Thursday, March 7, 2013

Mom's Calendars Undermine Billy Doe's Story

By Ralph Cipriano
for Bigtrial.net

Billy Doe's mother kept meticulous track of both of her sons' grade school events.

On monthly calendars, she noted dates and times for football and hockey games, doctor's appointments, and guitar lessons, flu shots and snow days. She wrote down dates for upcoming exams, school projects, home and school meetings, as well as the day that report cards came out.

She also kept track of the Masses that her sons were scheduled to serve at as altar boys at St. Jerome's Church.

Billy Doe's mother kept all those calendars, including the 1998 and 1999 calendars when Billy was a fifth grader at St. Jerome's. That's the school year when Billy claims he was raped by Father Charles Engelhardt after a 6:30 a.m. Mass.

The calendars kept by Billy's mother were turned over to the district attorney's office as evidence in the case. So the D.A. searched the calendars, seeking a 6:30 a.m. Mass that Billy served at to corroborate the rape victim's story.

But the search came up empty. And it wasn't the only time that Billy's story didn't check out.

On March 19, 2010, Billy told the grand jury that Father Engelhardt first approached him during the winter when he was in fifth grade. "I was serving a 6:30 Mass before school," Billy testified. Father Engelhardt "asked me to stay after Mass to help him out with something."

Billy Doe got the time wrong for when early weekday Mass was held at St. Jerome's. Mass is always said at 6:15 a.m. Mondays through Fridays at St. Jerome's, and not 6:30 a.m., according to priests and nuns at the church interviewed by police. There's also a published schedule of Masses that confirms those times. Early Sunday Mass is always held at 6:30 a.m.

Billy Doe told the grand jury that a week after this first meeting with Father Engelhardt, Billy was serving at another 6:30 Mass when Father Engelhardt raped him. So Billy's story to the grand jury was that he served at two 6:30 a.m. Masses with Father Engelhardt within a week of each other while he was a fifth-grade altar boy during the 1998-99 school year.

On April 25, 2012, when Billy Doe testified at the trial of Msgr. William J. Lynn, the prosecutor narrowed the date for that first 6:30 Mass with Father Engelhardt down to two possible months:

Q. Did there come a time when you served a Mass with Father Charles Engelhart in the winter of 1998 or 1999, depending, December, January?

A. Yes.

When Billy was asked about the second Mass he served with Father Engelhardt, "about a week and a half, two weeks after that."

Q. Do you remember what time that Mass was or if it was a weekday or a weekend?

A. A weekend Mass.

This time, Billy said it was a weekend Mass, which starts at 6:30 a.m. on Sundays at St. Jerome's. But there were no 6:15 a.m. or 6:30 a.m. Masses marked down for Billy on his mother's calendars for either December 1998 or January 1999.

There was an 8 a.m. Mass for Billy in January 1999, and two 9 a.m. Masses in March. But no 6:15 or 6:30 a.m. Masses were listed for Billy Doe on his mother's calendars for the entire 1998-99 school year while Billy was in fifth grade.

It's not the only time that Billy Doe's story didn't check out.

Billy Doe claimed that Father Edward Avery raped him after the priest said a funeral Mass at St. Jerome's. But Billy gave two different times for the rape by Avery.

On Jan. 28, 2010, Billy Doe told Detective Drew Snyder that during an encounter with Father Engelhardt in July 1999, [Billy] "is serving a funeral Mass with Father Avery. Father Avery sends the other altar servers home and told [Billy] it is time for their next session," after which Father Avery raped Billy.

On April 25, 2012, Billy Doe told the jury at the trial of Msgr. William J. Lynn that he was raped by Father Avery "prior to the spring, like coming into Spring:"

Q. You're still in fifth grade?

A. Yes.

Q. So spring of '99

A. Yes.

Q. You're still 10 years old.

A. Yes.


St. Jerome's keeps a register of funerals, listing the priest who officiated at each Mass. Those records were turned over to the district attorney's office as evidence on March 5, 2010, by Father Joseph B. Graham, pastor of St. Jerome's. The pastor died on Dec. 28, 2010, seven months after he testified before the grand jury on May 11, 2010.

"He was never the same when he came back from that grand jury," said Father Joseph E. Howarth, a  longtime friend of Father Graham's.

The hand-written records show more than 80 funerals during the 1998-1999 school year when Billy was in fifth grade. Father Avery only did one funeral Mass that year, according to the register.

It was on March 2, 1999. Not July, like Billy Doe told the police, and certainly not early spring, like he told the jury at the Lynn trial.

But the funeral Mass said by Father Avery was held at Nazareth Hospital, where Father Avery served as a chaplain, and not at St. Jerome's, according to the hand-written notes on the church register.

So Billy's story of serving at a funeral Mass officiated at St. Jerome's by Father Avery cannot possibly be true, unless the church records turned over by the pastor were doctored.

There are other holes in Billy's stories.

Billy Doe claimed that he would switch Masses with other altar servers when he found out he was scheduled to serve a Mass with either Father Engelhardt or Father Avery.

Billy told the grand jury that after Father Engelhardt raped him, "every time I would see him, I just kind of stayed away from him. If I had a Mass with him, I would switch it. I basically ignored him, stayed out of his way."

Billy told the grand jury that after Father Avery raped him, he would also switch Masses when he was scheduled to serve as an altar boy with Father Avery.

Q. Was there ever a time during this time period when you were scheduled to perform Mass that you were on the schedule for Mass with Father Avery or Father Engelhardt and didn't participate in the Mass?

A. Yes.

Q. And why was that?

A. I just didn't want to be near them.

Q. So how would you arrange it so you didn't have to perform Mass with them?

A. I would just ask another altar server to switch with me.

But on his mother's calendars, no switch dates for Masses are recorded for Billy during the entire 1998-1999 school year.

And it's not like Mom didn't put Mass switches on the calendar. On Feb. 26, 2000, when Billy was in sixth grade, his mother wrote on the calendar that Billy was serving the 5 p.m. Mass and then she wrote down on March 19th, the second sunday of Lent, a note that her son had "switched [March 19th] with Jason for Feb. 26."

Billy Doe's older brother was also an altar boy. Wouldn't he have been a logical candidate for Billy to switch Masses with?

On Jan. 9, 2012, Billy's older brother, then a 26-year-old lawyer, sat down in the district attorney's office to answer some questions. Back in 1998-99 when Billy was a fifth-grader at St. Jerome's, his brother was an eighth grader. Besides being an altar boy, Billy's brother was also a sexton at St. Jerome's.

