Philly Priest Abuse Case STUNNER: Claim Prosecutors Withheld Evidence That Would Have Exonerated Wrongfully Convicted Priests

Rev. Charles Engelhardt : Ralph Cipriano : Bernard Shero

On the quest for justice: Journalist Ralph Cipriano (c) fights for Rev. Charles Engelhardt (l)
and former teacher Bernard Shero (r)

Prosecutors in Philadelphia deliberately withheld evidence that would have exonerated a Catholic priest and a teacher wrongfully convicted of sex abuse, according to an explosive new court filing recently uncovered in an eye-opening article by investigative journalist Ralph Cipriano.

This remarkable development now adds yet another layer to the convincing case that three men – Rev. Charles Engelhardt, former teacher Bernard Shero, as well as ex-priest Edward Avery – are most certainly in prison serving time for crimes they never committed.

The accuser at the center of this episode, Dan Gallagher (who has since moved from Philly to sunny Florida), has bizarrely and wildly claimed that during the 1998-1999 school year, when he was a 10-year-old altar boy in Philadelphia, he was viciously raped and abused – sometimes for hours on end – by three separate men (Engelhardt, Shero, and Avery), all of whom barely even knew each other.

Prosecutors withholding critical evidence from the defense

Dan Gallagher : Billy Doe Philadelphia priest abuse cases

A moment of levity behind his glasses:
accuser Dan Gallagher

According to Cipriano, defense attorneys for two of the men, Engelhardt and Shero, are asking for a new trial based on the prosecutors' alleged violation of the landmark ruling in the 1963 U.S. Supreme Court case Brady v. Maryland, which said that prosecutors cannot conceal "exculpatory evidence" that could exonerate a defendant.

Defense attorneys for the pair assert that Philly prosecutors did not disclose to them that the D.A.'s Office had interviewed a social worker who was a victims' assistance coordinator for the Archdiocese, and prosecutors did not turn over any record of what she told them.

The lawyers claim that had they known about this interview, the social worker's testimony would have corroborated a main witness in their defense, a different social worker who reinforced their case that the accuser's tales were a complete fabrication.

Adding to the mountain of evidence

And since the shocking conviction of Engelhardt and Shero in January of 2013, Cipriano has uncovered a mind-blowing mountain of evidence indicating that Gallagher most certainly falsely accused the trio of Engelhardt, Shero, and Avery:

  • Even members of the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office itself did not believe Gallagher's wild claims and questioned whether they should even put Engelhardt and Shero on trial.
  • Triple-accuser Gallagher has been arrested at least six times – once for possession of 56 bags of heroin – and has been in-and-out of some 23 drug re-habs.
    [Check out a court summary of Gallagher's extensive arrest record]
  • Gallagher even explicitly told drug counselors that he had "no history of physical or sexual abuse."
  • On three separate occasions, Gallagher told drug counselors that his older brother had been arrested for molestation. In truth, Gallagher's older brother, James Gallagher, is a recently licensed attorney in Pennsylvania and has never been arrested at all.
  • An alternate juror even came forward after the trial with the dramatic charge that the guilty verdicts against Engelhardt and Shero were "insane," "incredible," and "a tragic miscarriage of justice."
  • Fr. Engelhardt easily passed a polygraph test denying that he abused Danny or anyone, and the test administrator was a guy often hired by the Philly D.A.'s Office itself.
  • Ex-priest Avery not only passed a polygraph test indicating that he had never abused Gallagher, but he also told authorities he never even met him before. In addition, records later revealed that Gallagher never even served as an altar boy at Mass with Avery, as Gallagher had claimed.
  • Fr. Engelhardt previously waved his fifth amendment rights and voluntarily appeared before the Philadelphia grand jury, at which he asserted his innocence and testified, "I have no knowledge of who the person is. If he's sitting in this room today, I can't pick him out … I found it to be a very humbling thing to be called on the phone … when you know, there was no truth or that was something unrealistic that was happening to you."
  • Most notably, as we have relayed before, Gallagher has told separate tales of perverted abuse by the trio of men that not only defy any reasonable belief, but his tales have also varied wildly over time.

There is no doubt that a gross perversion of justice has occurred. But where is the mainstream media to report the story? As usual: Missing. In. Action.


  1. M. Baran says:

    Shoot first ask questions later.


    Makes sense.

  2. no seriously says:

    this is why we don't prematurely canonize "victims". whenever one's name pops up it is almost always someone who made a phony accusation.

    • David says:

      I don't know any priest abuse victims asking to canonized. I find your comment "almost always … a phony accusation" offensive. That is the biggest reason most people do not report, the fear of not being believed.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      No, seriously, you are nuts!

  3. Amos says:

    If prosecutorial malfeasance can be proven, the prosecutors need to be prosecuted. Minimally, their law licenses need to be revoked “in perpetuam” and the Commonwealth needs to financially remunerate the victims and display on its Commonwealth Website the hideous news that it has been a party to this travesty of justice.

  4. Hattie says:

    It is all so sad how this Nazi-style allegation has made some lawyers very rich, moved some DAs to higher political positions and at the same time destroyed others, both victims and alleged abusers.  In time God will bring truth to bear and this is only the beginning.

  5. Another Mark says:

    Very little new news here, we have heard 98% of this all before, only thing new…the claIm, prosecutors didn't mention a social worker who they say can corroborate the words of another social worker, prosecutors supposedly interviewed.  Does this happen to be the social worker who worked for the Archdiocese?  No mention of what exactly he/she can corroborate but the post seems to imply that somehow a second social worker can corroborate that everything is a complete fabrication?  I certainly can't wait to hear these details.

    Rehashing old news and just anothetr opportunioty to take more shots at the victim in this case. 


    • Mark II says:

      your ignorance to the true facts of the case are obvious. you live in a world where any person accused of sexual assault is guilty until proven innocent. unfortunately society is trained that way when a priest is involved. 

      and who gets a pass from a judge when found with 56 bags of heroin? Let me answer that one for you – the son of a Philadelphia police officer. 

  6. David says:

    It seems to me the only malfeasance in this new motion is that the defense lawyers did not depose the victim assistance coordinator for the diocese and ask her if she spoke about the case with anyone else. Also, Gallagher moving to "sunny" Florida, the defendents not admitting guilt or the views of an alternate juror are not proof of a false allegation. 

    • Mark II says:

      another stale comment from the gallery. Is this a representative from SNAP?

    • josie says:

      David—There is plenty of evidence of Dan Gallagher's false accusation. You are truly out of touch with the reality of the situation. Just the other day I met a young Philly cop, engaged to the daughter of a friend of mine, and I asked him if he was at all familiar with this case. (N.B. Not a whole lot of people are really into this these days-pretty much forgotten and moved on regardless of whether they believed any "alleged" victims or not). He said that those in the police department are aware that Danny Gallagher lied and that this was a real shame that any trial even took place. I was not surprised at his remarks. He is not the first cop that I have spoken to personally in the past few years about this. You desparately need to catch up on the details of the case. Consult of info there to help you get a grip on the truth.

  7. Publion says:

    Nothing to see here, folks, so move along … is what ‘Another Mark’ (the 4th, 802PM) would have us believe.

     While he does seem to think and write like ‘LDB’, he apparently doesn’t have LDB’s allegedly professionally-trained legal mind: he fails to take into account the context of all of this, i.e. that a District Attorney a) has demanded (and gotten) an Order to Seal, and b) has made that demand without explaining why the material should be Sealed, c) in the matter of a case where there is a possibility of demonstrable evidence of his Office’s misconduct in a criminal trial.

    Readers are welcome to imagine what they might be reading in Abusenik comments here if it was the Church that suddenly and without explanation demanded that material in an abuse case be Sealed. And if the Church had – on top of that – received such an Order to Seal.

    If this situation were based merely on some sort of Defense ploy, why would there be a need for the Order to Seal? The emptiness of such a Defense ploy (perhaps even its formal frivolity) would quickly become apparent. Especially in a court system where – with the one apparently extraordinary instance of the Superior Court’s rebuke of the trial judge in the Lynne case – the prosecution can pretty much consider jurisprudential support as guaranteed.

    And if ‘Another Mark’ had bothered to read all of the Cipriano material on the case then perhaps he wouldn’t be so confused or blasé as to the relevance and significance of the various social worker aspects.

    And it is curious how quickly Abuseniks want to dismiss as “old news” material uncongenial to the Stampede, while in regard to Stampede-useful material they are constantly dredging up “old news” from decades ago as if it were still fresh, new, relevant, and presumptively accurate and true.

    Lastly – in regard to this 802PM comment –we see yet again deployed the standard Playbook bit to the effect that questioning the problematic testimony of an allegant is pooh-poohed as merely trying “to take more shots at the victim”.

    From ‘David’ (the 4th, 812PM) we get the familiar Victimist plaint that a third-party reader finds (and pronounces) a statement to be “offensive”. I suppose he can be thank-you’d for sharing that, but if he intends his pronouncement to be some sort of squelch of what he doesn’t like to read or hear, then it won’t work here. (He may take comfort in the fact that there are many venues on the Web and even in the media where his pronouncement may indeed succeed as a squelch.)

    But that is small-change compared to his deployment of a far more significant and profoundly problematic Playbook ploy: “people do not report … [for] … fear of not being believed”.

    Do people not report fires or bank-robberies out of “the fear of not being believed”? If one knows that such an event is taking place or has taken place, does one not report it merely because one isn’t sure one will be believed? That’s a rather selfish stance to take, is it not? Who cares whether one is believed or not, if one’s (presumably true) report might summon help?

    An alternative possible explanation: People who are trying to pull scams first judge their potential (and targeted) audience to calculate the chances of their efforts bearing fruit. And if they don’t think their efforts will bear fruit, because they calculate that their potential (and targeted) audience won’t fall for their story, then they are frustrated in their efforts.

    And that casts things in a rather different light indeed. Which is why the Stampede Playbook – like the Victimist Playbook from which it is adapted – must always try to distract and squelch any discussion of such a scamming possibility: such discussion, no matter how lightly conducted, will a) complicate the Cartoon simplicity of their preferred Story-line and b) disrupt the smooth path to getting the Story accepted as true and accurate (with such remunerative consequences as might then flow from that acceptance).

    Ultimately, of course, it is built upon the Playbook presumption that to question the Story is to ‘re-victimize’ the (already presumptive) ‘victim’.

    As for the ‘David’ comment of the 4th at 826PM, I have already covered its basic bit in my response to ‘Another Mark’s comment of the 4th at 802PM.

    I don’t know why Billy Doe/Gallagher moved to Florida, although it seems a bit odd to move away just when one’s civil case is in a vital phase. And wouldn’t one want to carry-through to completion what one has (presumably honestly) begun? And wouldn’t one want to stick around and defend one’s honesty and integrity (itself at a rather crucial juncture)? Is it possible that FL might seem to be a more friendly and accepting venue for somebody ‘going after the Church’? Or are there other demographic preferences that might be at play in this?

    Or might it be more difficult for any Defense process to be served upon him there? Or any sanction for contempt of such process to be effected there? Or – if any criminal liability of his is undeniably demonstrated – would a formal demand for his extradition not depend on the very DA with whom he was in cahoots and the courts who largely supported that DA’s actions (mis-feasant or malfeasant as they may have been)?

    I have no answers to any of these questions but I will say that the one utterly non-credible explanation is that his moving to FL is simply the merest of innocent coincidences and the mere fulfillment of the childhood ‘dream’ of a Northeast urban kid to set up shop in “sunny Florida”.

    And while the points ‘David’ makes as not being “proof of a false allegation” are certainly valid, they exist in the context of – and must be considered in the light of – the stunning difficulties with the Doe/Gallagher testimony and all the other difficulties with the case.

  8. malcolm harris says:

    Have long been pessimistic about the wheels of justice turning impartially… when the court cases involve a Catholic priest. But surely the D.A. has a clear responsibility to make available, to the defence, all relevant evidence. Not to do so could be construed as withholding evidence that might have helped to aquit the defendant.

    And even last month the D.A. has succeeded in having the court records sealed. Surely this is just a cunning move to conceal what they have done. No reason was given for this unusual request. You would think that they would be morally obligated to give their reasons.

