A Last Oath: ‘Please Understand That I Am An Innocent Man, Who Was Wrongly Convicted’

Msgr Linn's conviction was also overturned, on a technicalty. We have tousands of great "innocent", priests. Just like both of these guys.

God have mercy! The injustice against these three men breaks my heart. Prayers for the two that are living and I hope Fr. Engelhardt is in heaven or will be soon. 

A jury of his peers found him guilty.

How interesting his last words were supposedly about 'his innocence". How dramatic! Particularly when he premissed it with "I don't feel well".

Make him a saint for CONVICTED pedophiles.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/19/cultural-marxism-a-uniting-theory-for-rightwingers-who-love-to-play-the-victim?CMP=ema_1364

There are conspiracies. SNAP is one. 9/11 another and Billy Doe's "flawed" case may be another, I don't know.  I do know set ups when I see them and the Billy Doe case has all the accoutremont of being one.

I do know you to be a fraud,P. That's why you are here. Keeping the church's fraud alive; and feigning that it ,the institutional church, is a moral institution incapable of criminal acts against it's own catholic children; and that the church is being falsely accused by criminal" types", defined as being by you anyone who says the church was wrong in it's behavior. The last 3 popes have said that molesting children by clerics was wrong. What were they apologizing for, nothing? .

That premise, as has been proven by national hearings in various countries, is a lie.

And now:

On the 23rd at 1011AM JR – who had used the uncharacteristic term “premise” (although possibly it was only the Wig of Mimicry) without actually explaining to what he was referring, now – after a prod – gets around to stating his “premise”.

The premise to which he was referring is that “the church is being fraudulently accused by thieves” about sexual-abuse by priests when they were children.

This, JR declaims, is a “false premise”. His proof (or at least proffer) for that assertion? Nothing from around here but simply that there are “national governmental hearings in other countries [that] proved you church had transferred known child rapists to new parishes where … they raped again”.

Several points: a) We saw and had a chance to examine some of these “transfer” claims some time ago here in the Los Angeles document cache release and it turned out that the documents provided did not actually support the Stampede scare-vision that hierarchs were busily and happily transferring priests (and certainly not out of any ‘jurisdiction’, given the comprehensive nature of interconnected police authority in this country).  When you subtract priests who i) didn’t rape and ii) priests who were sent for psychiatric help and iii) priests who were given a second chance (and if they failed, as some did, then they were dealt with at that point) … once you have made those necessary subtractions, then the Stampede vision of widespread and gleeful rapine-and-cover-up shrinks appreciably.

But b) this original Stampede template and scare-vision is all the Abuseniks have left now (and we notice how so much of their material, if not all, is in the past tense).

And c) As I have said numerous times before, it is hardly improbable that what we are seeing in the matter of the ‘foreign governments’ bit is simply those governments’ efforts – for their own purposes – to run the Stampede in their own country. J’s comment makes no mention about my point that we have heard nothing from the Dutch or Irish governments since their originating press-releases and that thus the probability is very greatly increased that – once again – we are seeing the Stampede operating, as it does, in the form of indictment-by-press-release with then no real subsequent proffer of documentation.

And d) JR proffers merely a link (with no explication or discussion) to a mainstream media article. And yet we have considered here at great length the dodgy role of the mainstream media in the Stampede, so his proffer here (on the 23rd at 1235PM) – let alone his failure to explain (what he sees as) its relevance – is simply another fine and clear example of the Stampede hall-of-mirrors: one ungrounded assertion is ‘proven’ by a reference to a highly-dubious ‘report’ from a media source and on and on. As I have said previously and recently here: wouldn’t it be nice if the Abuseniks could provide links to actual government documentation that might at least try to ‘prove’ any of all this stuff? Otherwise, this Playbook ‘proof’ bit is merely a shell-game (and we are the dopes and rubes who are supposed to be willing to guess under which shell the nugget is hidden).

And lastly e) we see what may well be the self-serving and hardly valid Playbook and Abusenik conflation of ‘sexual abuse’ and ‘rape’ (unless, of course, you wish to buy JR’s and the Playbook’s attempt to insist that the two terms are synonymous. But it certainly does help spiff up the scare-quotient of any assertions and claims, does it not?

Then on the 23rd at 1102AM JR blithely asserts that there nobody posting under his name and there’s “just a one person ‘team effort’ here”. For all of the many reasons I have pointed out in prior recent comments  I find that claim to be not-credible. And what is the significance of the bit at all? We see yet again how the Abuseniks really don’t care how they achieve their tossing, so long as they’ve got something they can toss.

And, as I have said, we are the bottom of JR’s personal 3×5 file so some ‘fresh’ stuff would be called-for. But instead all this gambit produces is the example of (palpably) different ways of trying to toss the same plop.

