Attorney John Manly was at it again during a September 21, 2009, interview on the John & Ken Show on KFI 640 AM.

1. Manly accused Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony of "[giving] the wrong name of [a] victim to the police." The awful ex-priest Michael Baker is alleged to have molested the said victim.

Manly tried to portray the Cardinal as being dishonest and duplicitous in regards to Baker's victim. But what's the truth? If you've read about John Manly on this site before, you already know that things are not always what he says they are.

As Manly briefly mentioned in the interview, the victim had a very common Spanish surname. In addition, the boy had a different father than his sister. "Their mother had given the boy her own maiden name and the daughter a different surname."

Most importantly, according to a 2007 Los Angeles Times article about the search for the victim, the detective searching for the victim  obtained the victim's name from an internal church document. According to the article, the detective did not get the name from the police, as Manly claimed.

It was this confusion that caused the detective to have trouble locating the victim. The detective was looking for the boy under the sister's surname, which was not the boy's surname. From the show:

MANLY: In my client’s case, um, y’know, uh, um, even gave the wrong name of the victim to the police. Now that’s a matter of public record as well. They, y’know, um, so they couldn’t find him. The police didn’t locate my client until 2006.

JOHN/KEN: Mahony gave the wrong name to police?

MANLY: That’s correct.

J/K: What? He made up a name? Or he-?

MANLY: They gave the name – They gave a family name, that, uh, I don’t want to say the name, obviously. But they gave a family name that would be like, uh, y’know – (crosstalk) Hispanic –

J/K: Something common.

MANLY: It would be like telling someone his name is John Smith. And they knew that Smith wasn’t the last name. So, y’know, it’s a – (Manly fades out, like he knows he's stretching it here)

Think about it for a second. If the Cardinal or someone in the Church really set out to deceive people regarding the victim, wouldn't it make a lot more sense to give a totally erroneous name that didn't resemble the victim at all? Of course.

But in John Manly's world, every action by the Church is viewed in the most negative and malicious light.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

2. I guess if you spin as many wild tales as John Manly does, you have a tough time making up your mind sometimes.

Here's the question: Should Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley criminally prosecute Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony? In the course of just a few minutes in a single interview, Manly gave three different responses:

a. The starter:

MANLY: ... The overriding issue is -Why is this guy (Mahony) still in this city? And why has he not been prosecuted? How come Steve Cooley hasn’t done anything about this?

b. Less than four minutes later:

JOHN/KEN: So Monsignor Loomis’ testimony - Do you think this should be acted upon legally?

MANLY: That’s not my call. I find it very disturbing. And this is not the first time, as you guys know, we’ve talked about this …

c. Three minutes later:

MANLY: ... And the fact that [Cardinal Mahony is] in charge of hundreds of thousands of kids. And you got his record and his testimony. It seems to me that this should be a matter of law enforcement to consider.

Manly is being dishonest here, because he's already well aware of the fact that the Cardinal has not broken any law. As I've posted before, on a July 2007 episode of John & Ken, L.A. District Attorney Steve Cooley asserted that neither the Cardinal nor anyone in the archdiocese has broken any mandatory reporting law. From July 2007:

"We have not had one report from any source, including Mr. Manly, to suggest that any violation of that [mandatory reporting] statute, that California statute that makes that an affirmative duty."

Later in the same program, the following exchange between the host and Cooley took place:

JOHN/KEN: I'm trying to figure out. What is Manly talking about? Manly keeps coming on our show and says you have stuff - basically what he's saying is - you have stuff, you should be prosecuting already. But I'm not sure what the "stuff" is that he thinks you have.

D.A. STEVE COOLEY: I can’t get into Mr. Manly’s head. He’s made outrageous statements in the context of those civil proceedings for which he’s been sanctioned. He’s made outrageous statements about me. He’s made outrageous statements on your program. I’m not going to try to get into his head. However, I do extend to him an invitation to deliver to us in writing any theory he has of criminal liability on behalf of anyone involved with this matter and support it like a good lawyer. If he has any evidence, come forward. The invitation has been extended to him and has been extended to him today by [Deputy D.A.] Bill Hodgman in writing.

Here we are two years later, and Manly is simply repeating the same-old, same-old.

Ugh.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

3. John Manly also offered this nugget:

MANLY: ... [T]he fact is over time the Cardinal has proven himself to be a less-than-credible person when it comes to telling the truth about childhood sexual abuse.

If Manly wants to think about someone being "less than credible" in discussing clergy abuse, he should look in the mirror.