    Which prompts the question….what else are they trying to hide?

  9. Anne says:

    I knew all along that Fr. Engelhardt was innocent!  He was an associate pastor in my

    parish in Delaware & I worked in the rectory during the time he was there.  This is a disgrace that innocent men were sent to jail!  The accuser should now be in jail!!  He lied under oath & falsely accused these men of a horrific crime!

  10. MG says:

    I truly appreciate the depth of Publion.  We must teach our children to philisophically and internally ask the questions that provide depth such as that.  We must teach and demad justice.  Lawlessness and coercion is ruining individuals, families, and our Nation.  

    • malcolm harris says:

      MG comments on the 7th September…."I truly appreciate the depth of Publion". Well as an  older person, I agree with that comment. Possibly because I have witnessed a  worrying decline in the quality of debate and discussion in most western countries. This decline seems to have caused a  parallel decline in ethical standards. Which means more and more people make decisions on the pragmatic basis of… 'the end justifies the means'. For example if the end objective is to destroy an institution (like the Catholic Church) then it is done by any means they think they can get away with. They simply disregard truth and justice.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Mr Harris, according to your church's "founder". the "Catholic Church" is not able to be destroyed no matter who attacks it. So that worry should be off your fears list. That's, if your beliefs are true. A rather big "if".

       My and other catholic children's rapes weren't imagined or invented. If you have any proof they were, do bring it forward. Let us all see exactly what you have.

  11. LDB says:

    'MG' and 'Malcom Harris' and the other cheerleaders only like Publion's writing because he is on the side that they are on, the RCC side of the sex abuse scandal. Neither avatar is in a position to appreciate the so-called 'depth of Publion' [sic] because both of them would be out of their depth in a puddle. They are just fans. They enjoy sticking their heads out the window during each ride they take in Publion's information-tsunami style, WWII-obsessed postings vehicle.

    I have not commented on the horrendous screen-capture pictures that typically accompany the TMR articles. I should start.

    Going by the costume that he is wearing in the picture above, I wonder if Bernard Shero is aware that it is no longer the 1950's. He looks like he has a high-pitched nasally voice and only says the most annoying things. His unavoidably stupid statements are always punctuated by the irritation his appearance produces. Is the picture of Ralph Cipriano so cropped in order to exclude the 55 gallon steel drum over which he is warming his hands? What a tired, bloated, rough-looking citizen. Just like the Philidelphia commercial says, "There's so much culture here." And Ralph embodies it. Look at him, mouth agape. Ease up on the cheesesteaks, Ralph, and you may be able to breathe through your nose again someday. Engelhardt looks like another squinty-eyed, slack-jawed gawker but we would expect no less from a man who has lived his life doing the easiest pretend job in the world, catholic priest. 

    I had to say two masses today and avoid three knuckle-head parishioners who wanted to talk and then I headed out of town for my 'days off'. Whew! Most priests will tell you how busy they are and how stressful their jobs are. They are liars, trying to impress with how necessary and important they are. Being in the world but not of the world is soooo hard. Huh? They only tough part of the priest's job is celebacy, if he is one of the few that actually take that seriously.

    • Mark II says:

      what little value you bring to the discussion. No input, just an attack on individuals you have never seen in person or do not know. My guess from your cowardness would be that you were bullied as a child and now find comfort in your later years by hiding behind a keyboard and code name and sounding off on others. 

    • LDB: We may be ugly but we're telling the truth.


  12. Publion says:

    In regard to the most recent comments of ‘MG’ and ‘Malcolm Harris’: Thanks and I would follow those thoughts by saying that using a rational thought process to examine the Stampede is indeed the value I see in this site: DP puts up material and we can then look at that material and discuss.

    But ‘Malcolm Harris’ is also right, I would say, that the skills and even mental stance necessary for such examination are not often found these days, especially a) in the media and public conversation, and b) especially around the precincts of the internet.

    One reason for (a), I think, is the quality of education as it has increasingly become more centered on feeling and feelings and less on thinking and thoughts. Feminism and what I would call Victimism have certainly contributed to this, and before that – going back almost 50 years – we saw that in the light of numerous government-embraced (and –imposed) broad social initiatives that were ‘Correct’ (that old totalitarian bit) in regard to which therefore no critical analysis (especially in regard to costs and consequences) could be permitted.

    And it is for this reason that even collegiate education is no longer so much the education into strenuous critical thinking about carefully and laboriously acquired facts but rather has become merely socialization into holding and tossing-around the ‘Correct’ stance and attitudes and ‘feelings’.

    Universities – and earlier institutions such as high-school and even K-12 – have increasingly become a modern equivalent of 19th century ‘utopian communities’ where the primary objective is merely to socialize and indoctrinate and to create( somebody’s idea of) the perfect community.

    Needless to say, a citizenry increasingly ‘educated’ in this way (and ‘educated’ out of the skills and stance of genuinely rational and critical thinking) is going to be far more prone to manipulation. And thus genuine democratic politics and governance diminishes as the citizenry becomes ever-more manipulable by government and elites.

    And in regard to (b), we have seen as well the ‘democratization’ in commenting which actually is far too nice a term for the type of ‘thinking’ (‘cognitive processing’ is probably more accurate, since competent thought doesn’t often seem to enter into it) that one encounters in high-school cafeterias and pubs or bars (high, medium, and low). Which – as we have seen in the Stampede – provides useful sound-bites for government and elites, amplified by manipulation-friendly media.

    Bringing all of this closer to the Stampede, I have recently read Boston-focused historian Philip F. Lawler’s nicely-titled The Faithful Departed (the 2010 revised edition of the original 2008 book). This is a book that uses the history of the Archdiocese of Boston as an example of the larger trends in the U.S. Catholic Church’s experience in this country, from the beginning to the present-day.

    It is well-worth the read and I find much in it with which to agree. He is especially cogent in his primary concern that over the course of the 20th century the American bishops became less grounded in their utterly vital spiritual responsibilities and more concerned with their role as administrators and iconic figures in the Church as a social and cultural institution. This dovetails with my imagery of prelates as having become commanders of ‘the City Cohorts’ as opposed to ‘the legions’, using the old Roman military terms.

    He centers his concerns – rightly so, I would say – on the bishops themselves and their utterly vital role in the Catholic schema.

    And beneath his treatment there lies the question as to the Church’s proper stance-toward and position-in any particular culture in which she finds herself: does she i) seek to become completely immersed in that culture (providing, as it were, ‘benefit of clergy’ or ‘benefit of Gospel’ to whatever that particular culture embraces or ii) take a substantially oppositional stance to everything in that culture that she finds unacceptable or iii) maintain a demanding and complex role that balances support for the best in the culture with acute and forthright witness against the anti-Gospel aspects of that particular culture?

    As you might imagine, (iii) is probably the best route, but it is also the most demanding, and it demands a very high caliber of bishop.

    This necessity or imperative has always been true in the Church’s history, but certainly became even more acute as the concept of ‘Christendom’ faded with the dawn of Modernity and most surely became more acute in Europe as it ‘modernized’ and in the U.S., which suddenly appeared on the stage just as the Enlightenment mind (and heart) was seeking to create perfect – though formally secular – communities, and has become even more acute in the past half-century in the U.S., which has seen both Vatican 2 and the massive government-embraced cultural revolution (and ‘culture wars’).

    And Lawler has some excellent points to make about the gaping difference between what the Council known as Vatican 2 actually called-for and what the American Catholic episcopacy and clergy and theological elites called “the spirit of Vatican 2”, especially during the 1960s and 1970s.

    I would add here that Lawler has some remarkably incisive comments to make about the interplay between the New England region (or Province) of Jesuits – centered in Boston College – and the Democratic ‘liberal’ interests starting in the 1960s. It is especially thought-provoking as he describes a July 1964 informal gathering of selected Jesuit theological and political types (Jesuit Fr. Drinan, who would later go on to election to Congress, figures largely here) under the auspices of the Kennedy interests at their family compound in Hyannisport.

    Readers may recall that 1964 was the year of the passage of the federal and national Civil Rights Act. Almost simultaneously, this little gathering was called to consider how Democrats might – without running afoul of the cover of legitimate Catholic thought and doctrine – support abortion. Readers might further recall that in that year and for some years thereafter ‘abortion’ was not a major topic of public concern. Yet the Kennedy interests were already working quietly on how to position the Democrats in regard to it and this group of Jesuits was there to advise on how the whole thing might be arranged without too much complication (providing, as it were, ‘benefit of clergy’ to the political calculations).

    The dynamics of that strategizing, based on JFK’s position enunciated to a major gathering of Protestant ministers in Dallas before the 1960 election (his ‘private’ religious principles would not interfere with his ‘public’ political decisions), make for very interesting reading – theological as well as conceptual and historical – indeed.

    And the roles of both long-lived early-mid 20th century Boston prelates – the self-consciously princely William Cardinal O’Connell (1907-1944) and the folksy (and Kennedy-favorite) Richard Cardinal Cushing (1944-1970) – are also thought-provoking in that regard. (Teaser: the folksy Cushing had such a get-along-to-go-along approach to doctrinal matters and perhaps such a personal connection to the Kennedy interests that he let an awful lot of problematic developments go un-challenged and even supported some of them, using JFK’s (highly problematic) tactic of casting religious and theological beliefs as personal and thus of no relevance to public activity.)

    While Lawler is no ‘liberal’ (as the term is defined these days) he is adamant in his holding the episcopacy to account for the conceptual and theological marginalization of the Church and of Catholic life and thought in this country – and long before the Stampede.

    He also holds the episcopacy to primary account for what we now know as the well-documented spike in claims of clerical abuse (although the spike has now passed) dating to those years of the 1960s and 1970s.

    But I would also note that it is precisely his overriding objective of demonstrating how the American episcopacy needs to be spackled-up that leads him to make the mistake of presuming that all of the allegations are genuine.

    Nor is he even-handed here: he criticizes the post-2002 reports made by Dioceses in regard to their compliance with the Dallas protocols because all there is to go on are the self-report statements of the bishops themselves, and he doesn’t think they can be taken as completely valid simply because the bishops say so. Yet he makes no such criticism of the self-reported (and equally self-interested) claims and stories and allegations lodged against the Church and he presumes their accuracy and veracity without further comment or assessment.

    I have no doubt that some abuse occurred but I am highly doubtful as to the Stampede vision that there were virtually innumerable such instances of actual and valid ‘abuse’ (however defined) and that the Church is or was therefore an egregiously and uniquely and fundamentally flawed institution in which such abuse (and far too laxly handled episcopal oversight) was the primary operative dynamic driving the Church’s activities.

    The book is well worth it as a highly readable and clear discussion of the interplay of Catholic thought and praxis in this country. And it might provide a valuable example of the type of careful and critical thinking that more citizens (and Catholics) could read to grasp the fundamentals of competent knowledge-gathering and then of discussion and assessment based on that foundation.

  13. Publion says:

    When I put up my immediately previous comment above, the LDB comment of the 8th at 1050AM was not up.

    Thus, LDB returns – but as if de novo, as usual, and with no reference to the ever-increasing number of responsive points to his dubious material, which he does not choose to address and in reference to which he characteristically does not choose to continue ‘discussion’.

    Be that as it may.

    We are informed that those here who like my comments merely do so “because [I am] on the same side that they are on”. And LDB ‘knows’ this because … ? Or perhaps – as usual – the Abusenik mind is merely confusing and conflating its own spin for any other actualities.

    And all of this assertion is reinforced not by any cogent rational demonstration of reasoning, but rather – as usual – by epithet: those commenters who like my comments “would be out of their depth in a puddle” (stage direction: all the other Abuseniks around the cafeteria table chuckle and guffaw appreciatively).

    And also in regard to those commenters: “they are just fans”. Trust LDB – he ‘knows’ this.

    This trope then trails off in a dog’s breakfast of riffy references to tsunamis and some vehicle in which they are taking a ride and “sticking their heads out the window” and – with a dash of clinically-pretentious epithet – my “WWII-obsessed postings”. I consider my references to WW2 (or WW1 or any other military historical references) to be relevant and usefully informative. If LDB has any specific reference that he feels doesn’t perform in that regard, he is welcome to quote it (accurately) and explain his assessment. (Let us not postpone our next meal while waiting for it.)

