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

Rev. Charles Engelhardt

Rest In Peace, Rev. Charles Engelhardt (1947-2014)

The night before falsely accused priest Rev. Charles Engelhardt passed away on November 15, 2014, Pennsylvania prison officials denied the dying cleric critical medical care, and Engelhardt issued a last declaration of his innocence, according to a recent court filing by Engelhardt's cellmate and exclusively reported by journalist Ralph Cipriano.

According to Cipriano, Engelhardt told cellmate Paul H. Eline before he died: "Paul, I do not feel well. Please understand that I am an innocent man, who was wrongly convicted."

No end in sight to an outrage

Ralph Cipriano

Leading the charge for justice:
Journalist Ralph Cipriano

This sad episode adds yet another chapter to the gross injustice against three men – Engelhardt, former teacher Bernard Shero, and ex-priest Edward Avery – who were wrongly convicted 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 the three men (Engelhardt, Shero, and Avery), all of whom barely even knew each other.

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.
  • Gallagher was refuted when he claimed that he was abused while in fifth grade and part of the bell choir maintenance crew, as only eighth graders were part of such a group;
  • 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."
  • And 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.

And most recently in September, defense attorneys for Engelhardt and Shero submitted a stunning court filing that charged that Philadelphia prosecutors withheld evidence that would have exonerated the two men.

For nearly four years, we have been calling upon the mainstream media to examine this egregious miscarriage of justice in Philadelphia. Will 2015 be the year that it finally happens?

We won't hold our breath.


  1. Fred says:

    Another priest wrongfully accused dies in jial?

    No biggie.

    –D. Clohessy

    • Sue says:

      D. Clohessy, why are you hiding behind your true identity as a founder of the viciously anti-Catholic, anti-priest hate group, SNAP?  You people don't want justice for abuse victims.  You've openly admitted that your goal is to destroy the Catholic Church!  You're a fraud.  And, your group supplies "counselors" & "coaches" to help fraudulent "victims" get millions of dollars wrongfully from the Church.  Someday, SNAP will be hit with a lawsuit on behalf of the tens of millions of Catholics who've been harmed by your actions.  That day is coming.

  2. True Catholic says:

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

  3. Mary Jean Diemer says:

    It is amazing that people think it isn't possible for priests to be falsely accused because of the money that the accused will get for lying and feeding into a revenge mentality of those that would destroy because of the sins of some. It is sad that hate has taken over reasoning. may God have mercy on what you have done to the innocent by your actions also. you see, it works both ways.

  4. Liz says:

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

    • malcolm harris says:

      The death of Father Engelhardt filled me with sadness and resentment. For any man to be falsely accused is bad enough. But to be convicted solely on the words of a drug-crazed opportunist is monumentally unjust

      But I think that the servant is now with his master.And Jesus warned that the servant should not expect to be treated any better than his master. So both have been falsely accused in this great cosmic battle between good and evil.

      Speaking of the great cosmic batttle….I chanced upon something of interest the other day. In the forecourt of a city building… It was a memorial stone commemorating the thousands of Polish prisoners who were murdered by the Russian communists during the second world war. It was called the Katyn memorial stone. Katyn is a forest near Smolensk. The bodies of 4,500 men of the Polish Officer Corps were found buried there, All with hands tied behind their backs and shot in the head. It is conservatively estimated that about 20,000 Polish prisoners were murdered in a similar manner. Most bodies were never found. In addition to the army officers it is known that 6,000 policemen vanished without trace. Other victims were intellectuals, landowners, government officials, teachers and priests.

      Stalin and his sidekick Beria personally signed the death warrants. The murdered Poles were virtually all practicing Catholics and Stalin knew they would never embrace his grand plan for atheistic communism in Poland. So his objective was to liqidate all leaders and potential leaders.

      The point I wish to make is this. There are two methods of destroying somebody you don't like. The first method is Stalin's direct way….a bullet The second method, the modern way, is character assassination. Destroy a person's reputation and you destroy his credibility, and therefore his capacity for leadership. If the character assassination accuses him of sexually abusing a child…..then even his own family might avoid his company. A devasting hatchet job….simply by some anonymous person calling themselves a 'victim'.

      The modern-day method is helped along by having a complicit mainstream media. Some sections of the media these days remind me of Stalin's propaganda newspaper…. Pravda.

  5. Mary Fran says:



    Yet ANOTHER bad ending for ANOTHER falsely accused priest. I would hate to be those who are doing the false accusing or those who are so tragically misusing the so-called justice system for their own ends or those in SNAP on the day of judgement. It won't be pretty and there will be no place to hide and no ears for excuses. May the soul of Fr. Engelhardt rest in peace.



  6. True Catholic says:

     He was also "Falsely Accused" by two other children, at two other parish assignments.

    • TheMediaReport.com says:

      We rarely reply to comments here, but that is 100% **not true**.

    • Mark says:

      True catholic – where are you getting this information from? My guess is you have no idea of the history of this case. The deceased was a priest in good standing at the time of his death. 

    • Rich S says:

      Absolutely untrue, but if you have names, dates, parishes involved, share them with the rest of us……you can even label them, Billy Doe #2, and Billy Doe # 3 so no one knows their real name like Daniel P. Gallagher, alias Danie L. Gallagher on his 2 page rap sheet with 6 arrests in Pennsylvania dating back to August 8th, 2008……2010 was his bonanza year, that included the 56 bag of heroin arrest on June 9th for the heroin he had in his pants that he told that jury back in January 2013 was for personal use……and those people in that jury apparently bought that crock

      you seem to have the same mindset as ADA Mark Cippoletti who was permitted to infer with Judge Ceisler's permission at the conclusion of this man's trial that there were other victims just waiting to tell their stories.to the Philadelphia DA….his final words to that jury, other victims that haven't come forward "YET"…..well it will be 2 years come January 30th since this innocent priest was wrongly convicted and I'm still waiting for someone amongst the literally tens of thousands of high school and grade school students, parents & parishoners that crossed his path during his 35 years as an ordained priest to come forward with an accusation …


  7. eddie too says:

    with the facts presented in this article, a person should be wondering about the quality of the defense attorneys for these priests.

    whenever the government comes knocking, it is ultimately cheaper to hire the best attorney you can find rather than go cheap or hiring a friend.

