Thursday, August 17, 2017

Billy Doe Prosecutor: We Don't Need No Stinkin' Investigation

By Ralph Cipriano
for BigTrial.net

Bernard Shero got out of jail yesterday. "He's home and we are so happy!!!" his mother wrote in a text.

Shero's an innocent man falsely accused, but the question remains: Why would the scandal-plagued Philadelphia District Attorney's office let a convicted child rapist out of prison 11 1/2 years early? The D.A.'s office isn't talking, but they only did it after one of their own, retired Detective Joseph Walsh, came forward with damaging accusations of prosecutorial misconduct.

When the D.A. cut the deal with Shero, Walsh was the lead witnesses scheduled to take the stand this fall in another hearing before Judge Ellen Ceisler on Shero's petition for a new trial under the Post-Conviction Relief Act. Now, thanks to that deal the D.A. cut, Walsh won't be making any appearances on behalf of Shero. But the D.A.'s office isn't out of the woods just yet.

Msgr. William J. Lynn, the lead defendant in the so-called "Billy Doe" sex abuse case, is still scheduled to be retried, pending a couple of appeals in state Superior Court over some pretrial rulings. And unless the D.A.'s office cuts a deal with Lynn, retired Detective Walsh will be taking the stand as the monsignor's star witness, to give another dissertation on the prosecutorial misconduct that he witnessed up close and personal.

A recently released court transcript reveals the D.A.'s defense against Walsh's accusations, and it basically amounts to a comedy skit. But the transcript also contains some damaging admissions from the lead prosecutor in the case about the witch hunt mentality behind the Billy Doe "investigation," admissions that will come back to haunt the D.A.'s office.

Memo to interim D.A. Kelley Hodge: it's high time to cut a deal with Msgr. Lynn and spare the scandal-plagued D.A.'s office further embarrassment. Before this entire travesty is exposed on a national stage, at a retrial of Msgr. Lynn.

Before the D.A.'s office moved to shut down the circus over Shero's PCRA petition, Assistant District Attorney Patrick Blessington tried to shoot his way out of trouble.

At a June 8th hearing before Judge Ceisler, Blessington decided his only defense was to attack Detective Walsh's credibility, but the volatile prosecutor wound up inflicting more damage on the D.A.'s office than he did on Walsh.

Blessington, the lead prosecutor in the Lynn case, got things rolling by claiming that the D.A.'s office couldn't wait to cross-examine Walsh at a future PCRA  hearing.

"I had a pile of information to cross-examine Joe Walsh with, who by the way, was not brought in to investigate the case," Blessington declared. "The investigation had been completed. There had been an arrest. He [Walsh] was brought in for trial preparation."

Blessington further alleged that if there was any prosecutorial misconduct during that trial prep, it was Walsh's fault.

"So Detective Walsh, who, by the way, if there is a violation here, he is the violator," Blessington declared. "No one is going to make him this violator and this hero; if there was egregious miscarriage of justice based upon a failure, it was Joe Walsh's -- Detective Walsh's failure. Let's not lose sight of that."

George Bochetto, a lawyer defending Shero, pointed to a 12-page affidavit filed by Walsh in Common Pleas Court that detailed the prosecutorial misconduct he had witnessed.

"He [Walsh] was pleading with the Commonwealth's lawyers about these problems," Bochetto said. Walsh "was urging them [the prosecutors] to re-look at this and reconsider this, and they kept saying that you are trying to kill the case," Bochetto said.

Even if Blessington was right about the misconduct being Walsh's fault, Bochetto said, "It doesn't matter" because "Walsh is part of the Commonwealth." Bochetto proceeded to attack the rest of of Blessington's argument.

"We do not concede to the Commonwealth's characterization that was just about trial prep," Bochetto said.

"This is Mr. Walsh who was brought in after the indictment to try to go get the evidence that would support the story of Danny Gallagher," Bochetto said. "And this was a series of meetings over time where the detective was trying to A, understand what Danny Galalagher was saying, and B, square it with what he could objectively find as facts."

"And that's where the tension began to grow and grow, which eventually led to the prosecution saying that you are trying to kill my case," Bochetto said.

"This was an attempt to build the prosecution's case," Bochetto told the judge. "Many of these things" that Detective Walsh was "decidedly and profoundly upset about not having been disclosed, took place not as trial prep, but as an investigation," Bochetto said.

