Prosecution mouthpieces?
John P. Martin, Philadelphia Inquirer, and Maryclaire Dale, Associated Press

Mark Bukowski has accused Rev. James Brennan of raping him as a 14-year-old back in 1996. However, around the very same time that he accused the priest of the crime – in 2005 – Bukowski filed a very detailed false police report about a violent home robbery that never occurred.

Details about Bukowski's shocking crime have been completely nonexistent in media coverage of the trial.

In his false report, Bukowski relayed a number of astonishing details about his fabricated "crime," including that $675 from an employer, a DVD, prescription medicines, and a wristwatch were stolen from him. Bukowski also displayed cuts on his body and a t-shirt to police in an attempt to show evidence of a violent struggle.

Bukowski made the whole thing up. He had no employer. There was no robbery. There were no intruders. His mother was at home at the time of the alleged "robbery." Bukowski even pleaded guilty to filing his false report.

Where's the media?

For the past number of weeks, many news outlets have relied on the courtroom observances of a small group of individuals: John P. Martin at the Philadelphia Inquirer, Maryclaire Dale of the Associated Press, and (more recently) Joann Loviglio of the Associated Press.

Although all three have certainly made references to Bukowski's criminal past, none have elaborated on any of the details about the accuser's bogus police report, nor have they defined that his troubling episode of concocting an extravagant hoax may be especially notable. And, yes, they all should surely know about it.

This comes as little surprise, as the coverage from these journalists – especially from Martin and Dale – has been noticeably biased in favor of the prosecution and against the Catholic Church. Neither writer appears to miss an opportunity to portray the Church in the most negative light. At times John Martin's coverage has been slanted to the point that his columns read like sheets of talking points from the Philly D.A.'s Office.

Other journalists have been biased as well. Several have trumpeted Bukowski as a "former Marine" but have neglected to note that he was discharged after going AWOL.

Unfortunately, there has yet to be any indication that the one-sided coverage will change anytime soon.

[Section deleted, 4/11/12]

[By the way, if you are looking for superior, more balanced, tells-it-like-it-is coverage of the trial, we recommend veteran journalist Ralph Cipriano over at the Philadelphia Priest Abuse Trial Blog. Check it out.]

Kudos to Monica Yant Kinney
at the Philadelphia Inquirer

The report, which depicted stomach-turning allegations of depraved abuse and cover-ups by Catholic clergy, has served as the foundation for this week's highly watched trial.

The media has never so much as aired a peep of criticism or skepticism about the report or the criminal charges against the clergy – until now.

In a startling article this week at the start of the Philadelphia trial, Monica Yant Kinney at the Philadelphia Inquirer appears to be the first journalist in the United States to openly acknowledge that there may be serious credibility issues with the criminal charges in the current cases.

A lengthy, brutal rape becomes an "almost" rape?

Last year's report relayed an extremely alarming and graphic account of Fr. James Brennan anally raping a 14-year-old boy back in 1996. (It's on pages 36 and 37, if you can stomach it.)

But prosecutors are now offering something entirely different: a "sharply sanitized version" of that alleged episode, "which casts doubt on the case against Brennan."

Prosecutors are now saying that Fr. Brennan "almost raped" the accuser. "Almost"? That's certainly not the characterization in the grand jury report. The report explicitly describes a ferocious and relentless rape.

A second shocking incident of depravity – now it didn't happen?!

According to Yant Kinney, "[Fr. Brennan's lawyer has] also suggested that the victim [has] 'disavowed' a second allegation that the priest later masturbated in front of the teen in a shed at a suburban parish."

Wow. In other words, the accuser's allegation of a second incident – again thoroughly and graphically described in the grand jury report – now did not even happen!

Indeed, as we have thoroughly chronicled, Fr. Brennan's accuser has major credibility issues. The accuser, now a 30-year-old grown man, has a very extensive criminal record of fraud, which even includes a disconcerting episode of filing a false police report.

In addition – and most notably – prosecutors have downgraded the charges against Fr. Brennan to the lesser crimes of "attempted rape," "child endangerment," and "conspiracy."

The grand jury report: A concocted piece of sensationalism?