  8. Jim Robertson says:

    A jury of his peers found him guilty.

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

    Make him a saint for CONVICTED pedophiles.

    • Mark says:

      Jim – keep believing in the gospel put out by snap. Looking forward to the day when we can tell you to go to hell for all your negative comments of an innocent man who died well before his time. 

    • Ken W says:

      Juries can and have been wrong, before. The same with public opinion. It was "a jury of his peers" that nailed the world's only Perfect Man to a cross. 

  9. Jim Robertson says:

    Mark you must be a fool. SNAP told all victims to go to hell when it cheated us of controlling our own public image. It cheated us for a decadent church that you support wholeheartedly.

    And Ken prove that jury wrong and I will not only apologize but back your support of the dead priest to the nines. The problem is you can't do that.

    • Ken W says:

      i don't have to prove anything. The only evidence presented to the jury was inconsistent and hyper emotional screed from a lone accuser. The whole trial was lacking fact and loaded with preying on emotions. That is not a victory for victims. 

  10. Gill Connor says:

    I am stunned at the wide spread denial of these posts of the reality that the Roman Catholic Church activiely conspired to protect pedophile Priests! The reason for this was as simple as to avoid bringing scandle on the church. The result of this action was to allow a cancer of scandal to infect the church. This Sin still infects the church with "promises" of reform. 

    Cardinal Bernardin perjured himself when he denied participating in orgies at the seminary. He was instrumental in advancing the pro-homoesexual movement in the Priesthood and in policy. The Gay Wing of the US Catholic Church was founded and institutionalinezed by Bernardin. This wing has given members of the Democratic Party the cover to support abortion. 

    The Roman Catholic Church has covered up and protected Priests who sexually abused children. The Church has not come clean and has done more to protect itself than aid those victims and their famileis. 

    Denying this means your committing the same sin! Has the Roman Catholic Church been following the teachings of Jesus Christ in their actions? 

    • Ken W says:

      Gill, I am stunned how people like yourself can read "denial" into our posts! I do not and never have denied that there have been certain individuals in authority that have failed their duties as shepherds, and neither has Dave Pierre!  When I 1st became of God's call for me to be Catholic some 5 years ago, I reached out to SNAP. I had hard questions that deserved honest answers, mostly pertaining to the veracity of some accusations and how they handled accusations that have been proven to be false. I was labelled a "defender of pedophiles" for even daring to ask the questions. It's a very basic propaganda technique of appealing to emotion lifted directly from the Goebbels manual, and quite frankly, it is blatant false witness of the highest order. You first sentence reeks of this. 

      Cardinal Bernadin has nothing to do with the topic of this article and the subject of falsely accused priests. 

      The Church has not covered up -anything-. Individuals? Yes. The Church? No.  If you do even a little bit of digging on a case by case basis, you will quickly find that the vast majority of "cover ups" happened at the ground level. That's right….the parishioners themselves. The problems started at the ground level and that is exactly where the problems need to be fixed. The bishops that are having the most success at resolution are the ones that recognize this, and that includes the oft maligned Bishop Finn. His first words to the people of St. Patricks was "I'm sorry, I need to change." His second words were "in the future, do not call me, call the police…..then call me."

      As to your final paragraph, the teachings of Jesus Christ are exactly my beef with the mindset of professional "victim's advocates". You see, Jesus laid out a very specific mandate for leveling an accusation against another, a mandate that has strong roots in Old Testament law and is affirmed in practice throughout the Acts and the Epistles. Danny Gallagher did not follow this mandate, and neither did Fr. Englehart's judge and jury. Accusers that choose to bypass both the Church and the criminal process and go straight to the civil process, they are violating this mandate taught by Jesus. Any time that an accused priest stands ready and willing to face his accuser and give his own account, and that opportunity is denied to the accused, the teachings of Jesus have just been scorned. You may want to crack open a Bible next time before you claim the teachings of Jesus.

  11. Publion says:

    From JR (newly returned from yet another farewell performance) on the 8th at 1218PM, we get a point also made and repeated by some commenter(s) on the BigTrial site: the late Fr. Engelhardt was convicted by “a jury of his peers”. From what we have seen and discussed in regard to both general sex-offense jurisprudence and Stampede jurisprudence, the accuracy of the jury conviction can certainly be said to be open to question.


    Unfortunately for the case – and unlike the Msgr. Lynn case – his death may well render moot any further formal legal inquiry into that conviction. Readers are welcome to consider the matter as they will.


    Whether the actions and words surrounding his last words render Fr. Engelhardt’s final material any more dubious or any less apparently-scripted than so many of JR’s profferings (his most recent recitation of his ancestral lineage in a comment on the immediately previous thread here comes to mind) is up to the reader to decide.


    And whether Fr. Engelhardt could be accurately and formally described as a ‘pedophile’ is also greatly open to question, and that problem is hardly resolved by considering what JR’s achieved clinical credentials and expertise might be.


    Then (the 9th at 233PM) JR throws a chunk of his signature epithetical pile at ‘Mark’. Which gambit is then reinforced by the repetition of JR’s signature phantasm: that SNAP does not represent victims (but rather is a tool of the Church). As I have said so often here: SNAP does not represent victims (genuine or otherwise) primarily; rather, it is a front organization for the torties. (Readers may recall that JR’s comeback to that is that the torties too are tools of the Church … and so on.)


    JR then once again gets himself mired up to the hubcaps in the swamp of projection: he is hardly in any position to rail against anyone who has damaged the “public image” of victims and he is hardly in any position to demand proof of assertions. (Although the key point in his comment to ‘Ken’ is not proving that the jury was wrong (a task which may now be impossible to pursue formally) but rather to address the problem of probability: is it probable, given all the factors, that the jury’s verdict was – for any number of reasons – an inaccurate reflection of the realities involved in the Engelhardt case … ?


