- RSS Channel Showcase 3433627
- RSS Channel Showcase 5806928
- RSS Channel Showcase 6280665
- RSS Channel Showcase 1886325
Articles on this Page
- 11/25/17--12:49: _The Return of Vincenzo
- 11/28/17--07:08: _Another Sandusky-Re...
- 11/30/17--11:35: _Newsweek's "Sins Of...
- 12/04/17--04:52: _I Did Not Deserve "...
- 12/10/17--07:14: _On Tour With The Or...
- 12/11/17--11:01: _What John Gotti Did...
- 12/12/17--12:26: _Progressive New D.A...
- 12/23/17--10:48: _D.A.'s Office, Unde...
- 01/01/18--04:00: _Harvey Silverglate'...
- 01/04/18--05:58: _For Big Trial, A Lo...
- 01/06/18--02:37: _At D.A.'s Office No...
- 01/08/18--12:58: _Chaos At The D.A.'s...
- 01/17/18--17:16: _D.A. Won't Press Ch...
- 01/17/18--18:17: _New D.A. Krasner Go...
- 01/22/18--11:23: _"Hey Fredo -- Bring...
- 01/24/18--12:05: _Msgr. Lynn's Lawyer...
- 01/28/18--06:42: _How Vince Fumo Save...
- 01/29/18--08:35: _Joey Merlino Rolls ...
- 02/21/18--09:37: _Mob Talk Sitdown: A...
- 02/21/18--13:48: _Billy In Philly -- ...
- 03/04/18--08:36: _Thomas Capano and t...
- 03/04/18--09:54: _Skinny Joey Vs. The...
- 03/05/18--15:47: _Prosecutor's Missin...
- 03/09/18--06:59: _A Prosecutor's 'Los...
- 03/15/18--12:34: _Progressive Larry K...
- 11/25/17--12:49: The Return of Vincenzo
- 11/28/17--07:08: Another Sandusky-Related Victim Of The Abuse Myth
- 11/30/17--11:35: Newsweek's "Sins Of The Fathers"
- 12/04/17--04:52: I Did Not Deserve "The Scarlet Letter"
- 12/10/17--07:14: On Tour With The Original Gangster
- 12/11/17--11:01: What John Gotti Did To The Mob
- 12/12/17--12:26: Progressive New D.A. Larry Krasner Off On Wrong Foot
- 12/23/17--10:48: D.A.'s Office, Under New Management, Perpetuates An Old Fraud
- 01/01/18--04:00: Harvey Silverglate's Foreword To Target: The Senator
- 01/04/18--05:58: For Big Trial, A Look Back, A Look Forward
- 01/06/18--02:37: At D.A.'s Office Nobody Left To Prosecute Msgr. Lynn
- 01/08/18--12:58: Chaos At The D.A.'s Office; Two Different Lists Of Fired Employees
- 01/17/18--17:16: D.A. Won't Press Charges Against Teacher Who Cursed Out Cops
- 01/17/18--18:17: New D.A. Krasner Going Forward With Retrial Of Msgr. Lynn
- 01/22/18--11:23: "Hey Fredo -- Bring Out The Peppers And Sausage"
- 01/24/18--12:05: Msgr. Lynn's Lawyers: D.A. Knowingly Put Liar On Stand
- 01/28/18--06:42: How Vince Fumo Saved The Eagles From Moving To Phoenix
- 01/29/18--08:35: Joey Merlino Rolls the Dice
- 02/21/18--09:37: Mob Talk Sitdown: A Mistrial In The Merlino Case
- 03/04/18--08:36: Thomas Capano and the Murder of Anne Marie Fahey
- 03/04/18--09:54: Skinny Joey Vs. The Feds: Headed For A Rematch
- 03/05/18--15:47: Prosecutor's Missing Notes About "Billy Doe" Mysteriously Reappear
- 03/09/18--06:59: A Prosecutor's 'Lost' Notes And The Pack Of Lies She Wrote
- 03/15/18--12:34: Progressive Larry Krasner Legalizes Prostitution In Philadelphia
By Ralph Cipriano
Former state Senator Vincent J. Fumo is back in the news.
Fumo, who has kept a low profile since his 2013 release from prison, is the subject of an 8,000-word profile in Philadelphia magazine's December issue, available now on newsstands. "The Vince of Darkness" is also the subject of a book I've written, Target: The Senator; A Story About Power And Abuse of Power, coming soon to amazon.com.
I met Fumo back in 2008, when I covered his corruption trial that ended with him getting convicted on all 137 felony counts. I've been working on the book on and off for the past eight years. I'll say one thing about Fumo as a subject -- he may be the devil to some, and crazy to others, but he's never been boring.
The Philly mag story is an interesting read, about Fumo as well as the distorted coverage of him by the Inquirer.
It took a near death experience to convince retired Philadelphia police detective Joe Walsh that he couldn't keep quiet anymore about what he knew.
On June 11, 2015, just another sunny day down at the Jersey Shore, Walsh suddenly felt severe pain in his jaw. An old Army who noticed the color had drained from Walsh's face told him to "Sit down" while he called 911.
In the ambulance, a paramedic asked Walsh if he liked the T-shirt he was wearing. "Not particularly," Walsh told him. "That's good," the paramedic said, before he cut it ff with scissors. "He hooked me up [to a monitor] and that's all I remember," Walsh says. "Everything went white."
The rest of the story of Joe Walsh's journey through Philadelphia pedophile priest scandals can be read here.
By Ralph Cipriano
The "Vince of Darkness" is back with a vengeance.
Philly Voice ran a long interview this morning with former state Senator Vincent J. Fumo.
Fumo, who spent four years in jail after he was convicted on 137 felony counts, characteristically came out swinging, saying he was the target of "an avalanche of negative publicity," and "prosecutorial over-agression," and that he did not deserve being branded with "The Scarlet Letter."
In Fumo's case, instead of an "A" like Hester Prynne, he got an "F" emblazoned on his forehead as a convicted felon.
Philly Voice also ran an excerpt from my new book, Target: The Senator, A Story About Power and Abuse of Power.
That's on top of an 8,000 word Philly mag profile of Fumo that also discusses the book, which is out on Kindle, and will shortly be available in a paperback, with a hard cover on the way.
Anybody who reads Target: The Senator will recognize some familiar themes from this blog; overzealous and unaccountable prosecutors and a hometown newspaper that blindly favors them.
These are the themes that run through so many stories recounted on this blog, including the Archdiocese of Philadelphia sex abuse scandals, the rogue cops case, the trials of former U.S. Rep. Chaka Fattah, former L&I Deputy Commissioner Dominic Verdi, and former Penn State President Graham Spanier, as well as the so-called Penn State sex abuse scandal.
Well the granddaddy of all of the cases in this genre is the Fumo case, which was staged for nearly five months at the federal courthouse back in 2008 and 2009.
Whether you loathed or loved Fumo, his case was a travesty from start to finish. There were so many leaks, the defendant was being tried and convicted in the media for years before his trial even began.
In Fumo's case, the feds were able to criminalize politics as usual, and the media and a jury went along with it, deciding that it was a felony for Fumo to fix up an office building, tear down a nuisance bar, rent a car, and put gas in that car. All while the Inquirer portrayed Fumo as Satan.
It was, as I say in the book, a "cartoon version of reality." So in Target: The Senator, I spent a lot of time explaining who Fumo was, how he got that way, and what the taxpayers lost when the feds staged their moral crusade that took him out.
As Harvey A. Silverglate, the author of Three Felonies A Day; How the Feds Target the Innocent, writes in the foreword:
“Target: The Senator brilliantly lays out the federal prosecutorial jihad against one of the most powerful — and colorful — state politicians in recent memory, Vincent J. Fumo . . . . [Cipriano] has interjected truth as a weapon against raw governmental abuse of power and news media gullibility. [He] deserves our thanks for peeling back the curtain on the epic destruction of Fumo, and revealing how it was done. Our job now is to read this important book with care and then to engage, as activist citizens, in an effort to reform the system."
If a rich and powerful guy like Fumo can't get a fair trial, it's bad news for the rest of us.
Another good reason to read the book: nobody who read the Inquirer's Fumo coverage has any idea of what really happened in that case. No, Fumo was not convicted of extorting PECO and Verizon; he was never even charged with that.
What happened in the Fumo case was that the feds, who, recently declassified FBI records show, had targeted Fumo for destruction since the 1970s, were able, with the help of the gullible and irresponsible hometown newspaper, to team up and destroy a guy, along with the presumption of innocence, and a defendant's constitutional right to a fair trial.
In the book, I had access to thousands of pages of previously confidential grand jury transcripts and FBI "302s," stuff the Inquirer never saw, so I could explain exactly how the feds pulled it off. Fumo, of course, also tells his side of the story for the first time.
The hometown newspaper's pro-prosecution bias, even when the prosecutor and that prosecution is proven to be corrupt, is laid out elsewhere on this blog in the Newsweek cover story this week about Philadelphia Police Detective Joe Walsh, and his incredible voyage through the Archdiocese of Philadelphia's sex abuse prosecutions.
In this case, a district attorney, Rufus Seth Williams, who is now sitting in solitary confinement in the federal lockup on Market Street, ran with a false prosecution featuring a fraudulent crime victim -- Billy Doe, AKA Danny Gallagher.
In this case, which is still ongoing, four innocent men were sent to jail, one died there, and we had the amazing specter of the detective who led that investigation for the D.A.'s office, Walsh, coming forward publicly to say it was all a lie, and that he caught Danny Gallagher lying. And when he tried to tell the prosecutor that Gallagher was a liar, former Assistant District Attorney Mariana Sorensen, she replied, "You're killing my case."
Walsh's story is all laid out in two court cases as well as a 12-page affidavit filed in Court. It's a story that's on the cover of Newsweek from coast to coast, and the blind people at the Inquirer still refuse to print a word about it. Amazing.
Instead, in the news columns and editorial pages of the Inquirer, the story is always the same, rapacious priests and innocent victims, as illustrated in Maria Panaritis's recent opus on the lasting damage done by Father James Bryzyski.
I'm not saying that isn't a story. It sure is. But so is Detective Walsh coming forward, and so is Danny Gallagher being revealed as a complete fraud. A guy who sent four innocent men to jail, and stole $5 million from the Catholic Church in a civil settlement for his imaginary pain and suffering.
|Courtroom sketch by Susan Schary|
By Ralph Cipriano
In the back of a prison bus, a U.S. marshal was sitting in a steel cage, armed with a shotgun. He was watching over forty men dressed in blue paper jumpsuits and shackled in handcuffs, belly chains, and leg irons.
John Gotti's mob legacy.
Story from realclearlife.com can be read HERE.
"It's a dark comedy" -- George Anastasia
By Ralph Cipriano
Attention Philadelphia: your newly-elected District Attorney, Progressive Larry Krasner, is already getting started on his new job, but that may not be a good thing.
According to a Nov. 29th mass email sent out to hundreds of employees in the D.A.'s office, Krasner sought and was granted permission by interim D.A. Kelley Hodge to have his transition team review the personnel files of those hundreds of employees, presumably to help decide who's going and who's staying in a Krasner administration. The review according to the mass email, was supposed to be conducted last week, but one union official, FOP President John McNesby, said he did not believe that any of the reviews had actually been done yet.
That may be because of an ongoing ethical problem. Krasner, a longtime civil rights lawyer who's sued the city's police department 75 times, and provided pro-bono representation for the likes of ACT UP, Black Lives Matter, and Occupy Philly, isn't officially the D.A. yet, and he won't be until he's sworn in on Jan. 2nd.
Krasner, who could not be reached for comment, apparently has tasked a lawyer from the firm that he is now of counsel to, Patricia Pierce of Greenblatt, Pierce, Funt & Flores, to help review those personnel files at the D.A.'s office. Krasner also has been seen visiting the D.A.'s office at Penn Square a few times, along with members of his transition team, who supposedly have been given office space by the interim D.A. The reaction among some employees at the D.A.'s office has been paranoia.