Last year's report became a useful and powerful tool for many to bludgeon the Catholic Church and portray it in the most sinister and corrupt light.

As Yant Kinney notes, the report was universally embraced "as a matter of deeply researched fact."

Now that the trial has begun, however, this same journalist now sees that the report appears to have morphed into "a florid draft goosed for dramatic effect."

"Both the civil and criminal cases against Brennan arose from the 2011 grand jury report, which allowed [Philadelphia] D.A. Seth Williams to make history, since [Msgr. William] Lynn is the highest-ranking church official in America to date to face charges of inaction and cover-up.

"At the time, the blistering document was taken as a matter of deeply researched fact.

"Monday, Williams wasn't even in the courtroom for the case of a lifetime. And now, the 2011 report reads in part like a florid draft goosed for dramatic effect.

"If the victim wasn't raped, why declare that he was? Why overreach when even basic allegations – a priest showing pornography to a boy – are criminal enough?"

These are all excellent observations by Yant Kinney.

It would be nice to see other journalists take Yant Kinney's approach and finally begin to adopt a more critical look at the charges being leveled in Philadelphia.

Truth, justice, and men's lives are at stake.

Mugshots: Mark Bukowski in 2006 (left) and 2011 (right)

In 2005, Mark Bukowski came forward with the shocking charge that Rev. James Brennan had raped him nine years earlier, in 1996, when Bukowski was reportedly 14 years old. Since that time, the media has breathlessly reported Bukowski's allegations with scant interest in the accuser's background. (Note: Bukowski has allowed his name to be made public – it's in the grand jury report – although media outlets have chosen not to reveal it.)

Meanwhile, Bukowski has committed multiple and serious crimes in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, that date both before and after the 2005 rape accusation against Fr. Brennan that call into question Bukowski's veracity. Bukowski's Bucks County rap sheet reveals a long list of his crimes:

• deserting the military
• multiple forgeries
• multiple thefts
• fictitious reports
• unauthorized use of another's credit card
• receiving stolen property
• identity theft
• "driving under the influence / controlled substance / 2nd offense"

Here are Bukowski's records from the Bucks County inmate database:

Of particular note, Bukowski committed the crime of "fictitious reports" in 2005, the very same year that he also accused Fr. Brennan of abusing him.

"An event that never occurred"

What was Bukowski's "fictitious report"? With extensive detail, Bukowski described to the police how he had been the victim of a violent home robbery, yet he later admitted that he had made the whole thing up. If it were not for an alert and suspicious police detective, Bukowski may have gotten away with his scam.

In a March 2011 episode that was scarcely reported, Fr. Brennan and his then-attorney, Richard L. DeSipio, appeared for a radio interview in Philadelphia. Near the end of the interview, Mr. DeSipio described Bukowski's elaborate falsehood and the copious details in his phony story:

"What this accuser did [in 2005], the same year that he accuses Father Brennan, he calls the police, has a detective come over to his house – I have the police report that I brought here with me – where he reports an event that never occurred. He doesn't just say, in general, a crime occurred. He says it was a home invasion, a violent assault, and a theft: That while watching television he was confronted by two men who broke into his home; that one of the subjects assaulted him with an unknown sharp object; that there was a violent struggle that lasted about a minute; that $675 that he received from an employer was stolen, a DVD, prescription medicines, and a wristwatch. He showed the police several small cuts that he inflicted on himself, that he put there. He showed them a t-shirt, that had no cuts or blood.

"Well, the police investigated. He had no employer, no one they could find. He lied about this entire event. His mother was home at the time that he alleged that this crime happened. Nothing happened.

"He pled guilty …

"It's not just a false report. It's a manipulative, deliberate, self-serving lie. What is going on in 2005 that this accuser makes up detailed stories about other people? What is he trying to get? Well, in 2005, this accuser's family filed bankruptcy. This accuser's father lost his job over in Jersey for political reasons. This accuser went to Father Brennan and another family looking for money and looking for a job. There's your motivation … The grand jury left this out of their report. They took this from the press. It's a public document. They had it … Why didn't the [grand jury] present this?"

In the interview Fr. Brennan asserted that he wants a criminal trial to clear his name.

"I'm not looking for a plea deal, not in any way, shape or form," the priest said over the airwaves.