    And thus JR’s “problem” is at least as great, if not more, than ‘Ken’s (i.e. “the problem is you can’t do that”).


    Then ‘Gill Connor’ weighs in on the 10th at 141PM: once again, we see the construction of an inaccurate position in order to give a more convenient basis for making an assertion. To wit: the construction of the inaccurate position that this site engages in “wide spread denial … of the reality that the Roman Catholic Church actively conspired to protect pedophile priests!”. Perhaps ‘Gill Connor’ needs to read more of the material on this site – or at least provide (accurate) quotations from this site where such a denial is made.


    But I would say that what is really the burr under the Abusenik saddle here is that the accumulation of facts presented here can indeed support the possibility – even probability – that the Stampede scare-visions are not and never have been accurate characterizations of the situation, not now and not even in the way-back.


    And this is especially so when we consider his further (and hardly unfamiliar) assertion that the “scandal” still apparently (the meaning of his sentence is a bit convoluted here) “infects the Church with ‘promises’ of reform”. Does ‘Gill Connor’ mean to say here that the Church has nothing to show for the past 13 (or 30) years except “promises of reform” but has not produced any actual reform?


    Then we get an assertion to the effect that the late Cardinal Bernardin “perjured himself when he denied participating in orgies at the seminary”. Can ‘Gill Connor’ give us some accurately-quoted material that would ground that assertion? And what precisely does “orgies” mean here? Are we to imagine “orgies” in an ancient Roman or Renaissance or pagan sense such as might be seen in some old Hollywood movie or is this hyperbole for “parties” or even “gatherings”? I myself don’t know the answer to this, but then again I haven’t gone and made an assertion (such as “orgies”) that would imply that I do.


    I don’t doubt that there is what might be characterized as a “Gay Wing” or at least a gay-agenda “interest” among some in the Church nor do I doubt that there is some organizational synergy between such a gay element and the abortion-friendly elements among Catholics.


    I note that ‘Gill Connor’ has used a past tense in describing the ‘cover up’ and ‘protection’ of accused priests, and I can’t think of any comment or article here on this site that would deny that some instances no doubt occurred (I am using the past tense here). Whether such instances could happen nowadays, especially in light of the new (and Vatican-supported) regulations, is another question altogether.


    Thus and once again: whence this assertion or characterization of “denying this”? What – if anything – is being “denied” is the comprehensive Stampede scare-vision of a Church anciently, historically, presently, and in the future besotted with a fundamental culture of clerical rapine and hierarchical cover-up on a world-historical scale.

    • Donald Link says:

      Whether any of the convicted priests are guilty or innocent, it is truely alarming that they were convicted by a system that accepts uncorroborated accusations as fact and sees fit to exonerate the likes of O. J. Simpson, against whom there was incontrovetible physical evidence.  Does not do much to inspire confidence in the system.

  12. Publion says:

    In a recent nationally-syndicated column entitled “When Did Facts Become Obsolete?”, Thomas Sowell raises a very useful question.


    His point is that – as opposed to the old days of “Just the facts, ma’am” – nowadays it all revolves around “how well you can concoct a story that fits people’s preconceptions and arouses their emotions”.


    This goes to the heart of the Stampede strategy: using the media to whomp up public preconceptions so that all of the (unsupported and spot-on) ‘stories’ create a ‘narrative’ whereby public opinion lazily presumes that priests and the Church are nothing-more-than or are-primarily rapine-besotted.


    Then, once that has been set up, just about any ‘story’ produced from any source claiming to be a ‘victim’ is simply more wood to keep the fire going and that’s how to Keep The Ball Rolling. And this is a strategy rendered even more useful given the Internet’s effect of tapping-into an entire ‘demographic’ of individuals whose ability to think critically and process/assess  material is … not well developed, to say the least.


    The conceptual roots of this strategy go back quite a way (back to the ancients and the question of whether mind or emotions constitute the source of actual knowledge) but the question has become far more acute since the end of World War 2.


    Sartre (who leaned heavily toward Marxism and Stalinism) developed the idea that in “borderline situations” of life one must engage not in thoughts but rather in decisive and definitive acts, eschewing the sterile processes of thought and abstraction.


    This tied into a line of Modern philosophical thought leaning heavily toward emotions and heart rather than (the more Classical) reason and mind, and towards the individual’s subjective concept of what is true rather than any independently-existing objective truth – the human creates its own truth, there is no truth ‘out there’ to be rationally discovered by humans.


    It was the 1920s Italian Leninist Gramsci, as I have said before in prior comments, who realized that the Western democracies would require a different strategy in order to undermine them; unlike Russia, open armed revolution would not work.


    Since the matured political polities of Western Europe were solidly grounded in a comprehensively reasoned rationale developed from the Greeks and Romans and further through thinkers such as Augustine and Aquinas and the Church’s canon-law and the democratic practices of Medieval monastic chapters that elected their leaders by vote, and consequent early Modern Western and especially English thinking, then the purposes of the revolution were best served by an anti-rational and an emotional thrust. Since the rationale of the West’s system could not be effectively refuted, it had to be undermined (preferably, with time-and-effort saving help from within).


    In the revolutionary vision (which can be seen as a secular fundamentalism) ‘facts’ could not be allowed to matter, since they would most likely not support the agenda of the revolution; instead, feelings would matter, since in modern mass societies feelings were more easily manipulable than ideas.


    And instead, the actual truth of ‘facts’ was sidelined in the service of a claimed ‘larger truth’ (‘higher truth’ would have inconveniently pointed toward a Beyond and a Multiplane, whereas the revolutionary agenda was squarely based in the this-worldly Monoplane). Thus it didn’t make any difference what actual facts indicated; the ‘larger truth’ of the agenda was to be the determinant of what was right and wrong, true and false.


    From that set of assumptions, it was only a short distance to the presumption that it didn’t make much – if any – difference whether a particular claimed or asserted or ‘reported’ fact was true or not; all that mattered was that whatever one was claiming or asserting or ‘reporting’ served the objectives of the revolution’s ‘larger truth’.