"People were freaking out," said one source familiar with the process. "I think everybody's worried about being fired."
But did Krasner, who got elected thanks to donations of nearly $1.7 million from billionaire George Soros, jump the gun with his request to review those personnel files? Yes says one expert on legal ethics.
"I don't think he has a right to do that yet," said Samuel C. Stretton, a criminal defense lawyer who has tried hundreds of cases, and lectures and writes frequently about legal and judicial ethics.
According to Stretton, Krasner's transition team can't legally review the personnel files at the D.A.'s office without a court order, or the consent of the employees. But from the way the Nov. 29th mass email to the employees was written, saying no to Progressive Larry did not appear to be an option.
On Nov. 29th, a mass email went out from First Deputy District Attorney John Delaney, addressed to all "D.A. domino users." Under the subject line "transition," Delaney wrote:
"D.A, Elect Krasner has asked that his transition team review the personnel files of office employees. The District Attorney has agreed to his request, and that review will begin next week. If you as an employee of the office would like to inspect your personnel file, in accord with the office policy, you may do so tomorrow or Friday. The files are in the small conference room 1840, at the end of the middle hallway on the 18th floor, opposite the large conference room. A member of the human resources department will be present and will provide the file to you. You may not add to or subtract from the file . . .
"To enable an orderly inspection, the following times are strongly suggested. If you can not make your suggested time, you may appear at another time. If you wish to inspect your file but cannot do so tomorrow or Friday, please contact Kathy Martin."
That's kind of funny because Martin, a former first assistant district attorney under former D.A. Seth Williams, before Williams was indicted and sent to jail, has already turned in her resignation, and will be leaving next month.
The files, according to the email, were viewable from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Thursday Nov. 30th and from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. Friday Dec. 1st.
Stretton says he understands Krasner's desire for expediency.
"He's not the D.A. yet, but he will be shortly," Stretton said. "I'm sure he [Krasner] has the best intentions," Stretton said. "But, he's coming into an office with a lot of dissension so let's do it the right way."
The right way, Stretton said, would have been to either wait until he's sworn in, or seek the consent of the employees, and give them the option of saying no to a personnel file review.
"The new district attorney doesn't want to start off by breaking the law," Stretton said. "His job is to uphold the law. It's a little disappointing to me that Larry Krasner is off to a bad start."
When told some employees had complained about the review of their personnel files, Stretton said, "I think people have a right to be offended."
Asked about how this development bodes for the new Krasner administration, Stretton said, "This is not a good omen."
Nor is the way Krasner has handled Big Trial's request for an explanation of what Krasner is up to down at the D.A.'s office.
Cameron Kline, a spokesperson for the D.A.'s office, did not respond to a request for comment last week.
Lawyers at Greenblatt, Pierce, Funt & Flores also did not respond to a request for comment. Neither did the folks at krasnertradition.com, the website set up by Progressive Larry that promises "a new era in criminal justice."
So the newly-elected D.A. isn't talking; neither is Interim D.A. Kelley Hodge. But former District Attorney Lynne Abraham, who served as the city's top law enforcement officer for 20 years, said she didn't set foot in the D.A.'s office until the day she was sworn in.
"You can certainly quote me that I didn't handle it that way, and you can bet your boots Seth Williams didn't set foot in that office until he was sworn in," Abraham wrote in an email.
Pierce is a law partner at the firm that Krasner is now a part of.
On Sept. 6, 2017, Krasner merged his firm of Krasner and Associates with the Greenblatt firm and "will be joining the firm on an Of Counsel basis," according to the Greenblatt firm's website.
"We are so proud to have Mr. Krasner and the other members of Kranser and Associations join our firm," the website said. "We are thrilled that he has selected us to be the firm he wishes to transition his clients to while he pursues his goal of becoming Philadelphia's next District Attorney. We look forward to working with Mr. Krasner in these upcoming months and to easing his transition back into public life. As importantly, we also look forward to serving his clients."
John McNesby, president of the Fraternal Order of Police, said he was aware of the review of the personnel files, but he did not think the reviews had been done yet.
"The transition team was granted access to review the attorneys' files for any discipline or negative performance info," McNesby said. "Each had to sign a confidentiality waiver that they do not discuss it."
|The D.A.'s Star Witness|
If you're caught in a lie, when do you have to admit it?
If you're the district attorney's office of Philadelphia, never.
So the D.A.'s office, under Interim D.A. Kelley Hodge, is upholding the corrupt regime of her predecessor, Rufus Seth Williams, by continuing to pursue a retrial of Msgr. William J. Lynn.
Never mind that Williams is wearing a jumpsuit and sitting in a federal prison in Oklahoma, where he's doing a five-year stretch for taking bribes.
Or that Danny Gallagher, the D.A.'s former star witness in the case against Msgr. Lynn, is hiding out down in Florida, with his ill-gotten gains. That's the $5 million that Gallagher stole in a civil settlement from the Catholic Church, a heist made possible by the corrupt acts of D.A. Williams, who certified that a fraud like Danny Gallagher was an official victim of sex abuse.
In a 25-page brief filed Dec. 5th in state Superior Court, the D.A.'s office seeks to overturn Judge Gwendolyn Bright's motion to limit the evidence that the D.A. can present in a retrial of Msgr. Lynn. The defendant's lawyers, however, have a more ambitious goal; they're seeking to have the retrial thrown out on grounds of double jeopardy because of intentional prosecutorial misconduct.
Lynn is a free man because the Superior Court in 2015, for the second time in three years, overturned the monsignor's original 2012 conviction on one count of endangering the welfare of a child, namely Gallagher.
On March 24th, Judge Bright ruled that "certain information should have been provided to the defense," such as Detective Joe Walsh's trial prep of Gallagher. Walsh testified that he repeatedly questioned Gallagher about several factual discrepancies in his various tales of abuse, and that Gallagher responded by either claiming he was high on drugs, saying nothing, or inventing new stories.
In her March 24th ruling, Judge Bright said the prosecutorial misconduct in the Lynn case was sufficient to justify granting a new trial to the defendant. But since Msgr. Lynn had already been granted a new trial by the state Superior Court, the judge said, she didn't have to do anything else.
Well, there was one thing she could have done. If Judge Bright had found that the prosecutorial misconduct in the Msgr. Lynn case was intentional, then she could have thrown out the retrial on grounds of double jeopardy.
But the judge ruled that a "total dismissal is not a sanction warranted under the facts," and that there was "insufficient evidence to support such a remedy."
Well, Judge, I would say that if you know your star witness is a liar, and you put him on the witness stand anyway, that sounds intentional to me. Especially if the lead detective on the case, Detective Walsh, has already told your prosecutor that Gallagher is a liar, and the prosecutor responded by saying, "You're killing my case."
And that's exactly what Lynn's lawyers -- Thomas A. Bergstrom, Marc Tepper, and David A. Schumacher -- argue in their 24-page appeal brief filed Dec. 1st.
The defense cites the original grand jury report of Jan, 21 2011, where it notes that "the grand jury investigation began with the tearful testimony" of Danny Gallagher. He's the former altar boy who claimed that during the 1998-99 school year, when he was a 10 year old fifth grader, he was repeatedly raped by two priests and a Catholic school teacher.
Lie No. 1 --- Gallagher claimed that back when he was in fifth grade, he was a member of the bell choir maintenance crew at St. Jerome's Church in Northeast Philly. It was while he was putting the bells away after a concert, Gallagher claimed, that he was first accosted by Father Edward V. Avery, one of his attackers.
As anybody who's been reading this blog knows, three of Gallagher's former teachers testified that only eighth graders were big enough to lift the heavy bells and tables used by the bell choir, so there were no fifth grade members of the bell choir crew.
Lie No. 2 -- Danny Gallagher claimed he was serving at an early morning Mass when he was first attacked by Father Charles Engelhardt. Walsh, the defense lawyers wrote, found out that Danny's older brother James, also an altar boy at the same school, was the kid who served the early morning Mass. Walsh also found out that James Gallagher said his parents drove him to and from the church, and that the sexton, a senior citizen volunteer at the church, was the last person to lock up and leave the building.
The presence of the sexton would have been another reason not to believe Danny Gallagher's fables that he was alone in the sacristy after the early morning Mass when the priest raped him.
Lie No. 3 -- the grand jury report claimed that Gallagher's mother noticed a big personality change in her son while he was still at St. Jerome's. Gallagher's mother, however, testified to the grand jury that she noticed the big personality change when her son was a freshman in high school, and got kicked out for possession of marijuana and brass knuckles. Not while Danny was in elementary school, at St. Jerome's.
But the resourceful D.A.'s office solved that problem by simply rewriting the mother's grand jury testimony to fit their plot line.
In their appeal brief, the defense lawyers harp on the fact that the D.A.'s office had to know that Danny Gallagher was a liar.
"Despite the fact that it [the D.A.'s office] knew that it's primary witness was lying, the Commonwealth proceeded with its manufactured case against [Lynn] and put Gallagher on the stand," the defense lawyers wrote. "During his testimony, Gallagher falsely stated that he was part of the bell crew and choir in the 5th grade. Gallagher also falsely testified that he served the 6:15 a. m. Mass" with the priest in fifth grade.
"But when the Commonwealth's lead investigator challenged Gallagher on these facts prior to trial, he could not adequately respond," the defense lawyers wrote. "And when the Commonwealth's lead investigator challenged [Assistant District Attorney Mariana Sorensen] on these facts prior to trial, the response was, 'You're killing my case."
"Yet the Commonwealth proceeded to trial against [Lynn] anyway, desperate for a conviction, failing along the way to disclose those facts to [Lynn] and essentially suborning perjury," the defense wrote. "And, notwithstanding its knowledge then of these facts the Commonwealth continues to ignore the reality that its key witness is a liar, and continues to re-prosecute [Lynn] , still desperate for the conviction it rightfully lost on appeal."
In summation, the defense lawyers claim that the prosecutorial misconduct in the D.A.'s office was intentional.
"The Commonwealth abandoned their legal, ethical and moral responsibilities by presenting false testimony to two juries, resulting in the conviction and imprisonment of three men, one of whom died in prison."
The defense lawyers point out that in previous cases, the Superior Court has held that when the prosecution "intentionally engages in misconduct to deprive a defendant of a fair trial, double jeopardy attaches."
"Here, the Commonwealth improperly prepared Gallagher to testify, despite what it knew from Walsh, and continues to prosecute this case to this day, again despite what it knows from Walsh," the defense lawyers wrote.
In their 25-page brief, three top officials from the D.A.'s office, Hugh Burns Jr., Ronald Eisenberg, and John P. Delaney Jr., along with Interim D.A. Kelley Hodge, don't even mention the name of Detective Joe Walsh. Nor do they address any issue of misconduct.
Apparently, at the D.A.'s office, where the last occupant went to jail, they're above all that.
Instead, the D.A.'s entire 25-page brief, the D.A. attacks the "continuing criminal scheme" of Msgr. Lynn, which was a "pattern of intentionally mishandling other sexually abusive priests with the intent to shelter" both the priests and the church at large from scandal.
When Lynn was first tried, the trial judge, M. Teresa Sarmina, approved the introduction as evidence of 21 supplemental cases of sex abuse dating back to 1948, three years before Msgr. Lynn was born, to show a pattern in the archdiocese of covering up sex abuse.
When the Superior Court threw out Lynn's conviction in 2015, a three-judge panel found that the evidence provided by the 21 cases was far exceeded by their prejudicial effect.
When the D.A. went to retry the case, they asked Judge Bright to admit nine supplemental cases of sex abuse to show a pattern of church cover ups. The judge approved the admission of only three cases.
So in their appeal brief, the D.A.'s office wants the judge's order overturned, arguing that all nine cases should be presented as evidence.