    We are then given LDB’s guided tour of the “horrendous screen-capture pictures” that “typically accompany the TMR articles”. Horrendous? Let’s see.

    Bernard Shero is taken to task for the style of his clothes and “costume” (he is wearing a hat); Shero apparently isn’t “aware that it is no longer the 1950s”. That is followed by an LDB riff on what LDB imagines Shero’s voice to sound like; epithetical characterizations of “annoying” and “stupid” are tossed up on the screen (and without a hint of self-aware irony, either; the dynamics of clinical projection appear to be lost on LDB).

    Ralph Cipriano is taken to task for apparently being – to LDB’s acute powers of observation – some sort of homeless ranting type, “tired, bloated” and “a rough-looking citizen”. Which then, apropos of nothing, leads to the addition of an epithetical riff on the culture of the city of Philadelphia itself.

    Then – pitch-perfectly – some cafeteria riffs on too many “cheesesteaks” and Mr. Cipriano being a mouth-breather. (And by this point one wonders: what sort of not-altogether pleasant or well character would commit itself to putting up material such as we have in this comment of LDB’s?)

    Then Fr. Englehardt is given a turn as well: “squinty-eyed, slack-jawed gawker” who doth merely “pretend to be a Catholic priest”. LDB knows this because he has looked at the photo.

    And this leads – apropos of whatever – to an assertive LDB riff on “most priests” being “liars” if they tell you how busy they are, “trying to impress with how necessary and important they are”. Although did not LDB – in former screen-name incarnations – try to impress readers here with claims (thoroughly unsupported by his performance in comments on this site) to being a Harvard-trained Philosophy major and a law-school graduate (who, however, doesn’t actually practice the law profession in trials)?

    And – rather remarkably given his claimed education and possible (if former) Catholicism – he then misspells “celibacy” while trying to wrap this whole thing up with a nifty epithet.

    Yet – along with other Abuseniks – he expects to be taken “seriously” on the basis of the stuff we have all seen in the record here.

    And that’s it.

    And what “horrendous” have we been shown in the photos?

    Actually, if there is anything “horrendous” in all of this, it is the revelation of the mind and character of LDB.

  14. Jim Robertson says:

    Honestly you get funnier and funnier, P.

    Still stuck in the lunchroom and pretending the rest of us force you to be there? Your projections are nothing if not redundant and deluded and deeply sad.

    I don't see how you have any moral ground on which to stand. Using the good old days as being more moral is a standard right wing play that doesn't stand. It just doesn't hold true at all.

    You are upset that your church got caught with our pants down; and for the first time ever is being held to account for it, barely. But you even hate the "barely".

    And now you've got your Australian pal running the same nonsense. 2 idiots saying "things used to be more moral" don't make your arguments true. Was Auschwitz more moral than Viet Nam or the Iraq invasion? Was institutional racism more moral than equality? The right wing always harkens back to "whiter" days when things were so much better. Better for who? White heterosexua male supremesists?

    LDB, I don't judge books by their covers. I've seen to much shit attempting to pass itself off as shinola. I don't care what people look like. I care what they do.


  15. Publion says:

    There is now a comment up under JR’s screen-name that was not up when I posted my immediately previous comment at 449PM on the 8th.

    Readers are welcome to click back to the end of the comment-thread on the immediately previous TMR article (“SNAP lies about status of priest”) to the last two comments, which are vividly revelatory one-liners by JR: the latter demonstrating merely a repetition of his belief that ‘faith’ and ‘imagination’ are the same thing and the former what I think is indicative of the essential JR.

    That having been accomplished, one can then click back to look at the present comment under JR’s name (the 8th, 536PM): folksy and almost whimsically gentle in tone, multi-paragraph in format, and with only a very few misspellings.

    But the content remains Abusenik, and merely repeats Playbook gambits that have already been exposed. But the repetition itself indicates that either JR can do nothing more than repeat his few 3x5s time after time, or else whoever is the actual source of this comment’s text hasn’t kept up to date on the various exchanges (so to speak) with JR and we wind up simply going over the same bits over and over again.

    Thus I am – try to follow the bouncing ball of its thought here – “pretending” that “the rest of us” do “force” me to be “stuck in the lunchroom”. I pretend nothing; the quality of the material submitted strikes me as being the same old juvenilia so characteristic of a high-school cafeteria mentality and JR (or the actual source for this comment) has not proffered anything here to demonstrate how the content under discussion is not indicative of such a mentality.

    The comment then attempts to deploy the concept of “projections”, but does so merely by parroting the word itself, without explaining how the dynamics of projection might be demonstrated by my use of the cafeteria imagery. Its author is clearly not clear on the concept of clinical projection.

    Then a Wig, that of Bemused and Regretful Sadness at my “projections” being “redundant and deluded”. If by “redundant” the comment means that I keep coming back to the same assessments, then that would be because the material I am assessing remains the same (poor) quality. And “deluded” here remains nothing more than a content-less and unsupported epithet.

    Then just another unsupported epithet, this time masked in the Wig of Frustrated Intelligence, to the effect that the author of the comment cannot or does not “see how you have any moral ground on which to stand”. As I said, no explanation of that bit at all. And if we are to believe that JR is the author of the text of this comment, then let us be spared a contemplative recitation of the many things that JR cannot “see”.

    Then a riff on “pants down” and “barely” – which might get a positive tick in a sophomore composition class but otherwise doesn’t do much here at all.

    Then a whack at me and my “Australian pal” with whom I – in JR’s or the author’s mind – am in some sort of offsite cahoots (and this actually demonstrates the concept of projection, since actually it seems that a couple-three Abuseniks are actually communicating among themselves offsite to coordinate or otherwise combine their commenting efforts, as demonstrated by the similarities I have noted many times here).

    But ‘Malcolm Harris’ – who is presumably my “Australian pal” – comes to his insights without any offsite communication with me. If he notices similar phenomena, then that is ascribable to the fact that there is actually something there that is clear to different observers; nor do we have vivid similarities in style and tone; nor do we demonstrate notable inconsistencies in tone and style from one comment to the next, as certain Abusenik commenters demonstrate so clearly from time to time.

    And then we must imagine that either JR cannot recall what he has written in prior comments or else someone else has written the text of this comment and that someone has not bothered to read the actual material involved: it was not me but JR who – in reference to the Democratic convention topic on the immediately previous thread – tried to put forward the thought that the times were less “moral” back in the pre-New Left era and/or more “moral” nowadays.

     Nor did I make any comment accurately quotable as “things used to be more moral”. That entire conceptualization of a historical issue is far too vague and diffuse to be of any use, and I would never use it. It was JR’s (or somebody who was the source of his comments) back on the previous thread. And again: either a) he can’t remember his own position from thread to thread or else b) the author of this present comment under his name is not JR himself and hasn’t bothered to do his homework (which neatly brings us back to the cafeteria again, does it not?).

    And there’s the epithetical and juvenile “2 idiots”, as if epithet can substitute for serious demonstration and rational thought (which, again, brings us right back to the high-school cafeteria mentality).

    Thus the entire “Australian pal” paragraph fails because either its actual author didn’t do his homework or its presumed author is clearly not capable of keeping track of the coherence of his own ideas.

    Then – most very uncharacteristically – JR turns on LDB, whose extended bits JR is most often seen cheerleading with content-less one-liner ‘attaboys’; JR will simultaneously lecture LDB and reach for the self-applauding Wig of Moral High Ground (i.e. JR doesn’t “judge books by their covers” because JR has “seen to [sic] much shit attempting to pass itself off as shinola”). This is clearly too much divergence in authorial approach (although it is reminiscent of the mentality and approach of at least one more convoluted Abusenik commenter who has ceased his exertions on this site).

    But I agree with the basic idea of the text’s concluding flourish: I too have seen too much stuff trying to pass itself off as “shinola” in certain comments on this site. And I consider what people write to be as revelatory as what they “do”’ “words are actions” as one philosopher put it. (And again we see the juvenile, cafeteria gambit of trying to spiff up poor quality of content by deploying scatological bits.)

    Finally, in regard to all that, I would recommend that Abuseniks get themselves up to speed on the dynamics of projection, since they keep tripping themselves up on those very dynamics; and the most recent example of that is this entire ‘shit from shinola’ bit.

    And goodnight, JR’s actual source, wherever you are.

  16. Jim Robertson says:

    It's so interesting, to me; that you take my comments ; pretend they are by someone else; and then throw my words back at me with the exact same amount of analytical support that you claim i use. Analytical support you say i don't show.

    The difference is I made my analysis. I made my imagry. You steal mine and pretend it to be yours because, it seems, that you only use your imagination when it comes to deities and demons. Never when it comes to choosing imagery to back up your bullshit raps. ("lunch room" for, example.)

    You are a bore; a thief; and a bad joke.

    In the two years I've been posting here; never once have you "acted" as an equal to your opposition, as in: you're a person and so am I; but only as a "superior" informing the "lesser thans". An interesting tact given a) you aren't superior; and b) you are an apologist for child rapers and their enablers. Prove they aren't.

    When I speak to people here as equals, because they are my equal. You demean it as a "fireside chat".

    You lack humility, P.

    When you truely, have so very much to be humble about.

  17. LDB says:

    What I did when I commented on this TMR article’s pictures was just comment on and read into the images. That is what they are there for, right? They make impressions.

    Look at the purposefully selected photo of Dan Gallagher in this TMR article. The accompanying caption calls the reader's/viewer's attention to the fancy sun glasses worn by Dan by pointing out the 'levity behind the glasses'. The 'levity' is right out in front of the glasses in the form of a smile. Why mention the glasses? Why only mention the glasses and not the hat? Well, the picture and the caption are used here to portray Dan Gallagher with his gaudy sun glasses as a punk, who hides his eyes, and mocks you by laughing and sticking out his tongue. If terrible things happened to him, he should be sad, right? He lied. And he got away with it. And now he is gleeful and laughing at everyone he stole from and/or got into trouble. These sorts of impressions are what this picture is obviously meant to convey. This picture, above others, was selected for this and other reasons but the taunting punk image is sufficient.

    So I wrote down the impressions conveyed by the other pictures that accompany the article. And, not to judge a book by its cover, I already knew a bit about each of the people that I mocked from news stories and blogs. So if anyone thinks that Ralph is not bloated or that Bernard is not anachronistically dressed, prove that they are not. All that Publion did was criticize my lack of discretion.

    In mocking these pictured people, I was just doing the sort of thing that everyone else was doing with Dan Gallagher. I wrote my impressions in the comments section just like others have done.  Publion did not like that I did that and disparaged me for it. Oh well.

    On projection, I am aware that I have faults. These faults are not necessarily, however, the same faults that I mock or criticize in others or accuse others of having. Because I am aware of tmy faults, there can be no irony present in my comments. Also, because no one commenting knows whether or not I am, for example, overweight, it cannot be correctly said that I am 'projecting' when pointing out Ralph Cipriano's bloated appearance in a photo. To say that I am projecting is just speculation. For instance, I speculate that Publion is very fat because, from his comments, he reads and writes quite a lot. And while such things are good for the mind, they are usually not for the body. Mens sana does not necessarily reside in corpore sano. And in saying that, I am not granting Publion a compos mentis.

    Also, Publion, please stop repeating the various forms of the line, "who, however, doesn’t actually practice the law profession in trials." You have said this several times before and repeat it parenthetically in the comments above. I get why you say it. You are skeptical about my merely asserted educational and professional background. That is fine. But when you say this line, you sound like you do not know anything about legal practice.

    There are many jobs for lawyers and trial lawyer is only one of the many, or two of the many, in case you want to consider prosecution and defense separately. Most lawyers do not go to court and argue cases. Most are in transactional and administrative and consultative and agency roles. By analogy, you sound like a guy who says that he finds it hard to believe that this woman earned an MBA and works in business because she admittedly does not work as an investment banker and, in your opinion, could not possibly cut it as one. All she said was that she is in 'business'. Saying that one is in 'business' is a very broad assertion and I would argue that saying that one is a 'lawyer' is an equally broad assertion. So you are not introducing much doubt when you repeat your variously worded, 'Not a trial lawyer? Then what?'-sort of statements.

