Wednesday, January 17, 2018

New D.A. Krasner Going Forward With Retrial Of Msgr. Lynn

By Ralph Cipriano
for BigTrial.net

It didn't take long for our new D.A., Progressive Larry Krasner, to screw up big-time.

In a 24-page brief filed Tuesday in state Superior Court, Krasner, who's in his first month on the job, has decided to go forward with an ill-advised appeal in the case of Msgr. William J. Lynn. He's the former secretary for clergy in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia whose 2012 conviction on one count of endangering the welfare of a child has twice been overturned by the state Superior Court.

In the brief, which is filled with all sorts of official dishonesty in a case that is already a travesty of justice, the new D.A. pretends that a trial judge last year didn't find the D.A.'s office under Krasner's predecessor, Rufus Seth Williams, guilty of prosecutorial misconduct. When the judge clearly did, and stated so in open court.

The D.A. also attempts to pave over the main issue in the case, mainly that one of the prosecutors, former Assistant District Attorney Mariana Sorensen, had no qualms about putting a star witness on the stand, Danny Gallagher AKA "Billy Doe," the lying scheming altar boy, when she knew he was a liar. Even though she had been repeatedly informed by Detective Joseph Walsh, the lead detective in the case, that all the evidence Walsh had gathered during his investigation contradicted the fables Gallagher was telling, but they were politically correct fables that the prosecutors wanted to hear.

In a 12-page affidavit, Walsh went even further, saying that when he had repeatedly questioned Gallagher, the lying, scheming altar boy flat-out admitted that he had just "made up stuff," when he told two social workers from the Philadelphia archdiocese crazy, violent stories of abuse.

In those stories, Gallagher claimed he was:

-- anally raped for five hours behind the locked doors of the sacristy by a priest who then threatened the altar boy with death if he told anybody;
-- beaten and knocked unconscious by another priest, who stripped the altar boy naked and tied him up with altar sashes;
-- forced by the second priest to suck blood off the padre's penis;
-- and finally, strangled with a seatbelt by a schoolteacher, who proceeded to rape him.

Then, Gallagher subsequently retracted every one of those shocking accusations you just read when he made up a completely new story of abuse.

In his revised story, Gallagher allegedly was forced to perform a strip tease for one of his attackers, and engage in oral sex and mutual masturbation with his imaginary rapists. And Rufus Seth Williams and Mariana Sorensen bought it.

That's the corrupt story line that Progressive Larry Krasner, our great reformer, just bought into.

In the brief filed by Lawrence J. Goode, Nancy Winkelman, Carolyn Engel Temin, and Krasner, the D.A.'s office contended that Gallagher, a brazen liar, was telling the truth when he was repeatedly questioned by Walsh during a prep session before the 2012 trial of Msgr. Lynn.

During the prep session, Walsh questioned Gallagher about nine factual discrepancies in his various stories of abuse. In a civil deposition, Walsh stated that Gallagher responded by either claiming he was high on drugs, putting his head down and saying nothing, or telling a new story.

None of this was reported to defense lawyers in the case, and Judge Gwendolyn Bright ruled that it was prosecutorial misconduct serious enough to warrant a new trial for Lynn. But since the state Superior Court had already granted Lynn a new trial, the judge didn't take any further action, even though Lynn's lawyers sought to have any retrial thrown out on the grounds of double jeopardy.

But the D.A.'s office still refuses to admit that Judge Bright nailed them for prosecutorial misconduct.

"This is not Brady material," the D.A. declared in their brief, contradicting Judge Bright's finding that referred to the landmark 1963 case, Brady v. Maryland, where the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that prosecutors had to turn over to defendants any material that might be beneficial to their case.

Except, of course, in Philadelphia, when it comes to a Catholic priest accused of rape.

As far as our new D.A. is concerned, Gallagher saying he was "high on drugs" was "consistent with his trial testimony that he heavily used drugs as a result of being sexually molested," the D.A.'s office wrote.

The D.A. also claimed that Walsh's testimony about the comments of former Assistant District Attorney Sorensen -- "You're killing my case" -- has "no basis in fact."

Walsh had claimed in court that when he repeatedly told Sorensen about Gallagher's amazing lack of credibility, her response was -- drum roll please -- "You're killing my case."

When Walsh stated this in open court, Assistant District Attorney Patrick Blessington claimed it wasn't true. Lynn's lawyer, Thomas A. Bergstrom, then told Judge Bright that the only way to solve this controversy was to put both Walsh and Sorensen on the stand at a subsequent hearing and cross-examine both of them, to find out once and for all which witness was telling the truth.

But when the day for that hearing came around, the D.A.'s office under Rufus Seth Williams, now wearing a jumpsuit in a federal prison in Oklahoma, decided against putting Sorensen on the witness stand.  So they forfeited their right to contest that what Walsh had said Sorensen said wasn't true.

Nevertheless, the D.A.'s office under Krasner wrote "the claim is factually false" that Sorensen ever said, "You're killing my case." The D.A.'s brief also disingenuously states that Judge Bright decided that Walsh's claim was "not supported by the evidence." When the decision that Judge Bright came to was that the level of misconduct alleged by Walsh with Sorensen's "You're killing my case" remark did not rise to the level where the judge could blow out the retrial of Lynn, on the grounds of double jeopardy.

