Journalist Ralph Cipriano continues the fight for justice and the falsely accused
During a confidential deposition over two full days in May and June 2014, Dan Gallagher – the Philadelphia native whose varying and preposterous tales of abuse as an altar boy in the late 1990s landed three Catholic priests and a school teacher in prison – stated more than 130 times that he could not remember some very basic facts about his claims.
That is just one of the many eye-popping new details appearing in this week's issue of Newsweek uncovered by veteran journalist Ralph Cipriano, who continues to doggedly pursue the cause for justice for the wrongfully incarcerated men. (For those who are new to the Philly story, we suggest background here and here.)
Simply unreal
According to Cipriano, Gallagher stated in his deposition that he could not remember telling his doctors and drug counselors in the past that he had been:
- sexually abused by a friend at age 6;
- sexually abused by a neighbor at 6;
- sexually abused by a teacher at age 7;
- sexually molested at 6 (or 8) by an unknown assailant;
- sexually molested at 8 (or 9) by a friend; and
- sexually abused at 9 by a 14-year-old boy.
And Gallagher admitted at the deposition that none of these prior allegations were true.
[Note: Graphic descriptions of abuse accusations follow]
Dan Gallagher celebrating
with a stogie
In addition, when Gallagher was asked about whether he remembered telling a drug counselor that his hands were tied during an alleged sexual assault by a priest, Gallagher simply replied, "I really don't remember what I told him."
"Were your hands ever tied up during any of the sexual assaults?" the questioner asked.
"No," Gallagher replied.
Remember that these admissions are in addition to many other facts that Cipriano has already uncovered, which call into question Gallagher's claims, such as:
- Gallagher has admitted that he lied when he said he worked as a paramedic and a "professional surfer" (yes, a professional surfer from Philadelphia);
- Even members of the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office itself did not believe Gallagher's wild claims and questioned whether they should even move forward with the case;
- An alternate juror even came forward after the trial in which Gallagher put two priests and a teacher in prison with the dramatic charge that the guilty verdicts were "insane," "incredible," and "a tragic miscarriage of justice."
Scientific evidence
Yet in his deposition, the one story that Gallagher did obstinately stick to was his wild drama of being raped by two priests and a schoolteacher.
Oh, and Gallagher did admit to being a drug dealer and being arrested a half dozen times for drugs and retail theft. [Check out a court summary of Gallagher's extensive arrest record.]
And as far as the oft-heard claim from victim advocates and Church-suing lawyers that "memory lapses" from Gallagher stem from the trauma of his sexual abuse, Cipriano quotes Dr. James I. Hudson, a professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and the director of the biological psychiatry laboratory at McLean Hospital in Belmont, Massachusetts, who declares:
"There is no legitimate scientific evidence that psychological trauma can cause the massive amount of inconsistencies and contradictions that is exhibited by Mr. Gallagher's reports of the allegations of sexual abuse."
Q.E.D.
And the Philly Inky remains silent
After Cipriano's second article about the case appeared last week in Newsweek – his first article was in January – TheMediaReport.com wrote to Philadelphia Inquirer Editor-in-chief Bill Marimow and other editors at the Inky to ask if there were any plans to finally expose this fraud to its readers in Philadelphia.
It would seem to be the least they could do after running scores and scores of front-page articles promoting Gallagher's dubious claims and giving free publicity to publicity-hound D.A. Seth Williams, who organized the witch hunt against the three priests and Catholic school teacher.
Not surprisingly, we have received no response.
Regarding Ralph Cipriano's latest report, in Newsweek magazine. It is jaw-dropping, the things that are now coming out… concerning Daniel Gallagher and his crazy accusations.
But what grabs me is something with wider implications. Namely the expert opinion from a Harvard Professor of Psychiatry, Prof.James Hudson. He has given an expert opinion about the mental condition of Gallagher. .
This Harvard expert bases his opinion on one of the largest and sophisticated controlled prospective studies, on 1,000 sexual abuse victims, over a period of twenty years. It found no significant association between sexual abuse and any later mood disorders, or substance abuse. So even if Gallagher was telling the truth about his abuse,(unlikely) it does not follow that it caused the drug addiction and the criminal behaviour he later drifted into.
This should seriously call into question the usual cause and effect basis for lodging these personal injury claims.
In other words most such claims are highly questionable. The Church and it's Insurers should change their lawyers…. in my humble opinion.
The Church is self-insured for this kind of claim. It's this group (I forget the name of it.) that's imposed automatic removal from ministry for any priest facing asomewhat-believable claim of wrongdoing. The accuser is NEVER brought face-to-face with the priest he's accusing, NEVER is forced to pay legal fees & restitution to priests who are falsely accused, etc. The Church has abandoned many priests, refused to defend them, & acted like a bunch of cowards in this regard.
Malcolm, You're sounding more like peewee logic by the minute.
One thing that Dave has left out and Cipriano does it too is the fact Billy Doe took a polygraph test regarding the sexual abuse he endured and passed it with flying colors. I think the sympathy they are trying to get for a priest and a school teacher is no more then beating a dead horse, and this reported $5,000,000 awarded to Billy they act like it came out of their pocket. Give it another 6 months to a year and these two will be off on some other wild tangent blaming the justice system, the media, judges and juries of all being corrupt because once again an animal dressed in priest's clothing hurt another child.