    But that is your whole game, right. Just doubt. How do we sort out the ‘genuine’ victims from the ‘otherwise classifiable’ in these so called ‘historical’ cases? The answer is that you don't. You can't. There is always at least one unanswered/unanswerable question in each case. You are just agnostic when it comes to the sexual abuse of minors by roman catholic clergy. And so it all ends right there for you. For example, even if a priest admitted to claimed sexual abuse, you could speculate that he was pressured to do so or temporarily deluded into thinking that he did that of which he was accused. These things could be true and they could be true every time in every case. Your position that the genuine victims are not known/knowable is unfalsifiable. And so everyone will just have to move forward and hope that the next time that a priest rapes or otherwise sexually abuses a minor, the act is somehow recorded on video with the priest’s consent so that it will be admissible into evidence in a court of law.



  18. Publion says:

    Well, it appears that the Abuseniks have either a) suddenly developed extended-composition skills (which they had for so very long so very thoroughly hidden from us here) or b) have spent quite a frenetic day consulting with their source(s).

    No matter. As I have said before, the Wig can mimic, but it cannot actually i) compensate for a lack of actuality and substantive content or ii) hide the fundamental actualities.

    So let’s get on to the recent crop.

    On the 9th at 1111AM JR declares that something is “interesting” to him; this is rather interesting in itself.

    If JR can perhaps give us an accurately-quoted example of where I deploy only “the exact same amount of analytical support” that I claim he uses, then perhaps we could get down to specific cases in regard to his claim in the first paragraph. Otherwise this is simply a wordy variant of his signature and juvenile I’m Not/You Are comeback.

    He continues with this new toy by then – the second paragraph – referring to his “analysis”. But the statement “I made my analysis. I made my imagry” (sic) makes no sense as written (even if one corrects for the misspelling). He then claims – as best I can determine – that I “steal” his (analysis and imagery, presumably) and “pretend it to be” mine. If – again – he might produce an accurate quotation to exemplify this bit then that would be nice; otherwise it remains nothing but a dubious abstraction of an assertion.

    Then the bit about my only using my imagination “when it comes to deities and demons”. But have I not been using metaphors and analogies in regard to the Stampede? Or perhaps – in an example of projection – one is working with “deities and demons” when one is working with Abuseniks and the Stampede?

    How “lunch room” is a “for, example” (sic) of anything … is anybody’s guess.

    Then, yielding to the inexorable cafeteria need for epithet, JR delivers a string of them: I am a “bore; a thief; and a bad joke”. As if the epithetical can substitute for solid content.

    But then an actually interesting bit: I have never “’acted’ as an equal to [my] opposition”. Apparently then, one must presume – without any corroborating or sustaining evidence – that all internet material is “equal” and thus the commenters are as well (in regard to the quality of their material). That is a presumption that I am certainly not going to make, since the material I have had to respond-to is what it is.

    We see here, though, the internet-Age presumption that since all persons are “equal”, then all of their material is somehow “equal” – which doesn’t follow at all. The key axis of comparison here would be the material, not the person putting the material up. And thus I would say that No, not all material is “equal”.

    But it is ever the Victimist signature move to try to somehow make oneself into some sort of Victim: in this instance, JR is trying to make himself the victim of not being considered “equal”, when actually he is the victim of his own material.

    Thus JR’s take on my “interesting tact” (presumable correction: tactic) fails because we are actually comparing material and not persons.

    Readers may peruse the JR material now in the record on this site and consider what might be his conception of what it means to “speak to people here as equals”.

    And then the familiar bit about my being “an apologist for child rapers and their enablers”. This assertive characterization is accompanied by no supporting material for its “analysis” whatsoever.

    Then the illogic demonstrated in the concluding bit of this bit: “Prove they aren’t.” My entire point over the years here has been that the Stampede and the Abuseniks cannot prove the Stampede fever-vision that all of the accused are guilty. And – perhaps LDB can educate JR on this legal point – the necessity is for the accuser to do the proving against the accused, which is precisely what has not happened in the Stampede cases.

    If JR can produce any accurate quotation of mine characterizing anything on this site as a “fireside chat” he can do so. (Let’s not postpone our next meal waiting for that one.)

    Then the Wig of Insightful Judgment, insufficiently masking yet another epithet: I “lack humility”. If this is a conclusion based on what JR has produced in his foregoing material in this comment, then it becomes clear why this bit fails. If it is, in the alternative, merely a plop-toss from far left field, then let it remain that.

    And that’s all, folks.

    Moving on then to LDB (the 9th at 303PM).

    He now would have us believe that when he carried on about the “horrendous” photos accompanying TMR articles he was merely trying to “comment on” and “read into” those images. (Is the difference between those two activities clear to him?) And thus all we were supposed to think we were getting from him were his “impressions” (as in stand-up comedy?).

    In response to which I would only say that he started out characterizing the images as “horrendous” and then gave nothing that even approaches “horrendous”. At the best, he is not much of a ‘commenter’ or ‘read-into-er’.

    But the bit about “that’s what they are there for, right?” is revealing: “impressions” and accurate analysis seem to be conflated and confused in LDB’s mind. Add that to the list of all the other confusions and conflations we have seen in the Abusenik mentality and material.

    Then he adds his “impressions” of the photograph – clearly taken w the subject’s knowledge – of Doe/Gallagher. And then apparently he is on about the fact that the caption does not completely break-down and assess and discuss the photo; that’s not what captions do. The caption, we recall, is: “A moment of levity behind his glasses: accuser Dan Gallagher”.

    Does the caption indicate anything that is not demonstrated in the photo? Are there no sunglasses? Is there no smile to indicate the levity? The caption accurately describes, without reading-into the photo.

    But LDB now proceeds to judge the caption (and TMR’s editorial intent) by i) reading into the photo LDB’s own ‘take’, then ii) confusing and conflating that ‘take’ for TMR’s intent, and then iii) taking issue with that confusion/conflation which is actually LDB’s and not TMR’s (thus the usual Abusenik pillow-fight with his own preferred created phantasm).

    Although, nicely, LDB then goes and gives us an interesting take on Doe/Gallagher: he is “a punk” “with his gaudy sunglasses”, “who hides his eyes, and mocks you by laughing and sticking out his tongue”. I think I can see that too (although there is no sticking out of the tongue that I can see, so LDB has created something that isn’t actually there … not an unfamiliar problem with Abuseniks).

    But the rest of that long paragraph simply descends further into LDB’s personal eructations and it is what it is.

    But in the final analysis, the photograph is the responsibility of Doe/Gallagher, and any “impressions” – whatever they may be – are dependent on Doe/Gallagher’s originally allowing himself to be photographed in that pose and costume. LDB seems to be going-for the idea of Doe/Gallagher being – as   it were – a victim of other persons’ impressions of him … the classic Victimist gambit.

    So LDB has gone and given us a take (“the taunting punk”) on Doe/Gallagher that is LDB’s responsibility, and not that of the rather stick-to-the-facts-of-the-photo caption. And Doe/Gallagher provided the material (i.e. himself as shown in the photo) upon which LDB then built these “impressions” of his.

    But somehow he will try to pin the blame on either TMR for “selecting” the photo or readers for forming the “impressions” that he himself has so vividly outlined. Nothing new there.

    But he still has to deal with the problem of those “horrendous” photos at the top of the TMR article here. Those are, I would point out, not actually “the impressions conveyed by the other pictures that accompany the article”; actually, they are LDB’s own “impressions” of those photos (which, we recall, certainly did not justify his opening characterization of “horrendous”).

    He then claims that he “knows a bit about each of the people he mocked” (nice admission, there) … but his ‘knowledge’ is “from news stories and blogs”. One can only wonder what stories and – oy – “blogs” he trawled and trawls.

    And does he also “know a bit” about all priests being lazy and so on and so forth? Or what article or “blog” did he get that from?

    Then – in a remarkable synchronicity with JR in his most recent comment – he says that we should “prove they are not” in regard to his characterizations of the three men in the photos at the top of the article. But it isn’t, primarily, a matter of whether the gentlemen are or are not what LDB opines they are; it is that none of what LDB has presented justifies “horrendous” as a characterization. But is that thinking-too-much? Or is that “picayune” or “quibbling”? That’s what Abuseniks so often say when you try to get to the bottom of their dubious material. And they do tend to confuse and conflate; it’s either a deeply-ingrained mental habit or else it’s a strictly adhered-to stratagem.

    So … No, ‘all I did’ was not simply to criticize LDB’s “lack of discretion”. I criticized the irrelevance of his “impressions”, their failure to justify his initial characterization, and only lastly the fundamentally queasy and adolescent nastiness of them.

    But he then confuses and conflates even further: he was “just doing the same sort of thing that everyone else was doing” (a classic excuse) … “with Dan Gallagher”. But it wasn’t anybody else except LDB who put up the “taunting punk” impressions, so this excuse bit fails spectacularly.

    Thus too, none of this reduces to my merely ‘not liking’ what LDB did. His material was – shall I say it? – “limp”, and vividly and irrationally so.

    Oh well.

    He then turns his mind to the issue of “projection”. A bit, then, about his having “faults”. He is, however – he assures us – “aware of [his] faults”. I personally find that claim less-than-credible but that’s just my impression. However, he builds his little conceptual block-pile on that assumption: since he is aware of himself so totally, then “there can be no irony present in [his] comments”.

    But he is not accurate in his understanding of “projection”, and so he seems to think that calling Ralph Cipriano “bloated” therefore cannot be “projection” because he – LDB – is not himself “overweight”. That’s not how “projection” actually works: in “projection” one unconsciously projects one’s own unpleasant issues or characteristics onto another person without realizing it, and thus one reveals things about oneself that one does not acknowledge.

    And if LDB is not himself ‘overweight’, then he is not projecting; he is simply displaying a repellent juvenile tendency to make fun of persons he doesn’t like or wants to hurt. Charming. But it’s not “projection”.

    But if a person continuously sees, for example, lying and laziness and treachery and deceit in everybody else (or a specific group of persons) but not in oneself, then there is ample ground to consider as a strong possibility that such a person is “projecting” and that you are thus dealing with a person who is him/herself lying and lazy and treacherous and deceitful and doesn’t consciously realize it. That’s how it works.

    We then conclude that paragraph (beginning with “On projection …”) with a riffy confusion of Latin bits that apparently are meant to bolster the idea that Ralph Cipriano does not conform to classical maxims of health, either in body or – LDB will stretch it – mind.

    And then the utterly nonsensical statement that LDB is “not granting Publion a compos mentis”. Which, prescinding from the failures in the transposition of Latin grammar here, apparently equates to LDB insinuating that I am not sane. Oh well.

    But now – finally, after quite a long time – LDB (formerly ‘Boston Survivor’, formerly ‘Learned Counsel’) addresses the question of his claimed educational and professional creds. The upshot of this wordy bit is that I “sound like [I] do not know anything about legal practice”. Really?

    Apparently, we are told, “there are many jobs for a lawyer and trial lawyer is only one of the many” (we can skip the filler about the distinction between “prosecution and defense”). Yes, so far so true.

    We can then skip the distracting creation of the “women” bit.

    He wants to go for the point that saying he is a “lawyer” (albeit one who does not do trial work) is equivalent to saying one is “in business”. And that’s sort of true. But so what? I said he is – by his own report under a long-ago screen-name – an attorney who doesn’t’ do trial work. Is my statement not accurate? Is my report of his self-report long ago not accurate?

    I have also said that in all the legal-connected issues we have discussed on this site over time, he has never displayed the capacities of a mind that has successfully completed a law-school education. His material displays no interest in the legal aspect of Stampede issues, his mentation is surely not that of somebody trained to analyze and carefully reason and carefully state conclusions, and all of that is on top of the fact that when not wearing a Wig he pretty much displays the mentation and temperament and tone of a no-homework, plop-tossing, ballcap-on-sideways slacker in the high-school cafeteria.

    So his disquisition on the breadth of occupational sub-specialties for attorneys functions as nothing but a distraction from the basic issue (or gravamen) here. And did the gravamen escape his trained legal mind here? Or did he realize it but then deliberately compose this disquisition to avoid it and distract us from it? Or is the whole law-school bit a fabrication? I don’t know. But I know what I have read at length from him here.