Billy's brother told the police that switching Masses wasn't that easy to do, because you didn't just need to find another altar boy to switch with, you also had to get Father Graham's approval:

Q. Did you ever switch Masses -- serving a Mass with [Billy]?

A. No.

Q. How did you find out which Mass you were assigned to be an altar server?

A. Father Graham made up the schedule for I believe a month and I would give it to my mom and she put it on the refrigerator. [Billy] and I ... he was an altar server and I was in 8th grade [and] would be on the same list.

Q. If you wanted to switch serving Mass with another altar server what would you do?

A. I would need a good reason for my parents -- If I wanted to switch with someone -- Next I would have to get approval from Father Graham and call the altar server you wanted to switch with.

There's a few more facts that contradict Billy Doe's stories.

Billy implied to the grand jury that altar boys knew weeks in advance which priest would celebrate which Mass. But that's not how the system worked, as priests from St. Jerome's have told the district attorney's office.

Father Joseph E. Howarth used to work as a substitute priest at St. Jerome's, saying Mass and hearing confessions. In an interview for this blog, Father Howarth, who was not interviewed by the district attorney's office, told the same story that other priests told the D.A., namely that St. Jerome's "did not publish the list of the celebrants," as Father Howarth put it.

Pastor Graham would compose the list of celebrants the week before, after consulting with the priests. And then he would hang the list of celebrants in the rectory, and sometimes also the sacristy, Father Howarth said. But the list of celebrants wasn't handed out to the altar boys. So when altar boys typically showed up for church, "They don't know who the celebrant is until he walks in," Father Howarth said.

Howarth has been the pastor of the Church Of The Resurrection Of Our Lord since 2007. He said the sacristy at St. Jerome's, where Billy Doe claimed Father Engelhardt had raped him, was "the size of like a walk-in closet."

"There was constant traffic going back and forth there," Father Howarth said. "There was very little privacy."

The sacristy, since remodeled, had four doors when Billy was a fifth grader. One door led to the only bathroom in the church and when it was used by parishioners, they had to cut through the sacristy. A second door opened into a storage room, a third door opened onto the side of the church, and a fourth door opened directly into the sanctuary.

The walls of the sacristy weren't soundproof.

"You could sneeze in that sacristy and somebody in the first pew would say," God bless you," Father Howarth said. The idea that any priest would attempt to rape an altar boy in the sacristy was beyond belief, Father Howarth said.

Especially if that priest was Father Engelhardt.

"I've known Charles Engelhardt since our days growing up in Kensington," Father Howarth said. "I brought him here" to be the assistant pastor back in the 1990s at the Church Of The Resurrection Of Our Lord.

Father Engelhardt would be embarrassed just to say the things that Billy Doe has accused him of doing, Father Howarth said. "He’s just the type of guy of if you talked about that type of thing he would blush. He would turn six shades of red."

Howarth went to visit his old friend last week at the Curran-Fromhold Correctional Facility on State Road, where Father Engelhardt awaits sentencing on March 18 in the courtroom of Judge Ellen Ceisler. Father Engelhardt is facing a maximum jail sentence of 37 years.

"He seems to be holding up," Father Howarth said. "The only reason he can do that is because he has such a clear concscience that it [the rape] did not happen. It's a perfectly concocted story."

63 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  2. First time commenting. I have been reading the blog for the entire trial. I do not understand why the defense did not spend more time on this. The calendar is the only physical evidence in the trial. It seems as though everyone one that is sticking up for billy doe is now turning on Ralph. In my opion, at the beginning of the trial Ralph was leaning more towards the D.A. I just can't imagine anyone believing this guy. I'm not going to go through the long list of why. Can anyone honestly say they believe this guy 100%, if the defense gets a retrial they should move this case out of Philly. If that's possible. To say that there wasn't something going on in the jury room is ridiculous. One of the jurors was a st. Jerome's parish member. How did she get on the jury? Hindsight is 20/20. But there's seems to be to many mistake from the defense team. Good job Ralph. RALPH: Didnt they drop the sodomy charge( not exactly sure what the technical term was called)? It seems like the jury just picked their favorite Billy doe story and went with it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can only speak for myself. But I'm not turning on Ralph, I continue to respect what he is doing. It takes stones to report day after day on such a topic., and I do not want him to think anything I say here is a personal attack. Ralph is a big boy and I don't think he needs anyone to defend him. But he is doing a job, and in a way I'm doing mine. I would ask the same questions and tell him the same things if he was flesh and blood.

      It seems that in Ralph's writing there has been a change. You even mention it in your own comment. As a reporter he should not lean to any side, but remain objective, no matter what his personal feelings are regarding the subject.

      He has reported here about a numerous amount of evidence that could of possibly led to a different verdict. But one question he has failed to ask and I believe it is a very important question is to the attorney: if the information he has uncovered by either his investigations or being informed by the attorney is if this evidence is so important WHY WAS IT NOT USED IN COURT WHEN IT MATTERED THE MOST ?

      It also seems in his writings the only individual he seems to want to defend is Father Engelhardt, what about Shero ? Was Billy Lying when it only came to Engelhardt, but was telling the truth about Shero ?

      The interviews he has conducted so far are one sided. I would love to read more about Engelhardt's cousin and what he meant about his comment.

      Everyone knows how much I dislike the church (not the faith) and you can even say hate. But everyone also knows how much I don't want to see any innocent individual in prison, and as I stated if it is ever proven that Billy lied, I will drive to florida and drag him back to Philly myself

      But I still don't see any proof to change the verdict.

      Delete
    2. Axel, there was a rape charge read by the crier in court against Engelhardt before the trial began, and his lawyer objected, saying the DA had never filed that charge. The jury also hung on a count of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse with a minor regarding Engelhardt.

      Delete
    3. So apparently the jury didn't like that tall tale. I wonder witch story they picked. There's so many to choose from! Ralph, I would like I commend you for actually interacting with your readers. Dennis. It's only human nature for one to pick a side. But it's the good reporters or people for that matter. That have the ability to see both sides of the story without blood in their eyes. Do be so naive to think that one of those jurors husbands or wives or fathers wasn't a Philly cop, Or that lady from st. Jerome's didn't have an agenda. Anything is possible. Dennis. You keep saying "if" billy is lying I'll take him to jail myself. Isn't that reasonable doubt? "billy" is going to complicate things for individuals who actual have a case against the archdiocese. Don't you see that? Sorry for piling on there Dennis.

