The following was added to a Comment to the Post about Matt McGonagle ( see also here and here). Both Doug and I have discussed this between us and in an email string with the actual author. We have had to do a bit a “re-jiggering” (as I explained it to the author) to make sure of a few things:
- From parts of this, it appears that there is a gag order of some type concerning this case. Information that might pertain to it have been redacted.
- Names and some positions have been redacted.
- Spelling has been corrected.
That said, the Comment had a lot of points that we felt were worth discussing, so much so that we’ve decided to have it as it’s own Post rather than a Comment (even though we may not agree with it all).
Please note that where ever editing was needed meet the above concerns, it is duly noted ( i.e., [redacted -Ed] ). This has been cross-posted over at GilfordGrok.
==========================================
I am compelled to respond to the recent postings on Matt McGonagle and his "guilty" plea to felonious sexual assault against a child.
First of all, shame on The Citizen’s online version for calling it "rape", and referring to his victim as plural ("girls" instead of girl) is reckless reporting, in my opinion. Second, those of you who have offered opinions on Matt’s case obviously don’t know Matt. You don’t know anything about this case other than what you’ve read in the papers. Do you know Matt? Do you know the “victim"? ( Do you know that this "victim" is related to[redacted -Ed]??? HELLO! That might be the first problem. Were you privy to ANY of the behind-the-scenes negotiations between the attorneys?
No. So please listen to what I’m about to say.
McGonagle was falsely accused. Everyone involved in this case knows it, including the prosecution team and the victim.
Anyway, that’s not even relevant, but it does shed light. Matt took the deal because his lawyers advised him to. Not to fault his lawyers, but here’s why: NH has one of the toughest laws in this country on convicted first time sex offenders. Minimum 15- 25 years state prison if found guilty. Matt had 2 choices: Go to trial, try to prove his innocence against a 20 year old [redacted – Ed] OR, take the 2 yr deal, avoid the publicity, and TRY to salvage whatever may be left of his life once he gets out. Hmmmm…….let me think. I think he made the right decision. Do you have ANY idea how difficult it was for him to plead guilty to something he never did?( Matt does admit to having an improper emotional relationship with the girl and her family. This girl’s family invited him into their home on numerous occasions, and provided many an opportunity for them to be alone together, and in fact, encouraged it. In retrospect, it is now crystal clear to him why you should NEVER find yourself alone with a child who is not yours). You couldn’t even come close to imagining the horror he and his family went through in the days leading up to this
sentencing hearing, especially once they realized that he would essentially have to take the plea if he wanted to have any life left to live.
Without going into any unnecessary detail right now, I can assure you that the "victim"
certainly has her problems. And that’s an understatement. Those residents of Gilford who know her, know the details of this case, and how it went down, WISH we could speak publicly at this time. We can’t. We have essentially been SHUT UP, and for right now, we will shut up, but ONLY for the sake of Matt. Matt needs to stay right where he is in the [redacted – Ed]. He needs to do his time and keep a low profile. However, once his sentence has been served, Matt will be able to speak freely about this case. We look forward to that day.
Additionally, let me throw this out. Children, especially teenagers, have all the power these days. They know their rights. They know that all they would have to do to ruin a teacher’s life is to accuse them of some sexual deviancy and BAM! It’s over. Gone are the days when kids knew that they were in school to learn and that the teacher was the final authority. Have the authors of these commentaries about Matt ever taught school? Try it. Teachers nowadays have to basically kiss their students’ [behinds -Ed]. What a sick and twisted country we live in where we’ve gone so far to "protect" the children that now those same children call all the shots.
Let me further comment on this by using Gilford High School as an example. Anyone who has attended, taught at, or sent their children to GHS knows that what I’m about to say is true. GHS has always had an problem with blurred boundaries between teachers and students. The open-concept classrooms of the 80’s certainly started that ball rolling, but even when they began to build walls inside the school, there was/is this unspoken "rule" at GHS: Teachers and Students were friends. Many teachers were called by their first names. Teachers could often be found "hanging out" at students’ homes, socializing with their parents. We were often proud of our teacher/student relationships. We thought we were progressive and cutting-edge because the teachers were "cool" and the students were precocious. I can remember SEVERAL teacher/student relationships in the 80’s at that school, that if reported and prosecuted, would have landed many a teacher behind bars for years. And I’m not exaggerating.
The climate in NH, and the country for that matter, at that time was not the same. Now, we live in a powder keg environment where even the slightest hint of sexual abuse committed by a teacher means automatic guilt. Every judge, prosecutor, school administrator KNOWS that they had better be tough on child sex crimes or hell, Bill O’Reilly will publicly shame them on his Fox News O’Reilly Factor program! I’ve seen it! This particular situation with McGonagle and his accuser made Belknap county so scared that they had no choice but to hit him hard. (By the way, his 2 yr deal is further proof that the prosecutors KNOW he’s innocent……if they really thought he was guilty, they would have gone straight to trial and put him in jail for a long, long time. But no, they didn’t. They knew he was innocent, or at least not guilty of the felony charge, but had to appear that they were "tough on child molesters", so they opted for this deal.)
So for all of you self-appointed morality police, THINK before you opine on stories like this in the future. There’s usually more to every story than meets the eye. True, many liberal judges let child molesters off, or with light sentences. Shame on them. I’m no liberal. I am actually a die-hard conservative who wants to protect children. Let me be clear: There is no room in our society for child molesters. They should be ostracized, alienated, humiliated, or whatever it takes to keep them from re-offending and to keep children safe. But Matt McGonagle is NOT a child molester. Not even close. You obviously have never met the man. If you knew him, you would know that there isn’t one fiber of his being that would EVER hurt a child. Maybe you should go visit the [redacted – Ed] on visiting day sometime soon to actually meet this "monster" in person.