As to whether one can find credible JR’s current excuse that he was “worried [I would] bust [him] on his spelling” and thus he went all on his own to look up the proper spelling of “accoutrement”: why did he not do that before he even chose to use this – for him – rather complex term? And how would he have later known to think that he might have spelled it wrong in the first place? And if this were his standard practice, then there would be far fewer (already dubious) misspellings in his material, would there not?

Then – in another uncharacteristic reference back to his own prior material – he reaches into the way-back here and points out that once some years ago I doubted that his claim to have seen a movie on TV, and it turned out that the movie was shown on TV within the appropriate time-frame. True. So on one side of the scale he can place that single element, and on the other side … all the rest.

We also note the clinically-interesting (though hardly unfamiliar) point that in the midst of a jungle of errors, certain mentalities can selectively and self-servingly glom onto the one small element that continues to feed their visions.

Then on the 23rd at 1039AM: JR will now try – most surely uncharacteristically – a logical explication of his position in re the Doe case.

The gravamen of Doe’s assertions are either true or they’re not. So far so good.

Then the possibility that the “tortie Snap” (meaning, as best I can make out, the theory that the torties – following the Anderson Strategies – have shaken-down the Church using tried-and-true tortie legal stratagems while using SNAP (on the basis of the meeting Anderson had with Blaine of SNAP as discussed by D’Antonio in his book) as a front-organization) is epithetically dismissed as “nonsense” with no further grounding.

And that clears JR’s (or his source’s) path to getting on with JR’s latest stab at a theory. To wit: “Set up” (who is doing the ‘set-up’ here and how was it accomplished in light of the facts accepted by both sides in the case?) a drug-addicted “police chief’s son” (actually, a city police sergeant’s son) “to lie for drugs or for daddy” (if he was lying for drugs or for money, that’s what addict’s often do anyway, so this fails as proposed; if it is “for daddy” then what benefit could “daddy” gain and to what would that benefit appertain?).

As you can see from the parenthetical questions that arise from the proposed theory itself, there are rather substantial holes in it.

As for the jury believing it, JR conveniently leaves out the facts that the case is under appeal and there has already been some interesting higher-court activity and commentary made in the matter). But JR does leave open some possibility here with his proviso “If he is lying”.

Then a quick aside containing a yet even more questionable bit: that the Pope, apparently, is coming to Philadelphia (among other places in the US) and “the church isn’t sending” him to Philly “for nothing”: a neat bit of innuendo and insinuation which yet – upon consideration – doesn’t really carry the weight of the Pope’s visit to Philly. Nor does “the church” (whoever or whatever that nonsensical usage of the term here might mean) “send” the Pope anywhere.

Thus too the ‘conclusion’ drawn from this bit also fails: that the Church doth send the Pope to Philly because “they [who is this “they” here?] expect a return on their efforts around the Billy Doe case”. The “efforts” bit apparently presumes what has yet to be proven, i.e. that the Church is behind the Doe case (for which, we recall, in JR’s theorizing, Anderson and SNAP and the rest of the torties are tools of the Church; and does this theorizing also include the DA and the courts in Philadelphia?).

Then – JR’s theory continues (in an uncharacteristically extended excursus here) that (somebody – who?) will then “trigger the long extant ‘connection’ between cops and DAs, the mob (the … Mob), mob lawyers, unemployed ‘journalists’ (a crack at Ralph Cipriano here?) and – having theorized a ‘connection’ that has utterly and absolutely no relevance or coherence  as to its constituent elements – wrap the whole thing up quickly in a ball with the assertion “pay for it with all the treasure of the hyper rich catholic church” (which simply i) brings us to an assertion of a connection that hasn’t been demonstrated and the operational dynamics of which are not in any way explained and ii) brings us back to the abiding Abusenik phantasmagoria about a Church with pots of gold in the basement somewhere).

The whole moosh then proudly proffered to us as proof and demonstration of “an arranged ‘event’ to implode the credibility of real victims’ claims” (corrections supplied).

So … Billy Doe – as best can be inferred – is a tool of the Church here in order to make “real victims’ claims” look incredible … ? Did I not say very recently that a vital and necessary dynamic of the Playbook and the Abusenik mentality is to somehow avoid or dismiss uncongenial realities by claiming a conspiracy against them and the Stampede? Here’s as neat an example as one could imagine.

Oh, and we are also to remember that … what? “[T]he largest contributor financially to the catholic church is the U.S.” – which in the terms of the dynamics of this theory of JR’s means what, exactly?

Then – in a greatly uncharacteristic summation paragraph – JR (or his muse here) will add that “this tactic of ‘creating news by revealing false claims for money’ was tried before with Bernardin’s ‘false accusor’”.