What Blessington referred to as trial prep was a session that lasted some three hours before the Lynn trial where Detective Walsh repeatedly questioned Danny Gallagher about nine key factual discrepancies in his testimony. And Gallagher's responses, according to Walsh, varied from putting his head down and saying nothing, to claiming he was high on drugs, to inventing new stories of abuse.

None of this was ever disclosed to the defense. This is the prosecutorial misconduct alleged by Detective Walsh. It was serious enough to prompt Judge Gwendolyn Bright to announce from the bench that Lynn would have merited a new trial because of the misconduct, if an appeals court had not already granted him one.

At the PCRA hearing on the Shero case before Judge Ceisler, Bochetto got in a  few more licks.

"Detective Walsh is part of the Commonwealth's team," Bochetto said. "Detective Walsh comes forward, issues an affidavit, gets on a witness stand and testifies under oath that the Commonwealth improperly withheld a lot of this information, and particularly Danny Gallagher's reactions and explanations as to what was going on and the inconsistancies, was all withheld."

"And I, Detective Walsh, am going to step forward as a former decorated member of the Commonwealth, their team, and say this is wrong," Bochetto said. "This should not have taken place."

Jeff Ogren, another lawyer for Shero, pointed out that Burt Rose, Shero's trial attorney, said "over and over that we had no idea Danny Gallagher was tested so strongly by the detective on all these inconsistencies, so we never knew what his reactions were."

"Judge, the only thing I was trying to say is, we disagree strenuously that this was simply trial prep," Bochetto said. "This was a lot more than trial prep."

Blessington continued to blame Walsh, a decorated veteran homicide detective, for any possible misconduct, saying Walsh had supposedly given several conflicting versions of how his trial prep went down with Gallagher.

This argument quickly boomeranged on the prosecutor.

"Even though the Commonwealth might not have committed any prosecutorial misconduct, maybe the detective did," the judge said. She was referring to Blessington's suggestion that Walsh didn't tell the prosecutors about what went down in his trial prep session with Gallagher.

Undaunted, Blessington decided it was a good time to take another shot at one of his own team members.

"What is also to consider is Detective Walsh's credibility," Blessington told the judge.

Bochetto cut in.

"Let's say that Mr. Blessington is right" that it's Joe Walsh fault, Bochetto said. "I'd disagree with that severe of a characterization, but let's give him [Blessington] the benefit of the doubt for this argument."

"Whose problem is that," Bochetto asked the judge about any possible misconduct committed by Detective Walsh.

"It's certainly not Mr. Shero's problem," Bochetto said. "It's not our problem. It's the Commonwealth's problem. This is their investigator. This is the main guy who was putting the case together to put Mr. Shero in jail forever. If he [Blessington] wants to march Joe Walsh in and say at that time you said this and that time you said that, whose problem is that Judge?"

"If there were these types of shenanigans," Bochetto said, whether it was Walsh's fault, or the prosecution's, "we are not here to defend that," Bochetto said. "We are not here to justify it."

"It's a corruption of the system," Bochetto said. "It's not the way this system, particularly in a case of this significance, is supposed to work."


"If Mr. Blessington wants to march Mr. Walsh in here and say what's lacking credibility" is the detective himself, Bochetto said. And "how he mishandled this, and how falsified his testimony here and there, and he [Walsh] was the main pillar of their investigation and prosecution of Mr. Shero, whose door step should that fall on?" Bochetto asked.

Blessington spoke up.

"And Detective Walsh, as I said, and I will repeat, he was brought in primarily for trial preparation," Blessington insisted.

The judge interrupted.

"Why didn't you bring him [Walsh] in to start questioning all the witnesses related to Shero and Engelhardt," the judge asked.

Here, Blessington made a statement that prompted an incredulous reaction from the judge, and spectators.

"He did that on his own apparently, Your Honor," Blessington said about the investigation conducted by Walsh.

"He did that on his own?" the judge responded in amazement. "In Hagler and Clopp and all these folks, he did that on his own?"

Louise Hagler was one of two archdiocese social workers who interviewed Danny Gallagher about his initial fantastic allegations of abuse, shortly after he called in on the archdiocese hotline to make a complaint. Donna Clopp was Gallagher's second-grade teacher at St. Jerome's who contradicted a key part of Gallagher's crazy story.