However, in its coverage over the past year, the media has already presumed Fr. Brennan's guilt. By ignoring Bukowski's criminal background, the media has delivered a lopsided account of the facts and has done a disservice to good journalism. (For example, John P. Martin at the Philadelphia Inquirer, whose stories are often carried nationally, is already very aware of the accuser's extensive criminal past but has refused to reveal this information to his readers.)

Stay tuned.

[UPDATE (3/28/12): See this post for eye-opening new information! Accuser Bukowski has now reportedly "disavowed" an allegation against Fr. Brennan!]

For starters, journalists may wish to take a closer look at the criminal history and dubious credibility of the accuser of Fr. James Brennan. This single individual – a man by the name of Mark Bukowski – accused Fr. Brennan in 2005 of brutally raping him about a decade earlier.

But who is this man accusing Fr. Brennan? We have to dig deep to learn that this accuser:

• has multiple aliases;
• has two fraud-related criminal convictions; and
• currently sits in jail on theft and forgery charges.

On Tuesday, March 15, 2011, Fr. Brennan and his attorney, Richard L. DeSipio, appeared on the Chris Stigall Show on Talk Radio 1210, WPHT, in Philadelphia.

Near the end of the interview, Mr. DeSipio described a troubling incident in 2005, in which the accuser filed a bogus police report. With excruciating detail, the accuser described how he had been a victim of a violent home robbery. If it were not for an alert and suspicious police detective, the man may have gotten away with his ruse. Here is how Mr. DeSipio described the episode:

"What this accuser did [in 2005], the same year that he accuses Father Brennan, he calls the police, has a detective come over to his house – I have the police report that I brought here with me – where he reports an event that never occurred. He doesn't just say, in general, a crime occurred. He says it was a home invasion, a violent assault, and a theft: That while watching television he was confronted by two men who broke into his home; that one of the subjects assaulted him with an unknown sharp object; that there was a violent struggle that lasted about a minute; that $675 that he received from an employer was stolen, a DVD, prescription medicines, and a wristwatch. He showed the police several small cuts that he inflicted on himself, that he put there. He showed them a t-shirt, that had no cuts or blood.

"Well, the police investigated. He had no employer, no one they could find. He lied about this entire event. His mother was home at the time that he alleged that this crime happened. Nothing happened.

"He pled guilty …

"It's not just a false report. It's a manipulative, deliberate, self-serving lie. What is going on in 2005 that this accuser makes up detailed stories about other people? What is he trying to get? Well, in 2005, this accuser's family filed bankruptcy. This accuser's father lost his job over in Jersey for political reasons. This accuser went to Father Brennan and another family looking for money and looking for a job. There's your motivation … The grand jury left this out of their report. They took this from the press. It's a public document. They had it … Why didn't the [grand jury] present this? All we're asking for is some fairness. Present both sides."

For his part, Fr. Brennan has steadfastly maintained that he wants a criminal trial to clear his name. "I'm not looking for a plea deal, not in any way, shape or form," the priest told WPHT.

The concluding question is this: "Has the media coverage of Philadelphia reflected the tenuous claims of the accusers?" TheMediaReport.com says no, not at all. Journalists may want to stop and reflect upon the harsh lessons learned back in the 1980's in the high-profile McMartin Preschool and Gerald Amirault cases.

We must continue to demand justice and compassion for victims of clergy sexual abuse. The horror and pain of clergy abuse is all too wretched and real for countless people. But let us also demand some fairness and transparency in media coverage of this issue.

(A reminder about the cases facing trial in Philadelphia: One man has accused Fr. James Brennan of rape. Another individual, a reported heroin user, has accused three different men – Fr. Charles Engelhardt,  Edward Avery (a former priest), and Bernard Shero (a former schoolteacher) – of raping and molesting him.)

[ADDENDUM, 7/27/11: Here's another factoid that should give pause about the case against Fr. Brennan: Philadelphia does not even have prosecutorial jurisdiction over the case. Chester County does. Chester County looked at the claims against Fr. Brennan and – apparently seeing the dubiousness of the claims and the the accuser – declined to pursue the case. Philadelphia reportedly asked permission from Chester County to prosecute the case.]