In their brief, the D.A.'s office asserts that Msgr. Lynn "did not prove" that Gallagher lied, the judge didn't rule that he lied, and "there is no evidence that the lied."

In their brief, the D.A.'s office also attempted to take on Walsh's contention that Danny Gallagher the bald-faced liar was lying when he said that as a fifth-grader, he was a member of the maintenance crew that helped set up tables and bells for the church's bell choir.

Gallagher had claimed then when he was putting away the tables and bells, he was accosted by Father Edward Avery, who subsequently lined up a date to rape the helpless altar boy.

In court testimony, three teachers, including the longtime choir director at St. Jerome's Church in Northeast Philly, the alleged scene of the fantasy rape spree, testified that only eighth-graders were big and strong enough to lift the heavy bells and tables used by the bell choir, with the bells weighing more than 30 pounds each, and the and tables weighing more than 40 pounds.

Keep in mind that as a fifth-grader, according to his medical records, Gallagher only weighed 63 pounds.

The teachers also testified that the bell maintenance crew went home after they set up the tables and bells, and that it was the members of the bell choir who put away the bells and tables after the concerts were over.

Another fact that Danny Gallagher got wrong when he was inventing his tales of abuse. But fortunately for Gallagher, with the D.A.'s office past and present, the facts don't matter.

In their brief, the D.A.'s office asserts, however, that none of the teachers "actually denied" that Gallagher was a member of the bell choir maintenance crew as a fifth-grader. The D.A.'s office also asserts that Walsh "never established as a fact that the bell crew activity involved only eighth grade boys."

Sorry, Progressive Larry, but you and your associates are playing word games in a case where Danny Gallagher has been revealed in his civil depositions, criminal trial testimony, and medical records to be a complete liar who lies about everything.

If Gallagher wasn't attacking Catholic priests, no one would believe his stories.

For Progressive Larry, taking on the credibility of Walsh, a retired, decorated homicide detective of many years, is another losing gambit. Having watched Walsh in action during the archdiocese sex abuse trials, this guy is a great witness. He's a witness that both prosecutors and defense lawyers will tell you is right out of central casting, a witness that jurors love.

Walsh v. the squirrelly Danny Gallagher would be no match, especially if Gallagher is properly cross-examined, and kept on the stand for days, to try and explain all of his many lies.

It's unbelievable, but this travesty of a case may have a second act if Msgr. Lynn is actually retried later this year.

Lynn has already served 33 months of his minimum 36-month sentence, plus 18 months of house arrest. So that even if the D.A. wins a retrial, Lynn would only have to serve an extra three months.

So our D.A., who just let a guy who cursed out the cops off the hook, along with a guy who was caught on camera defacing the Frank Rizzo statue, has decided to defend the honor of a lying, scheming altar boy who in a civil case stole $5 million from the Catholic Church.

Hey Progressive Larry, if there is a retrial, I'm betting that Danny Gallagher isn't going to fly up from Florida and run the risk of a perjury rap by testifying again in a Philadelphia courtroom. Especially now that his medical records and civil depositions -- where he had to say he couldn't remember 130 times when confronted over his lies -- are part of the case.

As are his many false claims in those medical records that he was allegedly being raped every year of his life between the ages of 6 and 9 by a neighbor, an older boy, another teacher, etc., allegations that Gallagher now admits were all not true.

That, of course, was before Gallagher falsely told the prosecutors that he was repeatedly raped at ages 10 and 11 by two priests and a schoolteacher.

And don't forget that in his medical records, Gallagher also lied to his therapists and doctors by falsely claiming he was an EMT, a professional surfer, and a bodybuilder who once weighed 250 pounds.

This is a cross-examination that could go on for days. If done right, Gallagher will not survive, and will finally be exposed in court for the fraud that he is.

The D.A. is wasting this energy all for the sake of another show trial, especially after Danny Boy has already hit the lottery, to the tune of $5 million. Another fact that Lynn's lawyers will be able to tell
the jury about, further denting Gallagher's halo as a sainted victim of sex abuse.

But as far as our new Progressive D.A. is concerned, the show must go on, even if it is completely corrupt.

There's another side to this. This blog is the only place where you will read about this legitimate and continuing news story -- a fake prosecution of three priests and a Catholic schoolteacher featuring a fraudulent witness, and prosecutors who know he's lying.

This story has twice been on the cover of Newsweek coast-to-coast. But The Philadelphia Inquirer refuses to print a word about it, as does every other media outlet in this city with the exception of philly voice.com.

This is how corruption flourishes. And now that Larry Krasner has decided to retry Msgr. Lynn, everybody who doesn't speak out about it becomes part of that corruption.

13 comments:

  1. Well my euphoria only lasted for 2 weeks, how disappointing to hear he is still moving forward with the trial. He must not read your blog.