Blessington began backtracking.

"I wasn't there when most of that was going on," Blessington said. "I was detailed to Harrisburg."

"But what I'm saying is, this representation of Joe Walsh as being the leading investigator, this defendant was arrested because a grand jury issued  presentment recommending the charges against him," Blessington said.

"It was the grand jury that was responsible for the arrest, not Joe Walsh," Blessington said. "He didn't come into it -- and I think [Assistant District Attorney Mariana] Sorensen would say that Joe is giving all these inconsistent statements, she's asking him to do other things that he is not doing."

"There may have been an agenda," Blessington said about Walsh. "I don't know. But what I do know, Your Honor, is there is a burden here on the defense to prove it," Blessington said, referring to the allegations of prosecutorial misconduct. "That's why his [Walsh's] credibility is at issue, it's their burden."

Here we have the spectacle of the lead prosecutor in the Msgr. Lynn case trying to impugn the credibility of his lead investigator.

"I understand that," the judge said about the defense's burden. "But I'm kind of intrigued to hear that Walsh might have been kind of doing things on his own."

"I don't think anybody said, hey, Detective Walsh, go out and interview these people," Blessington continued. "I don't think anybody told him to do that . . . He testified twice, and he never said that he received any direction from any of the prosecution."

Time out.

We interrupt this story to point out that this is an amazing declaration from the lead prosecutor in the Lynn case. Here, Assistant District Attorney Patrick Blessington is stating that the prosecution didn't need to do any further investigation. This is after a faulty grand jury probe led by a rookie prosecutor, Assistant District Attorney Mariana "You're Killing My Case" Sorensen, who had never previously prosecuted a traffic stop.

After the grand jury issued its faulty report, a report that I found more than 20 factual mistakes in, mistakes that have never been corrected or addressed by the D.A.'s office in the past five years.

As far as figuring out what had really happened with Danny Gallagher, nothing had been done. Detective Walsh, a seasoned homicide detective, promptly went out and conducted the only real investigation in the entire Danny Gallagher/Billy Doe case.

This is a case that rests solely on the completely uncorroborated accusations of Danny Gallagher. There is no medical or physical evidence to back Gallagher's fantastic claims that more than a decade earlier, he'd been passed around like a piñata and brutally raped by three different assailants -- two priests and a schoolteacher -- and nobody saw or heard a thing. There was no witness to corroborate any of what Gallagher was claiming.

But Blessington was saying, we don't need no stinkin' investigation. We already had all the evidence we needed, namely the totally uncorroborated accusations of Danny Gallagher. That's all we needed to indict and arrest a bunch of Catholic priests and a school teacher for sex crimes.

So, according to Blessington's INSANE argument, the D.A.'s office didn't need Detective Walsh to go out to the scene of the crime, where an alleged multiple rape spree had occurred, and interview the only possible witnesses.

Danny Gallagher's teachers at St. Jerome's. The priests and nuns at the school and church, the sexton at the church who cleaned up after Mass and locked up the church. No, in a case where the fate of four defendants rested entirely on the credibility of a single accuser, the D.A. didn't need to know what anybody who knew Danny Gallagher at the time of the alleged crime might have known or seen.

Detective Walsh conducted 21 interviews at St. Jerome's, with nuns, teachers, and priests. He interviewed Donna Clopp, Billy Doe's second-grade teacher who described him as a "happy kid" who "liked attention." Clopp was also a member of the church's bell choir who pointed out that Danny Gallagher couldn't be telling the truth when he claimed in the faulty grand jury report that he had been a member of the bell choir maintenance crew as a fifth grader.

Gallagher had claimed that he was accosted as a fifth grader by Father Avery, after he was putting the bells away after a bell choir concert. But Clopp, as did several other teachers at the school, told Detective Walsh that only eighth-grade boys were big and strong enough to lift the heavy tables and bells while they were setting up for the concerts.

And that it was the bell choir members themselves who put away the bells and tables after the concert, not the eighth-graders on the maintenance crew who had already gone home for the night.

It was Detective Walsh who interviewed Margaret Long, the church music director, who confirmed what Clopp said.

"I read the grand jury report," Long told the detective. "The information contained in the grand jury report concerning the bell choir could not have happened."

Because the bells and tables each weighed more than 30 pounds. And 10-year-old Danny Gallagher the fifth-grader weighed only 63 pounds.