My criminal defense and civil liberties law practice, spanninghalf a century, has exposed me to several shockingly broad gaps in American life between appearance and reality.
No gap, in my experience, has been broader than that between the commonly accepted reputation of federal criminal justice and the sordid realities of how the United States Department of Justice, often with the connivance of the federal judiciary, dispenses justice.
A disproportionate number of federal trial and appellate court judges are former prosecutors, and so there is an uncomfortable amount of symbiosis between the Justice Department and the bench. The number and variety of innocent people railroaded by the system would be sufficient to undermine any semblance of public confidence in federal criminal justice if the public understood the details of these cases.
Ralph Cipriano has now taken a giant step in this educational (and muckraking) endeavor. He has written a book describing in often dramatic detail the trials and tribulations of longtime Pennsylvania state Senator (and one-time unchallenged legislative powerhouse) Vincent J. Fumo. Cipriano’s contribution to our understanding is how the system works— and how it enhances the career prospects and power of federal prosecutors while mercilessly, and too often falsely, destroying the lives and careers of the targets. Target: The Senator; A Story About Power and Abuse of Power, is a worthy successor to my own effort to pull open the proverbial wizard’s curtain in the Land of Oz and expose the not-so-obvious manipulations being performed.
In 2009 I published Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent. Those familiar with the depredations and depravities of federal criminal justice praised the book. Those who were ignorant of how the system reallyworked questioned in disbelief the real-life stories that I recounted. Federal prosecutors, on the other hand, and a few federal judges, departed from their colleagues to let me know — usually in confidence, but onlyon very rare occasion publicly — that I was on to something. The subtitle of my book —“how the feds target the innocent” — was nothyperbolic.
I hope that anyone who has doubted the extent to which federal prosecutors are able to, and in fact do with alarming regularity, target the innocent, has been cured of any such illusions by now. However, these kinds of systemic surveys of the dark corners of federal criminal justice — one thinks alsoof Licensed to Lie by former federal prosecutor-turned-defense lawyer Sydney Powell (2014) — are not quite adequate to the task. They are necessary, but not sufficient, for alerting the public and the media as to how an innocent citizen, even a powerful one, can be railroaded.
What has been lacking to date has been a detailed, book-length, step-by-step depiction, in a single case, of precisely how it is done. Cipriano has brilliantly filled in that gap, and now the general public, as well as journalists who so often report on federal prosecutions with all the gullibility of a victim of a three-card monte game, will be able to blame nobody but themselves if they believe the often-blatant propaganda that accompanies so many of these prosecutions and the news reports purporting to cover them.
Target: The Senator brilliantly lays out the federal prosecutorial jihad against one of the most powerful — and colorful — state politicians in recent memory, Vincent J. Fumo, who for so long dominated state politics in his position in the Pennsylvania Senate, a rank he attained after earlier apprentice years spent climbing the ladder. “In the city of Philadelphia and the state of Pennsylvania,” Cipriano writes, “mayors and governors came and went. But from his stronghold in the Pennsylvania Senate, where he held the purse strings to the state budget, Vincent J. Fumo reigned for nearly a generation as a power broker.”
The primaryfocus of Cipriano’s fast-paced and often breathtaking account, however, is not so much the life and career of this fascinating political figure, but rather the federal prosecutors, aided and abetted by often manipulative agents of the FBI, who together were determined to bring down the large prey in their gun sights. This is often done for personal career advancement, but sometimes, it would appear, merely for the enhanced institutional power of the agency for which they worked.
Cipriano has a better understanding of the criminal justice system than most lawyers and even many judges. The phenomenon that he so deftly dissects will have the ring of truth to the sophisticated and experienced criminal justice system participant (including defendant victims and prisoners). To others, the book will be a new and shocking experience that in the end will be depressingly educational.
Fumo was surely no angel, but his more questionable and rangy activities were not serious violations of clear statutes and regulations, but, rather, ethically dubious
Recently retired Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz, in his foreword to Three Felonies a Day, tells the story of the tyranny exercised under the guise of law enforcement in the former Soviet Union in the 1970s and ’80s:
The picture ultimately produced by the feds, who also had the advantage of being able to threaten witnesses with indictment unless their stories supported the prosecutors’ theories, managed to criminalize, in Cipriano’s words, “behavior formerly known as politics as usual.”
Cipriano’s dramatic telling of the story of the rapid rise, but even steeper and more dramatic fall, of one of the most idiosyncratic but powerful state political figures in recent memory would doubtless make, as the Hollywood folks would tout it, a major motion picture.
Sadly, however, the story also belongs in the annals of the corruption of the federal criminal justice system. It is a story whose official version would have been purveyed without dissent by the gullible and sensationalistic Philadelphia news media, if not for the intervention of Cipriano, who has interjected truth as a weapon against raw governmental abuse of power and news media gullibility. Cipriano deserves our thanks for peeling back the curtain on the epicdestruction of Fumo and revealing how it was done. Our job now is to read this important book with care and then to engage, as activist citizens, in an effort to reform the system.
If they made a movie out of Big Trial's top stories from 2017, it would be called Trading Places, starring former District Attorney Rufus Seth Williams and convicted child rapist Bernard Shero.
Shero, falsely accused of rape by a lying scheming altar boy, got out of jail nearly a dozen years early, thanks to the dogged reporting of this blog, and the revelatory testimony of retired Detective Joe Walsh.
Williams, the corrupt D.A. who cooked up the fraudulent "Billy Doe" prosecution that sent former Catholic schoolteacher Shero to jail, along with three falsely accused Catholic priests, wound up in prison for political corruption, thanks to the work of the U.S. Attorney's Office from Jersey, which prosecuted the case.
If it wasn't legal justice, it certainly was poetic justice -- Shero, finally a free man, and Rufus, in a jump suit, finally where he belongs, behind bars.
Williams is currently doing a five year stretch in a federal prison in Oklahoma because the U.S.
Attorney nailed him for taking bribes from, as the judge who sentenced him put it, the "parasites you chose to surround yourself with."
|Big Trial's Man Of The Year|
Along the way, we broke the story about how our illustrious cigar-smoking former big shot of a D.A. got himself kicked out the Union League, and how eight years ago in Election Court, he got nailed for misusing his mother's credit cards. We capped off our all-Rufus coverage by describing a face-to-face meeting with the man himself inside the men's room at the federal courthouse, where he was on trial for corruption.
Here at Big Trial, we sure are sorry about not having Rufus to kick around any more in the New Year. But we do look forward to chronicling the exploits of our new D.A., Progressive Larry Krasner, as he sets out to not only reform the D.A.'s office, which could use a fumigating after Rufus, but also the entire criminal justice system in our city.
Memo to Larry and his new spokesman, Ben Waxman: Your predecessor stonewalled this blog for six years, and it didn't turn out so well for him. You may want to consider a new media strategy.
Last year, when we weren't writing about Rufus, we began covering the so-called sex abuse scandal at Penn State. What a freaking travesty that case is. Attention Penn State Nation: We are about to get into this subject big-time as I've been working on a long story to be published soon in Newsweek, which just published a cover story about retired Detective Walsh.
Stay tuned for further developments. And to all our readers, a belated Happy New Year.
|Jeff Lindy: The Left-Wing D.A.'s New Right Hand Man|
After new District Attorney Larry Krasner got through cleaning house yesterday by firing 30 assistant district attorneys, there's nobody left to prosecute Msgr. William J. Lynn.
One of the ADAs whacked by Krasner was Patrick Blessington, the lead prosecutor on the Lynn case. Blessington was also the guy who attacked retired Detective Joe Walsh as a "rogue" cop, saying he wasn't authorized to interview more than 30 witnesses in the Billy Doe case.
Blessington had nonsensically claimed that Walsh had done the interviews on his own. That, of course, prompted laughs from Judge Ellen Ceisler. In the Philadelphia archdiocese sex abuse prosecutions, Walsh was the key witness who came forward to say that he believed Billy Doe was a liar, and that Doe, whose real name is Danny Gallagher, had admitted to Walsh that he just "made up stuff." The retired detective's testimony has already forced the D.A. to let Bernard Shero, a former Catholic schoolteacher convicted of raping Gallagher, out of jail nearly a dozen years early.
Walsh was going to be the defense's star witness if the D.A. proceeded with its announced plans to retry Msgr. Lynn on one count of endangering the welfare of children. But now it looks as though that retrial may never happen, because of some other moves Krasner made.
Also gone from the D.A.'s office are a couple of senior lawyers, Ronald Eisenberg and Hugh J. Burns Jr. Eisenberg was the longtime deputy D.A. in charge of the D.A.'s law division, which kept deciding to appeal the Lynn case, after the monsignor's conviction was twice overturned by the state Superior Court. Burns was the longtime chief of the appeals unit who kept arguing that the monsignor was a danger to society and belonged in jail.
Eisenberg is said to have already departed for the state attorney general's office; Burns was one of the ADAs fired by Krasner yesterday.
But Krasner made another recent personnel move that may have something to do with whether the D.A. decides to retry Lynn. Krasner hired Jeffrey M. Lindy to be his top deputy. Lindy, a criminal defense lawyer who's a former deputy D.A. in Brooklyn, N.Y., and a former assistant U.S. Attorney in Philadelphia, was one of four lawyers who defended Msgr. Lynn in his original 2012 trial where he was convicted on one count of child endangerment.
Lindy, of course, would have an ethical conflict in having anything to do with the retrial of his former client. But maybe he can venture an opinion to his new boss that the Billy Doe case was bogus from day one, a manufactured prosecution starring a fraudulent victim. And that continuing to beat this dead horse would be a waste of time.
Lynn has already served 33 months of his 36 month sentence, plus 18 months of house arrest, so it makes little sense for the D.A. to retry the case as the defendant has already done almost all of his time.
The former D.A. who announced that his office would appeal the Lynn case is now wearing a jumpsuit and sitting in a federal prison in Oklahoma, where he's doing a five-year stretch after pleading guilty to taking bribes.
With Rufus Seth Williams in jail, Pat Blessington looking for work, and Hugh Burns and Ron Eisenberg gone from the D.A.'s office, it's a perfect time for Progressive Larry Krasner to declare victory in the Lynn case and move on.
|Back In Action|
On Friday, when the Philly D.A.'s office was closed due to frigid weather, assistant district attorneys were getting calls on their cell phones, telling them to come right down to the office.
Inside, people were lined up, waiting to be fired.
The first list of the newly fired people that went up had 28 names on it. The man on the right, Assistant District Attorney Patrick Blessington, was No. 25 on that list.
But by the end of the day, a new list of 31 names went up. And Blessington's name was nowhere to be found. Rumor had it that some last-minute lobbying had saved the job of the lead prosecutor in the case of Msgr. William J. Lynn.
Blessington, who had been targeted in the "Porngate" scandal -- unfairly, truth be told, because he supposedly never opened any of the pornographic emails sent to his cue -- had been spared in the purge by Krasner.
"District Attorney Lawrence S. Krasner requests the resignations of the following," the memo from the new chief of staff said, "with the understanding that they are not to return."
Three of the names on the list were circled, highlighting the ADAs with gun permits.
So if Krasner chooses to retry the Lynn case, he still has Blessington around to prosecute. But Deputy District Attorney Ronald Eisenberg, the head of the D.A.'s law division, resigned before the purge to take a new job with the state attorney general's office. And Hugh J. Burns Jr., chief of the D.A.'s appeal unit, was No. 2 on the second list of people fired.
So the two men who worked on the appeals that kept the Lynn case going, when the monsignor's conviction was twice overturned, are gone.