Pathological liars and sociopaths can pass polygraphs with flying colors because they don't have the physiological changes that usually occurs when a person lies. There is a reason they cannot be used in court. While they are a useful investiagtive tool they are not fool proof. If during an investigation everything else points to the opposite of the polygraph reading then the ploygraph results should be discarded.
Have you seen the results of the polygraph test? Same question to you Dennis – do you believe everything you read on the internet. Only evidence is that his lawyer said he passed took and passed a polygraph test. Did he just send the reuslts to Danny's #1 Fan.
SHUT YOU STUPID MOUTH…YOU KNOW NOTHING.
On the 16th at 904AM ‘Dennis Ecker’ will sarcastically inquire as to whether ‘Malcolm Harris’ doth “believe everything that is written on the internet”.
Marvelously – as so often happens with Abuseniks – Ecker appears utterly oblivious to the potential for recoil in that bit.
And this possibility of recoil is actually nicely demonstrated by Ecker himself on the 16th at 710AM: Ecker will puff up his pinfeathers in self-congratulatory gotcha by asserting as fact – yet again – a point which Ralph Cipriano has already established as untrue: RC has demonstrated from the official records that Billy Doe never “took a polygraph test”, let alone that he “passed it with flying colors”. And this is not the first time that Ecker has tried to pass this bit off as fact here recently.
So, certainly, when it comes to Abuseniks, one should not believe everything they toss up on the internet.
Continuing with my comment on the Ecker comment of the 16th at 710AM:
But this congenial and convenient pipe-dream (to put it nicely) embraced by the Abuseniks can then Keep The Ball Rolling and thus Ecker rolls on: “they” are merely “trying to get” “sympathy” and it’s all just “beating a dead horse” (which in Abusenik-speak means: stop the game of musical chairs while we still have a chair to sit on and let’s not play any longer).
The case continues to wend its torturous way through the legal system, with more doubts and consequences for the original convictions arising at every turn. Clearly – and contrary to what Ecker would have us believe – the “horse” is very much alive and even kicking.
Continuing with my comment on the Ecker comment of the 16th at 710AM:
Ecker then riffs further, with what he claims to be a “reported” 5-million dollar payout to Doe. I presume this was the settlement made on the eve of the Papal visit to Philadelphia, about which rational folk can and do raise doubts and questions as to its advisability. I personally also think that – regardless of the concerns to clear the decks before the Pope arrived – it should not have been done.
Nor, actually, was Doe “awarded” the payout through court or jury action. The Archdiocese told the tortie it was willing to settle out of court (and quickly, with an eye to the Papal visit) and the deal was done. In this type of situation, the cognizant court simply places its formal stamp of approval on the deal struck between the tortie and the Archdiocese.
But Ecker never lets a chance to toss plop pass by, and on the basis of his assorted bits he works in his concluding epitheticals.
June 20, 2014. Confidential deposition of Daniel Gallagher.
Thomas Hurd, lawyer for the late Father Engelhardt's estate: Mr. Gallagher, have you ever taken a lie detector test about your allegations?
Gallagher: No.
Hurd: Have you ever been asked to take one?
Gallagher: No, I have not.
Slade McLaughlin made his claim that Gallagher took a polygraph after this deposition in an interview with the Legal Intelligencer. Why McLaughlin would polygraph his guy after he testified at two criminal trials and was deposed during his civil case without taking a polygraph is a real puzzler. What possible gain would there be in polygraphing Gallagher at that date?
Whether Gallagher could pass a polygraph is an interesting question. Dr. Stephen Mechanick pronounced him delusional. Maybe he is that good of a liar.
Whatever. Here are the facts. Twice on bigtrial.net, I told McLaughlin if Gallagher did indeed pass a polygraph test, as Engelhardt and Avery did, give me the results and I'll print them, just as I did for both Engelhardt and Avery.
No response.
When McLaughlin's law partner wrote a letter to Newsweek demanding a retraction [Sorry, fellas, the story stands] and he again claimed that Gallagher had passed a polygraph, Newsweek's lawyer made the following offer: send us the rest results and we'll print 'em.
No response.
At this point, after three rounds of put up or shut up, I am starting to believe that it didn't happen.
The Legal Intelligencer – Article titled Sex Abuse Victim Settles Clergy Claims. Dated 11/10/15 by Max Mitchell should be able to answer the questions regarding Billy Doe's polygraph test. In addition the article names Nicholas Centrella of Conrad O'Brien who represented the Archdiocese. Therefore if any Catholic wants to question why Billy Doe received his award they can flood his phone lines.
McLaughlin made the claim in the Legal Intelligencer and has not backed it up. Centrella isn't talking. Most rational people would have doubts about the veracity of the claim of the "flying colors" polygraph test by now, which, even if true, leads nowhere.
#1 Fan – Where are the results. Great, if i was a lawyer and wanted my client to look good i would saying anything to make it appear as if the reward was worth it.
Until the results are made public all you have is Slade's word. Not something you want to go around stating as fact. Oh that's right you were never in the courtroom for any of the trials.
You claim to be a victim – why don't you sign up for a polygrpah test and see your results come out.
Danny and junkie loving lawyer have just lied to you about the polygraph test. I hope one day you are able to understand that.
Here the link -
http://www.thelegalintelligencer.com/id=1202742074109/Alleged-SexAbuse-Victim-Settles-Clergy-Claims?mcode=0&curindex=0&curpage=1
Where can i find the reuslts and not some overpriced lawyers comments?