It was Detective Walsh who interviewed James Gallagher Jr., Danny Gallagher's older brother, who was also an altar boy at St. Jerome's. James Jr. said he had never witnessed any abuse, nor had his brother ever told him about any abuse. James Jr. also contradicted his younger brother by saying it was the church sexton who put away the sacramental wine after Mass, and not the altar boys.

Danny Gallagher had claimed he was attacked by Father Charles Engelhardt while he was putting away the sacramental wine after Mass. But his brother poked a big hole in that story.

Danny Gallagher also claimed that after he had been raped by Fathers Engelhardt and Edward Avery, he switched Masses with other altar boys to avoid his attackers. But James Gallagher Jr. told Detective Walsh that he never switched Masses with his brother. And that furthermore, switching a Mass was hard to do because it required the approval of his parents and the church pastor.

The older brother also contradicted Danny's stories that Father Engelhardt had locked all four doors to the sacristy when he allegedly raped poor Danny. Danny's older brother told Detective Walsh that one of those doorways in the sacristy led to the dressing room for the priests, and was always kept open during Mass.

[No wonder the prosecution managed to hide Danny's older brother during the Engelhardt-Shero trial, even though the jury sent the judge a note asking why they hadn't heard from him.]

But according to Blessington, there was no need to talk to anybody at the church. Because the D.A. had already indicted and arrested three priests and a school teacher based on the totally uncorroborated tales of Danny Gallagher.

Let's return to the PCRA hearing on the Shero case, where Blessington was still attacking Detective Walsh.

"He [Walsh] didn't tell anybody about this [prep] session and he never expressed these misgivings until he says that . . ." Blessington said, before the judge interrupted him.

"What you're possibly saying is that his actions were very improper," the judge said about the detective. "And they [the prosecutors] didn't know about it. And I'm not saying that your actions were improper, but I'm saying he [Walsh] might be the one who tainted this, in all aspects."

"I'm not saying his [Walsh's] actions and investigation were improper," Blessington responded. "What I'm saying is, if he had all the information that he claims to have gotten as detailed in this affidavit, and he [Walsh] didn't tell anybody about it, if there is a violation, its his violation. That's all I'm saying."

"His violation," the judge repeated. "But it still might have precluded a fair trial. We might be getting into an after discovered evidence situation here."

Here, Blessington repeated a false charge against Detective Walsh, first uttered by the judge at the PCRA hearing, but undoubtedly fed to her by somebody in the prosecution. The false charge: that Walsh was allegedly and improperly contacting Mike McGovern, Father Engelhardt's lawyer, before the trial where Engelhardt and Shero were convicted of rape.

"As the court pointed out, he [Walsh] was feeding stuff to McGovern," Blessington said. "If McGovern had it, Shero had it. He [McGovern] is not going to hold things from his co-counsel."

This is a bald-faced lie.

Detective Walsh was not feeding Mike McGovern. How do we know this? As part of their PCRA investigation, Bochetto and Ogren contacted McGovern, a former assistant district attorney himself, and asked if it was true. And McGovern said no way, it never happened.

Walsh told Shero's lawyers the same thing.

Here's the proof: if Walsh had been feeding McGovern, Shero and Engelhardt would have never been convicted. Not if they had known about all the prosecutorial misconduct that Walsh detailed in his 12-page affidavit.

If anybody needs any proof of this, call a hearing, put McGovern on the stand, along with Walsh, and let's what they have to say about their so-called collusion.

It never happened. But what's amazing here is that Blessington was willing to repeat a lie to impeach Walsh. And who fed that lie to the judge in the first place? If it wasn't Blessington himself, it must have been one of the other prosecutors.

Lying to a judge is a serious offense, folks. But there are other repercussions here.

Imagine if you're a defense lawyer in the Msgr. Lynn retrial and you've got the lead prosecutor and the lead investigator going at each other like this. How do you lose the case?

At the PCRA hearing, Bochetto, Shero's defense lawyer, was enjoying the show.

"Judge, listen to what's going on here," Bochetto said. "On the one hand, Mr. Blessington" is "saying they [the prosecutors] had all this stuff" presumably on Walsh.

"But on the other hand," Bochetto said, "he [Blessington] is saying, Mr. Walsh was doing all this stuff on his own, and we didn't know about it. How could they have turned over what they didn't know about?"