Now here is JR – again, in a greatly uncharacteristic mode – going back to reference actual events in American church history. But a) was Bernardin’s accuser not ultimately found to be false by means – if memory serves here – of his own retraction? And wasn’t the original gambit that prompted the ‘news’ in the first place that somebody lodged a false claim in order to get money? Thus wasn’t it the original Abusenik gambit that started the newsworthy bit in the first place?

So again we see an uncharacteristic tone and style yet still giving us nothing but the usual incoherent and insinuating and insufficient Abusenik whackery, proffered as a ‘theory’. (Again: the Wig can provide the appearance, but not the substance, of competent processing of ideas and information – although in the Abusenik cartoon universe that is all they’ve got but yet in the Victimist-Stampede Playbook universe – as surfed by the Anderson Strategies – that was usually good enough.)

Then – in yet again another greatly uncharacteristic mental maneuver – JR goes on to observe that the Bernardin bit (as he envisions it in his theory) “did not work well then, at least not as well as the church wanted it to”. This last limiting-phrase serves a dual purpose here: a) to try to reinforce the already dubious theory while b) leaving room for the significant holes in the theory by implying that the actual (and yet to be proven) Church maneuver didn’t work out the way it was supposed to … and that’s why – tah dahhhhhhhh! – this bit of theory doesn’t sound quite right. As it surely does not.

And the whole stew is finished off here with a JR declamation as to the sad state of “investigative” reporting. Although we have seen so long and so often here just what Abuseniks do and how Abuseniks respond when they are faced with even the most modest demonstrations of ‘investigation’. But of course, investigation of their own claims, assertions, theories, and stories is out-of-bounds. Yah.

Then, a few minutes later at 1051AM, JR will come back to his prior material and correct it: The Church – doncha see? – “needs America’s donations to flow again”. Interesting bit. But then, rather than follow it up, JR simply reverts to the Playbook gambit of innuendo: we are supposed to draw the conclusions as to the significance of that theorized bit about “donations”.

What are we supposed to think? That the Church, having set up the Doe case from the get-go, controlling or conspiring-with just about everybody who’s anybody in Philadelphia to make victims look baaaad by inveigling Billy Doe and the police and the DA and the court to embarrass themselves with this case, will now enjoy an increase in “donations”.

And thus – as Inspector Clouseau might intone with a self-satisfied pronouncement: “the case is sol-ved”.

That’s the theory, folks.

Then – at 1115AM – JR (marvelously) allows himself pretty much of a Clouseau gambit: He doth “have to say” that he thinks he’ll be “proved correct” about a “’blow up around the Billy Doe case”. Neat. If his theory is exposed in all its problematic aspects, there may well be a “blow up” but it won’t be quite the way he expects it. And if he imagines that his theory here is going to be demonstrated to have been right all along, then that’s a consoling pipedream that he can take to bed with him at night.

But readers may be forgiven if they don’t buy it.

And – again marvelously – JR reminds us of just how ‘scripted’ and ‘structured’ the Stampede has been by discoursing on the dynamics and principles of fiction: Yes, there does have to be a “climax” and a “denouement” (my my).

But capped by the usual I’m Not/You Are gambit: it’s Ralph Cipriano who is to blame for all of the exposure of this case and its dynamics.

Which is also curious, since Ralph Cipriano is not the bête-noire of JR but rather of another (Philadelphia-based) Abusenik commenter who no longer comments here (or so we are to think).

Some readers may still ask themselves why waste the time to engage material such as this. And I will say in response: while going over this material carefully is certainly time-consuming and seems more of an investment than the quality of the material merits, yet it is precisely material on this level that has fueled the Stampede and the various ‘reporting’ done by so many Stampede-friendly media types .

When you look at the Stampede, you don’t see much serious explication of it, as you will see in other issues of public import. Instead, you simply see Playbook stuff on this level that we have seen here or not very much better than this level. That lack alone should raise a red flag that the Stampede is – not to put too fine a point on it – a Stampede.

More fine examples of precisely the quality of thought that has enabled the Stampede.

On the 25th at 1149AM, JR graciously allows as how Mr. Cipriano “may believe everything he says”. But as any reader who has read the Cipriano material on the Big Trial site will recall: Mr. Cipriano doesn’t just ‘say’ stuff (which is JR’s preferred style) – Mr. Cipriano relates demonstrable facts and analyzes them for their significance and their role in the overall proceedings as they are publicly known. There is thus a huge difference between ‘saying’ and ‘demonstrating’ – a distinction with which JR clearly has no working familiarity.

We then get a stab at ‘thought’: why would the DA or ADA’s do “anything wrong”? This provides, of course, a set-up for one of his favorite Latin quotes (this time presented accurately): Cui bono? (i.e. to whose benefit?)