Ecker has blind faith in Billy. Will seize on any extraneous issue to detract from the OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE that Billy/Danny Gallagher is a COMPLETE FRAUD.
Now comes ‘Dennis Ecker’ on the 16th at 741PM and would apparently have us rely on a report that may mention the deposition rather than the actual text of the that RC has already provided.
Nor does Ecker actually explain in what way he thinks the article is (or “should be”) “able to answer the questions regarding Billy Doe’s polygraph test”.
Which is probably not surprising because if we have – as we do – the text of the deposition in front of us, wherein Doe denies ever having taken a polygraph test, then if the article somehow seeks to work from the basis that Doe did take the test … well, that would be a major problem for the article.
And if ‘Dennis’ thinks he can resolve this or has resolved it in his own mind, then he is welcome to share his thoughts here.
If Dan Gallagher is such a fraud why did the church settle with him? Why did judges and juries believe him? All those people are wrong but a church hired Harvard shrink is right?
Newsweek has now done 2 articles on this case written by Ralph Cipriano. Where's the rest of the 4th estate on this? Why is this spark not catching fire? Could it be that no new evidence is simply that: no new evidence?
LDB is a Harvard grad but you never believe him.
Oh! That's right; he wasn't hired by the church so he can't be right in anything he says.
Why would you assume that victims lawyers are immoral and willing to commit criminal fraud but church lawyers are above such things because they accept money from God?
You never left the Middle Ages. How about a trial by ordeal?
Keep seeing what you want to see JR. For anybody who's thinking, a lot of evidence has come forth out of a totally secret church and state process that would have left us all in the dark.
In many scandals, one reporter often leads the way. The rest hope it all blows over so they don't have to get their hands dirty. Unless it blows so high that they're forced to do something.
In the case of District Attorney Seth Williams and his self-described "historic" prosecution of the church, this could get interesting if Williams decides to run for re-election, and if there are retrials in the Lynn case, the Brennan case, and maybe even the Shero case.
Why James you did not hear the EXCUSES ? Judges and Juries are corrupt and I will assume that includes superior court and supreme court judges and the only reason why Billy Doe became a millionaire is because the Pope ordered it.
We are suppose to believe though some 20 factual errors that have led nowhere to help or aid the defendants and there is all these ADA's who do not believe Billy but we have not heard of one name of who they are. We also don't hear that only months prior to Billy receiving his $5,000,000 the Archdiocese settled with three other clergy abuse victims for an unknown amount of money.
So he's not a perfect angel. And has a spotty past. Most rape victims do. In Minnesota, several victims were "discredited" by the Church. Because they had shoplifting, drug, or psychological histories. And "therefore their story cannot be substaintaited. " When a suceesful lawyer, and family man, came foward, again, after 40 years. The Church took a oppoite spin. They said, "if he was truly a victim, he would have a checkered past". And therefore, his story, also, cannot be substaintaited.
I can't believe TMR, and the Catholic Church, would stand behind these lying, child rapers. Even if they are priests. Several of their lies, and a ton of facts, against them, were exposed, in court. Facts the Archdiocese, and TMR, couldn't care less about.
True, you live up to your name.
On the 17th at 1037AM JR will try his hand at raising competent questions: Why, if Doe/Gallagher was so fraudulent, did the Archdiocese settle with him?
I would say – again – that the last-minute settlement was prompted more by pressure from the then-upcoming Papal visit than anything else.
JR then asks: “why did judges and juries believe him?”.
First, the trial judge was notably biased, as the Superior Court – in a very unusual and clear and direct statement – stated.
Second, there then arises the clear possibility that such bias helped influence the jury (there was only the one).
The fact that all were "Guilty Beyod a Resonable Doubt". After the high-priced Church Lawyers played every card. Means nothing to the Pope, The Diocese, The Catholic League, or THR.
The fact that a victim's ex-wife, called him a "liar". Is all that matters, to the Catholic Church. Therefore, these three child raping monsters, get to walk. We have a technicality. Or they should. According to the Catholic Church.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 17th at 1037AM:
Third, the still-ongoing dust-up taking place among higher appellate courts – the State Superior and State Supreme Courts – gives clear indication that the original trial outcome was at best dubious and at worst illegitimate.
Had they wished to put one forward, Doe’s attorneys could also have engaged an expert to counter the Archdiocesan expert. But they did not. Which raises the question as to whether they could find an expert of sufficient competence and status to opine that Doe was truthful and so forth.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 17th at 1037AM:
Having turned in that performance, JR will then turn to some old material: his familiar bit to the effect that only Newsweek has published RC’s articles.
First, that’s true … so far. And we shall see.
Second – and to repeat – that still means a major mainstream media source has published material that largely – and competently – questions the credibility of a ‘victim’. Which is no small thing at all, given the situation that has reigned for the past thirty or so years, and of a Catholic ‘victim’ at that.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 17th at 1037AM:
Third, the “no new evidence” bit is a sly but content-less gambit: the evidence has been sitting there all along, but under the regnant Victimist/Stampede paradigm, it was never really given any serious consideration by the mainstream media. So the evidence that RC introduces in his articles is certainly “new” to both the mainstream media and to the public.
