That is the question, isn’t it? I have had many people ask me if I thought Father Gerald Robinson killed Sister Margaret Ann Pahl.
Here’s what I think.
As a journalist, I have spent the last 30 years doing everything I can to report the facts in an objective, balanced, and fair manner. I took the same approach to writing “Sin, Shame & Secrets” as I have to writing articles for newspapers and magazines.
At an early point in the path toward writing this book, I was asked by a publisher if I felt confident Father Robinson was guilty and would be convicted. I told the editors that I had no idea. I ended up not signing a book deal with that company.
I am not a judge, not a jury, not an attorney. I am a reporter. I have no influence on the judicial process. I have no preconceptions about the priest’s guilt or innocence.
My only hope is that justice is served. Yes, it’s true, as far as writing a book is concerned, it would be “better” if Father Robinson were found guilty. But I am not that selfish. I would never wish for an innocent man to be found guilty just to boost book sales. No way. I only wished for justice.
I remember a class in a public policy science at Duke University when an attorney from Durham, N.C. spoke to our class. He sat on the teacher’s desk and opened with this statement: “I believe our justice system sucks. But I also believe it is the best justice system on earth. Until someone comes along with a better system, we should be grateful for what we’ve got.”
I’ve never had a reason to disbelieve that opinion. Sure, our justice system is flawed. But show me a better one, I dare you.
Father Robinson had four excellent defense attorneys. They hammered the points that could have raised reasonable doubt. But the prosecution proved to the jury that such doubts were, in fact, not reasonable. I went into the trial believing it would be tough to convict the priest due to the lack of DNA evidence, the passage of time – 26 years from the time of the murder to the time of the trial – and the fact that the evidence was all circumstantial. But after sitting through the trial, from gavel to gavel, I became convinced that the evidence pointed to the priest as the murderer. I learned that in the eyes of the law, circumstantial evidence is equal to direct evidence. Had I been on the jury, I would have been forced to cast a guilty verdict.
I was talking to a defense attorney recently and I asked if he thought Father Robinson was innocent or guilty. He explained that he does not look at a case that way. He does not decide whether to take a case based on such concepts. He looks at the evidence and the law, then decides what would be necessary to win an acquittal.
What kind of evidence does the prosecution have? What evidence or lack of evidence can the attorneys use to clear the defendant? It is all about the legal system and not about the individual’s guilt or innocence. That is the way the system works. An attorney is hired to do his or her job based on the law and legal procedure, not on whether he or she believes his client is guilty or innocent.
It is not a perfect system, but it is the best that we have.
I was persuaded that Father Robinson was guilty. So were 12 of the 12 jurors. Some people refuse to accept that verdict. Some people would not believe a priest could murder a nun unless they witnessed the bloody slaying themselves. And even then they might think they were hallucinating.
The next step in the legal process lies with the appeals court. Father Robinson is pursuing that course of action. Once again, my only concern is that justice is served.
I tried to interview Father Robinson, but was rebuffed. He may be the only one who really knows what happened in that hospital sacristy on Holy Saturday, 1980. If he will not talk, then our justice system must rely on whatever evidence is presented. For now, the frail, 68-year-old priest is in an Ohio state prison serving a 15-years-to-life sentence. I believe our legal system is working. I believe the evidence proved Father Robinson is guilty of murder.
Oct. 7, Sylvania, Ohio.