"If there is evidence that the Commonwealth wasn't organized and didn't understand completely what Detective Walsh was up to, we get the benefit of that doubt, Judge," Bochetto said. "It's our constitutional right that was violated."

"If there is misconduct," Bochetto continued, "I submit that Mr. Blessington's own statements here about Walsh, go a long way towards supporting the idea that there was something amok here."

"They [the prosecutors] didn't know everything that Walsh knew according to them," Bochetto said. "Walsh says that he turned it over and he was rebuffed. We say that none of that [information] came to us. So I just think that we need to keep our eye on the ball here."

Memo to Interim D.A. Kelly Hodge: You should also be keeping your eye on the ball here. The entire credibility of the Billy Doe prosecution, and what's left of the credibility of the D.A.'s office, is on the line.

Your honorable predecessor, Rufus Seth Williams, the official sponsor of the Billy Doe witch hunt, is sitting in solitary confinement, as he awaits his Oct. 24th sentencing on political corruption charges.

What a legacy for the D.A.'s office. And what a headache Rufus has left for his successors, the embarrassing spectacle of the looming retrial of Msgr. Lynn.

Where all the D.A.'s dirty laundry will come tumbling out. Maybe even The Philadelphia Inquirer will finally have to write about it. [Miracles can happen, right?] Along with The New York Times, etc.

So, Ms. Hodge, interim D.A., it's time to cut a deal with Msgr. Lynn. But here's the bad news, Ms. Hodge, you don't have any leverage.

Unlike Shero, Lynn's not sitting in jail. He's already served 33 months out of his 36-month jail term. Unlike Shero, the monsignor ain't gonna plead guilty to anything.

And even if he loses the case, what are the chances that a judge sends him back to jail for three months?

So, Ms. Hodge, do yourself a favor, cut a deal. Declare victory, drop all the charges, and forget about the retrial of Msgr. Lynn.

Before everybody over there at the D.A.'s office is exposed on a national stage for perpetrating a fraud on the Commonwealth, as well as justice.

It's long past time to bring down the final curtain on this legal travesty.

32 comments:

  1. Ralph, great article....

    Congrats to Bernard Shero, home after this shameful prosecution that has cost him his livelihood, his reputation, and his dignity

    Now to Fr Engelhardt's family, perhaps his loss won't be as devastating to accept knowing that the truth in the corrupt prosecution of the Commonwealth VS Fr Charles Engelhardt, Bernard Shero and Monsignor William Lynn is finally being revealed...

    So Detective Joe Walsh, a retired detective called out specifically from retirement because of his expertise on these cases was "rogue", essentially uncontrolled during his investigation in this case....

    I can't believe that porn loving schmuck Blessington could make such a statement in open court, only shows the ignorance and utter disregard for the truth that should now be called in question going forward....

    this shouldn't be a done deal, certainly not for Fr Lynn and especially for Fr Engelhardt who deserves to have his conviction overturned....

    haul all their sorry asses into court, starting with SNAP advocate Mariana Sorenson and see where the chips fall...
    we still need to find out who in the DA's office received the Danny Gallagher referral fee from Slade McLaughlin's office prior to the DA's so called investigation into these bogus allegations by Danny Gallagher....it's part of the trial transcript in the Engelhardt/Shero trial.....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Now to Fr Engelhardt's family, perhaps his loss won't be as devastating to accept?

      I think your intentions are good in your comment. However, what would make you think this would ease the pain for them? The family lost someone who was wrongfully convicted and then denied proper medical treatment while chained to a hospital bed.

      Yes, I'm sure this gives them peace versus Fr. Engelhardt being alive fighting for the very freedom that Mr. Shero was granted.

      Put yourself in their situation and think about if the loss wouldn't be as devastating. Guess is you would vote the other way.

      Delete
  2. This is one of your best articles, thanks for your hard work in clearing the record for the public, or the public that reads this blog, if not for you most people would never know what actually happens in a courtroom.

    This just proves that at all costs, even at the cost of one of their own investigators, the prosecution has to win, no matter the human toll.

    The Inquirer has got to wake up and realizes that is is the norm for the Justice Department and stop promoting injustice and hatred against their own countrymen. They no longer can turn their backs on innocents as they have had a hand in their convictions, they owe it to all defendants to get it right.