Newsweek seems pretty "mainstream media" to me.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 17th at 1037AM:
Whether and to what extent this “spark” might ‘catch fire’ remains to be seen. But the very fact that RC has managed to strike a spark at all is a very significant first step.
Which is dangerous for the Stampede. Because – like all such gambits – the Stampede is based on a public point-of-view or general framing of a situation. The public adopts a presumptive template by which it processes all similar cases.
Thus the ‘conventional wisdom’ – amplified by the mainstream media decades ago for its own purposes – is this: priest is accused / a lot of priests (or many priests, or most priests, or all priests) are ‘known’ to be ‘pedophiles’ or sex-abusers / so this case is just another heroic exposure of another one of those priests / so this one deserves whatever he gets.
But if that point-of-view shifts … if the public suddenly comes to realize that the template itself is faulty … then the Stampede deflates like a balloon. And perhaps, in a recoil dynamic, the public starts looking at those who fomented the Stampede or profited from it in one way or another.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 17th at 1037AM:
William James made the distinction between “associative reasoning” and “true reasoning”.
In “associative reasoning” one simply works, almost on autopilot – we might say, by fitting information into familiar or preconceived patterns. In “true reasoning” a person conducts a deeper analysis of the actual facts surrounding the information.
Daniel Karmen of Princeton builds on James by describing James’s “associative reasoning” as being more “primitive”, whereas “conscious deliberative analysis” (James’s “true reasoning”) is a much slower process requiring much more mental effort.
Readers so inclined might want to read Steven Baker’s book Final Jeopardy: Man versus Machine and the Quest to Know Everything.
On then to JR’s next try, on the 17th at 1047.
“LDB is a Harvard grad”, he bleats, “and yet you never believe him”.
First, it isn’t a matter of claimed status; it’s a matter of demonstrated capability and the credibility that flows from such demonstration. (Of course, in the Abusenik universe, it is indeed very much a matter of claimed-status: somebody proclaims himself a ‘victim’, and that gives him the status – and the supposed immunity from questioning and assessment that goes with that status.)
Second, unless JR knows LDB personally then JR – like the rest of us – has no way of knowing if LDB’s Harvard claim is true or not.
Third, both as to LDB’s claimed status as a Harvard grad (with a Major in Philosophy) and to his claim of being an attorney (with the J.D. degree that status requires), I have seen in LDB’s material here absolutely no demonstration of any of the capacities or abilities that would support his claims.
I though you religious idiots were the "flock"? I don't bleat. I'm not a sheep.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 17tgh at 1047AM:
The strategies that torties use to get money for their clients (which is the very raison-d’etre of torties) are well-established. I did not say they were “immoral” (that’s a bit JR invented for his own convenience here).
Whether in the Stampede (or other instances) torties are “willing to commit criminal fraud” is a question that is hardly my own. And in various Stampede cases we have examined on this site I have pointed out where the elements that would strongly pressure a tortie are demonstrably in play.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 17tgh at 1047AM:
The legal system a) gives torties a certain wide latitude in ‘making the case’ for their client(s) and b) is almost naturally hesitant to inquire too closely into such tactics as ‘burnishing’ claims.
We recall that the recent conviction of Sheldon Silver, until recently long-time and powerful Speaker of the New York House, incidentally exposed a disability-scam racket whereby a doctor/researcher received public money (arranged by Silver) to provide the type of ‘burnishing’ ‘science’ that helped a tort firm to get settlement money for its clients (for which Silver then received monies from the tort firm). And if I recall correctly, there was also a particular judge (indebted, I think, to Silver for her appointment) before whom all such cases from that tort firm went.
On then to ‘Dennis’, who on the 17th at 324PM allows us to overhear another of those catty little just-entre-nous conversations with JR that he is so fond of.
But his bits here are – as so often with him – skewed manipulatively in favor of his own scheduled plop-tossing.
The failures of the trial judge have been noted by the Superior Court; the Superior Court has explained its Decisions in the Stampede matters carefully; the Supreme Court has overruled the Superior, but without very much at all in the way of explanation; there is a second appeal to the Superior Court and that is still in-process.
At no place on this site have I seen anyone assert that the Archdiocese settled with Doe “because the Pope ordered it” (although the possibility of some Vatican influence cannot dispositively be ruled out).
Continuing with my comment on the Ecker comment of the 17th at 324PM:
In another instance of the same manipulative selectivity, ‘Dennis’ then would have us focus only on the trial and its outcome and not on the still-ongoing and somewhat remarkable legal dust-up between the State Superior and Supreme Courts.
And if, indeed, the Archdiocese “settled with “three other clergy abuse victims” prior to the Papal visit, then we would have to consider i) whether the Archdiocese felt it had the possibility of winning a civil trial of a “strike suit” in Philadelphia under present conditions and ii) whether – either with or without pressure from the Vatican – the Cardinal simply wanted to remove any causes for adverse publicity that might interfere with the Papal visit. (If (ii) was involved, I would certainly not agree with the Cardinal’s decision.)