      Delete
  3. Sorry if I misspelled anything Frank.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ralph, another great report.
    I'm going to pick up where the beverly hills cop left off and add another movie reference at the end.

    During this trial, I heard very little evidence besides an accuser. In particular for Engelhardt, I heard nothing. There were no witnesses, there were no prior accusations, there were no lines of other former students or alter boys that came in and said they had an awkward experience. There was simply a boy grown taller on the stand who remembered everything he told the grand jury and well versed to say he was high every time he talked to someone else and “does not recall”. I still wonder where the evidence was to support a guilty verdict.

    I would love to hear from a juror to understand the rationale. Ralph, to borrow some words from Professor Lambeau of Good Will Hunting, the gauntlet has been thrown down, but the readers have answered and answered with vigor: can we hear from a juror?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ralph you became very defensive on the last blog. But I believe you are not defending the correct story. The statement I am talking about is the one that follows: The response he got surprised him, McGovern said. The high-ranking official on the other end of the line said, well there's a split opinion over here [in the district attorney's office] about whether the complainant is credible.

    The statement would been more believable if it was not left open as you reported. Who is the high-ranking official ? This story was meant to be read by those who have not been following this case. It was meant to place doubt in the minds of those who believe everything they see in print is the truth.

    I don't care if mentioning his name puts him in the unemployment office on Monday. But you should have informed McGovern if you are unable to use all the facts. No story.

    You are the one who opened that can of worms. Please tell me were this is also located in the Grand Jury Report as you state.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dennis, you're wasting my time. There's a lot of evidence coming out here on this blog. Your latest conspiracy theory about how it can't possibly be true involves some problem you have over an unnamed official from the DA's office.

      What you're objecting to in my writing is known as a point of view. It's going to stay in there. Sorry if it upsets you, but I've been in the courtroom and you haven't.

      Delete
  6. Ralph,

    Any idea if this calender (brought into court by the mother on the stand, I am sure not by accident) and the O Brother Where Art Thou DA detective's signed transcript by the older brother, were turned over to the defense before or after the trial? If this was part of the prosecutions "discovery" of the case and they did not turn it over to the defense before the trial, is that not grounds for an immediate new trial? These are two pretty important documents in regards to the defense of Fr. Engelhardts alledged incidents.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sadly the calendars and the funeral register were turned over to the defense before trial and were not used. I really don't know why.

      Delete
    2. Ugh, hindsight is 20/20 but the mother should have been recalled to the stand after billy's testimony. Thanks Ralph, keep fighting the good fight.

      Delete
    3. Ralph, will you interview the defense attorneys and find out why the calendars and funeral register were not used at the trial?

      Delete
    4. That's the question I have. Is there any new evidence here, or are we just rehashing evidence that the defense failed to use? The appellate court will decide an appeal based on the record as it stands. Has anyone come across any appealable issue in the case other than inadequate representation? I'm getting a notion that these men may be sitting in jail because their superb defense counsel chose not to properly defend them. In the search for the truth, I am wondering why they would do that.

      Delete
    5. Thank you, Ralph. It just seems like monumental evidence in comparison to no evidence at all. When I read about the calendars (which I was very surprised still existed!) and the funeral registers, I thought this was a real revelation. I can't imagine why this evidence wasn't brought to trial by the defense team.

      This blog continues to fascinate.

      Delete
    6. If the defendants demonstrate to the appellate court that so much evidence was left out and so many affirmative defenses were not asserted, they will win their appeal.

      I think the appeal has to be filed within 30 days of sentencing.

      Just saying, these men in jail need competent appellate lawyers available now.

      Delete
    7. Hi Archie & SarahTX2,

      Good question: (relative to the defense not using Billy's mother's calendar and the funeral register).

      The defense probably believed that an attentive, unbiased jury would have no difficulty acquitting their clients based upon the radically differing abuse accounts related to the A/D, to the detective, Billy's own testimony before the Grand Jury, the 'bell fable', Billy's mother's and his teachers testimonies, report cards, medical reports, and so forth.

      If so, they seriously miscalculated - at least with this jury. In retrospect, every option should have been placed 'on the table'.

      Even Jay - - an alternate juror excused (with a complementary piece of pizza) before the actual deliberations - - - blogged in the Philadelphia Inquirer after the verdict on January 30th that the case resounded with reasonable doubt. While this blog has since been removed (?), here are some of the excerpted comments from 2 of the posts that I saved:
      - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
      http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/20130130_Priest_trial_jury_deliberates_for_third_day.html?i=2&&jCount=3&#comments

      “ My husband was an alternate juror on this case. He spoke to me about it when he was released from duty. He is shocked that they were found guilty BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. He said there were way too many holes in the prosecution's case for there not to be doubt. - Jilljay

      ……The burden was on the prosecution to prove their case, and I don't feel that they did. The victim gave 3 different locations for Shero. That is enough doubt. Period

      …..the alleged victim said that Shero's attack happened in the classroom, then a parking lot behind a dumpster, and finally in Pennypack park. Shero might be guilty, but there is most definitely doubt when the victim changed his story 3 times”. - Jilljay
      - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
      Unfortunately, McGovern's staff also screwed up by not serving Billy's brother properly - probably just an honest mistake on a secretary's part. But on this point, it's hard to believe why this judge - when requested - didn't give the defense a short time extension to admit Billy's brother's testimony, considering its importance to the two accused men who would likely go to jail for the rest of their natural lives if convicted.

      This seems to have been a reasonable and vital request totally consistent with the pursuit of justice - - n'est-ce pas?

      Delete
  7. Dennis, I am not sure you can read the grand jury report. You're already so blind to the facts of the case, you may be blind in real life and need to request the audio version or something.

    Quick question for you if I can get an honest answer. Why is it so inconceivable to you that Billy Doe may be lying about this whole thing considering everything you have read on this blog since January?

    Is your view on the world so warped that you can't fathom the thought that a honest priest may actaully exist in this world somewhere.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I will answer your question I believe how you want me to and that is CLOSED MINDED.

      1. You have a pope who left, that's fine. But that same pope had a facility built for himself that gives him immunity. Why would a pope need immunity ?

      2. Then you have an organization made up of priests that has been proven time after time not only here in Philadelphia, but L.A., Boston, Alaska and many more places, they protected child abusers.

      3. Then you have that same organization made up of priests doing the same thing across the world. Ireland, Britain and elsewhere.

