tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post1138134987402564261..comments2023-10-22T09:32:13.417-04:00Comments on Big Trial | Philadelphia Trial Blog: O Brother, Where Art Thou?Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04116104602505815614noreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post-62798662966338681102013-02-08T09:43:15.359-05:002013-02-08T09:43:15.359-05:00"As far as the MacRae case, the primary accus..."As far as the MacRae case, the primary accuser has ADMITTED that he made up the abuse to extract $$ from the Church. That is a serious injustice." <br />That's simply a lie. The Motion cites a witness(es) who claims that Grover admitted that he made up the story. Grover himself has never supplied an affidavit or signed a statement admitting that he made the story up. As I said, I read the motion for a New Trial.http://ncrj.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/MacRae-brief-rf-12.7.11.pdf. In NH, like every other state in the country, does not allow multiple levels of out of court hearsay to impeach a witness. he doesn't cite a single case out of NH or Anywhere, that establishes that the evidence is admissible or that other courts have admitted extrinsic evidence. Indeed, he cites two evidence rules that are completely inapplicable. The 608 reputation rule only allows the alleged witnesses to testify that he has a reputation as a liar, it doesn't allow for extrinsic evidence. The second exception, 804(b)(3), requires that the declaration (Grover) be unavailable; and that the statement be corroborated, neither of which is true here. Accordingly, it is like every other bogus jailhouse petition claiming that someone has come forward who heard the accuser admit something or change the story. <br /><br />kopridehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14033734864815154844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post-20340933580081347092013-02-07T19:41:14.906-05:002013-02-07T19:41:14.906-05:00Be shocked, I guess. I am not 'justone1618'...Be shocked, I guess. I am not 'justone1618' (see above).TheMediaReport.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07605908176445177281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post-81918135635472019702013-02-07T19:40:05.329-05:002013-02-07T19:40:05.329-05:00Dennis Ecker wrote, "So, consider this pay-ba...Dennis Ecker wrote, "So, consider this pay-back if ONE VICTIM will walk away from charges against him to relocate and get his life back together ..."<br /><br />So innocent men can be justifiably jailed so a victim can maybe get his life back together?<br /><br />Eesh.<br /><br /> TheMediaReport.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07605908176445177281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post-3796468884683341332013-02-07T19:36:51.355-05:002013-02-07T19:36:51.355-05:00I thought I posted a reply last night, but I do no...I thought I posted a reply last night, but I do not see it. I will post again.<br /><br />I am not 'justone1618.' I am not an anonymous coward, kopride. I post under my name or web site.<br /><br />As far as the MacRae case, the primary accuser has ADMITTED that he made up the abuse to extract $$ from the Church. That is a serious injustice.<br /><br />http://www.themediareport.com/2012/02/20/new-evidence-may-exonerate-priest-gordon-j-macrae/<br /><br />-TheMediaReport.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07605908176445177281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post-90999005643151367482013-02-07T11:20:36.460-05:002013-02-07T11:20:36.460-05:00OK, you are not David Pierre, and grew up in Phill...OK, you are not David Pierre, and grew up in Philly, but you spontaneously reference an obscure priest abuse case out of New Hampshire that is David Pierre and his few right wing conservative catholic's pet cause; and then reference an article from several years ago. I've looked at the actual record in that case because Pierre kept claiming that the earlier trial was similar; and I read that article you referenced where MacRae admitted to abusing another teen but not the one who was involved in his conviction. I also read the reports from the NH therapists who stated that he was a pedophile and then the Priest-Paraclete in NM who felt differently. He used a defense attorney from NM who had helped him out of a similar sex offense jam in NM. He pleaded guilty to multiple other sex offenses in addition to the one he was convicted for. I've read the filing for a new trial which borders on the cartoony frivolous things that jailhouse lawyers file. MacRae is guilty. Mumia at least was not a serial murderer although he did kill Officer Faulkner for reasons we will never quite know. I consider Mumia's supporters less delusional than MacRae's. MacRae was red flagged way back in seminary days and should have never been accepted as a priest. <br /><br />But, yes, I think it is very significant that Billy's brother was not at the trial; and did not testify on his behalf. If I was on the jury, His absence would have added to my own personal doubt about Billy's story. Again, I would not have convicted these two men based upon the evidence that Ralph and others reported. But the brother's absence could mean a lot of things. Sandusky's son first gave exculpatory evidence in his favor and then changed his story during the trial. I can't get past McGovern not serving the subpoena properly if he was likely to testify consistently with his statement. I have shared my other scenario, which is that he is an adopted kid who probably does not have any real strong affinity with his younger drug addicted brother who caused his family nothing but personal pain. He is now a lawyer and probably doesn't want to get involved in this sideshow. My guess is that he made it very clear to both sides that he would not be cooperative if he was called to testify. kopridehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14033734864815154844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post-88539030544732908192013-02-07T10:57:41.260-05:002013-02-07T10:57:41.260-05:00Where do you come up with this stuff ? The cousin ...Where do you come up with this stuff ? The cousin is bitter because Engelhardt was indicted for crimes at his precious grade school. Do you really believe that ?