Cipriano states things could get interesting if DA Seth Williams runs for re-election. Did he not do that once already and despite all your ranting he was elected again ? Then Ralph goes on and says it will get interesting especially if there is appeals from Lynn, Brennan and Shero. But was it not Ralph who reported Lynn has decided to stay in prison. Most likely the smartest thing Lynn has decided to do. Not to chance being released from prison put under house arrest again, his conviction upheld in supreme court where Seth Williams has a very good track record and sent back to prison and since we all know house arrest does not count as time served he would be in prison past the tentative release date of this October. On to Brennan. He is facing retrial. What about Shero ? Well, he received a New Years eve present to bring in 2016. Appeal DENIED. But Ralph has mentioned there is this evidence now that might help him. However, Ralph fails to mention what this new evidence might be. For Shero's sake we can only hope it is not those 20 factual errors Ralph speaks of. We all seen how good that has done for the convicted. Now I will mention two others Ralph has failed. Fr. Engelhardt, his appeals to clear his name DENIED, and last but not least Fr. Edward Avery his attempt at parole DENIED. I wonder if Ralph can count how many times our justice system has said DENIED to these child rapists.
The shrieking voice of a lunatic.
"lunatic"? That's a pretty strong word. A libelous word in fact. Newsweek reporters aint what they usd to be.
Dennis, I agree.
Maybe I should stoop to that level of that reporter who sued his employer because they gave him some constructive criticism on how he was doing his job. I wonder if those over at the Beasley firm will take my case. LOL.
It's not constructive criticism when you have to apologize in the pages of the Inquirer, pay a substantial sum, and then lose your job. This is a thoroughly documented case with a thoroughly documented outcome and you keep trying to rewrite it to say I lost the case when the facts say otherwise. Facts mean nothing to you. You will say anything and distort anything to support your own nonsensical views. You need some new material.
"Plop tossing"? AGAIN? My god you're a bore. Can't you say shit throwing? Or are you afraid it might remind the readership of what you do here?
In regard to ‘True Catholic’s comment of the 18th at 1213PM:
Similar to other Abusenik efforts, ‘True Catholic’ will simply try to stop the music with the trial convictions, utterly ignoring the significant and substantive subsequent legal developments that are still in-process. All of that, nicely, “means nothing” to the Abuseniks – and understandably so, since all of that would interfere with their preferred cartoons.
And then in a neat reverse of that, ‘True Catholic’ will seek to have everyone ignore the statement, made by an allegant’s ex-wife, to the effect that he is a “liar”. That, nicely, “means nothing” to the Abuseniks – and understandably so, since that would interfere with their preferred cartoons.
On, then, to the ‘Dennis Ecker’ comment of the 18th at 1017AM:
Ralph Cipriano is much better informed than I as to local Philadelphia politics such as the DA’s re-election and the dynamics involved in it. I would, however, wonder if his re-election came before or after the Lynn and Doe case(s) began to go south.
If the Superior Court’s official public characterizations of the trial-judge are accurate – and it surely appears that they are, then Lynn would be well-advised to patiently remain incarcerated, since there is apparently no small chance that the trial-judge would continue her accustomed ways in regard to any request of his for release.
As should be a surprise to nobody even modestly informed as to the legal system, DA’s usually do have good track records with higher courts, and this would be especially so if their cases are so dubious that to admit the problems would cast doubt on the legitimacy of the entire system.
Then factor in the many Stampede dynamics I have often discussed, and all those denials cannot be too surprising at all.
On then to JR’s of the 18th at 1059AM.
For this performance he will yet again don the Wig of Boredom, as in: he’s really too too bored to deal with any of my material.
But he will then try to – one might say – define his deviancy down by objecting to my (abnormal?) rejection of scatology in my comments. I don’t consider scatology appropriate in serious material, certainly not from (at least chronological) adults.
But if he wants to implant in readers’ minds the vision of his tossing sxxt instead of “plop”, that’s his decision to make and he has made it here.
The Grand Chihuahua of the Victimry may toss as much “plop” as he wishes. That too has always been his decision to make.
"The Grand Chihuahua of Victimry
"serious material"! What "serious material" Everything you say is shit.
Finally you've amused me. "The Grand Chihuahua of Victimry" wearing the "Wig of Boredom".
Stunning! You've captured me.
I'll even say you've been accidentaly funny.
But truthful? Not even.
Here's what "Checkbook Charlie" Chaput just bought for $5 million:
http://www.bigtrial.net/2016/03/how-to-collect-5-million-from.html
Now that's bad when you don't have enough readers on your own blog to read your BS you have to post it somewhere else. I keep picturing the Seinfield episode and George's old coach who ends up homeless on the library steps all mentally wigged out repeating Costansa can't stand ya.Your obsession with Billy Doe and this case has to be unhealthy. I see you only a few years from now curled up in some doorway with a copy of your Newsweek article trashed on Thunderbird repeating Danny Gallagher five million dollars can't stand ya. Maybe you should sit down with that Harvard Doc he seems to have all the answers.
Dennis, thanks for your kind thoughts. My so-called "B.S." concerns actual quotations from your hero, Danny Gallagher, what he actually said under oath when quizzed by the archdiocese's lawyers about the truthfulness and the credibility [or lack thereof] of a guy who helped put three priests and a school teacher in jail.
I'm a reporter chasing a story. If it was up to the lawyers in the case, both Gallagher's and the archdiocese's, what Gallagher said would remain a secret. But some people can't handle the truth. The archdiocese comes to mind, as do Billy's lawyers. I would also include people with an unhealthy obsession with Billy Doe, guys like Dennis Ecker.
In Ralph Cipriano's recent Newsweek report there is a reference to the trial of Bernard Shero. A teacher, in a Catholic school, who had the misfortune of crossing paths with Daniel Gallagher. Shero was also convicted of sexual abuse, in a case that rose and fell on the credibility of the sole accuser, Daniel Gallagher.