    In the 1960s, Gramsci was cleaned-up and introduced to American politics through Saul Alinsky’s principles for organizers, as set forth in his book Rules For Radicals. For the ‘revolution’ Alinsky substituted ‘advocacy’ and for revolutionaries he substituted ‘advocates’. But the methods remained the same.


    And that’s how facts have become obsolete.


    Thus, as was clearly admitted by various ‘advocates’ in the University of Virginia case (and in the Duke University lacrosse case almost a decade ago), “facts don’t matter” and there is a “larger truth” that must take precedence over whatever unhappily-exposed untrue ‘facts’ were put forward in the service of the cause.


    Naturally, this entire development dovetailed so very nicely with the tortie business model’s objectives, so that they might deliver to prospective allegants and clients (and customers) a speech like this: since we all know that the ‘larger truth’ here is that the Church is absolutely a rape-besotted hotbed of cover-up, then anything you say that will help drive that point home to the world is ultimately a good thing to do; you will be doing a great public service and we’ll see if we can’t get you a nice payout as well since you’ve earned it with your story.


    And things went on from there.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      The Western democracies aren't . (Try voting in the work place and see how far you get.) They are oligarchies. Je suis Wag the Dog!

  13. Publion says:

    Following up on my immediately previous comment:


    In regard to the pursuit of facts and of objective truth, the Stampede itself is anti-scientific. The Scientific Method – as readers may recall – consists of several steps: i) the empirical observation of facts; ii) the rational deductions and conclusions that can legitimately be made from those facts; iii) the continuous modification of those rational deductions and (provisional) conclusions in the light of the further application of (i) and (ii).


    In the Scientific Method, only evidence and (provisional) conclusions drawn from that evidence count.


    Further, this Method is obvious in the very format of actual scientific research reports: a) statement of the problem being investigated; b) review of the relevant literature to date; c) explication of the method the researcher has used to make the present analysis; d) results of that analysis; e) conclusions (always provisional) that can legitimately and rationally be drawn from the evidence.


    (Readers may also note that this is also very much the format of formal legal presentations – at least before Victimist-friendly legal ‘reforms’ were embraced and instituted.)


    Yet – as readers can clearly see from Abusenik submissions in the record here – the Scientific Method is opposed at every point and in every way by the Playbook. Because the Playbook is precisely designed to bypass and circumvent and suppress any application of the Scientific Method in order to pursue its core objective of manipulating emotions and drawing unsupportable conclusions from ‘stories’.


    Further, as the philosopher of science Michael Polanyi observes, the scientific ‘consciousness’ therefore contains its own ‘conscience’, i.e. the consciousness of the scientist is fundamentally shaped and ordered and guided by the strict adherence of factual truth as reached through the application of the Scientific Method.


    Thus this fundamental adherence to the truth achieved through the Scientific Method constitutes the essential ‘morality’ of Science and the scientist.


    This scientific concept of truth, of course, is gall and wormwood to the revolutionary concept of truth, i.e. the ideological presumption of what must be the ‘truth’, such that only that analysis which supports the revolutionary agenda can be considered as ‘true’ and anything else must be considered as prima facie untrue and – further – must be suppressed by any and all means.


    Further, Polanyi sees that Science is and only could ever have been an outgrowth of a Christian society because it was the Christian and Catholic search for the objective truths of a rational God and of His creation and its laws and its order that put the Western mind on the track to searching for the objective truths of created reality in the first place.


    While Polanyi can make for some heavy going for general readers, the professional sociologist of religion Rodney Stark has done a very impressive and readable job of fleshing out Polanyi’s insights in a number of books, among which are The Rise of Christianity: A Sociologist Reconsiders History, One True God: The Historical Consequences of Monotheism, and its follow-up volume For the Glory of God. I highly recommend them to interested readers.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      How dare you mention "the Scientific Method"? Ever apply it to your "belief" in "God"?


  14. Publion says:

    Marvelous and pitch-perfect would be my assessment of JR’s comment of the 15th at 1226PM.


    A one-liner from somebody who – in best Playbook fashion – has avoided the principles and practice of the Scientific Method at every turn, as is vividly evident in the record here.


    But the dynamic is interesting: while utterly avoiding any practice of the Scientific Method and while evincing in his material not an iota of familiarity-with or adherence-to the Scientific Method (in regard to Stampede matters which are very much of this world), yet JR happily dons the Wig of Scientific Authority in order to – waittttt for ittttttttttt – denounce me on that Wig’s authority as being unworthy of speaking about the Scientific Method. Delicious.


    And then – as if de novo – JR (once again) tries to conflate a) matters of religious ‘belief’, which are not essentially matters of this-world and thus are not the proper jurisdiction of the Scientific Method, with b) actual matters of this-world (which are the proper jurisdiction of the Scientific Method).

  15. Jim Robertson says:

    You are "worshiping" your own imagination.

  16. Jim Robertson says:

    I hear the pope plans his only other than NYC stop in the U.S. in Philly. Wanna bet it's to underline this case? Shall we see if this case blows up big, press wise, with the pope's visit?. They didn't create this case to let it be ignored. If Billy Doe is needed to tarnish victims and the jury system; why not make a Billy Doe? We must remember Philly's never been a "connected" town.( Sarcasm)

  17. Publion says:

    In familiar Playbook fashion, we get from JR (the 19th, 617PM) not any further discussion of the numerous points already on the table (such further discussion would constitute some sort of sustained and focused exchange), but instead just some fresh tossing of stuff.


    This time it’s a riff on the Pope’s projected visit to Philadelphia next Fall. Would – as JR suggests – the purpose be to “underline” the Billy-Doe case (by then it would be ‘cases’ since there will have been the conduct of the civil-trial as well, and quite probably the further appellate review from higher-courts)?


    I think that it may well be that the Doe case played some role in the selection of Philadelphia. It would be congruent with the developments that would have by then taken place as a result of the Vatican sex-abuse commission that first meets next month.