Here's the first lis that went up:
1. Derek Riker
2. Mike Barry
3. Andrew Notar
4. Stacy Hughes
5. Laurie Moore
6. Tom Lipscomb
7. Gwen Cudjik
8. Carlos Vega
9. John Delaney
10 Jan McDermott
11. Jen Hoffman
12. Jim Carpenter
13. Nicole Pedicinio
14. Brian Zarallo
15. Yvonne Ruiz
16. Michelle Seidner
17. Melissa Francis
18. Mark Gilson
19. Joe Whitehead
20. Tami Levin
21. Caroline Keating
22. Lauren Realberg
23. Namratha Ravikant
24. Jason Kleinman
25. Pat Blessington
26. Mark Constanzo
27. Greg Rowe
28. ADA Cavanaugh [First name missing]
Here's the second list:
1. Michael Barry
2. Hugh Burns
3. James Carpenter
4. Thomas Carter Sr.
5. E. Mark Constanzo
6. Gwen Cudjik
7. John Delaney
8. Monique Wescott
9. Melissa Francis
10. Elizabeth Graham-Rubin
11. Mark Gilson
12. Robin Godfrey
13. Jennifer Hoffman
14. Stacey Hughes
16. Jason Kleinman
17. Bridget Kirn
18. Tami Levin
19. Laquan Lightfoot
20. Thomas Lipscomb
21. Carl Mahler
22 Carolyn McGlynn-Keating
23. Laurie Moore
24. Andrew Notaristefano
25. Nicole Pedecino
26. Namratha Ravikant
27. Lauren Realberg
28. Derek Riker
29. Greg Rowe
30. Yvonne Ruiz
31. Michelle Seidner
32. Joseph Whitehead
By Ralph Cipriano
A Philadelphia schoolteacher who yelled and cursed out police officers during a protest last August over the Frank Rizzo statue will not have to face any legal consequences for his actions.
Police have been informed by the D.A.'s office that Progressive Larry Krasner, our new D.A. bought and paid for with more than $1 million of George Soros's money, has dropped the charges against John Sheerin, who had been arrested and charged with harassment and making terroristic threats.
Police said that Sheerin, 63, a teacher at Julia De Burgos Elementary School in North Philadelphia, got into an argument with the cops and cursed them out. It happened at a rally where protesters were chanting "Tear it down." Sheerin, standing at a police barricade in front of the statue, was recorded on a cell phone video yelling obscenities at white "racist" cops.
He was suspended by the school district, pending an internal investigation. But now that Krasner let him off, he can return to his job and teach our kids how to curse out cops and get away with it, all in the name of social justice.
The decision by Krasner not to prosecute Sheerin comes eight days after the D.A.'s office announced it would not prosecute Diop Olugbala, a black Communist activist, who was caught on camera by Fox 29 last year spray-painting the Rizzo statue.
Now that Krasner is in charge of law enforcement in our city, public vandalism is no longer a crime, at least when it comes to attacking the Rizzo statue posted at Thomas Paine Plaza.
Olugbala, as reported by philadelinquency.com, was represented by Michael Coard, a civil rights lawyer who was a member of Crasher's transition team.
On a facebook post, Olugbala announced the dropping of the desecration charge against him.
"My upcoming Jan. 10 trial will be continued based on a number of factors, which gives me the opportunity to mobilize further support for critical struggles to free black political prisoners --- including the cases of #st.pete3, rakem halogen, Takiyah Thomson, Mumia Abu Jamal and the 2 million black men and women held captive in u.s. prisons."
It's a great day for protesters; for the cops, not so much.
Well, it didn't take long for our new D.A., Progressive Larry Krasner, to screw up big-time.
In a 24-page brief filed Tuesday in state Superior Court, Krasner, who's in his first month on the job, has decided to go forward with an appeal in the case of Msgr. William J. Lynn. He's the former secretary of clergy in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia whose 2012 conviction on one count of endangering the welfare of a child has twice been overturned by the state Superior Court.
In the brief, which is filled with all sorts of official dishonesty in what is already a travesty of a case, the new D.A. pretends that a trial judge last year didn't find the D.A.'s office under Krasner's predecessor, Rufus Seth Williams, guilty of prosecutorial misconduct. When the judge clearly did, and stated so in open court.
The D.A. also attempts to pave over the main issue in the case, mainly that one of the prosecutors, former Assistant District Attorney Mariana Sorensen, had no qualms about putting a witness on the stand, Danny Gallagher AKA Billy Doe, the lying scheming altar boy, that she knew was a liar. Even though she had been repeatedly informed by Detective Joseph Walsh, the lead detective in the case, that all the evidence Walsh had gathered contradicted the fables Gallagher was telling.
In a 12-page affidavit, Walsh went even further, saying that when he had repeatedly questioned Gallagher, the lying, scheming altar boy flat-out admitted that he had just "made up stuff," when he told the prosecutors crazy, violent stories of abuse. In those stories, Gallagher claimed he was: violently anally raped for five hours behind the locked doors of the sacristy, beaten and knocked unconscious by a priest, stripped naked and tied up with altar sashes by another priest, and strangled with a seatbelt by a schoolteacher, all of which he subsequently retracted when he made up a new story of abuse.
In the brief filed by Lawrence J. Goode, Nancy Winkelman, Carolyn Engel Temin, and Krasner, the D.A.'s office contended that Gallagher, a brazen liar, was telling the truth when he was repeatedly questioned by Walsh during a prep session before the 2012 trial of Msgr. Lynn.
During the prep session, Walsh questioned Gallagher about nine factual discrepancies in his various stories of abuse. In a civil deposition, Walsh stated that Gallagher responded by either claiming he was high on drugs, putting his head down and saying nothing, or telling a new story.
None of this was reported to defense lawyers in the case, and Judge Gwendolyn Bright ruled that it was prosecutorial misconduct serious enough to warrant a new trial for Lynn. But since the state Superior Court had already granted Lynn a new trial, the judge didn't take any further action.
"This is not Brady material," the D.A. declared in their brief, contradicting Judge Bright's finding, regarding the landmark 1963 case where the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that prosecutors had to turn over to defendants any material that might be beneficial to their case.
As far as the new D.A. is concerned, Gallagher saying he was "high on drugs" was "consistent with his trial testimony that he heavily used drugs as a result of being sexually molested," the D.A.'s office wrote.
Walsh had claimed in court that when he repeatedly told Sorensen about Gallagher's amazing lack of credibility, her response was -- drum roll please -- "You're killing my case."
When Walsh stated this in open court, Assistant District Attorney Patrick Blessington claimed it wasn't true. Lynn's lawyer, Thomas A. Bergstrom, then told Judge Bright that the only way to solve this controversy was to put both Walsh and Sorensen on the stand at a subsequent hearing, to find out which one was telling the truth.
But when the day for that hearing came around, the D.A.'s office under Rufus Seth Williams, now wearing a jumpsuit in a federal prison in Oklahoma, decided not to put Sorensen on the witness stand. So they forever lost their right to contest that what Walsh said Sorensen said wasn't true.
Nevertheless, the D.A.'s office under Krasner wrote that "the claim is factually false" that Sorensen ever said, "You're killing my case." The D.A.'s brief also disingenuously states that Judge Bright decided that Walsh's claim was "not supported by the evidence," when the decision Judge Bright came to was that the level of misconduct alleged by Walsh with "You're killing my case" did not rise to the level where the judge would blow out the retrial of Lynn, on grounds of double jeopardy.
In their brief, the D.A.'s office asserts that Msgr. Lynn "did not prove" that Gallagher lied, the judge didn't rule that he lied, and "there is no evidence that the lied."
In their brief, the D.A.'s office also attempts to take on Walsh's contention that Danny Gallagher the bald-faced liar was lying when he said that as a fifth-grader, he was a member of the maintenance crew that helped set up tables and bells for the church's bell choir.
Gallagher had claimed then when he was putting away the tables and bells, he was accosted by Father Edward Avery, who subsequently raped the altar boy.
In court testimony, three teachers, including the longtime choir director at St. Jerome's, the alleged scene of the rape spree, testified that only eighth-graders were big and strong enough to lift the heavy bells and tables used by the bell choir, which each weighed more than 30 pounds. [As a fifth-grader, Gallagher only weighed 63 pounds, his medical records showed.] The teachers also testified that the bell crew went home after they set up the tables and bells, and that it was the members of the bell choir who put away the bells and tables after the concerts were over.
In their brief, the D.A.'s office asserts, however, that none of the teachers "actually denied" that Gallagher was a member of the bell choir maintenance crew as a fifth-grader. The D.A.'s office also asserts that Walsh "never established as a fact that the bell crew activity involved only eighth grade boys."
Sorry, Progressive Larry, but you are playing word games in a case where Danny Gallagher has been revealed in his civil depositions, criminal trial testimony, and medical records to be a complete liar.
It's unbelievable, but this travesty of a case may have a second act if Msgr. Lynn is actually retried later this year.
Lynn has already served 33 months of his minimum 36-month sentence, plus 18 months of house arrest. So that even if the D.A. wins a retrial, Lynn would only have to serve an extra three months.
So our D.A., who just let a guy who cursed out the cops off the hook, along with a guy who was caught on camera defacing the Frank Rizzo statue, has decided to defend the honor of a lying, scheming altar boy who also stole $5 million from the Catholic Church.
Hey Progressive Larry, if there is a retrial, I'm betting that Danny Gallagher isn't going to fly up from Florida and run the risk of a perjury rap by testifying in a Philadelphia courtroom. All for the sake of another show trial, especially after Danny Boy has already hit the lottery, to the tune of $5 million.
But as far as our new Progressive D.A. is concerned, the show must go on. Even if everyone has to know by now that it's thoroughly corrupt.
By Ralph Cipriano
Last week, I took a virtual tour of the new merged Inquirer-Daily News-philly.com newsroom, thanks to a brand new feature on their website accessible to even hardcore non-subscribers like myself.
It's been 20 years since my last day at the Inquirer, when I was escorted out of the building by an editor. So, I figured I was due for a return visit. But I emerged from my virtual tour feeling like Frank Pentangeli.
Remember the scene in Godfather II where crusty old Frank [AKA "Frankie Five Angels" and "Frankie Pants"] attends the first communion of the late Don Corleone's grandson. It's a big fancy party on the shores of Lake Tahoe, Nevada back in 1958; quite a contrast with the old-fashioned Sicilian wedding scene set on Long Island back in 1945 that opened the original Godfather.
"Hey Fredo," Frank says, "What's with the food around here?"
"A kid comes up to me in a white jacket, gives me a Ritz cracker, and uh, chopped liver, he says canapés I say uh, uh, can o' peas my ass, that's a Ritz cracker and chopped liver! . . . Bring out the peppers and sausage."
Then, Frank jumps on stage to take issue with the slow music that the boys in the orchestra are playing.
"I can't believe, out of 30 professional musicians, there isn't one Italian in, in the group here," Frank says. "Come, let's have a tarantella."
That's how I felt after I toured the new merged Inky newsroom.
On "The Newsroom" page at the bottom of the philly.com website, they show the same old reporter's notebook that I used to carry in my back pocket back when I was an Inky reporter for more than a decade. Then, they introduce you to more than 100 reporters who explain their new beats at the new merged Inky.
There's some old familiar faces in the crowd, people I used to work with, but the new Inky newsroom represents a whole new world order bent on launching a radical social revolution right here in the birthplace of democracy.
"We've recently reorganized our beats and coverage teams to ensure that we focused on the issues, ideas and institutions that matter most to people of our region," it says. "Here's what we're covering and how to reach us."
On the Inquirer's new "justice and injustice" team, they've got a reporter who covers "unjust systems." He'll never run out of material in this town. They've got a reporter who writes about "violent crimes," and another reporter who writes about "victims."
So, theoretically in any crime story, say, one that involves a purse-snatching, it may take two reporters to write it. One to report on the violent nature of the crime, and another to write about the story from the victim's point of view.
But let's say the assailant comes from a disadvantaged background, and may have been discriminated against in the past. Or he or she is possibly an immigrant, or somebody who may be a minority person living in a neighborhood simmering with ethnic, racial and cultural tensions. Or the purse-snatcher is someone who perceives that they live in an unjust society.