Shero's lawyer wanted Danny's brother, James, to give evidence. So the guy was sent a subpoena, to appear as a witness. Incredibly he never showed up???
Shero was convicted and sent to prison. Months later James gave the excuse that the subpoena got lost amongst his other mail… and by the time he discovered this… the trial was over??
Well… my understanding has always been that a subpoena is an order from the court. And failure to comply with a court order is to risk being arrested??. But perhaps it all depends upon how well connected you are??
"judge sent a note to the jury stating there is no evidence he ever received a subpoena." Check out Oh brother, were art thou.. Date February 5, 2013. Bigtrial.net. Just another great job done by defense attorneys.
True to his own and the general Abusenik form, lacking anything better with which to respond, ‘Dennis Ecker’ (the 20th, 859AM) will grasp for whatever epithetical straws he can.
In this case, the truly silly bit about Ralph Cipriano’s hyperlinking to his primary article as if RC didn’t have enough readers on that site.
But once we get beyond the riff on the “Seinfeld” show, we now get Ecker opining that RC must surely be ‘obsessed’ with the Doe case. Because – doncha see? – if you keep bringing up points uncongenial to the Abuseniks and the Stampede, then you must be ‘obsessed’. Whereas if the Abuseniks try to toss up whatever stuff they think might Keep The Ball Rolling, then they are heroic and truthy truth-tellers.
And concludes by contenting himself in sharing some visions from his personal pot of tea leaves.
I like the Abuseniks and Stampede monikers. They all practice the religion of Victimology. Here are its tenets: once a person stands up and says, I was abused by a Catholic priest, a halo, visible only to other Abuseniks, forms over his head. The man's every subsequent utterance is now considered sacred, and challenging any part of it amounts to blasphemy.
On then to the 20th at 809PM, where JR – as always oblivious to the possibilities of recoil – tries to characterize RC’s use of “lunatic” as “libelous”.
JR’s own claim of being “raped” – automatically implying that his alleged assailant was a ‘rapist’ – is, by his own description, revealed to be not ‘rape’ but (at best) “lewd acts” (or, more specifically, being lewdly-acted-upon).
And then that also drags in the “lies” and “truthful” bits which JR so fondly tosses around for his own purposes and convenience.
But ‘raped’ certainly is a catchier phrase than the admittedly clunky ‘lewdly-acted-upon’; and if the truth is too clunky but there’s a more rhetorically catchy (if less accurate and truthy) term that also confers a certain status in certain circles then the Abusenik will choose … (fill in the blank).
On then to JR’s performance of the 20th at 816PM:
Thus we wind up with a collection of one-liners here that – when considered in light of what I have just noted above – reveal themselves to be rather wide of the mark indeed.
As I explained the term in a recent comment, “The Grand Chihuahua of the Victimry” stems from that reduction in rank from ‘raped’ to ‘lewdly-acted-upon’: the mane of the Grand Lion of the Victimry has thus had just about all of its hair fall out (as a result of the reduction) and thus we wind up not with a Grand Lion but a Grand Chihuahua.
And on that basis things must now proceed.
On March 18th, at 4.16 am, Publion reminds us of the conviction of Sheldon Silver, in a federal court, just last year This guy was the powerful and seemingly untouchable Speaker in New York State..
What struck me was the opening remarks of Silver's lawyer. Saying in effect that the federal prosecutor was trying to criminalize normal business relationships, which were previously seen as part and parcel of public officials' usual work. Well ….the jury did not agree, and Silver was convicted of corruption.
Which makes me pause to wonder whether New York State is the only state where public officials think they have the right to do personal back-room deals with lawyers.
Oops!… Sorry!…! forgot that a witch-hunt does not like uncomfortable questions.
I call statuatory rape, rape.; and you know I do.
It's funny when an adult male cleric starts touching sexually a 16 yr. old, like I was ; rape is exactly what it felt like. You can take your "legal" definitions and clutch them to your religious heart. They don't make you sympathetic in the least. P, Nobody believes you. You don't believe you.
Odd photo collage at the top of this thread. It makes Ralph look like he's a prisonar. Is this a secret cry for help?
Look Ralph could be right Danny could be a fake but where oh where is the proof that that is true? It must be coming. Maybe it's hidden in a very old Nixon-esque pumpkin?
Hence the howls of protest from fellow Abuseniks Ecker and JR whenever the idiocy and self-evident mendacity of Billy Doe and his enablers is exposed.
Abuseniks must always preserve the tenets of victimology; otherwise their own halos are suspect.
Ralph don't be a simpleton. I've told you i believe that the people you defend were found guilty and sentenced accordingly. If you have evidence that a miscarriage has taken place. I will side with you in a minute. That's the truth.
I don't not question victims about their accusations. i treat all with respect. If I hear contradictions from someone claiming to be a victim i ask questions. That's just one victim talking to another . If I'd seen someone who was obviously lying.I 'd report them. But none of the victims I've met seemed to be lying. That's my experience.
The fact that you are so sweeping in your insults of real victims here, Ralph, doesn't seem very professional to me. Not very neutral.
I've been printing that "evidence" for four years now. Yet you keep your ears and eyes covered and keep asking, where's the evidence?