    But then: what will be the developments in the Doe cases by that time? If – as I think possible – the Vatican commission headed by Boston’s Cardinal O’Malley is simply working on the template set by the Stampede in its 2002 Boston phase, then it might have been originally supposed that Philadelphia was chosen as a relevant venue for the Pope to basically play-into the very template that the Stampede set up 13 years ago.


    And if the civil-trial in the Doe matter turns out in favor of Doe, then that would reinforce such an approach.


    And if the higher-court review finally decides to uphold the trial judge and the original criminal trial results (which would require the State’s Supreme Court to reverse and contradict the State’s Superior Court) then ditto.


    But if by next Fall either the civil-trial or the appellate process in the criminal trial concludes adversely for Doe, or if both of them do, then the Pope will be facing a situation almost completely un-presumed (and even un-imagined) by the Stampede strategy: i.e., its template would be shattered by the adverse court results.


    And this would be even more so if the Doe matters do not simply remain as legal processes, but instead the entire Doe matter goes supernova, as did the Brawley case and the Duke lacrosse case and the U/Virginia case: i.e. that i) Doe is somehow indubitably and publicly exposed as a fabricator and perhaps even a perjurer or his story is widely seen as a fabrication and a perjury or ii) Doe himself has a ‘melt down’ and admits the whole thing. Or both.


    Should any of that happen, then the Vatican strategy (if it is to be essentially a submissive reaction to the Stampede’s template, i.e. evil rape-y Church now sorry for it all) will be undermined by such possible developments as I have just outlined.


    So we can only say at this point that the whole thing is still in-process and there are many developments yet to come. The results of the February Vatican commission meeting and the results in the assorted court cases will all play a part.


    That being said, and the Pope’s visit being rationally considered for its real-world possibilities, we now turn to the realm of phantasm as JR’s comment descends into that region: the implication that “they” (meaning, as best I can make out, the Church … and all of its co-conspirators, apparently including the DA and perhaps even Doe himself and his family) ‘created’ this case.


    Once again we are treated to a clear and vivid example of what happens when (contrary to the Scientific Method, I might add) one embraces a pre-determined outcome and only then does one try to shoe-horn reality into the box that one’s predetermined outcome has created: since Abuseniks must presume that their templates and presumptions and stories and claims and allegations are all (or largely) true and veracious, then one must somehow come up with a theory or characterization that somehow casts any and all opposing elements as being in cahoots against the Abuseniks and their Stampede template.


    Thus here: Philadelphia is “connected”, meaning that the government and political interests and police and DA Williams (to whom we have to add Anderson and his Strategies and any torties who follow along) are all in league with the Church to ‘create’ this case and … make Victim Billy doe ‘look bad’. That’s the only characterization that can protect the essential Abusenik template here.


    Does the case raise aspects and elements and even facts that are unpleasant, un-congenial, and inconvenient for the Abusenik template and does Billy Doe look kind of ‘bad’ in all of it? The only Abusenik response can be that there is a ‘connection’ among all of the major institutional elements (political, legal, juridical and ecclesiastical) to make Victim Billy Doe ‘look bad’ (i.e. that if it weren’t for that ‘connected-ness’ then the Doe story would be allowed to appear as the fine, rational, coherent, courageous and truthy truth-telling that Abusenik dogma must insist that it is).


    Philadelphia is indeed “connected”: its political players in the recent past have played a great part in the doings of the Democratic National Committee and national-level Democratic politics and its present DA certainly can be seen as trying to use the Doe case as a careerist stepping-stone in the secularist ‘liberal’ milieu presided over by Holder’s DOJ. (We recall that the San Jose victim-assaults-elderly-priest case down there a few years ago took place in a strongly Democratic venue – close-by San Francisco, whose political representatives were and are tied-into the more radical wing of the Democratic Party.)


    And there are connections within connections: as we glean from Ralph Cipriano’s various articles, the police union in Philadelphia (of which Doe’s father is a member) might well have sought to effect a neat two-fer: help out a member (who had a particularly difficult kid and a chance to score some big bucks) while also doing a solid for the political powers-that-be in City, State, and national government.


    But for all those ‘connections’, the template’s agenda and projected-course were profoundly knocked askew when they lost control of the public ‘narrative’, thanks almost completely to Mr. Cipriano’s reporting.


    So yes, there are indeed many ‘connections’ in the Doe cases. But their present situation is not at all what the various powers-that-be in Philadelphia would have imagined when they first set out on this project of theirs. They have lost ‘control’ of the whole reaction – as the scientists might say – and the whole thing now may ‘go critical’ (ditto) and may even blow up in their collective and ‘connected’ faces.


    So yes: Philadelphia is ‘connected’. But the elements comprising that ‘connection’ are no longer the elements of thirty or fifty or more years ago wherein the Church there was a serious ‘player’. This is the frozen-in-aspic cartoon that the Abuseniks must embrace today because it is one of the core elements in the founding-cartoon of the Stampede.


    But instead, in the Year of Grace Two Thousand and Fifteen, the ‘connections’ are a national secularist ‘liberal’ (or even ‘radical liberal’) Democratic establishment to which various local sub-connected sub-players wish to attach themselves. And the Church is the piñata in the game.


    So we shall indeed see just how this case “blows up big” by the time the Pope pays a call.

  18. Jim Robertson says:

    I'm saying that it's just as likely the Billy Doe "supernova", if it happens, is as planned as 9/11.

    ( 9/11 being an excuse to make war in Afganistan and Iraq; and  the Charlie Hebdo/ Paris massacres as an excuse to draw the liberal/ center left into the racist war mongering camp for an eventual war on Iran. As if we haven't been making war on them and Syria already. )

    I swear, watch and see if Billy Doe's case proves false. The poor "progressive" pope will pray for Billy's soul.

    I wouldn't be surprised if Billy somehow died first or concurrently to El Pappa's journey, (a word I loathe the way it's over used now) by an overdose or something. Remember Bernadin's false accusor died of AIDs I believe.

    (The law firm that sponsers Ralph Cipriano's "Charge for Justice" regarding Billy has also repped mobsters in the past and you wonder why I use the word "connected" in regards to police chiefs and their drug addicted ,[ Who, afterall, controlls heroin in Phil and in Florida?] sons in Philly.)