      4. Then you have that same organization who vows always to do better, ends up being business like usual.

      So NO, do I believe there is one honest priest out there. Now that is the way you wanted me to answer your question.

      Now the way Dennis would answer that question is, Do I believe there are honest priests out there ? YES. I still believe there are men who have received "the calling" to do good. To teach the word of God. The ones who want to help our children, teach them the catholic faith, without one thought of it being open season on our kids.

      Now CHIPPY, you believe what you want to believe about my comment. Frankly, i don't care. The only thing I care about is what my family believes and what I believe inside.

      Delete
    2. Once again you have proven my point. Everything you've said has nothing to do with the actual case itself.

      Delete
    3. Why would you get involved ? Chippy111 asked me a fair an honest question, and I gave him a fair and honest answer.

      Another individual who feels they have the right to comment on anything because they may have attended mass once in awhile and put that five dollars in the collection basket ???

      Delete
    4. Take it easy Mac. There's a little button there that says "Reply". This is an open forum. Right? If you want to have a private conversation with Chippy, set up a lunch date. That way, I won't be able to comment.

      Delete
  8. I can say I have been open minded to both sides of this case. I keep my feelings regarding all the players to myself no matter how much I would like to say if one is innocent or not. I AM NOT CONDUCTING A WITCH HUNT, and I would have every right to say with what I went through to say, I don't care who is in prison, as long as it is somebody wearing a white collar.

    I would also be able to say and be happy no matter what the truth is about these cases, individuals are in prison, even if for a day, who have had their freedom removed, their own choice of control removed, and everything else that is punishment when you go to prison, only because they represented the church, and then pat the person on the back who was able to put them there no matter if he/she told the truth.

    You have already stated I go to a different comment section, and you may or may not post this on your blog, but I am not like others who comment here. I am not grasping at straws to release possible child abusers and I am not here to keep innocent individuals in prison, or to have an accuser who lied not punished. I only want the truth.

    I am not that individual who has been asked if I am "in bed with the catholic church" (see your previous blog)

    I cannot say you must ask this question or you must ask that question. But you are making it so obvious.

    ReplyDelete
  9. You have never been open minded sir. Your comments are so blindly one sided toward the prosecution in this case its a shock you still read the blog. You should be ashamed that you wrote you have sheer joy that a priest is in jail just because he wears a collar. That person is innocent in my eyes, and we know he has family and friends who support him. If your children were accused, tried, and sent to real prison based on a lie, how would you feel as a parent? Probably not sheer joy, right????

    You support a serial liar, drug addict, and criminal. You are allowing him to carry the torch for real victims, as you say you are. He will fail you as he has everyone and everything in his 24 years of life. He is a loser, no more, no less.

    You support him because his lies may allow you to one day file a lawsuit. That is your agenda.

    You continiue to look for the truth, but you can't see it. You don't want to see it. Its been here on this blog all along. You should know, you have made more comments than anyone else on here.

    Stop talking out of both sides of your ass. You sound like an idiot.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Let me open your eyes to fact.

    There are four convicted criminals in prison. The ARE NOT innocent. They have been proven guilty in a court of law.

    There is no rogue jurors, or any other BS you would like to believe is out there.

    There is a young man who is now in Florida getting his life together, who proved to the jury he is credible and truthful.

    Now my personal thoughts, you and the majority feel you have a right to comment on any of these trials. However you don't, this is something you do during the coarse of a day because you are bored. However, when it comes to this subject I am a EXPERT along with other survivors out there. I/we have lived the abuse, we have lived the lies, and we have lived the continue coverup. You read the words of an individual who has no first hand experience regarding this subject, and only writes what he wants leaving out facts. (come live in my house for a week, you will see the effects of being abused and see facts, conducting interviews or reading a book does not count)

    Now God forgive me for what I'm about to say, but I was always told to let my true feelings out. I am not upset, not one bit these men are in prison. I live in a nice big three bedroom home and can come and go as I please. I can wake up when I want, I can eat when I want, and I sleep in a nice big bed with my wife and not a dude, and when I go to sleep at night I hear goodnight honey instead of the clank of an iron door. It is actually my new happy place to think about.

    Now if these men are released tomorrow, I will still feel good, because they went threw the hell that alot of survivors suffered almost a life time.

    Now, when the sentencing comes down,if even for a day or you hear another guilty verdict, listen carefully, because what you will here are cheers and the sound of a cork popping.

    Do you still believe I'm speaking out both sides of my ass ? I won't call you any names because unlike you this survivor WILL NOT STEP AS LOW AS YOU.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Stop your BS rants. Please realize that no one cares about YOU on this blog except for you. Your "I am the only expert in child abuse" lines are quite tiresome. You don't know me or anyone elses history, we just choose not to plaster it 10 times a day for self satisfaction. You claim you were abused. Sorry to hear that, get help if you need it and move on with your life chief. Constantly writing it aint helping that for sure. And we all know that you want the SOL to be lifted so you can sue and get a four bedroom house.

    Your ignorance truly saddens me because if you truly were an expert as you claim, you would be out helping victims and not condeming innocent men. Your experience clouds your judgement and discredits everything opinion you have on this blog.

    Readers come here looking for facts, think and then comment on opinion. The only people who think these men are still guilty or got a fair trial is you and the SNAP people.

    Let me refresh your memory regarding the 4 men in this case.
    Lynn - convicted because Billy testified that he was abused and Judge Sarmina refused to allow his attorneys to question him. Think that is fair? You're on trial and your attorney can't question the witness who could put you in jail. Which is what happened.

    Father Engelhardt - Billy told three different versions of what may have happened. All happened after the 6:15 mass. Yet his mothers calendar brought into trial contradicts this happened as he did not have any morning masses in the winter and definately did not have any in the 5th grade. His lawyer brother's signed document questioned by a DA detective contradicts he was ever in this type of position as the only person in church, doors being locked, alter boys handling the sacriments, mom or dad not picking him up after the early mass, etc., etc. Also said he switched mass because he know Fr E would be there. Yet he did not know who the celebrant would be before he got there and the calendar showed no switch in this time frame. Another day, another lie.

    Avery - Never convicted - took a deal not to die in prison. Passed the polygraph that he did not know Billy. Was going to be dragged through the mud for the old accusations, which were probably true. But not Billy. Never served a funeral with Billy at St. Jeromes.

    Shero - Easy target and it did not seem like he was taking down the whole rectory by throwing in a teacher.