Fortunately, in the new Inky newsroom, there's a vast array of specialists to draw on who can flesh out the cultural, racial and societal aspects of that purse-snatching.
On the "identity and values" team they've got a reporter who writes about "social justice" exploring how "race, gender, sexuality and class shape our lives in uneven ways." Another reporter on the team writes about "social justice, criminal justice and the lives of Philadelphians, from the streets, the prisons and the bars." A third reporter writes about "race, gender, identity and values."
Hey Fredo, does anybody still cover the freaking City Council? How about the cops and the courts? What about the friggin' Zoning Board of Appeals?
In the new Inky newsroom, they have a "class" reporter who writes about "aspects of poverty, wealth, and the middle class relating to both economic and social issues." There's a reporter who covers immigration, and another reporter who covers "neighborhoods and gentrification," specifically "characters, tensions and issues." And on the "policy and solutions" team, there's a reporter who writes about "fairness," particularly "economic equity issues, including school funding, and affordable housing." And a full-time reporter who covers "the commerce of cannabis."
In the new world order of the Inky, they've got four metro columnists. It's a perfectly diverse team, featuring a couple of white guys and a couple women of color. Of course, all the columnists, local, suburban and national, are liberals who hate Donald Trump. Of the more than 100 reporters working in the new Inky newsroom, if there's a conservative in the bunch, or a contrarian, you'd never know it by reading the paper.
The closest they come is whenever Stu Bykofsky decides it's time to rip our sad sack of a mayor again.
I knew I'd hit rock bottom in my tour of this new fancy pants newsroom when I saw that the obituary writer, a job I once had, is now an "obituary storyteller." She writes about dead "movers and shakers" who presumably aren't doing much moving and shaking anymore.
Hey Fredo, with all those PC warriors running around town with all the same preconceived notions in their heads, it's no wonder the paper is so freaking boring and predictable all the time.
|New D.A. Larry Krasner Scopes Out His Options In The Lynn Case|
Lawyers for Msgr. William J. Lynn have accused the district attorney's office of dishonesty and cowardice, for attempting to escape the consequences of knowingly putting a lying witness on the stand.
The lying witness, of course, is "Billy Doe," AKA Danny Gallagher, the lying, scheming altar boy.
In a testy five-page reply brief filed yesterday in state Superior Court, Lynn's lawyers took issue with the D.A.'s contention that there was no so-called Brady violation that resulted from the testimony last year in Common Pleas Court of retired Detective Joe Walsh, who came forward to expose Gallagher for the fraud he is.
Walsh testified that when he prepped Gallagher for trial in 2012, the detective quizzed the former altar boy about the numerous factual discrepancies in his many imaginative and vastly differing tales of abuse. According to Walsh, Gallagher responded by claiming he was high on drugs, hanging his head and saying nothing, or telling some new stories.
None of Gallagher's evasive activities were reported to Lynn's lawyers, as required by Brady v. Maryland, the landmark 1963 U.S. Supreme Court case that held that prosecutors must turn over any evidence that might be beneficial to a defendant.
About the D.A.'s contention that there was no Brady violation, Lynn's lawyers wrote, "This is indeed an awkward -- if not dishonest -- position, since the trial court specifically found that there was a Brady violation."
The D.A.'s office under Progressive Larry Krasner "totally misses the point of this appeal," wrote attorneys Thomas A. Bergstrom, H. Marc Tepper and David A. Schumacher. "It's counsel has either not read the record below or ignored it."
The main issue in the case, Lynn's lawyers wrote, is whether the D.A.'s office under Rufus Seth Williams "put a witness on the stand it knew, or should have known, would lie."
The D.A.'s office, now under Progressive Larry, "cannot stick its head in the sand and run from the reality that it's chief and highly-distinguished detective informed [Assistant District Attorney Mariana] Sorensen that its only witness against [Lynn] was not being truthful," the defense lawyers wrote.
"Any reasonable and honest prosecutor would immediately know the impact of Walsh's statement," Lynn's lawyers wrote, which is why, according to Walsh, Sorensen responded, "You're killing my case."
"Faced with Detective Walsh's damning and un-rebutted testimony, [the D.A.] instead retreats to the notion that Walsh is not credible and perhaps a perjurer, a cowardly position at best," Lynn's lawyers wrote. The DA "concealed this exchange" between Walsh and Gallagher "and put a witness on the stand whom it knew intended to lie, and should be held accountable for that misconduct."
The D.A. takes "the bold position" that Judge Bright found Sorensen's response of "You're killing my case" was not supported by the evidence," Lynn's lawyers wrote. "That is not at all what Judge Bright found." The judge found that the "evidence did not support a double jeopardy claim," but that the claim itself was "not frivolous," the lawyers wrote.
Judge Bright "absolutely did not find that Detective Walsh's unchallenged version of events did not happen as [the D.A.] now incorrectly implies," the lawyers wrote. "ADA Sorensen failed [perhaps refused] to testify at the hearing below on this issue and [the new D.A.] and this Court must accept the unchallenged testimony of Detective Walsh that she said, 'You're killing may case."
Lynn was convicted in a 2012 trial of one count of endangering the welfare of a child. He was sentenced to 3 to 6 years in jail and served 33 out of 36 months of his minimum sentence. His case, however, was overturned twice on appeal by the same Superior Court that now sits in judgment on this third go-around.
In the latest appeal, the D.A.'s office is contesting Judge Bright's decision to admit as evidence only three supplemental cases of sex abuse, to show a pattern of cover ups in the archdiocese. The D.A. wants nine supplemental cases of sex abuse admitted as evidence.
In response, Lynn's lawyers are trying to get the retrial tossed on grounds of double jeopardy, because of prosecutorial misconduct in the case.
Target: The Senator now available at amazon.com.
By George Anastasia
Philadelphia's only celebrity gangster, Joseph "Skinny Joey" Merlino, goes on trial this week in federal court in Manhattan for racketeering and conspiracy charges that could land him in jail or a good part of the rest of his life.
He's been there before.
But this time the stakes seem even higher.
The rest of the story can be read HERE.
In the latest episode of Mob Talk Sitdown, veteran crime journalists George Anastasia and Dave Schratwieser have the latest on Philadelphia Mob Boss Joey Merlino.
He dodged another bullet in federal court on Tuesday when a jury failed to reach a verdict on gambling and healthcare fraud charges after a three-week trial. A mistrial was declared. So where does that leave the 55-year-old gangster?
Twenty-six years ago, I was standing in line to meet Billy Graham, who was about to launch a historic five-day crusade at the Vet.
When it was my turn to greet him, Billy grabbed my hand, held it, and thanked me for all the wonderful stories I had written about him. I wondered if he was kidding, but he seemed so sincere about it, and went out of his way to be kind.
“Why I never knew you were so young and so handsome,” Billy gushed. Ok, he may have been a bit corny, but one on one, this world-famous celebrity would much rather talk about you than himself. I was struck by his humility. He made me wish I’d been kinder to him in print.
Diaz was a former gang member from Harlem who went on to become Pennsylvania’s first Latino judge. He told me he used to worry about his day job, but that was before he was named crusade chairman. Billy wasn’t due to arrive in Philadelphia for another month, the judge said, but already, the crusade had changed his life.
The judge said that during the two-hour prayer sessions, men broke down and cried and asked one another to forgive the sins of prejudice and misunderstanding. The prayer group was bringing together blacks, whites and Latinos, city dwellers and suburbanites.
In another crusade preview story for the Inquirer, I interviewed Billy’s critics on the Christian left and right. It was like batting practice. Father Michael Doyle, a Catholic priest who went to jail for destroying draft records during the Vietnam War, said he wouldn’t be in the stands at the Vet when Billy came to town.
Billy seemed curious about my rapt attention. One night before he went on, he glanced over at me, a look of concern on his face. “Are you getting anything out of this?” he said. Yes, I said. I didn’t tell him this, but I was finally able to see and appreciate the faithful way that Billy served his Savior.
"My dear Ralph," he wrote in a letter on June 27, 1992, from his home in Montreat, N.C. “Words cannot express my appreciation for the wonderful articles you wrote about the crusade. They were absolutely terrific. I think the committee and the churches that participated are deeply in your debt."
"I hate to leave the city -- I have fallen in love with Philadelphia all over again!"
"I believe there is hope for the future of this city, and I wish I could stay here much longer . . . I shall look back on this 1992 Crusade in Philadelphia with the warmest and fondest memories."
"Most cordially and gratefully yours, Billy.”
By George Anastasia
He was a wealthy and politically connected lawyer, an arrogant and self-assured mover and shaker in Wilmington and throughout the state of Delaware.
She was a young, attractive appointment secretary to the governor.
At one time they were lovers.
She broke it off. He wanted her back.
When she balked, he killed her.
In many ways Tom Capano was more despicable than any mobster I have ever written about.
The Summer Wind is the story of that tragic love affair and senseless murder.
Now available as an ebook.
In the latest episode of Mob Talk Sitdown, veteran crime reporters George Anastasia and Dave Schratwieser do some forecasting on whether reputed Philadelphia mob boss "Skinny Joey" Merlino faces a rematch with the feds, in the aftermath of his mistrial in Manhattan.
The odds are that he does, Anastasia says.
That's because the numbers both reporters are hearing from the secret jury deliberations in the big East Coast mob trial in federal court strongly favor the government.
So let's get ready to do it again. In the meantime, tune in to the latest episode of Mob Talk Sitdown.
|Former ADA Mariana "You're Killing My Case" Sorensen|
Eight years ago, former Assistant District Attorney Mariana Sorensen conducted the first interview with Danny Gallagher, AKA "Billy Doe," right after a detective bailed the former altar boy out of jail, so he could assume the staring role in a witch hunt about to be staged against the Catholic Church.
But according to the D.A.'s office, Sorensen took no notes on Jan. 28, 2010, when she and Detective Drew Snyder interviewed Gallagher, along with his parents, at the D.A.'s office. According to what the D.A.'s office represented at two criminal trials, in front of at least three different judges, the only notes that existed from that initial interview with Gallagher were three pages of notes typed up by Detective Snyder.
Eight years later, seven pages of typed notes by Sorensen from that initial interview with Gallagher have mysteriously reappeared, a copy of which was sent to BigTrial. Defense lawyers in the case say those notes should have been turned over at two criminal trials, where three priests and a former schoolteacher were sent to jail for the alleged repeated rapes of Danny Gallagher. It's the latest episode of prosecutorial misconduct in a case replete with it, a case that's headed for a final chapter later this year when a new D.A., Progressive Larry Krasner, plans to retry Msgr. William J. Lynn, the lead defendant, on a charge of endangering the welfare of a child.
On July 29, 2011, with Judge Lillian Ransom presiding, five assistant district attorneys and five defense lawyers were gathered for a pretrial hearing in a case billed by then District Attorney Rufus Seth Williams as a "historic" prosecution of the Catholic Church.
The subject was whether the D.A.'s office had turned over to defense lawyers all the evidence it had gathered for prosecution, as required by law. Suddenly, it was time for some tap-dancing.
"This is where I need to talk to you about any statements at some earlier point that Mr. [Danny] Gallagher may have made as far as interviews at or with members of the D.A.'s office," Assistant District Attorney Sorensen told the judge. "I checked with [former Deputy District Attorney, and Sorensen's boss] Charlie Gallagher. There's nothing discoverable."
"I know that occasionally a piece of paper gets turned the wrong way," the judge replied. "If you come across anything, turn that over."
"Yes, Your Honor," Sorensen replied.
"I'll accept your representation as it stands now," the judge said.
"Thank you," Sorensen replied.
Michael J. McGovern, a defense lawyer and former ADA himself representing Father Charles Engelhardt, then asked about "oral statements and oral interviews" conducted by the D.A.'s office, especially, "the substance of any oral interviews, notes or anything that related to interaction and discussion with [Danny Gallagher]."