    • Jim Robertson says:

      By the by your church has had close connections to the Mafia. They used to be in the money laundering business together.

  19. Jim Robertson says:

    Do I see conspiracies everywhere? No only where they so obviously exist.

    You believe 9/11 was a conspiracy of dozen or so guys with box cutters bringing down the WTC and launching America into a 4 trillion $ war with millions killed. That was a conspiracy. The Charlie Hedbo massacre was a conspiracy of two or more now dead "terrorists' but institutions like governments or churches would never conspire to do anything against the best interests of the majority . Really! Really?

  20. Jim Robertson says:
  21. Publion says:

    There’s not much to new to see in the most recent gaggle of comments.


    But on the 20th at 1222PM, in a nutshell: we are able to see clearly now how the Abusenik mentality is constrained to deal with uncongenial and dissonant realities. It has to figure some sort of conspiracy in which everything they don’t want to deal with or their cartoons can’t handle must have been somehow arranged by a conspiracy against it.


    And to buttress this observation of mine, we are given – so very nicely – a further bit of conspiracy to the effect that 9/11 was “planned”. (Unless JR means “planned” by the actual perpetrators who took over the planes, in which case his point is a truism and irrelevant here.)


    Then that riff continues with the bits about the post-9/11 foreign wars and so on and so forth.


    And how does the Abusenik mentality handle the possibility of the Doe case – or cases – turning out to be “false”? It skips over the hard part and tosses a tad of epithetical plop about the Pope praying for Billy Doe’s soul. How easily the Abusenik mind is satisfied that its one-liners are sufficient to the tasks.


    Then more distracting riffing, this time on JR’s thoughts about the use of the word “journey” in regard to Il Papa’s trip.


    And ditto about a false accuser dying of AIDS, apropos of absolutely nothing on the table here.


    Then further irrelevant riffing on the Beasley Law Firm.


    Anything to avoid facing the realities of the problems facing the Stampede.


    Then on the 20th at 1257PM: Apparently aware that he has made some rather queasily obvious remarks, JR tries to take the bull by the horns: Does he “see conspiracies everywhere”? And he answers (as would anybody in a secure institution for the un-hinged might) that he only sees conspiracies everywhere “where they so obviously exist”. The clinical kicker, of course, is that “obviously” (and why the envisioned conspiracies seem so “obvious” to the patient). But that’s an adventure for some other time and place.


    Then the concluding paragraph simply proceeds further down that track. And what a “journey” it may be.


    Thus to the 20th at 356PM: another irrelevant riff on the Church and the Mafia.


    And – but of course – nothing actually on the table here is actually addressed. As the Playbook would require in this situation.

  22. Jim Robertson says:

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

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

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


    • Jim Robertson says:

      Accoutrement sorry!

      Say I'm in a mental institution again and I'll sue you for libel. You lying sack o' dooty!

      Oh that's right I can't. I don't know who you are.

      Do you know who you are? Maybe that's why you stay in hiding? You don't know your own name. Do you know where you live? You seem lost. Can't you find your mommy? Aww!

      Let' all help P find his mom! He's lost and can't get home just like E.T..  Only, P doesn't know who he is.

      If you have a wallet ,P;open it up and see if you have a  driver's license. That might give you a hint.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Your popes, however, haven't apologized for the mass cover ups of catholic childrens horror by transferring known molestors to new parishes to destroy more innocent lives. Blame the individual molesting priest even though his bosses allowed him to be in a position to rape again and again and again………

    • Jim Robertson says:

      The premise I was was referencing was that the church is being fraudulantly accused by thieves that they/we were sexually abused by priests as children. It's a false premise as proven by national governmental hearings in other countries. Hearings that proved your church had transferred known child rapists to new parishes where gosh o' golly they raped again.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Read this please and see how your church leaders behaved in Australia :http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-23/paedophile-priest-john-sidney-denham-jail-term-extended/6043218

  23. Publion says:

    About  the 22nd at 1233: SNAP is most likely a synergy or even a “conspiracy” but it doesn’t include the Church, for all the reasons given and explicated at length over quite a long period here.


    The Doe case – for reasons JR doesn’t both to explain – is supposed to be a “conspiracy” and that might well be an accurate characterization, but again it doesn’t involve the Church as a Party to it. (Except in the Abusenik cartoon-universe, where everything Abuseniks don’t like or can’t handle has to be part of a conspiracy against Abuseniks – which, by the by, is a passable example of the dynamics of paranoia.)


    JR doth “know [me] to be a fraud” in the same way JR ‘knows’ so much else. Readers are welcome to consider that assertion, including the rest of the paragraph. But it gives him a chance for more unsupported and ungrounded epithetical stuff.


    The Church says a number of things are wrong – are we thus to infer that everything the Church says is wrong is merely a projective admission that the Church has done them? And does that bit of stunningly juvenile illogic apply as well to Abuseniks?


    And then we get the faux-competent mimicry in the use of “premise” – although it is unclear from the text just what the referent for this supposed “premise” actually is. But again: Wigs can provide appearances, but not actual competence.


    Then at 1239PM on the 22nd: apparently JR’s muse called or emailed with the proper spelling of “accoutrement”. We are dealing, it would clearly appear, with a team effort here.


    Then the creation of something I did not say in order to huff and puff about “libel”.


    And then a riff on whether I know who I really am – whatever that might mean. The riff pans out to be nothing more than a collection of epitheticals.


    And his comment trails off on that note.


    And on the 20th at 1245PM we simply get a repeat of a few more of the old 3×5 cards seen and dealt with long ago.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Just a one person "team effort" here. i worried you'd bust me on my spelling. so I looked up accoutrement and corrected myself before you could rant on.

      Try to remember you are the one who has been busted for lying here not me.  Remember the TCM Nazi Titanic fiasco?

  24. Jim Robertson says:

    The Doe case is either the truth or not. If it's not the truth then it has the possibility of being one of two conspiracies.