<br /><br />If your not Dave Pierre it would shock me very very much.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post-3663932163278634432013-02-07T07:14:48.939-05:002013-02-07T07:14:48.939-05:00I have no idea who David Pierre is. I live and wor...I have no idea who David Pierre is. I live and work in the philadelphia area, went to catholic school in the philadelphia suburbs from 1st - 12th grade.<br /><br />Keep spinning the facts of this case if you want, but these men were part of a big conspiracy. The lives of these men, their families, and friends are ruined on the lies of Billy. <br /><br />Don't you think it kind of odd that the brother, who is a lawyer of all things, was not present ONCE in court to support his brother, mother, or father when they testified in court. Or just to support the family going through, alledgedly, an exposure of child abuse by his little brother. This isn't a petty theft, this is CHILD ABUSE. Don't you think its odd that he was not there, with all of knowledge being an 8th grader, king of the school, during the year these things happened? Or does the brother know he could lose his law license if he lied on the stand to go along with this story, which is a lie, ultimately ruining everything he worked for in school over the past decade. He made it so he would not help anyone, although he knows the truth that this did not happen.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post-68919138142897564242013-02-06T21:35:46.592-05:002013-02-06T21:35:46.592-05:00I have one other important question. Are you telli...I have one other important question. Are you telling me the comments that justone1618 and chippy111 especially at 10:08 this morning is nothing more than David Pierre asking HIMSELF to share information about Billy, and at 9:19 it is Pierre telling himself he made a good point. <br /><br />Then if you read below is it Pierre blaming/defending his other personality for a comment that he wrote, I mean did'nt write I don't know now. <br /><br />I'm sorry if I offend anyone but I'm going to p*%@s myself laughing.<br /><br /> Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post-58060450914201698492013-02-06T21:09:31.176-05:002013-02-06T21:09:31.176-05:00Kop- I wrote you yesterday, I somehow deleted it. ...Kop- I wrote you yesterday, I somehow deleted it. I am my own person. For you to assume that chippy and juston and I are the same person, must be something you have done with all the time you have on your hands. More of your "expertise." I do check this site, but would never have the time to come up with aliases. I work full-time, have a family, and more importantly a life. Did you ever think that this trial was on the news the past few weeks and maybe people were looking up more details and came across Ralph's site? <br />And joe- you are correct to say there was a juror caught snoozing on more than one occasion, but I would like to add there were a few jurors napping throughout the trial. 2 during Billy's testimony and his dads. Frankenlil19https://www.blogger.com/profile/00586597830046218339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post-11822197842313241772013-02-06T20:10:57.727-05:002013-02-06T20:10:57.727-05:00Yes. And Chippy, and Franken. Chippy and Justone a...Yes. And Chippy, and Franken. Chippy and Justone are Liveblog accounts set up on the same day last month, and Franken is another recently created blogger account. The MacRae stuff is identical to stuff Dave posted during the Lynn trial on Ralph's blog.kopridehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14033734864815154844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post-2036102850521077102013-02-06T19:06:55.410-05:002013-02-06T19:06:55.410-05:00kopride - are you saying that justone1618 is indee...kopride - are you saying that justone1618 is indeed the famous MediaReport journalist David Pierre ? It would explain so much.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post-26078541081641597482013-02-06T18:14:51.696-05:002013-02-06T18:14:51.696-05:00Hi David Pierre. That's the same article where...Hi David Pierre. That's the same article where MacRae admitted to a sexually abusing a teen who he shared a father relationship with, but he claimed the teen seduced him. Mumia has a bunch of articles all over the world proclaiming his innocence. The record against MacRae is overwhelming but I addressed this tin Ralph's other blog. The new trial motion is a joke. I've read the actual motion. It's comical and nothing contained therein would form the basis of a new trialkopridehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14033734864815154844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post-73686126555244580702013-02-06T16:41:34.357-05:002013-02-06T16:41:34.357-05:00Dorothy Rabinowitz, a Pulitzer Prize winning inves...Dorothy Rabinowitz, a Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalist on The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board, published a two-part article exposing the clearly unjust trial and imprisonment of Father Gordon MacRae - “A Priest’s Story” (April 27/28, 2005). <br />Attorney Robert Rosenthal has filed a new-trial motion for Father MacRae, whose case is sponsored by the National Center for Reason and Justice. NCRJ works for child-protective laws based on science, fairness, and good sense, and supports people who are falsely accused or convicted of crimes against children.