    You are in denial of the facts or your just on here like the SNAP folks who post websites about poeple in the Yukon who are on some lists.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Couple spelling and grammer error lil. My bad

      Delete
    2. Dennis can say what ever he wants. Do you pay his bills?
      I have no idea what the real truth here is. I do know however a guilty verdict was reached by a jury.
      I also know that the Church has been squealing like a stuck pig about "false allegations" since they were caught with our pants down.
      I'm a compensated victim from L.A. Calif.
      Neither you nor Dennis nor I know precisely what is true here but insulting people is stupid. So let's back off a bit shall we?

      Delete
  12. Where is the national media? The Philadelphia Abuse Trials could make an entire series on HBO. Or Showtime. 5 seasons at least. A fact-filled series with more twists and turns than the fictional ones. The Philadelphia Abuse Trials could give Homeland a run for its money. And we've not even gotten to the sentencing and the appeals (if they file any).

    ReplyDelete
  13. Oh, Sarah, how I agree with you! This is fascinating. I cannot look away. It's also heartbreaking, disgusting, and there are things that I can't read...I just can't, so I skip to the next paragraph.

    Ralph is doing a superb job reporting, and continuing to dig up new evidence and bring it to light. Thank you, Ralph!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've done that too. I've skipped to the next paragraph. And I find everything in these trials to be downright compelling. I don't even know if these men did it any more. I don't know who sabotaged who. And I too thank Ralph for his fantastic reporting. These men deserve competent defense. And they haven't had it thus far.

      Delete
  14. Excuses, excuses and more excuses.

    This is what its beginning to sound like. "This neighbor you see who we can't mention says that she seen proof that Billy was lying by a statement that she seen lying on the floor. The only problem she states "is when I went to pick it up Billy's dog ate it.

    Are you reading what you are writing, do you have any sense of the real world.

    Lynn did not get a fair trial because of the judge

    Engelhardt: even after the jury heard the evidence from the calendar they still found him guilty. This must have been jury tampering or rogue juror. I know, the judge was not fair to him either.

    Avery: "He did not want to die in prison" But did he or did he not under oath say he was taking a plea of his own free will and nobody was forcing him.

    and this next one is the one I like the best

    Shero: Billy threw him in for good measure, because he was an easy target.

    I will wake up one day and realize you can't fight ignorance or stupidity.

    So good look everyone , I hope this will all come to an end one day before any of your famly members are harmed, but I don't see that in the near future.

    LIGHTS OUT, clank,clank.




    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hopefully billy doesn't sell a bag of heroine to someone you know or to a kid on your block. It would be a shame if they overdosed. But hey that's ok. It won't be Billy's fault. We'll just blame it on a priest and a teacher. Then you can have him over for dinner. And help him count his money. RALPH: What's going on with Billy's 56 bags of heroin case and attempt to distribute? Do you think the DA will give him a sweet heart deal, for helping put 2 innocent men in jail?

      Delete
    2. Working on getting an answer to that question.

      Delete
  15. It's all good, Dennis. Things are coming to light almost at the speed of light these days. I would add to your no. 3 paragraph way up above that the nation of Australia has commenced their Royal Commission to investigate, as a nation, the rape of children by Catholic priests. The first national investigation ever. And one that will be difficult to minimize.

    We are making great progress. I was not abused by a priest. My cousin killed herself because of abuse by a priest, so I pursue this cause since 1998. There are no lights out in this cause. And at the same time, your above writings are brilliant, especially the part about closed mindedness. Wow. You have the persuasiveness of a James Frey. I read everything you write.

    Sarah

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As invariably is the case, SarahSNAP, your prejudice leads you to present one falsehood after another. The Royal Commission is not investigating "the rape of children by Catholic priests." Its remit is to investigate the history of educational institutions, religious groups, sporting organizations, state institutions and youth organizations – NOT just the Catholic Church. Australian journalist Andrew Boult reflected the concerns of many in Australia in his excellent recent article "Beware an anti-Catholic witch hunt in the royal commission." It warns against exactly the type of prejudice you display. The type of prejudice which put these innocent men behind bars. You should be ashamed of yourself.

      Mr. Boult states of the Commission: “Here are the three greatest dangers:
      1. It becomes an anti-Catholic crusade
      2. It treats allegations as proof.
      3. It doesn’t stop the worst sex abuse today”

      Sound familiar?

      You and your like have no interest in protecting children from adult abusers, or in assisting "victims." All you seek to do is to victimize and demonize the Church, by smearing it and its clergy, resorting to everything from innuendo to lies.

      As Mr Boult states:
      “We should be far more concerned with stopping the abuse of children today than with spending millions to recall the abuse by priests now dead, jailed or too old to be dangerous…Churches no longer are – if they ever were – where the worst child sex abuse occurs. Aboriginal communities are….Yet child sexual abuse in Aboriginal communities will almost certainly be excluded in this proposed royal commission into abuse in institutions only.”

      You say you are making great progress. Wrong. Your witch hunt is fast running out of steam. Even the secular media are having to admit that the whole "abuse" theme has been blown out of proportion to excoriate the Church, which is the only institution that stands against the ideology of today's secular liberal fundamentalists. The innocent men in the Philadelphia Truth Abuse Scandal are just the latest victims of the despicable witch hunt. But their suffering may yet have a noble outcome. It is only a matter of time before somebody from a major media outlet picks up this story. When it does, what will be exposed will extend far beyond the confines of a Philadelphia courthouse.

      Delete
    2. “We should be far more concerned with stopping the abuse of children today than with spending millions to recall the abuse by priests now dead, jailed or too old to be dangerous…

      Do you truly believe this quote ? Sarah forgive me for using your story in this comment. This quote is nothing more than forgive and forget. What you seem to agree with here is if they got away with it back then so be it. How old does one have to be before being declared not dangerous ?

      But again I must correct you and inform you child abuse by clergy has reduced. The majority of complaints you see now are those who have been abused decades ago. Look at the ages of the last eight individuals who have filed suits. But you agree that since their abusers got away with it, it does not matter anymore. Look at the individual out in California who almost beat a priest to death because that priest abused him and his brother when they were 6 &7 years old. I believe that gentleman was 45 years old when that happened. I don't think the man cared how old the priest was. Then read Sarah's story. Do you have the balls to tell her that because her cousin took her life in 1998 and her abuse took place earlier we are just going to forget about her. I don't think Sarah will forget about it. Do you have the balls to post a letter here to Sarah's Aunt and Uncle and tell them you are willing to forget about the abuser in their daughters life. What a cold SOB you are.

