he was living in relative obscurity.

This beating was not related to the Sandusky case, as it occurred more than a year before those allegations were made public.

If you were on a jury, would you convict Lynch of assault, especially if you were certain that Lindner really had molested him in the '70s?

---

GOD NO. THIS WOULD CAUSE AND HARM DOZENS, HUNDREDS OR EVEN THOUSANDS OVER TIME

Of course I'd return a guilty verdict. But please read my logic before you condemn my point of view. The system must be protected. It is more important than any one single case having a sense of "justice" or "fairness". There is still civil recourse. Remember the brilliant system is designed to protect more innocent people even if few go "unpunished". It is set up to prevent violence. No person can be the judge and jury.

It seems "fair" based on the story but what if i told you of some unintended consequences to allowing this sort of thing?

I'll tell you the worst.


Simply put: a license to set people up. If this was common then what would a common way to destroy someone when angry? False accusations. how would you like to have a business or personal dispute destroy innicent lives in your family?

Example: You have a business dispute with a younger man in a town. You and your dad own a restaurant. For revenge, the younger man publicly beats up your dad with a baseball bat. Later, his attorney may be inclined to accuse your innocent father of molesting him. The outcome? You restaurant business is destroyed. Your dad publically shamed and possibly the perp gets off scott free.

Why? Because when clearly innocent men are found "not guilty" slimy defense attorneys are watching. They OWE their client the best defense and now there is apparently a new one: "I was molested". That should not be a defense because it relies on unverifiable claims from 30 years past. Your verdict just gave thousands of violent criminals across the country an opportunity to get off scott free. Destroying the victims life in the process. You just broke the system. Think about it, even if you KNEW 100% that he was a molester it would still break the system....because there is no way to insure that subsequent juries deciding cases on a defense BASED ON YOUR PREVIOUS VERDICT would KNOW 100% whether the claims were real. The US legal sysem relies on precedent and you would LITERALLY not only be causing violent slimeballs and their slimy lawyers to falsely accuse people......but you may even cause violence from a few people that may beat people up CALCULATEDLY, intending on that defense to get them off.

Sounds far fetched. It isn't. just look at Pakistani and Indian courts before they stopped finding people not guilty for killing their own daughters over their sense of justice and their own reasons to be "outraged". different cultures by the results are the same: When they stopped finding people "not guilty" in those countries and sent them to prison.....people stopped killing their daughters for having a boyfriend. Not altogether, but the practice is in such decline it now "news" when it happens. it used to not even be news and was commonplace.

Now I don't know if you think woman should be killed for having a boyfriend or if men merely ACCUSED of adultery should be stoned to death but the principle is the same, the laws are there to protect the innocent. Noone iun those countries even knew if men were guilty. Tribes even today accuse other tribesmen of crimes eEVEN IF THE ACCUSATIONS ARENT TRUE. They do that because of human nature: people sometimes will do anything to people fighting oneanother in a dispute. We humans plot to harm others and a broken system allows that opportunity. Just a couople of months ago in Pakistan there was a death sentence for people falsely accused of dancing by a rival tribe. Turns out, that even the weak crime of dancing accusation wasn't true, despite that the accusation could have led to their death. In the old days of those countries, those people would have been murdered. The most evil people would effectively win the dispute based on a weakness to prosecute crimes that provoke outrage if true. Their system has been largely fixed. The people were never charged. the mother was able to return to her daughters and kiss their husband goodnight and will raise grandbabys. Under vigilante justice and a system of not prosecuting people who are guilty, those woman would be dead.

Protect your dad and neighbor from false accusations. Protect yourself when you are old. Do not try to believe that you are smart enough to dispense righteous justice even if you KNOW someone deserved a beating. Even if you are right (and we sure dont want a system based on a randoms person believing htey are right about 30 year old account of 3th hand alleged events) EVEN IF YOU HAD VIDEO EVIDENCE, you destroy the system, punish the innocent and cause THOUSANDS OF NEW CRIMES TO GO UNPUNISHED all because you thought you had the power and the right to make ONE SINGLE CASE FAIR.

Remember, this event as told is rare. Let's keep it that way. Not too many more cases like this and it would and should be a defense everytime you possibly can. much like the woman murderer who was "beaten", allegedly by her actual victim. Again, the "evidence" is often given by a sister or mother that "witnessed" the beating. A person who is not reliable as a witness as they have a vested interest in accusing someone of a crime they cannot defend themselves of. This defense has EXPLODED in murder trials since it started being nullified by juries and prosecutors. Exploded. More people being beaten by their husbands? No actually a lot less in modern society. The reason why it has exploded is that guilty woman now use it as a defense, because of jurors like yourself nullifying murder charges over a sense of justice during woman's Lib in the 70's. Thats right, those jurors who thought they were doing was right in letting the "battered" woman off actually caused the murder of men to happen in this country. Men who may have been innocent and faithful husbands. Countless times this successful defense has been followed by the woman collecting insurance and running off with their boyfriend. These juries, trying to do the "fair" thing, caused some of those murders. period.

And Assault is so much more common than murder.


And apply this to any crime you would think is "justice". Its not. It fucks innocent people later on. Because you did not respect the system that already works.


Two wrongs do not make a right and vigilante justice is WRONG and it is WRONG for reasons you don't understand or see at the moment. It is wrong because it breaks down the system of justice. A system you may rely on one day. So please, don't make rare cases like this more common. Trust the prosecutor not to prosecute when it is unfair. If he is certain he can make that decision and not cause as big of a ripple a jury verdict would. Again, there are other ways to achieve justice. This guy coulda gotten off with no jailtime, that would be fair.

i hope you that argued differently understand my point about the system. If you still disagree please explain because I don't see how I could be wrong here. Even if the framing practice was rare, the false defense/smear practice would not be. just think of the dead husbands right now that would disagree with you if their wives didnt kill them and get away with it. The funny thing is those dead guys might like you, like the idea of vigilante justice without understanding the big picture.