    However, on the basis of his foregoing disquisition he will then try to conclude by building upon it: my “whole game” is to “just doubt”. Is that not something lawyers are trained to do, either in prosecution or defense work, or in any transactional activity where one must protect the client’s interests from any possible false statements or presentations proffered by others that might work against the client’s interests?

    Of course, one then must work to resolve one’s doubt – preferably (and professionally) by working to ascertain as clear and full a picture of the facts and actualities (and evidence) as possible. Which is what I have tried to do on this site, at great length.

    Then, on the basis of his “doubt” bit, LDB will try to tackle the utterly fundamental question of how to “sort out the ‘genuine’ victims from the ‘otherwise classifiable’”.

    He answers the question: “You can’t”. And at this point, I would say, any mind trained in the law must be alive with jangling and ominous alarm-bells.

    But not LDB.

    Because – ya see – “there is always at least one unanswered/unanswerable question in each case”. Yes, that’s so true as to constitute a legal truism.

    But it is also – by amazing coincidence – not the gravamen here. When that one unanswerable question (which we should just let-be and get on with the conviction) is whether there is any evidence that the accused committed the very act for which s/he is charged, then we are not talking about an incidental mystery in the case … we are talking about the fundamental legitimacy of the case. And that makes all the difference here.

    Thus if I am being “just agnostic when it comes to the sexual abuse of minors by Roman Catholic clergy” (correction supplied) then we have (through incompetence or design) a multiple false presentment of my position. I have said on this site, and recently, that I have “no doubt” that some abuse and abusive priests (however defined) existed.

    What I have doubted is the “Stampede fever-vision” that a) there are and always have been ‘countless’ numbers of such abusers and of genuine victims, and that b) the entire Church almost from her inception has been nothing but a Mafia-like organized criminal enterprise to aid and abet and enable child abuse and rapine, and that c) this constitutes – functionally if not doctrinally – the end-all and be-all of the Catholic Church and always has.

    And I have examined any material that has come here with an eye to the very strong probability that that Stampede fever-vision, working in through the powerful synergies I have outlined at length in my various comments, has created a phantasm created to ‘stampede’ public opinion and to effect, in the process, grave distortions in law and jurispraxis as well.

    And if any of my assessments of such material as we have seen on this site have failed in the integrity of the process by which I have analyzed them, then LDB – with his claimed trained legal mind – has not ever made any comments addressing the integrity of that assessment on the basis of such objections as would occur to a trained legal mind.

    And instead we have only the misch of Playbook gambits and material from LDB that is now in the record here.

    And does LDB care to assert outright that there is no generally acknowledged difficulty in the legal forum with admissions or confessions that are coerced or seduced (by means of a plea bargain or outright immunity)? Or that are made under sotto-voce advice of counsel in light of factors extraneous to the Charge(s) that would not be sufficiently considered by (an already media-inflamed) jury?

    Or are these ‘trial’ type problems not within his ken as a non-trial attorney?  But they would have covered these points in law-school, would they not?

    But then but then but then: starting with the sentence that begins “Your position that the genuine victims …”, LDB abandons the legal arguments and goes for the old propaganda manipulation, straight from the Playbook (and abetted, no doubt, by advocates of what I call Victimst law): if we can’t really tell who is and isn’t a genuine victim, we’ll just have to … what? Conduct trials anyway? Weaken the evidentiary rules so that we can at least arrive at a simulacrum of the Sovereign Coercive Authority’s version of justice … and then call it a day?

    But if there is no way of determining a genuine victim, then how can we console ourselves with the belief that we have identified, prosecuted, and convicted a genuine perpetrator? Or has this fundamental legal problem not occurred to LDB’s trained legal mind? Or is he deliberately working hard here to avoid it?

    Instead, he will try to substitute a manipulated emotional response for any serious grappling with these fundamental issues: he takes the Victimist Playbook route and paints a viscerally horrific picture and (it appears) hopes to scare everybody into figuring that anything is better than that picture.

    Thus the picture: “we [will just] have to hope that the next time a priest rapes or otherwise sexually abuses a minor” … which already a) puts us in the realm of the ever-fungible range created by the play-dough definition of “abuse” and b) deploys “rape” even though not even at the height of the Stampede did many allegations claim “rape”.

    And then the manipulative snark (which is I am not saying is purely LDB’s invention, since such snark is a vital element in the Playbook’s effort to distract from the issues): we will “just have to hope that the next time … the act is somehow recorded on video” – and here comes the kicker – “so that it will be admissible into evidence in a court of law”.

    The reverse side of this last bit being: we have to have prosecutions and convictions even if the ‘evidence’ is not admissible in a court of law.

    And this is a fatally ominous path for any legal culture and any society to take.

    And betrays – if LDB’s creds are to be believed – a legal mind that is yet irritated at the need for demonstrable evidence. A mind like that shares space with some very dark characters and visions indeed, some of whom managed to erect their darknesses into government-authorized legal systems within recent history. And – marvelously – takes us back to the type of legal mind that saw no problem with the ‘spectral evidence’ that enabled the Salem Witch Trials and the legal mind that embraced all sorts of show-trials because their convictions and sentences were all in a great and good cause.

    And that’s all, folks.

  19. LDB says:

    "(although there is no sticking out of the tongue that I can see, so LDB has created something that isn’t actually there … not an unfamiliar problem with Abuseniks)" Publion said: September 9, 2014 @6:57 pm

    Typical Publion. I selected this example of Publion's distortion because it is concrete and close at hand. Look at the picture of Dan Gallagher in this TMR article and see that the tongue is sticking out under the top the teeth. No room for debate. That is the image.

    As usual, Publion mistakes or misinterprets something I wrote in order, I would argue, to shoehorn it into a point he would like to make about 'abuseniks' or the 'stampede'. In this case, Publion has me making an inaccurate claim about a picture that I have right in front of me on the screen. So, according to Publion then I am either incompetent or devious. Having expressed that, Publion is able to neatly quip that people like me ('abuseniks') make things up with some frequency.  'Not unfamiliar problem', he writes. Lousy.

    Well, the tongue is there. The photo was selected in order to portray Dan Gallagher as I described. The photo is as slanted as Publion's reading of my material.

    I would also like to use this comment to expressly decline Publion's continued invitations to debate issues of criminal law, civil law and jurisprudence. I have no interest. I similarly have never wanted to engage with you on world and military history. Thanks. Please proceed directly to your conclusion in your next comment that I cannot and dop not engage you on these subjects because I am not qualified.

  20. Publion says:

    Well, from the recent comments there was a lot on the table for the Abuseniks.

    What then do we get from them now?

    From JR (the 10th, 1104) we get an essential revelation. And nothing more.

    On to LDB (the 10th, 353PM) then.

    Out of all the possible issues to which he might have made substantive comment, if not response, he chooses instead a “distortion” that I have – he believes – perpetrated. Indeed?

    Apparently LDB can see a tongue “sticking out under the top of the teeth” in the Doe/Gallagher photo that accompanies this TMR article. I see that as the top of his lower lip. And it is certainly not the type of ‘sticking out your tongue’ that “mocks”, where there is a distinctly visible extension of that muscular organ sticking out from the teeth and beyond the teeth, sufficient to obscure the full vision of the teeth.

    So whose is the “distortion” here?

    But the  real “distortion” here is the fact that although LDB had the option of so many issues actually raised by my recent comments, he instead chose to create what can reasonably be construed as a non-issue that he has created himself.

    But he does go on.

    He will try to use this photo bit of his to shoehorn in a characterization of my making a “typical” and “usual” mistake or misinterpretation of something LDB wrote. If LDB could provide several quotations (accurate, of course) of my having done so – the multiplicity so as also to justify that “typical” and that “as usual” – then that would be very nice. (But let us not postpone the next meal while waiting for it.)

    And – yes – I would say that he had indeed made “an inaccurate claim about a picture that [he has] right in front of [him] on the screen”.

    And  – yes – I would say that on that basis one must conclude that he is “either incompetent or devious”.

    And – yes – on that basis I would make the substantive point that “abuseniks” do seem to “make things up with some frequency”.

    So far, so paraphrased. I’d said as much in the comments I put up.

    Would there be a substantive point to his presentation in this paragraph of his?

    There is not. This paragraph of mere paraphrased repetition concludes with nothing more than – waitttt for ittttttt – an epithet. And thus back to the high-school cafeteria he goes.

    And as I noted, “the tongue” is certainly not there in any clear sense; let the individual reader decide.

    And it is most certainly not there in the sense that Doe/Gallagher can be construed as ‘mocking’ – which calls for a clear and indubitable extension of the tongue beyond the vertical plane of the teeth, and not simply the tongue pushed up against the back of the teeth or – if at all – the tongue extended just enough to be visible behind the teeth or in between the teeth without breaking their vertical plane.

    So then LDB’s bit about TMR ‘selecting’ the photo fails.

    But what’s of even more import is this: we see here an attempt to work the Playbook gambit that Abuseniks are victims of the ‘appearances’ or ‘impressions’ that others form of them – even from photographs for which they posed (and, thus, they are not responsible for whatever actual characteristics that those impressions indicate). They are victims (of others’ “impressions”), doncha see, and what more does anybody need to know?

    And if the photo is genuine (i.e. not photo-shopped or otherwise faked), then what matter if it is ‘selected’ or not? If the photo genuinely shows the actual person in some act, then where is the problem in regard to its having been ‘selected’?

    And to wrap things up, LDB will then make a further “distortion”: he characterizes my references to his utter lack of having demonstrated any legal mentality or competence whatsoever as merely having been “continued invitations to debate issues of criminal law, civil law, and jurisprudence”.

    But I did not make any such invitations. Indeed, it should be clear from my observations that I don’t really imagine he has the capacity – or the legal education or competence – to “debate” any such matters at all in the first place. (Nor has he ever demonstrated any such competence or the expectable fruits of any such education.)

    He then tries to extricate himself by flat-out claiming that he has “no interest”. Which can be left right where it was put for readers to consider. Ultimately, it is merely a more politely phrased rendering of JR’s frequent ‘out’ when confronted with material he can’t handle: he doesn’t care.

    Such a dedicated professional.

    And here we are on this site dealing seriously with issues that very much involve criminal and civil law and jurisprudence and allegations and charges and evidentiary principles and the first principles of Western law.

    And here is LDB making comments on the site. And yet in the one area where he might be presumed (on the basis of his educational and professional claims) to be particularly suited and competent, he has “no interest”.

    In what way, then, have I ‘distorted’ the picture of LDB as evidenced in his comments all along?

    He then tries to reduce this stunning rejection of legal discourse to being merely a broader lack of interest in world or military history. As if i) the substance of the legal points relevant to the Stampede and the ensuing legal process and ii) the secondary analogies and images and examples drawn from world and military history were of equal weight and he simply doesn’t feel like expending any effort on such ancillary matters.

    Is he “not qualified” in matters of world and military history? Fair enough – he apparently only had a Harvard education and majored in Philosophy. I do not ask and never have asked that he enter into any extended discussion of my analogies, images, and examples drawn from world and military history.

    But if he is indeed “qualified” in law, then he’s going to have to come up with another excuse for why he doesn’t want to demonstrate his competence in legal matters.

    But then he has: he has “no interest”.

    That opens up a relevant line of thought: in what, then, does he have an interest? I would say: in merely tossing around the usual victimist boilerplate and agitprop and kitsch that has done so much to fuel the Stampede and distract from any serious analysis of the Stampede.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Who died and made P "God"?

      Why do you post here, P? To defend the indefensible? Or to attempt to whitewash your church's crimes by denying any crimes occured?( with no evidence to back you up).

      You are a charade, wrapped in nonsense and spitting into the wind. "No proof"! " no proof" of our rapes you claim. Where's your proof; that we have no proof?  Whip it out.  Show us the proof that will support your claims that we have no proof of our rapes?

      I'll wait.


  21. LDB says:

    Publion, again, no thanks. We cannot agree on even one fact, one as simple as what is in the photo presently in front of us. Your last comment demonstrated that disconnect very plainly. To go any further with you is not practicable.