"Let me ask you this, Mr. McGovern," the judge interjected. "What I asked Ms. Sorensen to look for were written statements. Now if you are making reference to oral statements, they would not be recorded any place."
"There may be notes," McGovern replied. "I'm asking for anything. I'm being told that there was an investigation of this major complaint for over a year, and there is nothing documented or recorded about it. I find that hard to believe."
"That may be hard to believe, but that's the representation that we have at this point," the judge said.
"Good enough," McGovern said.
Later in the hearing, Judge Ransom turned to another prosecutor in the courtroom, Assistant District Attorney Evangelia Manos, and asked about discovery motions filed by the defense lawyers.
"Ms. Manos, I want to talk to you about these," the judge said, referring to discovery motions seeking "statements or interviews conducted by the district attorney's office. That [motion] is granted," the judge said.
"Ms. Manos, the judge said, is it your position that as of today you have turned over everything that you have?"
"Correct," Manos said.
"As of today?" the judge asked.
"Correct," Manos replied.
"It's an ongoing discovery issue," the judge told the prosecutor. "If other statements come into your possession, whether they're new or old . . . "
"Correct," Manos said.
"They have to be turned over," the judge concluded.
But during two criminal trials, and appeals in those cases, the D.A.'s office never turned over Sorensen's notes.
Charles Gallagher, former chief of the Special Investigations Unit, of which Sorensen was a member, could not be reached for comment. Neither could McGovern.
THE DANNY GALLAGHER INTERVIEW
On Jan. 28, 2010, Detective Drew Snyder showed up at Graterford Prison to spring Danny Gallagher out of jail, where he was being held for a probation violation, and chauffeured him over to the D.A.'s office, where Gallagher's parents were waiting, along with ADA Sorensen.
Danny Gallagher was about to tell a story how, back when he was a 10 and 11-year-old altar boy at St. Jerome's Church in Northeast Philadelphia, he had allegedly been passed around like a piñata among three different rapists.
This was music to the D.A.'s office, under Rufus Seth Williams, which was looking to make headlines by being the first prosecutorial agency in the country to put a Catholic priest in jail, not for sexually abusing a child, but for covering it up.
Gallagher at the time was 21, and so the usual protocol at the D.A.'s office in any sex abuse investigation would have been to interview Gallagher and his parents, James, a Philadelphia police department, and Sheila, a registered nurse, separately. But that's not what happened that day at the D.A.'s office.
The usual protocol also called for the detective and/or Sorensen to ask Danny Gallagher questions, and on a "483" police form, write down those questions, as well as the answers. And when the interview was finished, the usual protocol called for having Danny Gallagher review the Q and A interview form, make corrections, and then sign it.
Sorensen, according to what the D.A.'s office has represented for the past eight years, at two different
criminal trials, in front of at least three different judges, sat there like a potted plant, took no notes, and apparently asked no questions.
But now we know that Sorensen typed up seven pages of notes, and asked plenty of questions. And in what she describes as a typed "summary," she refers to handwritten notes that are presumably still missing.
What Snyder and Sorensen were dealing with was a completely non-credible witness who told an unbelievable story of abuse previously to two social workers from the archdiocese. In those stories, Gallagher claimed to have been anally raped for five hours by one priest, knocked unconscious and tied up with altar sashes by another priest, threatened with death if he talked, and strangled with a seatbelt by the schoolteacher who raped him.
Then, when he told new versions of abuse to the police and the grand jury and the D.A.'s office, Gallagher dropped all those above details and invented an entirely new tale of abuse featuring oral sex and mutual masturbation, as well as being forced to perform strip-teases.
So Snyder and Sorensen were trying to pin Gallagher down on a semi-credible tale. The less notes the better. And certainly a Q and A form, or multiple quotes from Gallagher, were only going to cause further credibility problems for a witness with no credibility.
Keep in mind that the lead detective in this case, Joe Walsh, has previously come forward to say that he caught Danny Gallagher telling numerous lies. And when the detective confronted Gallagher about it, he admitted he had just "made stuff up" and "told them anything."
And when Detective Walsh repeatedly informed Assistant District Attorney Mariana Sorensen that Gallagher was not a credible witness, she replied that she still believed Gallagher's fairy tales, and, "You're killing my case."
WHAT SORENSEN'S LONG-LOST NOTES SAY
From: Mariana Sorensen, Assistant District Attorney, SIU
Re: Interview of Daniel Gallagher and parents 1/28/2010
Supplement to Det. Snyder's notes
"I sat in on Detective Andrew Snyder's Jan. 28, 2010, interview with Daniel Gallagher," she wrote. "The summary below is typed up from my notes and includes some things that might not have appeared in Det. Snyder's notes. [Detective Snyder and I were both of out of the room at various times when Danny and his parents said things.]"
In her notes, Sorensen says that she talked to Gallagher's parents before he came into the room. And here, for the D.A.'s office, is where things start to get messy.
"At age 14, Danny changed," Sorensen wrote, after questioning Gallagher's parents. "He got kicked out of High School. They [the parents] didn't know what had precipitated the change. They attributed his behavior to the death of his grandmother, and that they had allowed him to see her as she was dying [or her body after she died??]"
A. Yes. At age 14, as he entered high school, freshman year at high school, he wasn't the same child. He was very troubling to us.
A. He was basically a very pleasant, active, happy person prior to that and he was defined by some people as either Dennis the Menace or the All-American boy up to that point.
Q. Ok. So he's leaving St. Jerome's and entering into high school?
When Thomas A. Bergstrom, Msgr. Lynn's lawyer read the first page of Sorensen's notes, he couldn't believe it.
"She completely fabricates what the mother told her," Bergstrom said about ADA Sorennsen "That's an absolute, outright lie. There's no wiggle room there. She [Sorensen] heard it twice from the mother."
According to the mom, Danny Gallagher's personality change took place in high school, at age 14, and not in grammar school, at age 11. On top of that, Gallagher's parents blamed the death of Gallagher's grandmother for the personality change, and not sex abuse.
Those notes should have been turned over to the defense, Bergstrom said.
In Sorensen's notes, she describes four encounters Danny Gallagher allegedly had with Father Engelhardt, two of which resulted in sex abuse. In the grand jury report, there are only three encounters with Engelhardt, and only one resulting in sex abuse.
But that's not what the grand jury report says.
Sorensen quotes Danny Gallagher in her notes as saying things that were supposedly said by his attackers, but the quotes are missing from Snyder's notes, and they also do not appear in the grand jury report.
"There are certain things that people do that God wants them to do," Father Engelhardt supposedly tells Gallagher. "But people don't really talk about it. But it's natural . . ."
"You can do these acts without being a sinner [if you pray??]" Sorensen says Gallagher quoted the priest as saying. The priest also supposedly asked, "Do you want to practice?" as in sex. There are also specific details such as the priest allegedly unbuttoning the boy's shirt, and saying, "You are dismissed," that don't appear in Snyder's notes, or the grand jury report.
This is the kind of material that defense lawyers would use to impeach a witness. But you can't ask any questions if the D.A. deliberately buries the evidence.
In Sorensen version of the encounters with Engelhardt, "Danny said he he told the priest if he came near him again, he'd kill him." Snyder makes the same claim. But Gallagher told the social workers it was the priest who threatened to kill him; the grand jury report doesn't mention any death threat.
In Sorensen's notes, Gallagher claims that Father Avery attacked him "in a backroom where supplies are kept." Snyder says the attack takes place in a "back storage room." But in the official grand jury report, Avery allegedly attacks Gallagher in the sacristy.
In Sorensen's notes, Avery supposedly says during the attacks, "Look at me, son," and, "This is what God wanted."
"Danny says those words will never leave him," Sorensen writes. But Snyder doesn't mention this, and those quotes are left out of the grand jury report.
In Sorensen's notes, schoolteacher Bernard Shero attacks Gallagher in an area of a park known as "Little City" and they pass a sign that says "Welcome to Winchester Park." But in the Snyder version the rape occurs in a parking lot near Shawn and Holmhurst Street; in the grand jury report, the location is a park about a mile from Gallagher's house. In the Shero attacks, petroleum jelly and paper towels are used in the attack, details Snyder doesn't mention, details not in the grand jury report.
Now this prosecutorial misconduct is the problem of a new D.A., Progressive Larry Krasner. Will he go forward with the trial of Msgr. Lynn, the Archdiocese of Philadelphia's former secretary for clergy? Lynn's conviction on one count of endangering the welfare of a child had twice been overturned by the state Superior Court.
Ben Waxman, a spokesman for the D.A.'s office, did not respond to a request for comment.
By Ralph Cipriano
On Jan. 28, 2010, Assistant District Attorney Mariana Sorensen and Detective Drew Snyder met behind closed doors at the D.A.'s office with Danny Gallagher, to hear for the first time his tearful tales of abuse.
Snyder had just bailed Gallagher out of Graterford Prison, where he was being held on a probation violation. Gallagher, AKA "Billy Doe," the lying, scheming altar boy, was a third-rate con man with a rap sheet that included a half-dozen arrests for retail theft and drugs, including one bust for possession with intent to distribute 56 bags of heroin. He was just a junkie hustler trying to figure out a way to stay out of jail, and maybe score some easy cash.
So Gallagher told his stories to the prosecutor and the detective. Eight years later, we know those stories were all lies. But eight years ago, the facts didn't matter because prosecutor Sorensen was an ideologue on a mission, out to get the Catholic Church at any cost. And Detective Snyder, who usually investigated insurance fraud, apparently was in over his head.
Behind closed doors, the third-rate conman peddled an improbable story about a helpless altar boy being passed around by three brazen rapists, who were all acting in cahoots. And a couple of chumps named Sorensen and Snyder bought one lie after another, without doing any investigating. When they got finished, Sorensen wrote eleven of Danny Gallagher's outright lies, and a dozen of her own, into the 2011 grand jury report that indicted three priests and a school teacher for rape, as well as a monsignor, for endangering the welfare of children.
As Sorensen noted in that grand jury report, "These are sordid, shocking acts." She could have been talking about the crimes she committed against truth.
Eight years later, why does all of this still matter?
Because the district attorney's office, under our new D.A., Progressive Larry Krasner, is planning to retry Msgr. William J. Lynn later this year on one count of endangering the welfare of a child, namely Gallagher.
Because one of the priests Gallagher sent to jail, the Rev. Charles Engelhardt, died there, after he had been smeared and libeled by a grand jury report as a child rapist, and then was falsely imprisoned for crimes that never happened. The priest died in jail, after spending his last hours handcuffed to a hospital bed, denied a life-saving heart operation, and still protesting his innocence. His life and death ought to matter.
And finally, there's schoolteacher Bernard Shero, falsely accused of rape. A judge recently signed off on an unprecedented plea bargain that let Shero out of jail 11 1/2 years early because of prosecutorial misconduct. But Shero is still falsely labeled on Megan's List as a child rapist. It's a shame and a burden that he and and his family, who have already spent their life savings to get their son out of jail, more than $200,000, should no longer have to carry.
In a just society, Sorensen would bear the shame. She would lose her law license, and that grand jury report she wrote would be retracted. The D.A.'s office would drop its planned retrial of Msgr. Lynn; Father Engelhardt's reputation would be restored, along with a posthumous apology. And Bernie Shero would no longer have go through life falsely labeled as a child rapist.
In a just society, former Assistant District Attorney Sorensen would be indicted, and former D.A. Rufus Seth Williams would be dragged into court wearing his jumpsuit, so both of them could be prosecuted for filing a false instrument. That's the 2011 grand jury report, which we know now is a complete work of fiction. A work of fiction that's about to be destroyed today, along with the reputation of its author.
But this is Philadelphia, where they can put a district attorney in jail for taking bribes, but the crimes he committed against Lady Justice go on and on. That's because we have a criminal justice system that likes to pretend it's infallible. And because in this city, we appear to have an endless supply of prosecutors who love the headlines they get when they're going after the Catholic Church. Even though the current crusade is based on lies.