It's hard to be neutral about fraud and a cynical D.A. exploiting human tragedy for votes and innocent men sitting in jail for a crime spree that in all proability never happened.
Ralph do you think your evidence will re-open these cases and bring new trials? If not; why not?
Malcolm you thought there was some wrong doing on the part of Billy Doe's brother not showing up in court and you had to be corrected then. Now you are doing nothing more then fishing for something else.
In reply to Dennis Ecker's comment of the 22nd. Well sometimes we have to stand back and try to look at outcomes.The contingency lawyer, who took on Daniel Gallagher as a client, knows his plan worked …a huge payout.
What's 40% of 5 million dollars? That's his share of the payout. But a real bonus was the trial and conviction of Monsignor Lynne. As it will provide the springboard for more claims.
If this case rested on a foundation of solid evidence, then I wouldn't question. But it all rests upon the accusations of a deluded drug addict, who needed his parents at his side, when first interviewed by police. The guy was then an adult, and only mental retards have their parents present, at interview. Yet everything rested upon the testimony of this unstable person? Talk about thin ice?
Don't you think that the police and D.A. knew this from the kickoff?? But they still went ahead . Why?
It has to be about money….that's what it's all about…it has to be about money.
They knew, Malcom, they knew.
The Abusenik playbook: always attack the motives of somebody you disagree with. And suggest that you're more pure.
P says I "bleat". Yet Ralph says I "howl". I'm a fucking zoo! Not human but animal?
Dan was right you're no followers of Jesus.
And you're qualified to determine that?
Abso f'ing lutely!
On the 22nd at 814AM JR will try to distract from the core issue concerning his allegations: was he actually ‘raped’ in any legal sense of the term?
As I stated in my comment of Mar 11th at 406PM: in the State of California ‘statutory rape’ requires “sexual penetration”, and by JR’s own claim no such thing occurred. Thus there was no ‘rape’, not even ‘statutory rape’; there was – to repeat – what might be legally characterizable as ‘lewd acts’, but that’s about it. And since he has now declared himself to have been “16” at the time, then there is even some question as to whether his allegation rises to the CA legal classification of ‘lewd acts with a child’.
Thus whatever he chooses to call ‘rape’ – derived from his own preferred definition of ‘statutory rape’ – does not correspond to the actuality or reality of his own allegated experience.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 22nd at 814AM:
But he has apparently already realized that, since he now adds a second paragraph where he insists on the validity of his personal definition here by claiming that it “felt like” “rape”.
This reduces the whole matter to personal feelings; one might as well deal with a kid who said that being hit in the leg by somebody’s bicycle “felt like” being hit by a speeding Mack truck, and therefore he should be considered a major trauma victim.
And while he is shrewd enough not to actually say that the legal definition can go take a flying leap for itself, he slyly tries to bring it all back to – had you been waitttingggg forrr ittttt? – a lack of ‘sympathy’.
And – apparently surmising that that bit won’t quite do the trick either – he then lards on that “nobody believes” me. What I have said isn’t actually a matter for ‘belief’; the relevant CA law – as I dealt with it in my comment of Mar 11th – is what it is.
And – apparently surmising that that bit won’t quite do the trick either – he then lards on in conclusion that I don’t believe myself, either. Which is just another of his asserted inaccuracies.
I always thought rape was someone having sex with another person AGAINST THEIR WILL.
I did not want sex with my teacher . He forced sex on me. THEREFORE, I WAS RAPED.
On the 22nd at 9PM JR will lecture Ralph Cipriano and exhort him not to be a “simpleton”.
Revealingly, that bit is immediately followed by JR’s declaration of his own belief – and thus apparently RC is a “simpleton” for not accepting as demonstrated fact what JR presumes on belief.
JR then heads – yet again – for the high-ground, donning for the occasion the Wig of Competent Objectivity: he just cawn’t see any “evidence that a miscarriage has taken place”.
Let us pass over with a smile the spectacle of JR declaiming piously about “evidence”.
First, the PA Superior Court made it remarkably and unusually clear that the trial judge committed various errors, sufficient for the Superior’s decision to release Lynn. And while the PA Supreme Court reversed that decision, it did not seek to address the characterizations of the trial judge’s missteps.
Second, we now have then both a) the Doe testimony (i.e. all the conflicting and incoherent stories and claims) and b) the Superior Court’s characterization of the trial judge’s failures.
And the case is on-going with yet another round before the Superior Court. So “sentenced accordingly” both says too much and too little: too much because it makes it appear that the case is closed and finished and too little because it makes it appear that there were no problems with it.
Pimpleton, I don't assume these prisoners were found guilty. They are either dead or in jail as we speak. They were found GUILTY by our justice system. Not by me or Dennis but by the system we have in place.
If I accept Ralph's views it means nothing. The system has to accept his points and reopen these cases. Is that happening? Yes? No? Maybe?
You "believe" a miscarriage has taken place. Have I ever once insulted Ralph for his effort to seek his view of justice? Nope. I have not.
So why all the personal insults Ralph? I've wished you well in your struggle if you are right. I've never asked you to stop doing what you're doing. I have and do wonder at the anger towards me in particular and the lack of interest in looking at the bigger scandal that I have offered here as truth. A real reporter would be all over this and still be fighting for justice for the people he sees as wrongly convicted.