      The catholic church should pay dearly, this way they will have second thoughts about doing what they have done in the past. I don't give a shit how old a priest is. If he is found guilty in a court of law, throw him in jail, let him waste away, and throw his dead ass in potters field.

      What would you do if one of your own family members came to you and said I was abused years ago ? Sorry tuff luck ?

      Another example of one being closed minded or is it something else ?????

      Delete
    3. Nice try, Justone, I have zero affiliation with SNAP. Try again. Eventually you might just hit upon a fact. Also try reading what the Prime Minister herself said about the need for a Royal Commission. In fact, you can see videos of the Prime Minister saying it. It was prompted by the number of suicides of children raped by Catholic priests. I will not give you the links. It is up to you to decide whether you're able to read mainstream reporting.

      I've read Mr. Boult's articles. They do not in any way represent the majority view in Australia. He's pushing the same Catholic persecution that you are. You can't imagine people siding with children or seeking to protect children because your church does not do that. So you suppose they must be trying to persecute the Catholic Church.

      The truth is that the Catholic Church persecutes itself. The damage is done from within. Outsiders can't even touch what the Catholic Church does to itself with its degradation of women and defilement of children and its financial frauds and inquisitions. I only want that mess of an organization to leave children alone and get out of the way of people trying to honor the dignity of children. I completely get it that you will never be on board with that. And that's okay. This movement is raging along, and your church is going to be battered into leaving children alone.

      We're not quitting the fight anytime soon, and certainly not because of the myth of Catholic persecution. Your Church is going to be forced to leave children alone, and you will end up going along with that. Already, one of your two Popes is unable to leave the Vatican for fear of prosecution. We're making progress. I understand how frustrating that must be for you. But one day we will hear Catholics advocating for children. And you're going to feel terribly left out.

      Delete
    4. Thank you, Dennis. Your thoughts are much appreciated. I think I recall that the individual in California was found not guilty because the jury felt he had a right to seek revenge for the horrendous crime that society had no other remedy for. That was a sad case and I do hope that individual is finding meaning in the not guilty verdict. I haven't heard if they've yet charged the priest with perjury.

      Delete
  16. Also remember that there's no easy walk to freedom. If your family has kicked you out because you declare that a priest has defiled you, call me or call Dennis or call someone and don't just kill yourself because your family has banned you. Your family might have it all wrong. Write me and I'll give you my phone no. Let me direct you for a couple weeks or so. There is no easy walk to freedom, but keep on walking and you shall be free. That's how you're gonna make history. You are important.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sarah - you have been fighting the fight. Your family should be so very proud of you for fighting in memory of your cousin. Oh God, I know your cousin is so proud of you. I hope everyone will read your story and now sees the other facts that the abuse suffered at the hands of clergy members. Its like a disease that keeps on spreading affecting others. YOU are a survivor.

      Please correct me, but does your cousin's abuser have any idea what his actions have led an individual to do, not only the actions your cousin took to be at peace, but to you and your family ? Please do not answer if you wish to keep those matters private.

      Some may say this has nothing to do with these cases, but they are so wrong. This has everything to do with these cases.

      I will admit I was thinking last night about giving up being a voice for others who have been abused, But then I read your story, and looked at my 6 year old girl and realized I can't. I don't know you nor have I ever met you, but I picture the face of your cousin smiling and that is the way it should be.

      So Sarah, the chest is pushed out, and both barrels are loaded.

      And the comment I made last night,

      LIGHTS OUT clank,clank,

      This is the words and sounds I hope 3 abusers and one enabler here before going to sleep.

      Delete
  17. Dennis, you are dancing with the devil. You need prayers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would do the jig with him to make sure these individuals or any others like them never look at a child the way they did.

      Open your eyes. Take note. It is always the SAME individuals that post here. With the same thought these two people are innocent. They are innocent because of that, they are innocent because of this.Why ? Because this is the only platform pro pedophile. If you climb out of that hole your living in and read what the public is really saying it might open your eyes. You folks are the minority. I have read here Engelhardt and Shero had some of the best representation money could buy. But RALPH himself has questioned why some evidence was not used. Has anyone ever thought the evidence was not used because the defense team did not think it would help their clients. Then RALPH tells me I'm wasting his time when I tell him to only print facts. I'm surprised he did not say I was pressuring him also. That is the same response I received from CHAPUT when questioned regarding other clergy members still under investigation. (How many of you knew there are more out there ?) If RALPH wants to investigate a story let him do that one. If he wants to print his non-objective views then it should be called the Ralph Cipriano editorial page. But for now this case is over, the gavel has fallen, The next time we will ever here about this case is on April 18th when these men will face what their futures will be, and if that so-called great representation wants to file an appeal so be it. Now to justone1618, to the quote you posted. I believe you believe that statement 100%. The kool-Aid you have been drinking has turned to ice in your veins. You and the person who made that statement have no heart. The statement only says one thing, if they got away with it back then it should be forgotten. I would love to know what you feel the age is when a ABUSER is no longer dangerous. Do I go to the Bishop Accountability site look at the abusers ages and come up with a mean number ?

      With the exceptions of a few, individuals have been acting like this is a Facebook Page to talk back and forth with your friends. Let me inform you I AM NOT YOUR FRIEND. I come here to see if anyone has anything to say either positive or negative. These could of, would of, should of statements although sad are at times funny and sometimes when i need that laugh I come here, and when I read comments like justone1618 makes, don't think I will sit by and not BLAST you for it.

      So everyone keep writing and i will keep reading. Because this is a great to use as an example for any other victim out there who wants to come forward, They can see it won't be an easy fight. But also understand its a battle than can be won.