    Oh, Publion, if you don't mind, would you please shore up Mark II from September 8 @4:44? Perhaps, some extra criticism or disparaging of me might soothe him. I just noticed Mark II's post and he seems so hurt and confused. Thanks a bunch!

    • malcolm harris says:

      LDB on the 11th September says to Publion, "we cannot agree on even one fact…..". Well that is disappointing news, because I was hoping they might perhaps agree that separating those genuine victims from the 'otherwise classifiable' is crucial to this matter. How do we separate the sheep from the goats?

      This week in Australia it is National Child Protection Week. A few things that are coming out are relevant to all countries, including the U.S.  And yesterday I read an article in the press, from a guest author. It was enlightening because it was free of the usual bias from  those journalists who are just fed material from victims' support groups and lawyers.

       He said that in 2012-2013 there were 19120 notifications of suspected child abuse to the Child Protection Authorities. Following investigation only 1836 of these notifications were substantiated. We'll say about 10% were accepted as genuine… and the rest he didn't go into,. Will take the liberty of calling them 'otherwise classifiable'.The overwhelming number of those substantiated occur in the family home and over half of all those cases related to neglect. So by inference the rest were physical and/or sexual abuse. He stressed that the abuse was overwhelmingly occuring in the family home. The churches he didn't even mention, and it would be safe to assume that the incidence of abuse in that regard is no longer a significant problem. In fact all the recent media reports simply continue to drag up historical allegations from decades ago.  Perhaps trying to keep the ball rolling. 

      We hear that "hundreds of victims and survivors" have appealed to Pope Francis for "justice". Of course the word "justice" in this context simply means paying them big bucks. But how many of these "hundreds of victims" have had their historical claims independently substantiated?. Probably far less than 10% of them, but the media gives the false impression that all claims are genuine. So much for fair and accurate reporting.



  22. Joe Burch says:

    Since these lawyers (and judges) are 'officers of the court 'and members of the bar association, they're very anxious to dispell any notions that they might be operating dishonestly.  It should therefore be no surprise that the Superior Court promptly sealed from public view the details of the latest allegation of prosecutorial misconduct, in much the same way that a cat hides her waste products – by immediately burying them.

    Many lawyers tend to 'look out' for one another.  Regrettably though, in some cases they'll just look the other way.  The persecution and conviction of these individuals is one sterling example.

    I'm hoping and praying that the ethical lawyers who work in the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office have the intestinal fortitude and courage to come forward with the unvarnished truth.

    This is almost like Diogenes with his lamp, searching for an honest man (or woman).  There must be at least one…..

  23. LDB says:

    Ralph:  You are half right.

  24. Publion says:

    Well, if the Abuseniks had had a lot of issues and matters on the table before, from which they might choose to make some substantive comment, they certainly had even more after my last comment.

    So what have we got, then?

    From JR (the 11th, 1211) we get an odd one indeed: I – apparently to his mind – am somehow making myself out to be God. Readers may make it of it what they will. One imagines the student JR whining thus: ‘Two  plus two doesn’t equal  nine? Who died and made you God?’ That sort of thing.

    Then we merely get the same old un-supported and epithetical bits from the bottom of the 3×5 file: defending the indefensible, whitewashing the church’s crimes – waittt for ittttt! – “by denying any crimes occurred” (correction supplied). In regard to that last bit, a) JR will have to produce an accurate quote of my making any such denial and b) there would be no evidence to back up (a) since (a) does not exist and JR simply made it up (which appears to be an ingrained habit with him) for his own convenience and amusement.

    And then more epithets in the second paragraph.

    And then back to the “proof” bit, although the principle in law is that the accuser has to prove that the crime was committed and was committed by the accused.

    Then – however – a truly phantasmagorical bit: “Show us the proof that will support your claims that we have no proof of our rapes?” (sic) I suppose the only counter to that is: the proof is in the fact that although the accusations have been made, no proof has been proffered by the accusation-makers. A problem which could easily be resolved by the accusation-makers proffering such proof. And yet they haven’t. So either i) they have proof that will justify their accusations but simply choose (insanely?) to withhold it or else ii) they have no proof (and thus they have to always try to raise enough dust to cover up that abyssal lack).

    So we’ll wait, perhaps, for an answer to whether (i) or (ii) immediately above is the actual state of the situation. (But don’t postpone the next meal while waiting.)

    Then LDB (the 11th, 1207PM) chooses to try to keep his most recent gambit going: in my comments he is merely being invited to get involved in a debate and he chooses not to debate. Which becomes merely a more polite formulation of JR’s oft-heard bit that he doesn’t have to explain anything to anybody and he knows a whole lot but doesn’t have to prove it to anybody but he most certainly does have to be taken as a serious commenter because … well, because whatever.

    The Wig of Above-It-All Dignity, doncha see?

    On top of which Wig he will then lard a hefty dollop of the old dodge that we merely disagree on facts. But I am still trying to get some relevant facts and to distinguish them from phantasms and deliberately-spun distractions. Which is not at all the way the Abuseniks want the ball to bounce.

    Thus: since “we cannot agree even on” whether Doe/Gallagher’s tongue a) is actually visible in the photo or b) is so far stuck out as to constitute ‘mockery’, then in light of that impasse LDB doesn’t have to address any of the other issues either.

    The logic of this bit escapes me, but perhaps Harvard’s Philosophy Department is teaching some new kind of logic now that – marvelously – looks very much like illogic but truly and really isn’t illogic and instead is logic disguised as illogic. Prescinding from LDB’s own actual condition, the disturbing bit here is that such a gambit from a university these days isn’t impossible.

    But at any rate. LDB is off the hook – at least to his own satisfaction.

    Thus then the Wig of Regretful but Honestly Baffled Intelligence and Integrity: LDB sniffs that “To go any further with you is not practicable”. Oh, alas and alack! (Stage direction: keep sidling toward the curtains gracefully as this line is delivered.)

    But this is LDB and some sort of snitty concluding zing simply cannot be passed-up.

    Thus, just before reaching those curtains, LDB will turn and deliver his version of le mot juste: He (apparently) takes a swipe at ‘Mark II’ (whose opinion of LDB’s material seems rather forthrightly negative) and then – as best can be made out of his rather conceptually confused misch here – purrs that I might “soothe” Mark-II with “some extra criticism or disparaging of me [i.e. LDB]”.

    It’s not much of a zinger, really, but LDB is struggling under the weight of that complicated Wig and the added weight of the all the issues he’s trying to avoid – so perhaps he should be cut some slack. Readers may decide as they will.

    Bottom line: nothing responsive to anything and just a hodge-podge of dodgy bits from both of these classic Abuseniks.

    I doubt we’ll be seeing anything except more of the same from these two. We’ve seen all of the 3×5 cards now, and most of the Wigs.

    And why bother with the stuff? Because, to repeat, it gives readers a clear glimpse of how the Abusenik mind – guided by the Playbook – works.

    And it demonstrates clearly why few torties would ever want to risk putting such types on the stand, where their performance would be no better than it has been here.

    And it demonstrates clearly what might have been if the media had actually tried to get to the bottom of the Abusenik stories at the outset.

  25. Jim Robertson says:

    We we're never in a court of law so "legal" proofs don't apply, period. And the main reason we aren't in courts of law is because your side and their insurors know full well THEY WOULD LOSE if it came to trial so they settle; because they've seen our evidence. The same evidence you say, doesn't exist. Evidence they don't want a jury to hear. Because when juries do hear us the awards are far above what the church wants to pay.

    When are you going to quit lying? Give me a day and a time please. I wouldn't want to miss it.

  26. Publion says:

    In response (so to speak) to my various comments – but apparently especially to the points about the legal principle that accuser has to prove the accusation against the accused – JR (the 13th, midnight) gives us this: “we were never in a court of law so ‘legal’ proofs don’t apply, period”.

    Whenever we get that “period” from JR we can pretty much expect that it’s merely an emotionally-manipulative way of distracting from something he’s tossed up that isn’t actually that substantive or definitive at all.

    And so it is here.

    First, JR – for one – was most certainly “in a court of law” because it was that massive, Anderson-Strategy type case in LA half a decade and more ago that got him his money and he had to have signed the Complaint containing his allegation under pains and penalties of perjury. And we haven’t seen anything he’s ever said here that even contributes to the probability of his story holding-water, and indeed most of his stuff in that regard works in the opposite direction.

    Second, JR has spent quite a few pixels here throwing around allegations of the vast numbers of crimes of “rape” (his idea of it, anyway) and assorted other crimes committed by priests and bishops. So since he opened up the criminal-forum approach, then the criminal and legal elements of it are most certainly relevant here.

    Third, we note the interesting sense that if one isn’t in a court of law then … evidence (accurate and truthful, presumably) isn’t really involved in whatever one claims or asserts or alleges. (Bringing us back to the old revolutionary presumption that if you are doing it in a good cause, then whatever it is you are doing cannot really be wrong – which I think has become a vital enabling bit in the Stampede. That’s how ‘revolutionary morality’ works, and you can see the mischief that is possible under such a system.)

    Thus his histrionics (delivered with the Wig of Outraged Integrity And Frustrated Intelligence) in the question “When are you going to quit lying?” … actually work – through the dynamics of projection – to indict himself. Perhaps this marvelous question is yet another one to write down on a yellow stickie and tape onto his bathroom mirror.

    Then – in yet another deployment of I’m Not/ You are (or its reverse twin: I Am/You Aren’t) – JR contents himself with claiming that it is now he who is waiting for me to – presumably – stop lying. I shall leave him there up on the stage, Wig and all, to consider his next gambit.

  27. Publion says:

    A further bit in regard to JR’s of the 13th at midnight:

    We see – yet again – the 3×5 card assertion that the Church and the insurers “know full well they would lose if it came to trial so they settle” (exaggerated formatting omitted).

    This assertion works toward several objectives:

    First, it distracts from considering just how any of the Abuseniks would have performed – and I mean that in both senses – on the stand in a trial. Yet we have had a chance to see how the Doe/Gallagher performance unfolded at trial and how it has fared. (And we have seen Doe/Gallagher then get out of town – and move out of state – since then, leaving his civil lawsuit trial to proceed without him, and perhaps permanently so – does he fear the stand and the jury at this point?) And, of course, we have seen how Abuseniks perform on this site as well.

    Second, it leaves unanswered federal judge Schiltz’s statement that the majority of the secrecy clauses in the settlements were included at the demand of the torties.

    Third – taken in conjunction with the assertion that the Church and insurers settled because “they’ve seen our evidence … the same evidence you say doesn’t exist” – it moves us to start the play at first or second base and not with an at-bat at home plate.

    Fourth, it ignores the Anderson stratagem of multiple-plaintiff lawsuits that made it almost impossible for the Church and insurers to take each allegant or allegation to trial.

    Fifth, it ignores what we have long discussed and at length here: the Stampede has ‘stampeded’ the juries before they were even empanelled. The media’s role in this was, for all practical purposes, to effect ‘jury tampering’ before the fact: after the media’s highly selective and sustained media blitzes, there were few members of the public who as potential or empanelled jurors would have not have been influenced to think that a) where there’s smoke there must be fire and/or b) all priests are probably abusers anyway and/or c) this is our chance to ‘send a message’.

    Sixth, it ignores the fact that there have been few actual trials – civil or criminal – although the Doe/Gallagher cases (a criminal and now a civil one) stand as opportunities to see just how such trials might have worked-out. But the Anderson multiple-plaintiff strategies shrewdly precluded such trials.

    All of which points have been made before here.

    Did JR “miss” all that?

  28. Jim Robertson says:

    Nothing would be impossible to god's chosen religion. If the church is overwhelmed by false cases it shouldn't be difficult for the best of all religions to herald it's resources and fight such fraud.

    One problem: there is no such fraud. The absolute truth of our claims is exactly what is causing your church and it's insurors to settle. If any fraudsters get through the church's and it's insuror's truth digging process; it's not the fault of real victims. So far you can't even show one example where that's happened. Can you?

    It seems then the "person' with the most "exaggerated format" here is vous. No false claims to show = False thesis.

