Acquittal might have become a reality were it not for two surprise witnesses called by Lynn Rooney, the Middlesex assistant district attorney, on January 17. The first witness, Archbishop Alfred Hughes, who heads the Archdiocese of New Orleans (and who is one of five bishops named as defendants in the 84 pending civil lawsuits against Geoghan and the Boston archdiocese), served as one of Geoghan’s supervisors at the time of the 1991 incident. In court, Hughes remembered an October 23, 1991, meeting he’d had with Geoghan. The meeting, he explained, came on the heels of a complaint that the priest was "inappropriately proselytizing" at the Waltham club — that is, trying to persuade people to join the Catholic faith. The report seemed irrelevant — until Hughes testified that the victim’s name had surfaced in the conversation. "I don’t remember how," he said, "but his name is in my notes." Also in his notes, Hughes had written that Geoghan’s behavior was "open to misinterpretation of a prurient interest."

Though Hughes noted that the complaint hadn’t specified sexual assault, his testimony gave a much-needed boost to the prosecution. Now, there was third-party verification that something had happened between Geoghan and the victim. Indeed, Hughes said he’d completed the 1991 meeting by forbidding the former priest to return to the Waltham club — to which Geoghan agreed.

In retrospect, though, the verdict likely hinged on the second surprise witness: Edward Messner, a Boston psychiatrist who treated Geoghan in the mid 1990s. Messner said he’d first met Geoghan in December 1994, after being contacted by an archdiocese official named Father Flatly. The archdiocese, Messner said, had received another complaint about Geoghan. On the stand, the psychiatrist read the hand-written notes of a November 17, 1995, therapy session that he’d had with Geoghan, during which the two talked about the then-retired priest’s fantasies. "We discussed his ability to control his sexual feelings about women and boys."

When questioned by Packard, the psychiatrist pointed out that he and Geoghan were not discussing a particular event or person. Nor were they talking about Geoghan’s feelings four years earlier in 1991 — the time of the incident. Nevertheless, the damage had already been done. As one of the many trial observers who filed in and out of the courtroom said, "Now all the jurors can hear is that this guy likes little boys."

Another striking element in the trial was the defendant himself. The image of Geoghan — a sprightly older man with tousled hair — was hard to reconcile with the sheer horror of the many, many allegations against him. In the courtroom, he wore a black suit, white shirt, and black tie — evoking priestly dress. He exhibited a cheerful disposition, talking with reporters and smiling at photographers. And there was something oddly touching about the defendant’s exchanges with his frail, 68-year-old sister, Catherine. During recesses, the two often sat in a corner and munched on sandwiches and candy bars. He’d fetch his sister water, or escort her to a chair, or help with her coat. Geoghan’s kindly demeanor provided a glimpse of how the one-time priest gained the trust of Catholic families — only to molest their children. It is what makes him so sinister, so dark. In many ways, Geoghan calls to mind the quintessential character in a Stephen King novel — the sweetest child, so the story goes, turns out to be the evilest monster.

But it was the 12-member jury that served up the trial’s biggest surprise. Throughout the two-day proceedings, the five women and 10 men (there were three alternate jurors) sat stone-faced. For many, their only movement was to cross their arms over their chests. Perhaps that’s why their protracted deliberations — which lasted eight hours over another two days — threw everyone for a loop. Twice, the jurors requested that Middlesex Superior Court judge Sandra Hamlin reiterate the six points that Rooney had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt in cases of indecent child assault. When the jury sent out notes for the third time, observers were betting on an acquittal.

Several hours later — after the guilty verdict finally came down — Packard described his client’s reaction as "clearly stunned." The sentiment applied to the entire courtroom. Even Geoghan’s victims couldn’t help but question the decision. Standing amid the cameras’ glare last Friday afternoon, Keane expressed his own pleased surprise at the verdict: "Honestly," he confided, "I was confident that [Geoghan] would walk. I didn’t think the facts were very strong."

WHAT ISN’T SURPRISING, however, is the prevailing theory of how the jury managed to find Geoghan guilty. In a brief statement last Friday, Packard voiced what many observers suspected when he attributed the verdict to the publicity surrounding the huge sex-abuse scandal. "I cannot recall any case I’ve had that has seen so much pretrial publicity related to events outside the actual facts of the case being tried," Packard said.

Publicity may very well have been a factor in the jury’s final decision. But such suspicion probably won’t come into play in Geoghan’s two upcoming criminal trials in Suffolk County, the first of which is slated to begin February 20. That’s because both cases involve far more egregious allegations, not to mention far more damning evidence. In the first one, Geoghan is accused of repeatedly raping a Jamaica Plain boy over the course of a year in the early 1980s — at the West Roxbury High School public pool, the Geoghan family’s nearby residence, and in the boy’s own bedroom. The second case charges two counts of sexual assault on a 10-year-old Weymouth boy in 1995 and 1996.

Now that the weakest case against him has put Geoghan behind bars, it’s safe to say that the more serious trials will keep him there. Victims, once again, will get relief. Geoghan, once again, will receive punishment. And the rest of us aren’t likely to walk away with the sense that Geoghan’s predations and the Church’s complicity in them failed to receive the attention they deserve. The next cases, after all, will finally prove what Geoghan’s victims have long known. As Keane puts it, "You, Cardinal Law, are now guilty of aiding and abetting a convicted child molester."

Kristen Lombardi can be reached at klombardi[a]phx.com