    This would be the perfect trail to showcase what happens to innocents as they can use Seth Williams as the cause, they would have a perfect reason to do it now but not sure how they can save face at this point as people in the know do not believe the Inquirer does anything other than side with the prosecution.

    God I hope the New York Times is paying attention, who can believe anything the Inquirer has to say if they can't even admit the truth when it's evident. Stop preaching to us about the ills of society when you are the biggest culprits.

    ReplyDelete
  3. No one in the mainstream media has any interest in defending priests falsely accused of abuse, or politicians railroaded by the justice system.

    They're too busy trying to destroy Trump, and maintaining an eternal vigil for the next outbreak of racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.

    They are a waste of time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Spot on Ralph as usual. We can't thank you enough for your diligent work.

      Delete
    2. The Archdioceses of Philadelphia should sue the District Attorneys office for the 5 million they lost due to the egregious actions of its prosecutors in this case,as well as recoup all legal fees. The lawsuit would shed light on the outrages behavior of the District Attorneys employees and the ensuing coverup .

      The Gallagher family should sue as well, I suspect having they have suffered,the prosecution enhanced, rewarded and enabled their son to destroy the lives and families of all involved. It should have been evident to the prosecutors that their son was lying, if not at the time but when Det. Walsh pointed it out, all before trial.

      Walsh should sue the District Attorney for besmirching his good reputation.


      Finally the Inquirer should bring suit against the D.A for allowing them to print fabricated information, known to be seriously flawed, which in turn led to the convictions of innocents. (They will never admit they were wrong, this way they can blame it on the District Attorneys office, as they need to save face as less and less people believe what they write is true as many legal cases have proven their untrustworthiness ).

      Delete
  4. The prosecution and FBI lied to the grand jury in the Traffic Court case as well. Too bad the Inky did not have the moral fortitude to report on the defense team pointing out the inconsistencies in the grand jury report .

    The articles printed during the trial did not have much of a resemblance to what actually took place at trial.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Information regarding Bernard Shero has posted to the internet. He has been listed as a tier III sexual offender. The most dangerous classification of sex offenders. This will require Shero to register for life as a sex offender in addition to submit to have a new photograph every few months. Other pertinent information is also listed and although now public record I will not post here out of respect for the people he maybe living with.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dennis - Why don't you do a term paper the absurdity of repressed memories. Better yet, why not join the other wailing empty wells on C4C. I'm sure they'd love to hear from you (again) - NOT!

      Delete
    2. All of which makes the false charges hyped bu Williams, Sorensen, and Blessington abetted by the Phila Inquirer along with Judges Hughes, Sarmina, and Ceissler that much worse

      Never forget that Fr Englehardt died handcuffed to a hospital bed for a crime he did not commit

      Delete
    3. What a shame. A guy spends four years in jail and is now sentenced to a lifetime of economic ruin, while the accuser that we no longer believe retires before he ever worked a day in his life. We've really lost our way.

      Delete
    4. Dennis, for a guy who's never been in the courtroom, you're sure working off a lot of hate on people you never met.

      Anybody with a functioning brain can see that Bernard Shero and his family have suffered enough. But it's never enough for you. You can't stop hating people you don't even know, because it isn't about them, it's all about you, and the cartoon playing over and over again in our own head.

      I don't think it's working for you.

      Delete
    5. I never met Charles Manson either but that does not mean I don't know he is a bad guy just like the Bernard Shero's, Edward Avery's and Charles Engelhardt's of the world.

      You just will never get it unless you sit down and speak in length with a rape victim or God forbid the tragic horror of being violated hits home.

      You take Shero this so-called innocent man who you believe has been railroaded makes a deal to get out of prison if he agrees to all the charges facing him, agrees to have a record for life and must register no matter where he goes as a sex offender. C'mon man I know you have some active brain cells. What innocent man does that ?

      And don't think I don't feel some sorrow for his family. To listen to their son and brother agree to the facts of his charges. It must of killed them inside. They are the only reason why I did not post all the information I received yesterday. They needed to be together as a family without the harassment of some of your crazy followers banging on their door.

      You have a good weekend.

      Delete
    6. I've heard plenty of rape victims tell their stories. They make you cry along inside while you're listening to them.