  29. Jim Robertson says:

    She's talking sports again!

  30. Publion says:

    Over on the BigTrial site, commenter Kay Ebeling has made a comment that I think has great relevance for what we have been looking-at on this site.

    In a comment (the 11th, 644PM) to Ralph Cipriano’s very recent BigTrial article entitled “Psalms and Prayers in Prison” from the 10th of September, Ebeling asserts that the “’credibility challenged’ qualities that Cipriano constantly refers to are all personality characteristics that one finds in a person who is abused by multiple priests”. She then claims that “mounds of documentation released in cases across the country show that”.

    This type of assertion goes back a long way (and I have discussed this topic before in comments, some time ago). Some readers may recall the mid-1970s explosion of ‘self-help’ books about incest (one of the earliest sexual issues raised up by an intensifying feminism). The earliest and most popular books were not written by clinicians but instead by enterprising and ‘properly’ motivated non-professionals and/or ‘advocates’.

    Some readers may also recall in such books the list of do-it-yourself diagnostic bits that any reader could apply to herself. Presuming that there was no direct and clear and corroborated memory of an actual incestual experience, these lists ‘helpfully’ provided a list of behavioral and emotional tics and characteristics that would justify a presumption that one was incestually assaulted.

    The lists were breath-takingly broad, comprising behaviors and emotions that often arise among persons of either sex in the course of a life.

    Their approach was very much akin to this: if you are an adult woman and find that you don’t like hot coffee, then you were probably incestually-assaulted because (incestuous) daddies drink hot coffee … see, it’s science!

    And while such authors – when forthrightly pressed on the matter – back-tracked as to their ‘clinical’ grandstanding, yet the dynamic that they released into the public opinion forum remained and intensified, selectively amplified by an increasingly ‘non-judgmental’ and non-inquiring media.

    And you can imagine what such a demonstration of ‘evidence’ could do for enterprising torties and DA’s. And for pols and legislators who saw a bandwagon picking up speed and decided to jump on it.

    The key problem, of course, is with what are formally called ‘differential diagnosis’ and ‘etiology’: it is not enough to a) establish the presence of some X (a characteristic or emotion or mental event); one must also establish – to the exclusion of other causes – that this X was caused by a particular action or experience (in this case, criminally assaultive incest) Y. If you can do that, then you can claim that if X is present, then Y must have happened to cause it. And thus you can call X a genuine bit of clinical and legal ‘evidence’.

    But the challenge then remains: can it be scientifically established beyond doubt that this Y caused and causes this X? And thus that if you encounter a person with the characteristics of X then you can legitimately presume that you have indubitable evidence that the action Y had to have been the cause of it?

    You see the problem here.

    Typical of Stampede-type phenomena as they took shape in American culture and society back then, this vital scientifically-validating step was not fully resolved, but instead was merely presumed: millions took-away from this type of book the idea that if they had any characteristic X, then Y must have been perpetrated upon them even if there was no memory of it.

    But when you look at the lists of possible ‘evidence’ of incest in those books, you see that many bits are proffered as ‘evidence’ that actually are very common human feelings or tics that might have any number of causes.

    The Playbook for any Stampede would deal with this type of objection by simply asserting that in that case, there must be huge amounts of Y being perpetrated and thus so many people (if not just about everybody) is suffering from the results (evidenced by just about everybody having some X behaviors or emotional or mental characteristics).

    But the alternative and more scientific possibility is this: the X behaviors or characteristics claimed to be presumptive and definitive evidence of Y are widely-spread in the population because they are not actually caused by Y at all, but rather arise from any number of possible and quite common (and non-criminal) human experiences or from other clinically-recognized causes and sources.

    Thus in the Ebeling comment we see this dynamic still active in the Catholic Abuse Matter: since Doe/Gallagher has all these X characteristics, then that (sort of) proves Y, i.e. that he must have been abused by a priest.

    This neatly presumes that only abuse by a priest (or by “multiple priests”, in Ebeling’s take on Doe/Gallagher’s story) could cause the assorted characteristic behaviors and such displayed by Doe/Gallagher.

    Thus then  – and even more neatly – it can then be claimed that all of the problems (such as with rationality and coherence) with Doe/Gallagher’s stories and claims and testimony actually serve to prove that his stories and claims are true … because how else would he have all these problems (such as with rationality and coherence) if he weren’t abused (by “multiple priests) in the first place? QED, and case closed!

    This is one of the core mirrors in the hall of mirrors that is the Catholic Abuse Stampede (or any Stampede).

    But to think diagnostically here: Doe/Gallagher certainly demonstrates what can be validly seen as many of the characteristics of an addict, including the queasy character-disorder characteristics that so often accompany (and complicate the successful treatment of) addicted persons or addictive personalities, especially after the addiction has become well-seated in the self and, as it were, has ‘entrenched’ in the self.

    But addiction is not a cause that itself is mono-causal, i.e. that has a single cause (in this case, the Stampedepresumption is that only abuse-by-cleric can cause the addiction and the sequelae).

    And in fact: the addiction – however caused – may very legitimately imagined to be the cause of the claims, allegations, and stories.

    In other words: the allegation might be a symptom and result of the addiction … rather than the addiction being considered to be presumptive evidence of the allegation.

    So the scientific method does not support what is otherwise a very neat and economical sleight of hand (or mind) pushing people towards accepting that the allegant’s very problems – which would otherwise work to seriously undermine his credibility – are actually instead undeniable presumptive proof of his credibility and of the truth of his allegations.

    Further flowing from Ebeling’s “mounds of documentation” assertion: the only thing all those cases would have shown is that an allegant claiming abuse-by-a-cleric displayed those characteristics. But we are still left with the vital question of causality unaddressed: are we looking at a) an allegant most surely turned into an addict by abuse at the hands of a cleric or b) an addict (with attendant characterological derangements) who saw a chance to make a score by making an (untruthful) allegation and playing the role best-suited to support his scam?

    Once again: the Abuseniks and the Stampede Playbook have no way of dealing with this question, and indeed do everything they can to distract anybody and everybody from considering it. (What I would call the Victimist Playbook has dealt with this fundamental issue by so adorning and burnishing the (claimed) status of ‘victim’ that nobody would dare to ‘re-victimize’ the ‘victim’ by raising the question at all.)

  31. Publion says:

    JR’s effort (the 15th, 1137AM) to whistle-away the effects of the Stampede is the bit about nothing being impossible to the Church.

    If I am accurate in my assessment of the Stampede being a sustained latter-day repeat of Bismarck’s Kulturkampf then such a constructed phenomenon is not at all easy to combat.

    At least not until the superheated public atmosphere dies down and one can approach the issues rationally and without the distorting effects of manipulated public emotion. Which day, I think, will arrive as time goes on here.

    Then nothing but a mere repetition of the 3×5 card about “there is no such fraud” and about “the absolute truth of our claims” and so on and so forth, although there is nothing to back this up except JR’s own credibility and character and mentation. Readers may judge as they will.

    And while – this time around – JR acknowledges that there are “fraudsters” and there are “real victims”, he has proffered no basis for the presumption that the latter hugely outnumber the former.

    And then once again the appeal to material that has – by amazing coincidence – been hidden from examination by the allegants’ torties themselves.

    And as for “one example”, the Doe/Gallagher stories are right here among us now, and readers may consider them as they will. As they may review all of JR’s material and all the rest of the Abuseniks’ material.

    Then the French bits – sort of – as if … what? JR is well-versed in many things?

    Then (the 15th, 1138AM) – always an indicator of JR’s efforts to distract from weak material – we get another queasy gender-bendy epithetical bit. Charming, and even revelatory, but neither responsive nor substantive.

  32. Publion says:

    Once again JR (the 17th, 1246PM) reaches for one of the old 3x5s, as predicted.

    The seventh paragraph of my comment of the 12th at 3AM on this thread remains unanswered.

    There remains also the Doe/Gallagher material.

    And all the other points raised in comments on this thread, to say nothing of all the points and questions from comments on prior threads.

    And the various comments and stories performed by JR and LDB and the other Abuseniks – which hardly offer grounds for accepting the credibility of their stories, assertions, and claims and instead work to exactly the opposite effect.

    All of which lead to substantive grounds for the high probability of more than a few “fraudsters”.

    And we are forced to work with probabilities since the material actually used to secure the cash was quickly placed under secrecy by the Abuseniks’ own counsel.

    Readers may consider it all as they will.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Where did you say you had the proof of fraud by victims? Where? And when are you going to trot these fraudsters out? Just cut a few out of the herd.

  33. Publion says:

    Making allowances for the fact that comments go up in bunches, such that the date-time stamp alone is not necessarily proof that if a comment has a prior time-stamp then it was read by subsequent commenters in real time before they put up their own subsequent comment, yet we still get a marvelous demonstration from JR (the 18th, 147AM): having reached the bottom of his 3×5 file (such as it ever was) he now simply tosses up utterly irrelevant bits as if they were actually comments (and not simply ‘manifestations’ of … something).

    But then again, somewhere way out there in all those space phenomena is the Horsehead Nebula.

  34. Publion says:

    Well, we are at the bottom of the 3×5 box so we could expect some notable repetition.

    And thus – the 19th, 138AM – JR will keep working the bit about proof.

    But splendidly, JR asks precisely the right question: “Where did you say you had proof of fraud by victims?” Excellent point and so clearly put. Where did I say that?

    My point has always been that we have been working with probabilities – precisely because the material that would theoretically or ostensibly have proven anything has been locked up in secrecy by the very persons who made money from it.

    Probability, proof … is the difference between the two words (and the concepts behind them) clear?

    But this is actually a relevant point connected to the Stampede: the strategy hinges exactly upon people conflating and confusing these two concepts.

  35. Jim Robertson says:

    I don't have to be relevent. I'm rich. This is America, remember.

  36. Jim Robertson says:

    Prove that the victims asked for secrecy and not the church. Wiseass!

    The only thing that's at the bottom of a box is you. The box of your own 3 x 5 lies. The box of your own "beliefs" (be they beliefs of fraud or heaven and hell or god their believed builder. Not forgetting your non existant "stampedes").  You believe we have no proof of our claims; yet have no evidence to back that belief. That's a constant with you. Demanding proof while giving none. You believe it's victims who demand secrecy. When, in fact, It's been the church demanding secrecy all the time. If that's not the case; show me the proof. Put up or shut up!

  37. Publion says:

    It’s as if all of this is new and we haven’t ever dealt with it before. But JR (the 20th, 902AM) has nothing left but his “prove” bit, and even though it’s been dealt with before, he’s just going to keep repeating it. And tossing in the usual epithetical bits. Charming.

    Federal judge Schiltz was the one who revealed that the secrecy came largely from the Abusenik torties. That quote went up – with the link to the original statement and document – quite some time ago here. JR didn’t do anything with it then; now he apparently doesn’t remember – or at least pretends not to remember – that the material went up.

    This is a merry-go-round combined with a hall of mirrors. And let’s just contemplate the vision of JR going around and around on it, apparently quite satisfied with the fun.

    Nor does he demonstrate here any grasp of the proof-probability issue that has been rather clearly pointed-out.

    Whether the mentality and mentation here does or does not improve JR’s credibility … is something readers can consider as they will.

    But as it stands now: we are apparently expected to find JR credible and the federal judge not-credible. Readers may also consider that proposition as they will.

    But what I will “put up” here is this statement of the issue at this point: can the Abuseniks produce anything here that will reduce the substantial probability that the Stampede and all of its works is of dubious veracity and accuracy?

    Can they even proffer any material that will at least make them seem modestly rational and credible?

  38. Jim Robertson says:

    Federal Judge Shiltz! Gee that sure shuts me up. Catholic judges are so friggin' rare. The majority of the justices on the Supreme Court are Catholic. And of course one federal judge tells the "truth" with out a doubt and without a trial. Was he under oath when he made that statement? One judge? Wow!

    And isn't our silence what you are trying to buy with a settlement? An agreement we have no further claim against you?

    It was your side that always demanded silence in the past and they paid for it. But when the scandal hit the fan It was the church who said victims could talk about our abuse that we were no longer bound by any silence agreements we had made with them. If victims made the silence agreements why did the church say it was o.k. for us to now talk?

    st John 23rd said auto excomunication happened if victims spoke about our rapes.That was a demand for our silence and from a saint yet. Saints top tort attornies everytime in my book. Call me old fashioned.