Major stories don't come along very often and yet Ralph would rather insult me than look at what I have to say about THE major "Survivors" group being a creation of an ultraconservative Catholic faction in the midwest. SNAP being one of several false flag group (s) that are affecting the lives of Catholics who were really harmed as children. And all of this COINTELPRO -esque behavior is ignored by an investigate reporter. Who isn't interested in investigating our claims of fraud.
Surely, Ralph you could be working on two stories at once. You've been arguing the Billy Doe case for 4 years. Why not branch out. You are a Newsweek reporter now.
Imagine if you could bust the Catholic church in the U.S. (and now SNAP or its sub contractors are running the world action on victims) for it's creation of such a huge fraud. Adding insult to injury for it's victims.
Am I delusional? I think I'm making a ton of common sense. I say Ralph if you are independent and above board; just look at the mass of contradictions regarding SNAP, It's founding and history regarding victims' needs. Just LOOK. Be what you claim to be.
Continuing with my comment on JRs of the 22nd at 9PM:
That body of material is more than enough to consider the extremely high probability that there was something amiss in the trial in question, presided over by that judge.
He is welcome to his ‘belief’, but at this point the performance he turns in here might surely be considered more an indicator of the unreliability of his judgment and assessment capabilities.
And – as if he sensed that the point might not be automatically grasped by readers – he then finishes the first paragraph with the further pious bleat “That’s the truth”. Ovvvv courssssse.
Continuing with my comment on JRs of the 22nd at 9PM:
But then an even more interesting and revelatory declaration: JR doesn’t “question victims about their accusations”.
Where to begin? This is precisely the enabling gambit of the Stampede: don’t ask questions.
Or, more specifically: the allegants’ bonding deal: you don’t question my story and I won’t question your story and let’s just keep this thing going.
And how then does he know that he is referring to genuine victims and not to … persons otherwise classifiable? He doesn’t. He just ‘believes’ – and a mighty convenient and self-serving belief it is.
He can no more testify to the credibility of another ‘victim’ then any other reader here can.
But – as we have often seen – the Playbook at this point simply calls for slyly changing the subject by claiming that anyone who doesn’t ‘believe’ a ‘victim’ is (fill in the blank: a sociopath, unsympathetic, un-empathetic, immoral, un-Christian, a defender of pedophiles, a nun, or all of the above).
Continuing with my comment on JRs of the 22nd at 9PM:
Thus the stunning circularity of the core Stampede bit in this hall of mirrors: X is a victim because people believe X is a victim, and people believe X is a victim because X is a victim. And you can’t question victims.
And none of this is in any way neutralized by the further pious bleat that – we can be assured and have JR’s word for it – if he’d “seen someone who was obviously lying, [he’d] report them”.
Really? How would he know if someone “was obviously lying”? And how reliable is JR’s judgment in this since he apparently doesn’t think Doe “was obviously lying”?
But then he slyly pulls back under cover: this is all just how it ‘seems’ to him and this has been his “experience”. Yes, we have his word for it and his capacities for assessment.
Continuing with my comment on JRs of the 22nd at 9PM:
And how then to conclude such a hash?
By accusing somebody of something, of course.
In this instance: JR will don the Wig of Outraged Truthiness and accuse RC of “sweeping … insults of real victims here”.
What “real victims here”? Who here has proffered demonstrable evidence that they are genuine victims or “real victims”? Or who here has at least proffered sufficiently persuasive material so as to establish the high probability of being a “real” and genuine victim?
But there’s a method to the madness here: on the basis of his foregoing performance, JR will puff up his pinfeathers and sniff that “Ralph” indeed “doesn’t seem very professional to” JR. JR, apparently, considering himself to be some sort of credible authority on professionalism.
And the cherry on top of this queasy sundae: “Not very neutral”. Neutrality in the face of a lack of evidence is a wise and prudent tack (and not one the Abuseniks and the Stampede support); neutrality in the face of the weight of evidence we now have before us in the Lynn/Doe matter is something else altogether.
On the 23rd at 1123AM JR poses a truly baffling problem: does he truly and actually not know what “having sex” actually means?
And even if one were willing to grant – for purposes of argument – that “having sex” as a colloquial term might encompass having one’s honk grabbed or touched, yet such an act clearly does not rise to the legal term “sexual intercourse”.
Similarly, even if the teacher “forced” this act upon him (as JR claims), it would be a case of a forcible lewd act, not forcible sexual intercourse. In this case, “forced sex” cannot be made to equate to forcible sexual intercourse or rape.
So any use of “rape” to describe what he claims happened to him would – at the very longest stretch – be merely a highly figurative and rhetorical usage, not an objective description. He would have been the victim of a forcible lewd act (presuming the veracity of his original claim in the first place).
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 23rd at 1123AM:
This clarification of the alleged action also puts into a more clear light the school’s or Order’s original offer of a mere twelve or seventeen thousand dollars: it was not a matter of the school’s or Order’s cheapskate and cynical proffer of so paltry a sum for an actual rape; rather, it was the school’s or Order’s proffer for a forcible lewd act that never reached even the attempt at penetration.
And, as the records released in a cache referenced by JR and discussed at length here some time ago revealed, the school authorities at that time were not even sure of the veracity of the allegation as to the forcible lewd act, since JR had been having academic difficulties in the accused’s class.
It is necessary to consider this matter in such detail – again – since we are so often confronted with claims of “rape” in this matter.
Yawn! I'm a real victim who post