So attention Progressive Larry Krasner, this is what you just bought into. In seeking to retry Msgr. Lynn, for the sake of headlines, you just bought in its entirety that fraudulent 2011 grand jury report. You just bought Danny Gallagher as your fraudulent "victim" and star witness. And you just bought Mariana Sorensen as your sullied prosecutor, with all of her lies and supposedly non-existant notes that suddenly reappear after eight years. Notes that various members of the D.A.'s office at two criminal trials, and in front of three different judges, have repeatedly lied about by saying they didn't exist.
Today, we're going to dive into Sorensen's long-lost notes and examine eleven Danny Gallagher lies in those notes that Sorensen subsequently wrote into that 2011 grand jury report without doing any investigating. These are lies that were subsequently exposed by the work of the D.A.'s own detectives, who blew up a false narrative. Then, of course, Sorensen wrote another lie into that grand jury report of her own making, and made up eleven more lies about the other alleged victim in the case, which we will cover as well.
And the defense responds by putting the D.A.'s office on trial. By calling former Detective Joe Walsh and former ADA Mariana Sorensen as its star witnesses.
Lie No. 1: Who Put Away The Wine After Mass.
What Sorensen wrote in her notes: "Father [Charles] Engelhardt was the first one to abuse Danny"when he was 10 years old, Sorensen wrote. "Right after mass, the priest caught Danny drinking the wine he was supposed to pour down the drain (the altar boys always liked drinking the wine)."
What Sorensen wrote in the Jan. 21, 2011 grand jury report:"While Billy was cleaning up in the church sacristy, Father Engelhardt caught him drinking some of the leftover wine. The priest did not scold the 10-year-old altar boy. Instead, he poured him more of the sacramental wine and began asking personal questions, such as whether he had a girlfriend" before the priest supposedly showed the boy pornography.
The truth: Almost a year after the grand jury report came out, on Jan. 9, 2012, Detective Joe Walsh interviewed Danny Gallagher's older brother, James, who not only served as an altar boy at the same church, but also served as a church volunteer known as a sexton. In a 14-page signed statement, James Gallagher told Walsh that it was a couple of sextons who put away the sacramental wine after mass, and not the altar boys.
"The sextons would take care of the sacraments," the older brother told the detective. This was backed up in other interviews Walsh conducted with priests and nuns at St. Jerome's, the alleged site of the serial rape spree.
At the Engelhardt-Shero trial, the jury sent a note to the judge, asking why James Gallagher wasn't called as a witness. The answer, according to defense lawyers in the case, was that the prosecutors misled them about James Gallagher's availability as a witness, to dodge a subpoena sent through the mail. The end result, according to the defense lawyers -- the prosecutors were able to hide an exculpatory witness during trial.
But hey, at a retrial of Msgr. Lynn, why not recall the older brother, a lawyer, and put him on the spot by asking to explain again how he knew his younger brother was lying?
Lie No. 2: The Myth Of "Sessions."
What Sorensen wrote in her notes:"I hear you had your sessions with Father Engelhardt," Father Edward Avery supposedly told poor little innocent Danny, while the priest had a smile on his face, and supposedly added,"You know what I'm talking about. I'll be talking to you soon."
What Sorensen wrote in the grand jury report: She had Father Engelhardt use the secret code word for sex abuse first, "He [Engelhardt] also told Billy that it was time for him to become a man and that 'sessions' with the priest would soon begin. With that enigmatic statement, Father Engelhardt let Billy go to school. At the time, the fifth grader did not understand what the priest meant . . ."
"A few months after the encounter with Father Englehardt, Billy was putting the bells away after choir practice when Father Edward Avery pulled him aside to say that he had heard about Father Engelhardt's sessions with Billy and that his sessions with the boy would soon begin. Billy pretended he did not know what Father Avery was talking about, but his stomach turned."
"He [Engelhardt] said that's a phrase that's been put in my mouth, it's been put in Avery's mouth," defense lawyer Michael J. McGovern remembered his client telling him. "That's a term I've never used,"the priest told his lawyer. Furthermore, "He [Engelhardt] has never heard a priest use that phrase,"McGovern said.
Avery was just as mystified, according to his lawyer, Michael E. Wallace. "I was with him 16 months and I never heard him use the term," Wallace said about sessions. "He didn't know what the hell he [Danny Gallagher] was talking about."
So "sessions" was a drug counselor's term that Danny Gallagher borrowed when he invented his tales of abuse.
Lie No. 3: The Bell Choir.
What Sorensen wrote in her notes: "On Friday, when Danny did bell choir, Avery approached Danny as he was helping with bell choir . . ."
What Sorensen wrote in the grand jury report: Billy "also participated in the 'maintenance department' of the school's bell choir, meaning he took the bells out of their cases before choir practice and put them away at the end."
"A few months after the encounter with Father Englehardt, Billy was putting the bells away after choir practice when Father Edward Avery pulled him aside . . . "
The truth: At the trial of Father Engelhardt and Bernard Shero, three teachers from St. Jerome's, including the church's longtime music director, testified that only eighth grade boys were allowed to be members of the bell choir maintenance crew. Not only were fifth grade boys barred from serving on the maintenance crew, the teachers told the jury, but so were sixth and seventh grade boys.
It was the same story the three teachers had told Detective Joe Walsh, when he showed up at the school to investigate Danny Gallagher's cockamamie stories.
Unlike former ADA Sorensen and Detective Snyder, Detective Joe Walsh did some investigating; he went out and talked to the teachers at St. Jerome's, and then he showed their witness statements to Danny Gallagher.
"When confronted with this information, Gallagher could not provide an answer and remained quiet with his head down," Walsh wrote in a 12-page affidavit. "I told him that at the trial the judge would instruct him that he had to answer the lawyers' questions, that he just could not be able to not answer the questions."
"Gallagher remained silent and did not provide an answer," Walsh wrote. "I concluded all this information was a lie."
Lie No. 4: The books under Danny's bed.
What Sorensen wrote in her notes: "When Danny left the room, they [his parents] told me that something they could never understand was starting to make sense. They said that Danny is a hoarder, and that he kept things hidden around his room. They said one thing he kept for years under his bed was a book on sexual abuse. They thought that maybe he had taken it from the library of Christian Academy, where he finished high school after being kicked out of [Archbishop] Ryan. They said that they had asked Danny about it once when he was in high school, but that he had said the book was for a report he was doing."
What Sorensen wrote in the grand jury report: "He [Danny] checked books out of the library about sexual abuse."
"It was at an inpatient drug treatment facility that Billy first told someone about his abuse. Billy's mother testified that she probably should have suspected something before then, because she found two books about sexual abuse hidden under Billy's bed, when he was in high school. She asked him about the books at the time, but he covered up for his abusers by telling her that he had them for a school assignment."
In fiction, this rhetorical device is known as the omniscient narrator. In non-fiction, it's what we call a lie.
The truth: The two textbooks on sex abuse that Danny Gallagher kept under his bed were not taken out of the high school library by Gallagher. A detective did some brilliant detective work. He opened one of the books and discovered a library card inside that said the books had been borrowed from the Ogontz branch of the Philadelphia Free Library by Chanee Mahoney, another student at Christian Academy, the new high school that Gallagher had transferred to.
On Jan. 17, 2012, Detective Fisher interviewed Mahoney, then 24, who told him she had checked the books out of the library, and either put them in her locker, which was unlocked, or left them out on a table. About Danny Gallagher, who Mahoney said was always getting into trouble, "could have gone in the locker . . . I definitely did not give them to him." The implication from Mahoney was that Danny Gallagher had stolen the books.
Walsh subsequently confronted Danny Gallagher.
Lie No. 5: Switching Masses
What Sorensen wrote in her notes:"After his encounters with [Father Edward] Avery, he [Danny] would avoid seeing masses with Avery (he could do this by trading with other altar boys).
What Sorensen wrote in the grand jury report:"From then on, Billy avoided serving Mass with Father Avery by trading assignments with other altar boys. But, like many children who are sexually abused, he was too frightened and filled with self-blame to report what had been done to him."
Nice dramatic touches. What a novelist that Sorensen is!
The truth: When Detective Walsh interviewed James Gallagher, Danny Gallagher's older brother, he asked him as a former altar boy what he would have had to do to switch a mass. The older brother said switching a Mass wasn't as easy as Danny Gallagher made it sound.
"I would need a good reason for my parents -- If I wanted to switch with someone," James Gallagher told the detective. "Next I would have to get approval from Father Graham [the church pastor] and call the altar server you wanted to switch with."
When Detective Walsh questioned Danny Gallagher, he asked how the former altar boy could have known which priest was serving Mass because the schedule changed daily. The schedule of priests serving Mass, the priests and nuns at St. Jerome's told the detective, was posted only inside the rectory, where Gallagher wouldn't have access to it. Only priests had access to the Mass schedule.
When confronted by Walsh, Danny Gallagher had no answers.
Lie No. 6: Danny Gallagher was alone in the sacristy with Father Engelhardt.
What Sorensen wrote in her notes: "Right after Mass, the priest caught Danny drinking the wine . . . they were in the room where they get dressed. Engelhardt asked Danny to stay."
What Sorensen wrote in the grand jury report: "Billy was a 10-year-old altar boy in the fifth grade at St Jerome School in Philadelphia . . . While alone with him in the sacristy, Father Charles Engelhardt began to show Billy pornographic magazines. Eventually, the priest directed Billy to take off his clothes . . ."
The truth: When Detective Walsh interviewed James Gallagher, Danny's older brother the lawyer, he
said there were two altar boys assigned to every Mass. In addition, two sextons were around before and after the altar boys showed up and left, and that it was one of the sextons who had the key to the church. So it was the sexton who was the first one there at the church to open the doors, and the last one to leave, after he locked up. Also, as opposed to what Danny Gallagher claimed, that the priest locked all doors to the sacristy before he raped poor little Danny, older brother James told the detective that the doors of the sacristy were always kept open during the Mass, including one propped open with a door. One of those open doors in the sacristy led to the only bathroom in the tiny church.
When Detective Walsh talked to the priests and nuns at St. Jerome's they confirmed there were two sextons and usually a couple of other altar boys at each Mass; in addition, the pastor of the church, was usually hanging around the sacristy, so it was unlikely that the priest was ever alone with Danny, so he could supposedly rape him, as Danny Gallagher claimed. Also, the priests and nuns told the detective that he doors of the sacristy were kept open during Mass.
When Detective Walsh confronted Gallagher, he had no answers.
Lie No. 7: Danny Gallagher was alone with Father Avery after Mass.
What Sorensen wrote in her notes:"The next encounter with Avery occurred in the summer before sixth grade--near Danny's birthday (July 14)(he was turning 11). Danny had served a funeral Mass with Father Avery and Father Graham. Father Graham went to the burial . . . Avery sent the other altar servers home, but asked Danny to stay and help clean up. Avery said it was time for their next session . . . and it would be quick and feel good. They went into the same room [a supply closet] as before. Danny said that Avery had on this smile like he couldn't wait for it . . . Avery proceeded to tell Danny to strip and dance. Avery started to strip too . . ."
What Sorensen wrote in the grand jury report:"Following an afternoon Mass . . . Billy was cleaning a chalice, Father Avery again directed the 10-year-old to strip for him. When Billy did as he was told, the priest fondled and fellated him . . ."
The truth: In his affidavit, Walsh explained that he asked Gallagher how he could claim that he was sexually abused by Father Avery after a funeral Mass in July 1999, when he was supposedly left alone with the priest. But the church register that listed all funeral Masses, as well as all the priests who served, showed that Avery had served at no funeral Mass that year. Another point raised by Walsh: according to the register, there were usually two priests serving at every funeral Mass.
In his affidavit, Walsh stated that he confronted Gallagher by showing him the church register.