  39. Publion says:

    There was never any hope of JR trying to win a credibility contest … so what do we get? Marvelously (the 20th, 836PM) we get exactly what the Playbook would call for in such a situation as this: if you can’t be better than the other guy (in this case, the federal judge) then try to cut the other guy down to your own level.

    Thus Judge Schiltz a) is “Catholic” (nicely capitalized, for a change; as if the mere fact of being a Catholic is a reliable indicator of un-truthfulness); and b) is a “federal judge” (as if the mere occupation is a reliable indicator of un-truthfulness). And then the irrelevant bit about “the majority of justices on the Supreme Court” (sic). And then the snark about whether Judge Schiltz was “under oath when he made that statement” – although Doe/Gallagher was under oath when he signed all his court papers and so on, and – but of course – JR was “under oath” when he signed all of his (as if that were any reliable indicator of truthfulness).

    And while Judge Schiltz is only “one judge”, that’s pretty far beyond what JR has proffered, even if we include his many pixels now in the record here. And we are apparently to presume that JR knows more than a federal judge who has actually worked on Stampede cases.

    Then – in another demonstration of sly manipulation – JR will try (yet again) to start the play on first or second base rather than with an at-bat at home plate: any “settlement” is supposed to be an attempt to “buy” “our” (meaning that JR wants to include himself here among the ‘victims’ – genuine and otherwise) “silence”.

    But a) the Anderson Strategies precluded any attempt at resolution except to work for a settlement; and b) we don’t know how many cases there were in which torties initiated the settlement talks (as opposed to the Church initiating the settlement talks). And trailing along with (b) are all the known elements regarding i) legal lawsuit strategizing for tort-attorneys and ii) the Anderson Strategies.

    None of which points are new here on this site and all of which indicates that JR has reached the bottom of his card file and it’s going to be repetition from now on.

    Then mere repetition of his bit about the Church demanding silence, which is an assertion for which he has never proffered supporting material in all of the instances where he has tried to run it by the readers here, even though this lack of support was pointed-out.

    We are seeing here nothing more than a cherished Cartoon being lovingly trotted out – yet again.

    Although in a new twist, JR now claims that at some point “it was the church who said victims could talk about our abuse” because “we were no longer bound by any silence agreements we had made with them”. And – but of course – absolutely nothing proffered in the way of, say, a link to a Church document or identification of a Church document making such a clear statement-of-release.

    But then but then but then: having fabricated the immediately-foregoing fantasy, JR then tries to use it as a foundation for his – waitttt for ittttttt – logical conclusion: so if the Church had demanded the silence agreements (a point, we recall, that has yet to be established or demonstrated) then why did the Church subsequently released payees from the silence requirement (a point, we recall, that has yet to be established or demonstrated)?

    But although it would seem impossible to top that howler, JR proceeds to give it a try: he tosses up – yet again – the already discredited howler about the early-1960s Vatican directive (previously discussed at some length here). As readers may recall: that Vatican directive enjoined silence upon all participants in any formal canonical process investigating any claims of the serious crime of a priest soliciting sexual activity within the confessional encounter.

    Thus a) JR’s characterization of that directive’s requirements as he has made it in this comment of his is grossly inaccurate and b) very few – if any at all – allegations lodged during the Stampede have ever claimed that sexual-activity was solicited by a priest during the sacramental encounter of the confessional.

    Thus, the Vatican directive that JR brings-up does not at all apply to anything being discussed here.

    But then we see that the whole bit was simply another juvenile build-a-block gambit to lead into the spiffy exit-line about “saints top torties everytime”, at least “in [JR’s] book”.

    And what a book that must be, as we so often see.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Nothing ever happened ever.

      You, P are truely the biggest queen I have ever met.or had to deal with. Ever. That's just a fact. The plain and simple right on.

      You, and the people who think like you, collectively, are the Whore of Babylon just lke the "crazies" say.  Your church has been so obsessed with saving money; protecting money and pretending they also have the edge on morality. while they fuck kids. Fuck kids!

      Hell! you're just an old whore in worn-out tat. You fool no one.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      You act like Anderson's the only lawyer at these get togethers. You act like he controls the show. What the church has no lawyers present? They aren't represented at the hootenanny?

      And aren't the insurors represented? Sitting right next to the church. Who's side do you think the insurors lawyers are on?

      So that's two against one and that's only if a victim can sue. A very big if.

      I think capitalizing religions just because they are religions to be total bunk. It's ridiculous. Find another peasant to tug his forelock to you. You aren't special; just wrong.

    • Publion says:

      As I was saying, about all we can look forward to now from the Abuseniks is repetition; points will be brought up – as if de novo – that have already been tossed up on the screen here before, and questions raised about them, and from the Abuseniks no sufficiently responsive material has been proffered.

      And this will be in addition to the usual Abusenik Playbook distractions, spiced up – if not spiffed up – by such charming bits as individual Abuseniks characteristically prefer to toss

      Thus now JR’s of the 21st at 903PM and 914PM.

      At 903PM: we open with a gross mis-statement of my position (which gross mis-statement conveniently creates a more congenial target): I am supposed to have implied that “nothing ever happened ever”. No, that’s not what I have ever said or implied. I have doubted the accuracy and veracity of the Stampede; I have pointed out the many substantive probabilities supporting the position that there has always been a very significant chance of mischief and of ‘otherwise classifiable’ allegants; and I have examined such actual stories and allegations as we have been able to acquire on this site and pointed out their very many problematic aspects.

      But I have – and recently – stated clearly that I had no doubt that some abuse happened.

      Then, having tossed up that howler, JR characteristically reverts to queasy and repellent epithet, this time overtly calling me not only a “queen” but – ooh la la! – “the biggest queen [JR has] ever met”. That must be a mighty big queen indeed.

      And – again characteristically – I am “truely” so.

      And – again characteristically – JR confuses his own queasy epithets for “fact” (“That’s just fact. The plain and simple right on”). One can only wonder how often and how deeply the Abuseniks confused their own mental creations for “fact” when they were polishing up their material for a run at the piñata.

      Then a more general epithet indicting “you, and the people who think like you” as being “the Whore of Babylon”. We are getting epithets that intensify as the abyss of evidence widens palpably and clearly.

      And that bit then spiced-up – again characteristically – with an adolescent bit of scatology. But of course.

      And then – again characteristically – a concluding queasy and repellently juvenile epithet, this time specifically characterizing me as “an old whore”.

      Which leads up to the pronunciamento (the Wig of Regal Displeasure) that I am “just an old whore”. We see again why no tortie in his/her right mind would want to risk putting such ‘victims’ up on the stand.

      But – again characteristically – JR provides (through the marvelous dynamics of projection) a further useful bit that he might want to tape up on his mirror: “You fool no one.”

      We proceed then to the comment of 914PM: again characteristically, JR mis-states not only my position, but a position about which I have specifically corrected this very mis-statement: I have never implied that Anderson was “the only lawyer present at these get togethers”; I have stated that the Anderson Strategies governed the dynamics of those strategizing get-togethers, but the presence of Anderson’s strategies does not imply the actual physical presence of Anderson himself.

      And then – again characteristically and repetitively – the bit about there not being any Church or Insurer lawyers present: but my point has always been that the brilliance of the Strategies was that no lawyer (for Church or Insurers) could recommend individual trial-defense of each of the many allegations, especially in the bundled-lawsuits.

      And to clarify for JR who – again characteristically – seems to be largely uninformed about significant elements of these matters: the Insurers’ attorneys would be on the “side” of the Insurers: seeking to minimize the fiscal outlays that their clients (i.e. the Insurers) would have to face.

      Thus – again characteristically – JR’s concluding bit about there being “two against one” fails utterly on its merits, as well as in light of the fact that about 12 or 13 thousand allegants split more than 2.5 billion dollars (minus the torties’ fees and expenses). And in light of the fact that much more often than not the Insurers’ attorneys were, for all practical purposes, on the allegants’ “side”, since they recommended settlement rather than trial.

      But the Abuseniks certainly do like to portray themselves as ‘victims’, and thus the “two against one” bit.

      And on what basis can we credit the assertion that it was “a very big if” that allegants might sue? When the Stampede was in its salad days, it required nothing more than finding a tortie, burnishing the story, and letting the good times roll from there (with the Anderson Strategies media collaborators playing their significant role in emotionally stampeding public opinion beyond the abyssal problems with the whole Game).

      Then a conclusion whose logic benefits very little – if at all – from the attempt to use a ‘big word’ and concept (“capitalizing”) to toss up more of JR’s characteristic eructations about “religions”. And the further bit about “just because they are religions”.

      Then an attempt to go the Marx-y route with the “peasant” bit (i.e. JR as fearless and singular ‘truth-telling’ peasant). Thus giving us and himself once again – through the wonders of the dynamics of projection – yet another bit for his mirror: “You aren’t special; just wrong”. 

  40. Jim Robertson says:

    It was 2 against one to see if we were telling the truth about our abuse. You don't just walk in and say fr. Dick Head molested me and get a cheque.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      I should set up a scientific test. Run groups of abused and non-abused through the church's and their insurors system and see how many fakes run the gauntlet to a felony.

      That's right! It is a felony to commit fraud. Could you show me one case where an arrest took place due to fraud by a fake victim? If it's a stampede there should be at least a small herd of caught criminals. Wouldn't you think?

      Oh they all got away with it, huh?.

      Well they must have. You say there's a herd of victims and the majority of whom are criminals. See if I got this straight (Excuse the expression.) And that those criminals have managed to get away with it. Yet the media. (Who else is in this plot against the church? the government too?)  who refuse to even prosecute or investigate  even one of this multidude of felons..

       Well you are up against it. I think you should arm as for war my little christian soldiers.( read clerical droogies). The whole system's against you. To arms!

  41. Jim Robertson says:

    You are "utterly" the biggest queen I've ever met.

    And I'd say you were the biggest whore but the church has beat you to it.

    Sorry they haven't asked you to Rome. You'd step on a few dresses there, I'm just positive you would, dearie.

  42. Publion says:

    JR (the 23rd, 405PM) would have us believe that allegants faced hostile challenges from both Insurers and Church defense counsel and that “you don’t just walk in and say fr. Dick Head molested me and get a cheque” (sic; and note the European spelling of the American English ‘check’ – perhaps it was the Wig).

    That may have been true in a few cases in the beginning, but certainly by the time of the mid-00s, and most certainly in the case of the 500-plus Plaintiff lawsuit from which JR cashed his “cheque”, the decision to settle rather than take each and all allegations to trial was foregone and the interviews substantially procedural.

    Then (the 23rd, 450PM) JR entertains us with the prospect of his ‘setting up’ “a scientific test”. Yes, he should – even if only to learn how to conduct scientific and logical analysis and assessment. (Let’s not postpone our next meal waiting for that test to be produced.)

    He then builds more blocks on top of that bit: we are informed breathlessly (that exclamation point) that “it is a felony to commit fraud”. Why yes, yes it is.

    But there have been no arrests for fraud in any of the Stampede cases. No, there have not.

    At least not yet. It’s a Stampede, after all, and the whole idea was to move public emotions to support anybody who came forward and claimed the ‘victim’ high-ground. And as has been discussed many times on this site, one of the core derangements demanded by Victimism is that the victim cannot be ‘re-victimized’ either by questioning or by being held legally accountable and responsible for false statements (it would be ‘chilling’ for future victims seeking to make claims, doncha see?).

    I have discussed at great length the elements involved above and behind the table in the Stampede; JR’s effort to keep things looking lively for himself here by pretending none of that was ever discussed can stay right up where it was put. Meanwhile, we have nothing more here than another stab at repetition.

    And, as I said, as the Stampede winds down the possibilities of investigations increases – which is another reason why The Ball Must Be Kept Rolling.

    The rest of the comment trails off as it does.

    Then (the 23rd, 414PM) JR will stand-by his vividly self-revelatory if repellent bits about “queen” and “whore” and the queasy gender-bending juvenilia. Let it all remain up where it was put.