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post-17317089243915159652013-02-06T15:12:44.166-05:002013-02-06T15:12:44.166-05:00The rogue juror(s) theory is complete speculation;...The rogue juror(s) theory is complete speculation; but it is no more or less speculative than thinking that all 12 were consumed by their hatred of the catholic church that they convicted an innocent man. You combine the rogue(s) with some prejudice by a few, and you might get enough critical mass to overcome the doubt of the remaining jurors--even if they started out as the overwhelming majority. kopridehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14033734864815154844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post-66627815576983169892013-02-06T15:09:08.384-05:002013-02-06T15:09:08.384-05:00The other scenario to jury nullification based upo...The other scenario to jury nullification based upon Romish prejudice is that somebody on the jury had first hand or claimed knowledge of these priests or their reputation in the community. Apparently Engelhardt's relative wanted to testify that he attempted to have sex with him. Avery seems to have been a known problem in the community even before Billy's accusations; and Shero for some unknown reason was considered a pervert by the neighborhood kids. These are small neighborhoods and communities and everybody knows each other. Even as a kid, you knew the priests and neighbors to avoid, sometimes based upon good reasons, sometimes based upon neighborhood legends or rumors, which may be true or untrue. So the question is whether enough of these jurors could have been influenced by one or more juror claiming special or inside knowledge of these defendants. If that's the case, it could explain why the jury reached a verdict consistent with the trial evidence. They reached a verdict consistent with what they were discussing in the jury room. I am more inclined to believe in jurors reaching a verdict based upon their own community knowledge of these folks, than raw anti-catholic prejudice. it is extremely likely that all twelve were catholic haters and simply out to get some priest who they did not know. But everybody knows everybody and their business in these neighborhoods; and it usually stays in the neighborhood. If these guys were perverts, everybody knew. At the same time, folks like this should have never sat on the jury, but they do sometimes, particularly in Philly. It is far more probable that a few of the jurors "knew" something compelling about the defendants, true or untrue; then 12 people simply convict two men out of prejudice. It would also explain the eerie silence of the actual jurors versus the alleged "alternate."<br /><br />The same is true for Billy's brother. He clearly didn't want to testify and gave an unhelpful statement to the DA's investigator virtually guaranteeing that he would not be called as a prosecution witness. Reluctant witnesses do the same thing when interviewed by the other side. Billy might have told them that "if you call me, I know some stuff about one or more of the defendants." In other words, we don't really know why Billy's brother gave an adverse statement to his brother and then managed to arrange himself far outside the subpoena power of the court while this trial took place. He wasn't there to support his brother or parents; and he wasn't available for the defense to call. Mailing a subpoena to a lawyer, which Billy's brother is, is almost a guarantee that he is not going to show. He would know that it wasn't good service. And lawyers are on the web as far as their business address. There is no reason he could not have been easily personally served at work. <br /><br />Billy, a guy with baggage, knew enough to accuse the folks at the parish with baggage of their own. Clearly Avery had some baggage and the other two may have had some too. A juror will be far more persuaded by their actual experiences than arguments or evidence at trial. kopridehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14033734864815154844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post-35811851845155716692013-02-06T14:23:05.126-05:002013-02-06T14:23:05.126-05:00"After Father MacRae was sent to prison (effe..."After Father MacRae was sent to prison (effectively for life), Thomas Grover received a $195,000 settlement in 1997."<br />Now I know you are delusional, or you are David Pierre. Fr. MacRae admitted to being a pedophile to therapists in New Hampshire prior to spending over a year at "Club Ped" in New Mexico with the Paracletes. He had prior sex offenses with juveniles before the Grover conviction and pleaded guilty to other offenses after his conviction. Even before he became a diocesan priest, psychologists recommended that he not be admitted to seminary and it was only changed to conditional after there was an intervention and a "second" opinion. He also admitted to having sex with a teenaged boy in an interview to a WSJ reporter but claimed that the boy seduced him. MacRae is a sad guilty serial sex offender and anyone who defends him or takes up his cause is completely divorced from reality, or hasn't really studied the record in that case. His recent filing for a new trial almost borders on the ones done by prisoners in crayon, it is so weak. The system is not always perfect; and the appeals in this recent case involving "Billy" have not been exhausted; and we will see; but MacRae is a laughable cause. Mumia is less guilty than MacRae--and he is completely guilty. <br />kopridehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14033734864815154844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post-11655569548900567412013-02-06T12:00:27.406-05:002013-02-06T12:00:27.406-05:0012 jury members thought he was, and that's all...12 jury members thought he was, and that's all that counts.<br /><br />Have a nice day.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post-51512989271961197132013-02-06T09:53:22.841-05:002013-02-06T09:53:22.841-05:00Chippy,