      If you wish to make individuals accountable contact your local police department. Do not contact any church, organization or archdiocese. (You are not alone)

      Delete
    2. The Devil, my ass. Keep your imaginary friends and enemies out of this Josie. Dennis has no need to be ganged up on by you

      Delete
  18. I am very disappointed with the state of PA and our judicial system. I have followed the trial of Charles Engelhardt and the discrepancies seem to be many. This should disturb any law abiding citizen as it shows how flawed “justice” can be. It seems as though Charles Engelhardt was not “Innocent until proven guilty”. More like he was used by the system to make a statement...the statement being that innocent or guilty Mr. Engelhardt was going to be the “scapegoat” to show the rest of the country, and quite possibly the world, that PA was not going to tolerate the abuse and the coverup of abuse of its children any more. I believe the state is embarrassed and determined to correct the many mistakes as well as lay the groundwork to prevent such atrocities in the future. While I applaud such an awakening, I also think extreme caution should be exercised. Innocent people should not have to pay for the crimes of others. I knew nothing of either the accuser or the accused but it was quite obvious there was more than “reasonable doubt” with this case of one man vs. another man’s word. This was before I read the article on March 7th pointing out the documentation from at least two different sources, which I found appalling. I believe an innocent man, sits in a correctional facility awaiting a sentence...for a man of his age, determining on the number of years, quite possibly...a death sentence. If the state of PA feels a need to be an example to the rest of the country...then let them show how they can protect the innocent as well as aggressively pursue the guilty. Let’s face it, being an accuser should not come with an automatic guarantee that their story should prevail particularly without credible evidence and if not credible evidence...at least a consistent, infallible recollection of details. I, for one, am all for aggressively pursuing the guilty but this does not have to be carried out at the expense of the innocent. When things of this magnitude happen the innocent, and their families, become victims as well. I say to all the good people of PA...please...stand up and take notice...make a plea to the lawmakers of your state to give this Mr. Charles Engelhardt a fair trial...a trial that he should have been entitled to in the first place. Let this judgment stand and it sets a dangerous precedence for many “hidden agendas” of those who have nothing to lose but much to gain.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi anonymous.
      Good points - I'm with you. Before writing, however, I'm going to wait for Ralph's subsequent posts that may describe the DA's treatment of Billy's previous crimes (one of which is still pending) and anything else he may uncover.

      Of course, there's always the remote possibility that the trial judge (who officiated at the whole trial - from voir dire juror questioning to the present moment) will set aside the verdict at the upcoming sentencing hearing.

      Let's hope so.

      Delete
  19. I'm with a group of individuals right now and one feel I should ask a fair question, and I thought it would be good to show character.

    If all this evidence being proclaimed here is true, and ALL the evidence against Engelhardt and Shero is false, and if our justice system allowed. How many of you would be willing to take their spot ?

    Ralph ?

    Josie ?

    chippy111 ?

    or how about you justone1618 ? or would you hope they think you are to old to be a danger ?

    Now let me point out that one of individuals I am with and who asked that question happens to be a clergy member.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dennis - have you been drinking?

      Delete
    2. Remember I did not ask the question. I'm sure the new readers would be interested in reading your answer as well. Don't be shy.

      Delete
    3. Would you like to be wrongly accused and convicted of a crime by a career criminal who has repeatedly beat the law because of who his dad (cop) and uncle (VP of the FOP) are in this city?

      Fr. Engelhardt, specifically, was convicted because he is a priest. That and the fact he was stationed at St. Jeromes in 1998-99. Those are the only two reasons.

      The prosecution produced zero evidence, besides Billy's tall tales, that in any way incriminated this priest of anything other than wearing a collar. If I missed any evidence over the past 3 months please enlighten me.

      Delete
  20. Seems like the reporter "ralph" is undeniably biased. He has decided that Billy is lying.

    1.Calendar-I could care less what his mother's calendar said! Omissions don't mean guilt.
    The reporter mentioned that in Feb. Of the next year, the mother wrote that her son "switched" with another alter boy. I'm pretty sure, there are other times when Billy switched(due to sickness, or whatever), that his mom didn't write down. Its not like she wrote "switch" all the time, but just left out the date in question.

    2. The 6:15/6:30 mix up is MINOR, I forget times alot.

    3. The churches records are hand written, not etched in stone. Why just assume Billy lied, and not that someone changed the records. The defense should have found church members, that could testify to the times Avery lead Mass.


    4.The friendly Priest. He claims his friend "could never do such a thing", but this is nothing more than a character witness. How credible is this friend anyway? You would be surprised how many "friends" of convicted criminals say, the person convicted "seemed like a nice person, that would never commit a crime. Often, those are the ones that do.

    5. If Billy is a menace, and does heroine, etc, wouldn't that be evidence as to why he can't remember things in exact detail?!! Number one fault in our system, is that the accused are judged based on their "backgrounds". Funny thing is, people with deep mental issues, often commit horrendous crimes, as a first offense. People on here are outraged that Billy sells drugs, but atleast he has a rap sheet. He is being "outed" and "paying for his criminal actions.

    What's the real issue here? Why is the reporter, so "outraged" with the outcome. Innocent people go to jail all the time. Innocent victims, get raped, and their accusers get away. Schools are being shot up. Why such an outcry about two old men, accused of molestation? The judicial system FAILS us all the time, why is this so shocking?

    THE FACT IS, there ARE pedophiles everywhere. But the church is supposed to be a place of refuge and safe haven. The Priests, are held accountable because of "who they are in society". A priest is supposed to be a shepard, and gives guidance. Someone you run to, not run away from. So if the state is making an example out of these priests, so be it!

    @All the pedophiles who lurk on this page, I hope this very example served its purpose! Scared straight!

    Stop writing articles, defending "convicted molesters"! It makes you look suspect. I have never seen a news report, so one-sided! Holding a priest, in such high esteem, is the main reason why there are not A WHOLE LOT more priests in "hot water". There are innocent ones who fight the good fight, but a whole lot more who just pretend.

    In my book, a Priest and a Crack-head have the same amount of protection under the law. I don't judge them based off "who they are", or are "perceived to be". Perception is a kin to blurried vision.

    BOTTOM Line, the law has spoken. Sad to say, but Father Avery and friends, along with Sandusky and all the other accused are lawfully CONVICTED "pervs". If they are guilty, God so help them. Help the people that protect their actions also.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here we go again- billy is telling the truth because he can not remember anything. If you read all the reports billy remembers much of his childhood but what you do not see is that he has been coached or conspired to forget this meeting or that meeting (although he remembers getting in the car). Have you looked at the criminal history for this individual? Probation to probation and continuances so the DAs office can keep this person on the street to continue to walk with a get out of jail free card again. It's not what you do, it's who you know and who you or your relatives know.

      Delete
    2. Here are some now famous quotes:

      "I forget"
      "I was scared"
      "I was retarded"
      "I was high on heroin"
      "I went to the nurse a lot"
      "I thought I was going to get into trouble"
      "I was high on numerous drugs and semi-comatose"

      Delete
  21. Anonymous 5:04 a.m.: If you know anything about Ralph's career, you would certainly not say he is biased. His critical coverage of the Philadelphia archdiocese some 20 years ago made him the target of a vicious campaign by the archdiocese's high-powered PR firm. He sued his employer, The Philadelphia Inquirer, over its reaction to his articles, which the paper refused to publish. He nearly lost his career.