      But not Danny Gallagher. When he spoke, and I saw him testify at two trials, I felt nothing and saw only a third-rate conman/junkie/criminal lying his ass off.

      His lawyer asked me what I thought of his client. I told him, I don't believe a f---king word he had to say.

      Delete
    7. The other day one of your readers wrote to you patting you on the back saying you also should take credit for getting Shero out of prison. If that is the case we should give you credit for Avery since you felt he was innocent too. I only hope when they re-offend and they will you will be at the front of the line to take responsibility and let me tell you the word sorry means nothing to a rape victim.

      Delete
    8. I'm not taking credit for getting either guy out of jail.

      Joe Walsh is the detective who personally waded through the archdiocese's secret archive files and personally interviewed many of those victims of rape.

      He was a Catholic but what he found so profoundly sickened him that he stopped going to church.

      Now he's saying that he doesn't believe Danny Gallagher was abused, but that means nothing to you. You the all-knowing Ecker can dismiss the up close observations of an experienced detective with firsthand knowledge. A guy who has locked up priests for sex abuse. Along with murderers like Gary Heidnik.

      But you, a guy who never ventured in a courtroom, never met any of these people, never investigated anything, you know more than he does? Is this what you're telling us?

      Delete
    9. Your damn right !!! Open your eyes man. How does a little kid pick out three guys from the staff from a school the size of St. Jeromes the three guys who ALL had questionable behavior around children. I guess you would call that luck ?

      I want these guys to prove me wrong by not re-offending At least then the children who do come near them will be safe but I don't see that happening. This is why this country has sexual offender registry along with Megan's law because they cannot be trusted.

      This is what a innocent man signs on for ? Not in my book !

      I look at it this way you will always be the defender of the sexual predator and sadly there is plenty of stories you can write about and when that animal re-offends you can wash your hands and walk away and say oh well, my bad.

      Delete
  6. He is not alone on that registry. His friend from St. Jeromes Edward Avery is also in the registry also listed as a tier III sex offender.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If I were you, Dennis, I would be praying to God to save myself from the fires of Hell. It is you, and you alone, who have chosen an eternity of unquenchable torment.

      Delete
    2. Dennis, I don't know how to say it in any other way - but you are really f'ed up. Why don't you call your shrink before you implode.....

      Delete
    3. How would you know?

      Delete
  7. If it is the Inquirers intentions of letting good people be humiliated, bankrupt and defeated, they have succeeded in their attempts.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Attention: I just posted a response from Detective Joseph Walsh to ADA Blessington. It's the story posted right under this one.

    Check it out.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Ralph, that letter is exactly why you must from here forth identify Ed McCann in all of these stories as being as guilty or even more responsible in this travesty of justice as all others involved. They all had knowledge of this malicious prosecution of innocent men and he (ED McCann) must continue to be brought to the forefront as the evil mastermind behind many of these horrific decisions by the this office. Rufus Williams was too busy selling his office to even put so much as a legal thought or opinion together and left Ed McCann in charge to destroy the integrity of a once great office. Do not give him a pass just because he bailed out when he knew what was coming. McCann, I pray some day you answer for your crimes and end up sitting next to your criminal buddy Rufus in a federal prison cell where you belong.

    ReplyDelete
  10. When given a chance to speak, Ed McCann chose the coward's way out and through a spokesperson declined to comment.

    It does seem like he has a lot to answer for. Maybe we need a special prosecutor to untangle this mess.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe the best place for Ed McCann to answer questions would be under oath and on a witness stand.

      Delete
  11. Maybe Ed McCann was busy getting head at Woody's with the "boys" from Gallagher and his hustler gang.

    Did Walsh ever uncover any of Gallagher's extra curricular activity and document that in his report?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Are you staying McCann knew Gallagher before the "scandal" ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We know the District Attorney was for sale. We know that the DA's office went on a crusades that they clearly should have passed on.

      The question now is how many times was a prosecution "purchased," and how many people are involved?

      It can't all be the work of the thankful beggar.

      Delete
  13. Still important action be taken to remove continuing registration as a sex offender from his record as the record shows he never abused Danny Gallagher and was convicted of such using fallacious and unproven evidence. Shero should not be treated as a sec offender and required to follow humiliating protocol.

    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 © 2016 BigTrial.net

Privacy Policy: BigTrial.net does not distribute, share or sell email addresses, or any other personal information received from this website.