Thursday, February 20, 2020

Proof Positive That The Inky Is In The Tank For D.A. Krasner

By Ralph Cipriano
for BigTrial.net

In Common Pleas Court yesterday, an angry Judge Gwendolyn Bright spent several minutes berating a top official in the district attorney's office for allegedly making a "veiled threat" against her.

According to her remarks from the bench, the judge complained to First Assistant District Attorney Robert Listenbee, that the D.A.'s office, in a sealed motion filed with the court, had threatened her with filing yet another appeal if she didn't amend a Jan. 31st order. In that order, the judge had instructed the D.A.'s office to subpoena former altar boy Danny Gallagher, AKA "Billy Doe," and have him present in the courtroom on March 16th, when the retrial of Msgr. William J. Lynn is scheduled to take place.

Such a "veiled threat" is "inappropriate," the judge lectured Listenbee. She added that no such threats should ever be included in any motion to any judge. In response, an apologetic Listenbee was backpedaling all the way, while continuously professing his respect for the judge.

All of this happened under the nose of a Philadelphia Inquirer reporter, who didn't mention it in a story posted today. Emails to the reporter and his editor seeking an explanation for this glaring omission went unanswered. In the absence of an official response, I can only say it's amazing the lengths that the Inquirer will go to protect a fellow progressive Democrat, D.A. Larry Krasner.

The Inky story is a textbook example of media bias, both in favor of Krasner, and against the local Catholic Church.

The story begins with this lede: "City prosecutors said Wednesday that they do not plan to call a controversial sex-abuse accuser to testify next month at the child-endangerment retrial for a former ranking cleric in the Philadelphia Archdiocese, even though the witness' testimony was a key element of the 2012 trial."

"Controversial" is an extremely lame, limp-wrested and flaccid way to explain to your readers that Danny Gallagher, the alleged victim of abuse that you're still protecting by calling him Billy Doe, has been revealed time after time to be a complete fraud.

Danny Gallagher The Fraudster
But the Inquirer has published more than 60 stories and editorials about the altar boy and his allegations that sent three priests and a schoolteacher to jail, without ever mentioning any of the ample evidence that Gallagher is a liar.

The Inquirer could have started with the testimony of Joe Walsh, the D.A.'s lead detective in the case, who came forward in 2017 to testify about Gallagher's lack of credibility, as well as prosecutorial misconduct in the D.A.'s office. A 12-page statement from Walsh was filed in court and posted online on this blog. 

Some excerpts:

Walsh was quizzing Danny Gallagher about his claim that he was high on drugs when he told two social workers from the Philadelphia archdiocese "graphic details" about violent rapes and beatings he  supposedly suffered at the hands of two priests and a Catholic schoolteacher.

But Walsh had interviewed Gallagher's father, a Philadelphia police sergeant, who said his son wasn't high on drugs the morning he talked to the two social workers. Because just a few minutes earlier, the father had driven his sober son home from a drug clinic. Danny Gallagher had also related many of those same graphic details the day before to his drug counselor, who told Walsh that Gallagher wasn't high when he made those same accusations.

"I asked" Gallagher about "all those graphic details," Walsh wrote in his 12-page affidavit filed in Philadelphia Common Pleas Court. Those graphic details included allegations of brutal anal rapes, death threats, getting tied up naked with altar sashes, strangled with a seatbelt and being knocked unconscious by his assailants.

"Did he just make all that up?" Walsh said he asked Gallagher.  According to the detective, that's when Gallagher admitted, "He just made up stuff and told them anything."

The startled detective asked a follow-up question.

"So I asked him did he lie about what happened when he told [the drug counselor] and the two women about what he said occurred," Walsh wrote. "He said yeah I guess so," Walsh quoted Gallagher as saying.

"I asked him if he was lying about anything else and he would not answer me," Walsh wrote. "He just sat there and did not answer me."

Walsh subsequently asked Gallagher's police sergeant father if he thought his son was telling the truth. The father's response? He told Walsh he didn't know what to believe. And then Gallagher's father asked Walsh if it turned out that his son was lying, could he be arrested for perjury?

Now there's a great idea. But instead of going to jail for perjury, Gallagher collected $5 million from the Philadelphia archdiocese for his alleged pain and suffering. Another fact that jurors might be interested in hearing about.

So it makes a lot of sense with that kind of damning testimony on the record why D.A. Krasner would want to retry Msgr. Lynn without having to deal with the mess of putting an alleged victim on the witness stand who's a complete fraud.

But the Inky continues to hate on the Catholic Church, cover for Danny Gallagher the fraud, as well as protect D.A. Krasner from any public criticism as he continues a witch hunt against the church. A witch hunt that was started by Krasner's thoroughly disgraced predecessor, Seth Williams, now serving a five-year prison sentence for federal corruption.

Keep all this in mind the next time you pick up the "paper of record," which is undoubtedly Larry Krasner's favorite newspaper.

3 comments:

  1. If you can't win then delay, delay, delay. This series of trials makes the Justice System look ridiculous, not to mention corrupt.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The Inky only carries the prosecutions story, the public believes what is reads,they assume what they are reading is the truth . They do not know how damaging the information is for the defendant who is usually unable to defend themselves. When the public has been repeatedly told a crime was committed.
    Why would the prosecution lie, why would an FBI agent lie? Indeed,why do they lie?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I was told that prosecutors do not want the truth they want a convict, I did not believe it when I was first heard it, now I do.

    I was told that is all a joke to prosecutors, they do not care about your life or your family, I did not believe that when I first heard it,now I do.

    I was told that prosecutors and FBI agents lie, I could not believe it but now I do.

    If only the Inky believed it, defendants would have a better chance at winning, right now the best a defendant can do is plead guilty to avoid a jury that has been contaminated by the Inky.

    Its about power, its about control,is about corruption, its killing the United States. I wish I lived in the dream world of the Inky, where prosecutors and FBI agents are honorable, upstanding people. Life would be so wonderful, I want to live in their delusional world.

    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 © 2020 BigTrial.net | Privacy Policy