Oh, this pissed me off because I have argued about this exact scenario before and a friend I know's relative was murdered and he got off scott free. And yeah she had a boyfriend pop out of nowhere and they ran off with his money. So i tilted in the above argument.

I personally think it's very low risk that this sort of vigilante justice will become an epidemic. most people really don't have it in them, beating the shit ouf of someone, especially someone most people just want to forget is rare. The circumstances surrounding this case won't happen very often, a guy who is an outed molestor who has escaped the law because of a retarded statute of limitations, a man who has the balls to actually find him and follow through with the assault and a judge and jury who will let him off scot free. Lynch must have known that proving the priest was a molestor was a lock, in most cases that fact wont be present so the person taking the law into their own hands won't have much of a shot at getting off the way Lynch did. The rare time something happens like this I will pump my fist. I agree that it's probably not in the best interest of law and order but due to the circumstances I'm happy to overlook that. Lynch deserves a pat on the back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by donkeykilla

If this case went to a jury, it is called jury nullification. It is a constitutional doctrine which allows juries to acquit criminal defendants who are technically guilty, but who do not deserve punishment. It occurs in a trial when a jury reaches a verdict contrary to the judge's instructions as to the law.

---

-WOW-

no, really

-WOW-

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve-O

The fact that there is a statute of limitations on child molestation (in my opinion the most heinous crime imaginable and the perpetrators are virtually untreatable) is mind-boggling. Look at the facts of cases and it's clear that this is a crime where victims have a habit of coming forward much later in life.

---

WOW, I agree 100%

Kinda weird, this whole SOL expiring and such. Almost seems like, the law....favors the molestor, essentially.

but that could never possibly be true, right?

coincidentally whenever catholic pedo's get charged one of the first things the church claims is "laws against pedophiles are too strict, the punishment does not fit the blah blah blah"

Ok, so let's see here- can't charge the pedo, he'd get thrown in prison
can't charge the pedo, the kids repressed memories took juuuuust a couple years too long to unravel the dudes life

being a victim of abuse myself, I can honestly say the feeling of repressed memories coming to the surface was...unsettling. 8 years of heavy drinking followed, and in no way does that make my lot in life less my fault, but it certainly puts perspective on how fucked a person can get from this sort of thing.

My feelings are as such- churches (physical ones, if they fan be found) need to be torched to the ground for harboring or assisting in any way the housing protection or otherwise of these perverts, that's step 1. Set the correct tone, overall.

step 2- the pedo's need to get some face to face time with the affected (if it's kosher with him/her and parents) and their respective congregation and confess and seek forgiveness for these transgressions, in public. Where they CAN'T HIDE ALL THAT WELL, geez hand over the farm why don't ya


kids psyches not unraveling fast enough
priests getting leniency from the church (big shock) instead of ostracization
in fact, the priests just fuck whatever young ass it wants, then says "time to get the fuck out of dodge!" and is first hidden, then relocated by 'the moral authoirity' here on earth zI think anyway)

gee whiz, what's not to like?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zealanddonk

On a serious note I have two concerns:

A not guilty verdict would encourage more vigilante retribution and there is always the chance that the victim ends up attacking the wrong person for whatever reason. In this case, its the claim the assumed molestor had used a false name, its possible in some cases the wrong person is targetted.

The other concern is, not everyone who is molested ends up with a shambles of a life. Not everyone with a shambles of a life was molested.

Survivors should get counseling, society should be protected from molestors.

---

you kind of have the right idea here, but not quite IMO.

let's see- can a reasonable person look at facts and see the laws and public opinion favor, to a degree, the pedo's?

I would say so.

Rather than give vigilanti's more ammo, let's make shit fair- the dude gets found guilty, but in the spirit of equality, howz about we change the laws just a bit, to favor the sufferer of abuse. Make's perfect sense to me, and serves a modest deterrent to the creepy fucks "well I've just had a call from God, He says dave, drop what you're doing meow and get memorizintg that bible you hear me? No sex either for life, just because I run shit, and lest you forget it, you'll have some swollen blue balls to remind you for the rest of your life BUDDY

IDK KIND OF A TOUGH SELL TO ME, BUT THEN WHAT DO I KNOW

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 408Mike

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zealanddonk

On a serious note I have two concerns:

A not guilty verdict would encourage more vigilante retribution and there is always the chance that the victim ends up attacking the wrong person for whatever reason. In this case, its the claim the assumed molestor had used a false name, its possible in some cases the wrong person is targetted.

The other concern is, not everyone who is molested ends up with a shambles of a life. Not everyone with a shambles of a life was molested.

Survivors should get counseling, society should be protected from molestors.

---

you kind of have the right idea here, but not quite IMO.

let's see- can a reasonable person look at facts and see the laws and public opinion favor, to a degree, the pedo's?

I would say so.

Rather than give vigilanti's more ammo, let's make shit fair- the dude gets found guilty, but in the spirit of equality, howz about we change the laws just a bit, to favor the sufferer of abuse. Make's perfect sense to me, and serves a modest deterrent to the creepy fucks "well I've just had a call from God, He says dave, drop what you're doing meow and get memorizintg that bible you hear me? No sex either for life, just because I run shit, and lest you forget it, you'll have some swollen blue balls to remind you for the rest of your life BUDDY

IDK KIND OF A TOUGH SELL TO ME, BUT THEN WHAT DO I KNOW

---

Jesus Christ Mike, smoke crack much?