"After a very long pause Gallagher then said there were two priests there who said the Mass. And that the other priest went to the cemetery and Fr. Avery remained at the church," Walsh wrote. "I then asked [Gallagher] where was the sexton, [an older man who was a church volunteer] who had to clean the altar and put the vestments away and put everything else away after Mass."
What Sorensen wrote in her notes: "A week or two later, he got really sick," Sorensen wrote about the aftermath of schoolteacher Bernard Shero raping him. "Missed school Lost 20 lbs. He had a bad cough, and at the end of each cough, he'd vomit. When he went back to school, Shero went back to the same demeanor, rubbing [Danny's] back, etc . . . Danny would walk away."
What Sorensen wrote in the grand jury report:"In the sixth grade, when Shero raped and orally sodomized him, he went through an extended period when he would gag and vomit for no reason. His mother took him to doctors of both conditions, but there was never a diagnosis . . ."
The truth: In his closing statement to the jury in the Engelhardt-Shero trial, prosecutor Mark Cipollettti repeatedly said that after he was attacked by Shero, Danny Gallagher missed three and a half days of school. But when they pulled his report card for that marking period it showed zero absences. Also, Danny's medical records showed no drastic weight loss.
Lie No. 9: Father Engelhardt raped Danny Gallagher.
What Sorensen wrote in her notes:"Father Engelhardt was the first one to abuse Danny, and afterwards, the priest supposedly said, "That was a good session" and "You are dismissed."
What Sorensen wrote in the grand jury report: "While alone with him in the sacristy, Father Charles Engelhardt began to show Billy pornographic magazines. Eventually the priest directed the boy to take off his clothes . . . After ejaculating on Billy, Father Engelhardt told him he was 'dismissed.'"
"After that, Billy was in effect passed around to Engelhardt's colleagues."
The truth: Danny Gallagher claimed that after he was raped by Father Engelhardt, he sat outside on the steps at St. Jerome's for an hour in the dead of winter, and waited for the school to open. But Detective Walsh knew from Danny's older brother that the parents typically drove both altar boys to and from the church.
"I asked [Danny] Gallagher to explain why his parents would permit him to walk approximately one mile from their house to the church carrying his cassock and school books at 6:00 a.m. in the dark, in December, when his older brother said he always got a ride to and from church when he served 6:15 a.m. Mass," Walsh wrote.
"I asked him [Danny] how his parents would permit him to sit outside school for about one hour after Mass waiting for school to open," Walsh wrote. "I told Gallagher I didn't believe his parents would permit him to walk to church at 6:00 a.m. and then remain outside school for about one hour."
Lie No. 10: Father Avery raped Danny Gallagher.
What Sorensen wrote in her notes: "Father Avery was the second adult to abuse Danny . . . Avery was 'quite forceful' and Danny thought he'd get in trouble if he didn't obey." Afterwards, the priest had Danny sit in his lap and he told the boy, "I'm proud of you," and, "You will be rewarded."
What Sorensen wrote in the grand jury report:"After that [the Engelhardt attack], Billy was in effect passed around to Engelhardt's colleagues. Father Edward Avery undressed with the boy, told him that God loved him, had him engage in oral intercourse . . . The session ended when Father Avery ejaculated on Billy and told him to clean up. The priest told Billy that it had been a good
session, and they would have another again soon."
The truth:"When I questioned Gallagher about all these discrepancies," Detective Walsh wrote in his affidavit, "he just put his head down and did not answer me," Walsh wrote. "I asked him several times for an answer, but he would not answer me. I concluded Gallagher was not sexually abused by Fr. Avery."
What Sorensen wrote in her notes: "Shero offered him a ride . . . Shero said: 'It's time for your sex education.' He starts to undo his own pants and tells Danny to undo his . . . After the sex is over, Shero's demeanor changes. He throws Danny's clothes at him and tells him he was very good. He then made Danny walk home. He says he'll see Danny in school." When Danny gets home, "he hopped in the shower, but felt like he couldn't get clean."
What Sorensen wrote in the grand jury report:"After that [Engelhardt attack], Billy was in effect passed around to Engelhardt's colleagues," she wrote. After Avery abused Billy, "Next was the turn of Bernard Shero, a teacher in the school," Sorensen wrote. "Shero offered Billy a ride home, but instead stopped at a park, told Billy they were 'going to have some fun,' took of the boy's clothes, orally and anally raped him, and then made him walk the rest of the way home."
The truth: Detective Walsh asked Gallagher about his alleged sexual assault by Shero, and Gallagher's original claims. Gallagher had previously told two social workers for the archdiocese, as well as to one of his drug counselors, that Shero had allegedly punched him in the face before he attempted to anally rape him.
Then, Gallagher claimed he was high on drugs and didn't remember what he told the social workers or the drug counselor.
But Walsh knew from his investigation that none of that was true. In his affidavit, Walsh related how he explained to Gallagher that he had interviewed a trio of witnesses -- the drug counselor, one of the social workers, as well as Gallagher's own father -- and that the three witnesses "all said he [Gallagher] was not high on drugs," the detective wrote.
"Gallagher didn't answer me," Walsh wrote. "He put his head down and refused to answer. I concluded that Gallagher was not sexually abused by Mr. Shero."
What Sorensen wrote in her notes: At age 14, Danny changed," Sorensen wrote, after questioning Gallagher's parents. "He got kicked out of High School. They [the parents] didn't know what had precipitated the change. They attributed his behavior to the death of his grandmother, and that they had allowed him to see her as she was dying [or her body after she died??]"
What Sorensen wrote in the grand jury report:"Billy’s mother also told us of a dramatic change in her son’s personality that coincided with the abuse. His friends and their parents also noticed this personality change. Billy’s mother watched as her friendly, happy, sociable son turned into a lonely, sullen boy. He no longer played sports or socialized with his friends. He separated himself, and began to smoke marijuana at age 11. By the time Billy was in high school, he was abusing prescription painkillers, and eventually he graduated to heroin."
The truth: The personality change took place in high school, when he was 14. It did not happen back in grade school, at St. Jerome's, when Danny was 10 and 11 years old, and according to his mother's grand jury testimony, was either described as "either Dennis the Menace or the All-American boy." And according to Danny's parents, his personality change wasn't because of abuse, it was because Danny's grandmother died.
Lies 13-23: The other alleged victim in the 2011 grand jury indictment, Mark Bukowski, then 14, was anally raped by Father James J. Brennan back in 1996.
What Mark Bukowski told the grand jury: "I got into bed with him [Father Brennan] and . . . He began to hug me from behind . . . I felt his erect penis between my butt cheeks. My boxers were still on, however, I do not know if he had shorts on . . . I remember lastly thinking what the fuck happened tonight and crying myself to sleep with his penis still between my butt cheeks, saying to myself over and over again, why is this happening?"
Ok, we can all agree if the witness is telling the truth, none of this should have ever happened. But what does Sorensen do with this grand jury testimony? She throws gas on the fire by turning what Father Brennan's lawyer termed a "savage spooning" into an anal rape. While both the attacker and the victim, according to Bukowski's trial testimony, had their t-shirts on, as well as their boxer shorts.
That grand jury report, as well as its lying author, is what Progressive Larry Krasner has just bought into.
At any retrial of Msgr. Lynn, his lawyer, Thomas A. Bergstrom, will almost certainly call Mariana Sorensen as a witness.
Bergstrom also plans to call as his star witness, Detective Joe Walsh, formerly of the D.A.'s office, and the lead detective on the Danny Gallagher case.
Walsh will explain how he repeatedly told Sorensen that the evidence he was gathering proved that Danny Gallagher wasn't credible. And then Walsh willl testify that no matter what he said, Sorensen kept telling him that she still believed Danny, before finally saying, "You're killing my case."
So Progressive Larry Krasner, when it comes to a retrial of Msgr. Lynn, the lies of Danny Gallagher and Mariana Sorensen might kill your case.
In Philadelphia, under our new D.A., Progressive Larry Krasner, it's now legal to be a prostitute, providing you're just getting started.
Under new policies announced on Feb. 15th by Krasner, his assistant D.A.s are being told "do not charge prostitution cases against sex workers where a person who has been arrested has two, one, or no prostitution convictions." In the case of a new hooker, ADAs are instructed to "withdraw all pending cases in these categories that would be declined for charging under this policy."
But if a person has "three or more prostitution convictions," then an individual can be "charged with prostitution and immediately referred to DAWN Court," the new rules state. It's enough to make you wonder what Larry Krasner has against old hookers.
Other offenses that ADAs are being told to decline charging include possession of marijuana "regardless of weight," and paraphernalia offenses "where the drug involved is marijuana."
A former prosecutor who read the new policies described them as "agenda driven," adding, "He [Krasner] is very naive and obviously he's someone who has zero experience dealing with crime victims and the effects of crime."
Summary offenses are the most minor type of criminal offense in the state, such as loitering or disorderly conduct, and are usually punishable by a fine. Under the Krasner regime, ADAS are told, "You must seek supervisory approval to charge and dispose of retail theft cases at misdemeanor or felony levels."
"Remember, that a summary conviction permits a sentence of 90 days incarceration, fines up to $250, and full restitution," the new policies state. "These penalties are sufficient to hold a retail theft accountable."
Under the new policies, Krasner is telling his ADAs he wants them to divert more cases. Diversion programs, such as community service, restitution, or taking an educational course, are an alternative to normal sentencing that allows the offender to avoid charges and a criminal record.
"All attorneys are directed to approach diversion and re-entry with greater flexibility and an eye toward achieving accountability and justice while avoiding convictions where appropriate," the new policies state.
For example, "an otherwise law-abiding, first DUI (driving under the influence) defendant who has no driver's license (regardless of whether or not that defendant's immigration status interferes with obtaining a license under Pa. law) may apply for individualized consideration for diversion with a requirement of efforts to overcome license impediments where possible as an aspect of any diversionary program."
Also, defendants charged with marijuana delivery or possession with intent to deliver may apply for diversion programs, the new policies state.
When it comes to sentencing, Krasner wants his assistants to "state on the record the benefits and costs of the sentence you are recommending."
"The United States has the highest rate of incarceration in the world," the new policies state. "It has increased 500% over a few decades. Pennsylvania and Philadelphia have been incarcerating at an even higher rate than comparable U.S. states and cities for decades -- a 700 percent increase over the same few decades in Pennsylvania; and Philadelphia in recent years, has been the most incarcerated of the 10 largest cities. Yet Pennsylvania and Philadelphia are not safer as a result, due to wasting resources in corrections rather than investing in other measures that reduce crime."
Accordingly, ADAs under Krasner are actually required to state the costs of incarceration when they're recommending a sentence to a judge in a criminal case.
"At sentencing, ADAs must state on the record their reasoning for requesting a particular sentence, and must state the unique benefits and cotes of the sentence," the new policies state. The document then lists the costs of incarceration, $42,000 a year for one person, which boils down to $3,500 per month or $115 a day. If you add up pensions and other benefits to correctional employees, the total cost for incarcerating one individual in Philadelphia is "close to $60,000 per year," the new policies state.
That's comparable to a year's salary for a beginning teacher, police officer, firefighter, social worker, assistant district attorney or addiction counselor, the new policies state. So if an ADA is recommending that somebody go to jail for three years, the cost to the taxpayer is at least $126,000, the new policies state. If you're going to put somebody away for 25 years, it will cost $1,050,000. If an ADA is going to recommend a sentence such as 25 years, he or she must "explain why they believe that cost is justified."
At a press conference today to announce his new policies, Krasner declared, "A dollar spent in incarceration should be worth it."
In addition, Krasner is asking his ADAS to request shorter periods of probation. The new policies cite chronological studies that show that most violations of probation occur during the first 12 months.
Krasner also instructs his ADAs that a positive drug test for marijuana is no longer a parole violation, as is possession of marijuana "without supervisory approval."
So all you parollees, as far as Larry Krasner is concerned, smoke 'em if you got em.