This question is posed as if de novo, as if we haven’t been over this several times before. In a nutshell, the possibilities are: the DA seeks to ingratiate himself with the dominant Democratic elements that are the preponderant influence in Philadelphia politics; this would be a career-enhancing and certainly status-enhancing move with the current Administration in D.C., especially Eric Holder’s DOJ (although when the case was brought there was no indication that Mr. Holder’s tenure would be cut short, as it has been). The DA would be furthering the overall Democratic preference to weaken the Church’s influence just as it seeks to weaken the influence of traditional American culture and the demographics that support it, in favor of more recently-embraced demographics and a rather different culture which the Democratic powers would like to ‘privilege’.

Whether JR doth “think” that such a motivation is possible in this case or in politics generally is what it is.

The DA engaged in “setting up an easily questionable case” because at the time he began this whole thing the Stampede was still sailing somewhat higher than it is now; and such events as the U/Virginia rape-allegation case had not ‘blown up’ and exposed the queasy dynamics that govern this type of sex-abuse Stampede gambit (readers may consult my comment concerning the Chronicles magazine article on the TMR thread immediately following this one). And the DA did not count on Mr. Cipriano’s becoming convinced of the serious problems with the case and conducting a sustained and ongoing assessment of the case’s development.

Back before all of these uncongenial developments, it was hardly to be expected that even so flawed a case as Doe presents could not surf public emotions and ‘Victim-friendly’ law and jurisprudence and jurispraxis and become a winner for the DA.

And we are still left with the question of just how the Church could reliably control all of the many elements of the Doe case, if we are to presume with JR that the Church somehow set this whole case up.

At this point the Church may well benefit from the Doe case, but that would simply be a secondary result of the case collapsing on the basis of its multiple and profound problems and flaws. I and all other drivers benefit from the fall in gas prices initiated by the Saudi government; but that fact does not demonstrate that I and all other drivers have controlled the Saudi government and somehow made it reduce the price of oil.

Then, in a characteristic Playbook gambit, we are quickly moved beyond the problem by JR telling us a story: he claims to have “a Marine friend” who attended the Naval War College. Given that the Naval War College courses are for ranking officers (field-grade or on the fast track to field-grade promotion) readers may consider the credibility of this claim.

But this may simply be a set-up for JR to gussy-up his historically-themed proffer here: this already-accomplished officer was – we are to believe – “shocked at the use of false flag operations” (he had no inkling of them from his earlier tours of duty?). And readers may judge the credibility of that assertion as they will.

But this “false-flag” bit is simply another exercise in characteristic Abusenik insinuation and innuendo: we are still left with the primary and core problem of just how – if the Doe case were a false-flag operation run by the Church – the Church actually operated in such a way as to set the whole thing up and pull it off (which repeats a set of problems I have already pointed out in earlier comments on this thread). JR has given us no actual and specific proposals as to how the Church could get all the necessary players and elements to go along with such a plan. Would the DA, for example, risk his credibility and future election and professional prospects by bringing so flawed a case … at the behest of the Church?

Thus then, while JR concludes by giving us a largely accurate telling of how Hitler set up the pretext for the invasion of Poland, the example itself is irrelevant here.

On the 25th at 1155AM JR then suggests we “just wait and see what happens”. Assessment and commentary can continue with the material already available, even if no result has yet issued. And the result itself will be open to further analysis and assessment and commentary; that’s how the Scientific Method works, in case he is unfamiliar with it.

Then on the 25th at 1203PM we merely get assorted bits about the Mob, but that does utterly nothing to connect the Church to the local Mob in the Doe case. And thus the comment fails.

Hey John Paul Jonesy,

Unlike your friends in the catholic priesthood; my friends don't make things up. My friend's entire 20 year career, Marine wise, was in the U.S.

On the 27th at 1001AM JR – apparently under advisement from his muse – has to change his assertion: the Marine officer in his story actually saw service in Guam and Germany (the latter being more of an Army billet-area than a Marine Corps assignment, unless as a joint-service staff officer). Perhaps the shock of finding out he is a descendant of Pope Gregory X as well as the assorted Archbishops and Holy Roman imperial connections is still deranging JR’s story-telling ability.

Then – apropos of nothing – a riff on the heterosexuality of his high-ranking Marine friend. Perhaps in order to distract anybody’s focus from the essential whackness of his story, either in its original or its amended form.

Which still leaves him with the problem of an officer already in the Corps for 20 years being sent to the fast-track Naval War College – unless, of course, he is of advanced rank and is attending the Senior Officers’ course. Which would then only leave one with the credibility of the implication that a serious and high-ranking active-duty Marine officer, taking courses that require an advanced-level security clearance, would make the time and take the effort to share his thoughts and personal feelings with … JR.

And also the problem that a serious and high-ranking Marine officer could go 20 years in the Corps and be “shocked” to arrive at the Naval War College to discover “false flag operations” about which – we are to believe – he had no prior inkling.