    One is P's "tortie Snap" anti church nonsense version or another. Here is the other possibility:

    Set up a drug addicted police chiefs son to lie for drugs or money or daddy. (If he is lying; remember a jury believed him.)

    (But let's face it the church isn't sending the pope to Philly for nothing. They expect a return on their efforts around the Billy Doe case.)

    Trigger the long extant "connection" between cops and D.A.'s; the mob; mob lawyers; unemployed "journalists" and pay for it all with the treasure of the hyper rich catholic church. An arranged "event"  to implode the credability of real victims claims.

    Remember the largest contributor financially to the catholic church is the U.S..

    This tactic of creating news by "revealing false claims for money" was tried before with Bernadin's  "false accusor". It didn't work well then, at least not as well as the church wanted it to. So the church trys it again. Not in NY mind you where any investigative journalist might look deeper at any possible fraud but in Philly. Not exacly a center for investigative reportage.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      "Remember the largest contributor to the catholic church is the U.S.." in my post above should be followed by. " The church needs America's donations to flow again. How beneficial would the revelation of falsely accused and imprisoned priests be to the coffers of the church? "

  25. Jim Robertson says:

    I have to say I think I'll be proved correct about a "blow up' around the Billy Doe case.

    Why do I think that? Because of how quickly the church's shill here wrote around the probability of the pope illuminating the Billy Doe case. This has been a show long in the making. There has to be a climax, a denouement. It's just been too long underlned by the lawyer employed Cipriano and the usual suspects here.

  26. Publion says:

    And now:


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


    That’s the theory, folks.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

  27. Jim Robertson says:

    Hey Cipriano may believe every thing he says.  He may truely feel he's on to a major injustice; and that he's doing the right thing in exposing that injustice. Why has the Beasley law firm sponsored him? What's in it for them?

    If the D.A.'s did anything wrong in the prosecution of those priests of course they should be held responsible. My question is why would they? Cui Bono? A political career based on jailing innocent catholic priests, in Philly? I don't think a D.A. would rise far on that. On the other hand setting up an easily questionable case benefits who in the long haul? When the truth comes out the church would benefit enormously.

    I have a Marine friend a lifer. who went for advanced training at the Naval War college ( I'm not sure if that's it's correct name) He was shocked at the use of false flag operations as a major factor in war planning. Remember Hitler's excuse for invading Poland was a false flag operation he had created. (the attack on an ethnic German radio station by Nazis dressed up as Poles speaking fluent Polish)

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Let's all just wait and see what happens in Pa.. Shall we?

      I'm willing to put money on my being right. :^)

    • Jim Robertson says:

      The mob has never had connections to the catholic church in your opinion?

      The mob has never had D.A.s or Police chiefs in their "pockets"?

      The mob does not control heroin in Philly and N.Y.?

      The mob does not have legal firms at their beck and call?

      The catholic church has never done anything wrong to benefit itself?

      ("My, my!" Of course it hasn't.)

  28. Publion says:

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

  29. Jim Robertson says:

    Not so dear simple one,

    How could the D.A. be influenced to bring an "easily disprovable" case if there was one?

    Money; threat; blackmail; favors owed?

  30. Jim Robertson says:

    Hey John Paul Jonesy,

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

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Must correct myself, again. My friend did do tours in Guam and Germany in his Marine career. My friend is heterosexual by the way. Some of my best friends are heterosexual. That's the joy in ending bigotry. You get so many more friends. Try it for yourselves.

  31. Publion says:

    Amazingly – but not surprisingly – JR comes back on the 26th at 1232PM with a comment that ignores the problems outlined in his ‘theory’ about the Philadelphia DA being in a ‘conspiracy’ with the Church.


    JR now theorizes (asserts is more like it) that the DA could have been bribed (“money”), threatened (“threat”), or blackmailed (“blackmail”) by – waitttttttttt for itttttttttttttttttt – the Church or the Archdiocese.


    Readers are welcome to consider how any of those possibilities could be grounded in any reality whatsoever, except for JR’s ‘personal’ reality.


    But we are graced with yet another example of JR’s oft-revealed tendency for projection with that “simple one”.


    And on the 26th at 1236PM we are given a fine example of JR’s default gambit: the epithetical (or, colloquially, name-calling) – revealing once again that we are in, and have never left, the cafeteria and its denizens.


    To which must be added the point that we get merely further elaboration on an original assertion (about his Marine fast-tracked officer “friend” at the Naval War College) that still leaves us with the original incredible assertion.


    And I would also point out that the problem with the Marine-War College story is not that the Marine officer doth “make things up” but rather, and more probably, that JR does.


    Further, if this claimed Marine officer has already put in 20 years in the Corps, then the chances of his being sent to the fast-tracked Naval War College student billet are somewhere just south of zero. Ditto that in 20 years of service he never left CONUS and his “entire career … was in the U.S.”.


    So we are faced in his comment here with something – certainly not from a priest – that appears to be rather clearly ‘made up’.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Not "made up" in the least. I'd say i spoke gospel but what's true and the gospels sometimes have miles between them.

  32. Publion says:

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


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


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


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

  33. Jim Robertson says:

    So false flag operations are nothing to be shocked at at the Naval War College heh? Thank you that speaks volumes.

  34. Jim Robertson says:

    Did I say my friend was an officer? Did I say it was at the end of his 20 year tour of duty?  No.

    Ever been stationed as a part of a headquarters company?

    Hell I had a top secret clearence at Army headquarters in Ft. Amador. The toilet paper is stamped top secret at a military headquarters.( I'm kidding in case you're too dumb to figure that joke out.)

  35. Jim Robertson says:

    I have to correct myself again. I said my friend went to the NWC "for advanced training". He did not.  In this thread that's the only thing I was wrong about.

     Nobody is perfect. Except Jesus and P. (and P's not too sure about Jesus) :^)

  36. Publion says:

    We needn’t spend too much time on the ongoing unraveling of the Marine/Naval War College (NWC) story. And again: I continue with the material simply because it offers further examples of how Abuseniks and the Playbook try to derail uncongenial trains of thought.