    There is too much to go over in one post, but a good overview is available at http://www.ajr.org/article.asp?id=798. To put it succinctly, few people would ever accuse Ralph and the Archdiocese of Philadelphia of being in cahoots.

    With respect to mom's calendar, you say omissions don't mean guilt. But for some people, including on this blog, because Bernard Shero did not declare his innocence in a suicide note, he must have raped Billy Doe. And how is Billy being punished for his criminal actions? Thus far, he has escaped prosecution for his drug dealing.

    Lastly, why is it OK that two innocent men were convicted because, in your words, "Innocent people go to jail all the time"? Should Engelhardt's and Shero's attorneys, family and supporters just give up because "the judicial system fails us all the time"? There is no justification for a guilty verdict simply because someone needed to be used to make an example. You are entitled to your opinion but show your true colors when you advocate for the blind conviction of accused simply because of their vocation or because others have escaped prosecution.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Ralph - could you please confirm your e-mail address. For some reason, I keep getting e-mail failure messages back when I try to send you something.

    Thanks - Joe

    ReplyDelete
  23. Nice observation by a commenter over on TMR:

    "In the matter of ongoing “documentation” and so on – which is supposed to be proving all sorts of stuff – perhaps a few such instances could be named. By my count, there is: the Dutch Abuse Report – which has not been heard from again and the text of which has never been made public; the lawsuit brought in the International Criminal Court in the Hague which has never seen the light of day and apparently has been rejected by that Court; the LA documents, which apparently have fizzled and for good reason; the Magdalene Laundries claims which have now been demonstrated as inaccurate and untruthful; and the Philadelphia trials, which are being thoroughly dissected and demonstrated to be as questionable as the Grand Jury presentation which preceded them.

    I don’t count unsubstantiated assertions by self-declared victims as “documentation” until they are supported by demonstrable evidence."

    Philadelphia, its DA's office and the presiding judge in the latest kangaroo court should feel proud to make it onto that list of smoke, mirrors and BS.

    ReplyDelete
  24. It is sad to see that an individual I HAD respect for has proven time after time his reporting skills have diminished and his main concern was to gain a cult following such as Dave Pierre or Bill Donahue of the Catholic League. His reporting has been so one sided it has been asked of him recently not only by this individual but by others if he or the Beasley Law Firm that sponsors him are in bed with the catholic church.

    Instead of using what he was taught in reporter 101, asking the questions who, what, where, when and why, this reporter continues to feel it is important to leave his personal views. In my opinion a way to maintain his cult following, or a way to continue to stoke the fire. Could it be to continue to receive a paycheck ?, could it be a way to hope to move on to bigger and better things ? I don't have the answers to those questions only he does.

    I too have questions for this reporter, like why he only seems to defend a priest in this case when clearly there was another defendant that is not a priest but a lay person ? Has this reporter ever sat down with an abuse survivor outside this case or any other case to fully understand first hand what a victim goes through ? Is he afraid what he might learn ? These are questions at present he has failed to answer.

    This individual does know this reporter along with people who choose to be his followers instead of leaders have failed to see the big picture. The help individuals who have been abused in the past, no matter if it was 10, 20 or 30 years ago may still need help, and this reporter who has the power of the pen behind him fails to assist with the prevention of this horror from ever happening again.

    And I know one other thing, by the grace of God this will all end one day, and this reporter maybe in the unemployment line or move onto something else, and his followers will comment on another subject they know nothing about. But survivors, their family, and their friends will always remember this time in their life. Because that saying "You never can take away memories" is so true.

    Dennis Ecker

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dennis as the person who asked the question you referred to,, let me say I asked a question that's all I did. I have no knowledge either way. I accepted Ralph's answer.
      I personally know that the Church has created sweet heart "unions" like SNAP and others to head off any connection of victims to organize ourselves.
      They did that for their benefit and as per usual with them, it's screw the victims. (The Church is nothing if not consistent there.)
      So I am, after much personal pain, not surprised at anything that has or could happen around this issue.
      Each side here have logical reasoning behind their positions. The jury came to it's conclusions. This is one conundrum and it may take years or never for the truth to come out completely.
      So like 9/11 or the Kennedy asasinations is everyone willing to spend years debating what's true and what isn't here? I'm not.
      You are? Fine; but meanwhile real victims everywhere are never seen or discussed. I don't like that very much. Too many hurt and un heard people.
      And given my last 11 years worth of dealing with the SNAP fraud. I do admit I find almost every cause celebre case as compared to every non celebre case, very troubling. Particularly when it throws ALL victims cases into question. Something the right wing of the Church as been attempting to arrange since the get go.
      Let me leave it there.

      Delete
    2. "You never can take away memories"

      How funny that you mention that, as "repressed memory" is exactly what is touted to skirt SOL's in civil cases.

      Delete
  25. Thanks for continuing to show your true colors. Have been following this story from the beginning and the one thing you still believe is that is an editorial page. This is a public site where one is able to write freely and base it on their thoughts and feelings. If you want a critiqued article where the story is twisted to not offend the agencies or government offices of this city then there are a few people on this site who could point you in the right direction. Until then this is a free forum and Ralph's ability to uncover the details of this injustice yes could one day could lead to greater things. And who knows it may be warranted for him. Keep up the good work Ralph.

    ReplyDelete
  26. This is the first time I am visiting this site. I was just given the web address. Very interesting. I happen to be a parishioner of St. Jerome's and a former secretary at the rectory. I worked there during this so-called "rape". So many untruths. There is no possible way that any rape could have accurred. Too many people around the church before and after the masses. Where was the parent? It is dark out at 6:15am. Altar servers must be there before 6:15am to get ready. Did his mother just drop him off? Then let him walk home after Mass? If she picked him up, didn't she get worried that he did not come out right away? Those altar servers are out the door asap. I had two sons that served. I was there at all their Masses. Believe me, I would have been in that church calling for my son if the time was too long. And if I found anything inapproperate there would be no need for a trail. I my oppinion, this kid has never had to pay for any mistakes he has done in his life. Just because your father is a cop is not a "get out of jail" card. Father Engelhardt is an innocent man.

    ReplyDelete

Thoughtful commentary welcome. Trolling, harassing, and defaming not welcome. Consistent with 47 U.S.C. 230, we have the right to delete without warning any comments we believe are obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.

 

Big Trial | Philadelphia Trial Blog Copyright © 2014 BigTrial.net