Back to Marsden..

Well, as I guessed, there was a damaging John Marsden allegation to come, and it came via News Limited on the day of his funeral. Questionable timing, but a pretty important story.

For those who missed it, and there must be many given that it seems much of the media is not wanting to cover it, the report is that an adult man received criminal injuries compensation in 2001 based on his claims that as an 8 year old, Marden sexually molested him. This means the judge found that the incidents were proved on the civil standard of "balance of probabilities".

More from the report itself:

In his judgment of July 6, 2001, NSW District Court judge Ken Taylor accepted "on the balance of probabilities" that Marsden had sexually abused Mr Fraser after swimming lessons, after football training and after a junior rugby league grand final.

"The appellant (Mr Fraser) is supported by the psychological evidence. Resistance to his version of events has been slight. On the basis of the material before the court, it has concluded that it is more likely than not that the events occurred as stated by the appellant (Mr Fraser)," Judge Taylor said.....

In 1992, Mr Fraser, who was being treated for "severe depression and psychosexual dysfunction", told his psychiatrist that he had been sexually abused by Marsden. This was more than two years before NSW Labor frontbencher Deirdre Grusovin named Marsden in parliament as a "pederast" and more than three years before two Seven Network current affairs programs alleged Marsden had had underage sex.....

Mr Fraser described in graphic detail how he was sexually assaulted on three separate occasions as an eight- and nine-year-old boy by Marsden, who coached rugby league and taught swimming at St John's College (now St Patrick's), Campbelltown, where he later established his first law practice.

Marden's brother has not taken the allegation well. The Melbourne Age notes just this:

Controversy dogged Mr Marsden right up to the service with a newspaper claim that previously suppressed court records showed he was a pedophile. His brother Jim described the reports as "a scurrilous lie that should be flushed down the toilet".

The media treatment of this story is interesting of itself. Most Australian media appears to be giving it a wide berth. Perhaps because of the funeral day timing? Perhaps because they don't realise how scandalous it is? I think there is a tendency amongst some to think that if a matter can't be proved on a criminal standard of proof, then you are allowed to treat it as "unproven". No doubt, that is how Marsden would have wanted people to view it.

It leaves open fascinating questions such as how many within the profession knew about this. Did his own brother know about it? Did it give the Law Society any concerns (if they knew about it at all.) Note that the judge is quoted as saying that "resistence to his [the complainant's ] version of events has been slight."

I await some more detailed analysis of this story.