    On the 28th at 303PM JR will try to change the subject without appearing to have done so: the subject is changed from the possibility of a long-serving Marine being “shocked” at the concept of “false flag operations” to the validity of anybody being “shocked” about the “false flag operations”.


    The point at issue on this thread – raised by JR himself – was that a long-serving Marine would be “shocked” at (and thus that he would only at the NWC have discovered the existence of) the concept of “false flag operations”.


    JR’s sly avoidance of his own material’s problem “speaks volumes”.


    Then a few minutes later at 310PM we merely get an assertion (that it isn’t he who is “lying” here) and a nice epithet (“scumbag”) to add to “apostate” and all the rest. So much for the mature consideration called-for by the Scientific Method.


    Then at 321pm he tries to play with words without having to betray his ignorance of the matter which he made the gravamen of his story: the NWC courses are for officers. If his alleged friend isn’t an officer then he wouldn’t be in the courses. But even if his friend is enlisted and yet after 20 years in the Corps (including a tour in Germany) he didn’t know about the concept of “false flag operations” then his friend has managed to remain remarkably uninformed during those 20 years.


    Nobody mentioned this Marine being “at the end” of his “20 year tour of duty” (the correct military usage would be “career”; a “tour of duty” is an assignment, of which there are a number during a career – JR seems unfamiliar with correct military usage). This “end” bit is a red herring.


    He then asks a question the relevance of which he doesn’t explain (about ever being “stationed at a headquarters company”): are we to infer that this friend is an enlisted man of 20 years experience who has been sent to the Naval War College as a clerk or admin type of some sort? If enlisted he would have to be of advanced grade, which brings us right back to the incredibility of an advanced-grade enlisted Marine never having heard of “false flag operations” and yet being considered sufficiently competent so as to be assigned a billet at the NWC.


    We are then brought back – by JR himself – to his story (related here quite a while ago) that a) he was sent to the Canal Zone as a young draftee; b) that he – like all the rest of his unit – were “counting the days” until they could finish their hitch; but also that c) while he was waiting and “counting” he managed to be promoted rapidly several grades up the ladder for his competence at his assigned job; d) while being an admin clerk assigned to handle (and perhaps oversee other clerks’ handling of) vital documentation such as passports; while e) apparently unable to spell (and let’s not get into the already-discussed oddities of his alleged spelling problem); although after so sterling a performance he got nothing at the end-of-tour (or hitch) but a GCM (rather than a personal award such as the Army Achievement Medal). And also: when questions were raised, he proffered a description of the location of his headquarters that included the presence of a military unit that did not exist (because it was not “stood up”, as military usage has it) until almost 20 years after his alleged presence in the Zone.


    He then slides in that he too had a Top-Secret clearance while serving in his post. But then, to distract us from thinking too much about any of that, he quickly proffers a yuk: at “a military headquarters” even “the toilet paper is stamped top secret”. But the point isn’t whether a reader would not realize he was making a yuk, but rather that the yuk is slyly tossed in as a distraction, and a nonsensical one at that.


    Then at 404PM he has to “correct [him]self again”; in other words, he has to change his story again. This time he retreats from the assertion that his friend went to the NWC “for advanced training … he did not”. Ah well then.


    That still leaves us with a Marine of 20 years’ experience and some advanced grade (as officer or enlisted) who hadn’t ever heard of “false flag operations”, such that he was “shocked” when he discovered their existence. That possibility remains incredible even if the friend’s MOS is ‘cook’.


    But JR will then – of course – try to kick some leaves on his dropping here by asserting that “in this thread that’s the only thing I was wrong about”. The actual point of query is not whether he was “wrong” but whether his story is at all credible; we needn’t quibble about the ins and outs of his ongoing and still-in-development  ‘story’.


    Then, heading quickly for the curtains, he characteristically tries to make excuses for himself with the plaint that “nobody is perfect”.


    But he can’t pass up the chance to slather a bit more frosting on the cake and the performance by then going for his signature epithet gambit: he equates me with Jesus in that Jesus and I are both “perfect” although I doubt Jesus’ perfection, and on the strength of that vivid but nonsensical bit, he will surf the yukky wave off the stage and the matinee is over.


    Leaving us with as many if not more questions as existed before he began.


    What we see in all of this is the essential nature of Abusenik story-telling, where the story changes, but even the changes raise questions. And one has to keep asking questions even in the face of the many distractions, tossed up like chaff, to confuse the issues.


    Stories and truth and facts are like play-dough to them, to be twisted and shaped according to their ‘personal’ and desired narrative.


    If we proceed much further down this military-stories path, we are probably going to wind up with something about JR and George Armstrong Custer (that will no doubt cast the former in a heroic light) . The only possibly valuable material to come out of this bit of his any further will simply be more examples of how certain mentalities will continue to twist their material like little animal balloons at the county fair into whatever shapes they want. Which I would say is something of a habit with them.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Hey Scumbag, Enough of your lying about me. ENOUGH! If I could reach through this f'ing computer I'd happily choke you to death. you cringing hiding piece of shit!

      Unlike the lying lifer you are, I was in the service for 2 years. I sacrificed 2 years of my life to have a asshole like you pretend it didn't happen? I was RAPED FUCKING RAPED BY YOUR CLERICS and I have to put up with you? I swear if I get my hands on you you are a dead man.

      You are correct"."20 yr. tour of duty" is wrong to say. So what?

      It's only been 47 years since I was in a military I couldn't wait to get away from. You called it "career". Us draftees called you "lifers"

      Do you read anything I write? He wasn't shocked by the "existence" of false flagged opps.

      He was surprised/shocked at, and i quote myself and him, that such black opps were "a major factor in war planning" .

      Got it, you f'ing idiot?

      You are too pathetic


  1. [...] Bornhoft, Catholic Lane Defending the Truth About Marriage – Tom Piatak, Crisis Magazine ‘I Am An Innocent Man Wrongly Convicted’ – David F. Pierre Jr., TMR Mario Cuomo: A Mortal & Sinful Man – Steve Skojec, One [...]