    Not the lawyer in the family, but how can there be a trial without Gallagher testifying ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If Gallagher declines to testify, it gives the DA a great excuse. He can say he tried to stand up against the Catholic Church's support for pedophile priests abusing children but the judge dismissed the case.

      Delete
  2. Keep up the good work Ralph! It seems like 2018 will be another banner year for your bigtrial blog.

    It makes you wonder what sort of due dillegence that new District Attorney/Attorney Generals do when they first get on the job and have to make decisions about their predecessor's previous bad decisions. Krasner is now in a lose-lose situation. If they lose the appeal they lose; if they win the appeal, they will have a case that they can't win and will look extremely foolish in the process (a bigger loss imo).

    I see a parallel with Pa. AG Josh Shapiro's decision to go full steam behind the decision to prosecute Spanier, Curley, and Schultz. Shapiro has to know that there really wasn't any conspiracy or even any EWOC. I believe that the truth will eventually be evident: Spanier will eventually be exonerated on appeal and that there will be a new, indepedent and objective investigation whose results will be consistent with NCIS Special Agent John Snedden's findings. It seems that key decisions are based more on maintaining the status quo as opposed to th merits of the case.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Regardless of what happens I doubt there will ever be a "new, independent and objective investigation" of the Sandusky case. The OAG has a vested interest in defending the convictions. Investigative reporters have shown no interest in an objective examination of the case. It's easier for reporters to just shill for the OAG.

      I'm not even sure that Spanier will be exonerated on appeal. The PA Supreme Court reinstated the conviction of Lynn after the Superior Court threw it out the first time.

      The Spanier appeal judge twisted the law like a pretzel and ruled that the statute of limitations (SOL) for EWOC was until the child reached age 50. The actual law said the SOL was 2 years.

      Delete
  3. Or Krasner could've angling for a deal on which Lynn serves the final two month under home confinement. I would seek to have the trial moved to suburban county where impartial jurors could be impanelled. It is double jeopardy.

    ReplyDelete
  4. In their brief, the D.A.'s office asserts that Msgr. Lynn (?) "did not prove" that Gallagher lied, the judge didn't rule that he lied, and "there is no evidence that the lied."

    Walsh?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The judge never granted defense motions to dismiss and greased the skids to ensure Lynn was convicted.

      Delete
  5. Retired Detective Joe WalshJanuary 19, 2018 at 9:47 PM

    Ralph, I just finished reading the latest posting on your blog. I have to say that I agree with most of it. After reading it, I shared it with all of my friends on Facebook and asked them to share it with all of their friends.
    I believe Mr. Bergstrom should withdraw his motion to the Superior Court claiming double jeopardy for Monsignor Lynn and go to trial. He then would be able to subpoena all the witnesses involved in the initial trial including: all the ADAs involved in trying the case; Danny Gallagher's medical records including all those from the various drug and alcohol rehab centers; all the calendars maintained by his mother, especially the 1998 calendar; his drug counselor; both Social Workers from the Archdiocese who spoke with him in their car outside his home since only one was called as a witness in either of the other trials; the teachers and music director who oversaw the bell choir; his brother and Danny Gallagher himself. By calling them as his witnesses, he would not have to be concerned about going "beyond the cope" of direct testimony from the ADA's questioning of the witness. He could question ADA Sorensen as to the contents of the Grand Jury Presentment/Report and the discrepancies he found in it. He could question the ADAs if all pertinent information, interviews, handwritten and typewritten notes were turned over to the defense in discovery. He would be able to call me to testify to what I discovered during my investigation, the comments made to me by ADA Sorensen and the lies told to me by Danny Gallagher. Maybe he would also be able to find out who lied to Judge Ceisler telling her that I was helping the defense before and during the trial.
    I believe that if Mr. Bergstrom handles this case in the above manner Monsignor Lynn would get the fair trial that he deserves and that Father Charles Englehart and Bernard Shero would get the justice they so rightly deserve.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Double jeopardy is double jeopardy. To allow this will make a farce out of our judicial system. This case needs to be moved to a suburban court venue as it is impossible for Lynn to get a fair trial.

      Delete
  6. Them's fighting words. Would pay to see the spectacle.

    I would call one more witness -- Rufus Seth Williams, so he could show up in court wearing his jumpsuit, and we could ask him when he knew that Danny Gallagher was a complete fraud.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would also to see Josh Shapiro in an orange jump suit. The evidence that he suborned perjury in Spanier's trial is overwhelming!

      Delete
  7. Put a camera crew together like GA and create a YouTube Court TV.

    Newsweek is suffering for content before forced to shut down.
    \
    Fox would be perfect to run your perspective.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Let's not write Larry off yet, this may have been his plan,going to trial would show to what lengths the prosecutors office went to get a conviction, especially changing Mrs. Gallagher grand jury testimony. Which to me is one of the most frightening aspects , to think a witnesses testimony could be altered to benefit the prosecution.
    Mrs.Gallagher can attest to this fact.
    If the paper of record follows the trial word for word, they would be able to save face by reporting that they were lied to by Seth Williams for the purpose of stimulation a public outcry for punishment and it benefit his career.

    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.