My take is the same as it has been throug...Chippy, <br />My take is the same as it has been throughout the reporting of the case, which is that if I was a juror, I would not have convicted these two men based upon what was reported in the press. I have said that repeatedly. If I was the judge, there was enough to send it to the jury based upon the evidence presented--credibility is the jury's determination--not the judge's. If I was the defense attorney, and there was a critical witness to my case, I would have subpenaed him properly and secured his appearance or testimony. Under Brady, the DA had to turn these interview notes over to the defense. I haven't heard that there was a failure to disclose the notes, so the issue was either the complete incompetence of two private defense attorney teams, which seems unlikely; or that the defense attorneys interviewed Billy's brother and were uncomfortable with what he would say if he was called to testify, which seems more likely. <br /><br />Again, as someone who believes in the system, which perhaps makes me idealistic; but it is certainly more rational than believing that an all powerful creator chose, among others, the clowns running the AOP to be their representatives on earth, guilty pleas have meaning. Accordingly, in light of Avery's plea, I am not as bothered by his inconsistencies with respect to his claims against Avery. For the same reason, again perhaps out of the same belief in due process and the US justice system, which, while flawed, is still better than the alternatives; I tend to believe that the jury had some rational basis for reaching its verdict. That doesn't believe that I would agree with their reasons, just that their reasons were rationally based upon the evidence presented, which did not include the brother's testimony. <br /><br />Do I think that a kid with Billy's baggage would lie and make up stories? Yes. I have seen people with much less baggage lie and make up stories in court. Do I think priests are any less likely to lie that the average slob? No. This was a unanimous verdict that was reached relatively quickly in light of the length of trial. It doesn't seem like there were any serious juror holdouts with any doubt, no less reasonable doubt. The church apologists want to claim, without any evidence, that the jurors must have borne secret prejudice against the church or priests. Again, this type of evidence ignoring prejudice is generally disclosed or outed during jury selection or during voir dire. It only takes one juror to hang a jury. So, again, the theory is that 12 church haters got on the jury undetected by two competent defense teams and some thorough voir dire. I'm skeptical. Given the mix of jurors, jury nullification seems unlikelykopridehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14033734864815154844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post-31313095804970559222013-02-06T09:28:38.255-05:002013-02-06T09:28:38.255-05:00Possibly the dumbest question I've read on thi...Possibly the dumbest question I've read on this blog. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post-4225840067452676732013-02-06T08:27:50.544-05:002013-02-06T08:27:50.544-05:00Does anyone realize that, even though Billy has be...Does anyone realize that, even though Billy has been arrested approximately 8 times for drugs and weapons, including being out on bail right now for the 56 bag of heroin case, that he is free to roam the United States as he pleases. I thought our justice system had in place that if a person, especially with this kids track record, was out on bail for a criminal charge, they were confined to the state of that charge if they were a resident at the time of the crime. So if he testified he is not in treatment in Florida any more, and working at his uncles landscaping business, why is he not required to be in PA. Can anyone smell a backdoor deal coming for this criminal? We'll see soon.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post-71408936002374663382013-02-06T06:04:03.369-05:002013-02-06T06:04:03.369-05:00His story is not credible.His story is not credible.bigtrial.nethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12188557653424544411noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post-70528621208134497402013-02-05T23:37:18.774-05:002013-02-05T23:37:18.774-05:00justone1618
Hey! Someone who attended the trial ...justone1618<br /><br />Hey! Someone who attended the trial told me today that one of the jurors appeared to be nodding off...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post-52526474715611526662013-02-05T23:16:19.042-05:002013-02-05T23:16:19.042-05:00If, "The defense team realized that the victi...If, "The defense team realized that the victims brother was going to be no help to their client,"<br />why would McGovern deliberately bring up the subpoena in front of the jury during the trial one day by loudly asking if the older brother had shown up in court yet, as detailed in Ralph's post? <br /><br />I smell a rat. <br />A very, very large rat. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post-48445895767162798622013-02-05T20:08:27.848-05:002013-02-05T20:08:27.848-05:00Ralph,
I 'reasonably doubt' that any of t...Ralph,<br /><br />I 'reasonably doubt' that any of these jurors are going to come forward to discuss how they came to this absurd conclusion. They clearly left their common sense back home.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8876661997317409023.post-58386665300023799332013-02-05T19:15:50.120-05:002013-02-05T19:15:50.120-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Frankenlil19https://www.blogger.com/profile/00586597830046218339noreply@blogger.com