First, the interviews on Patti's show are not as regularly recorded and posted on the PNC website as are the interviews on Ray Gibson's shows, so I probably didn't think to look for it.
Second, I don't catch every media happening and I don't remember hearing the interview with Patti. In fact, I know I missed it because I also missed the one with Ray earlier.
Third, Mr. Toves has been very clear about the objectives of his visit: 1) to confront AAA about the molestation of his cousin, 2) to demand the reinstatement of Msgr. James and Fr. Paul, and 3) to demand that the Archbishop step down.
The only reason demands two and three have any weight is because of demand number one. Otherwise Toves would pose no threat to AAA and AAA would not be threatening to sue him.
Mr. Toves in fact did not communicate with his cousin about this, but not for lack of trying. He has tried on several occasions. However, he didn't try very hard because he was well aware of the emotional trauma his cousin took years to recover from, a trauma that led to an attempt to take his own life. And Mr. Toves was aware that bringing this up with his cousin could cause a relapse, so he let it go and decided to go it alone.
However, now with AAA threatening to sue, a defamation suit could force the victim to be deposed and his life could collapse. If this happens it won't be Mr. Toves' fault. It will be the Archbishop's since this scenario can only happen if AAA presses his suit.
All AAA would have to do to discredit Mr. Toves and get rid of him is to say the charges are false and go on about his business. This is what other bishops have done. But AAA is threatening to sue and pleading the 5th. This is the worst thing he could have done...if he is innocent.
Mr. Toves also knows that he is not alone in what he knows. Many on Guam know. And many have said so in comments to this blog. I have left them unpublished because there was no name attached. I have also been approached by several people who have relayed their knowledge of the molestation, not just of John's cousin, but of others.
However, they are unwilling to come forward and I understand their reasons. The victims and their families have spent years in recovery and putting this behind them and do not want to go through the pain again. The molestations occurred during a period where these kinds of things were not known. And most did not know how to respond other than to bury it.
Today, with the exposition of 50 years of this kind of behavior in what Pope Benedict called "the filth in the Church", we are incredulous as to why someone didn't come forward earlier. But back then there was no precedent for it.
In the 70's my dad and I went to the Archbishop of Los Angeles to report our pastor. It was learned that he was having an affair with a neighbor man who was also helping himself to parish funds. As a boy, I personally had been uncomfortably touched by this priest. With me it was not sexual, but I have since learned it was a type of "probing" to see if I would respond. I didn't, other than to send a signal that I didn't like it. So he left me alone. But who knows who else he "touched"?
My father and I were told by the Archbishop (his secretary) to "get out". The Archbishop of Los Angeles and my pastor had been seminary classmates. And while I don't think they were any great friends, back then, mid 70's, that was they way the hierarchy handled complaints about their priests.
But none of this really matters in the present case. The Kikocats know that the clock is ticking and they are scrambling to destroy anyone who might take down their Sugar Daddy.