Wednesday, April 4, 2012

Key Prosecution Witness Has Meltdown

The prosecution witness testified that he had just checked out of a recovery facility ten days earlier. On the witness stand, he admitted to a criminal past, and told a story about being sexually abused by a defendant priest, a story drastically different from the original charges in last year's grand jury report. Then on cross-examination, the witness began crying, and told the judge he was "messing up" his testimony.

Judge M. Teresa Sarmina called for a recess shortly after 3 p.m. Wednesday, about 90 minutes earlier than usual. For members of the prosecution team, it was time to regroup as the witness attempted to compose himself in the bathroom.

Day Seven of the archdiocese sex abuse trial began shortly after 10 a.m. when Mark Bukowski, 30, from Newtown, Bucks County, took the witness stand to testify against Father James J. Brennan, on trial for charges of attempted rape of a 14-year-old. Bukowski, according to Brennan's defense lawyer, is the priest's sole accuser, so the case against Father Brennan should rise or fall with Bukowski. If so, the prosecution may be in trouble.

Bukowski testified that he was a former altar boy whose family had befriended Father Brennan. "He was over our house every weekend," Bukowski testified.

"He was almost like an uncle figure, Bukowski said. The witness described Father Brennan as a close friend and drinking buddy of his mother's. "They really hit it off," he said. "They would drink alcohol heavily together." And then the priest would hop on his motorcycle and drive home drunk, the witness testified.

When he was 12 and 13, Bukowski said he noticed that Father Brennan "always wanted to be in contact with me," and loved wrestling with him. Bukowski said the first time the priest acted inappropriately was when Bukowski complained about sensitive nipples, and the priest volunteered to take a look.

"He had a smile on his face that looked like, oh this is candy," Bukowski testified, adding that he was the candy.

Up until then, Bukowski told the jury, the priest that he called Jim was a buddy. "He would play beer pong with us, he was one of the boys," Bukowski said.

All that changed in 1996, Bukowski testified. The boy said he went over to visit Father Brennan at his apartment. At the time, the priest was on leave from the archdiocese. The two were planning to play golf the next day.

As Bukowski described it, he was eating Captain Crunch cereal "with crunch berries" while the priest was drinking scotch. The two got on the priest's laptop computer. Bukowski testified the priest directed him to pornographic websites and sex chat rooms. Bukowski said the priest inquired about the length of the boy's penis, and then suggested mutual masturbation.

Bukowski began crying as he told the jury that the images of Father Bukowski masturbating in front of him "will never leave my brain." The boy said he wasn't feeling well and wanted to go to sleep, but he ended up sharing Father Brennan's bed.

Bukowski told the jury that while he was lying in bed with his back to the priest, the priest "spooned" him, meaning the priest held him tight with both his arms while the boy could "feel his erect penis between my butt cheeks." Bukowski said he didn't know what to do, and was afraid the priest "would kill me" if he tried to escape.

So Bukowski tearfully told the jury that he wound up praying to God for help, and fell asleep, but not before wetting his pants. Bukowski said both he and the priest were wearing t-shirts and boxer shorts at the time. Bukowski said he told his mother the next day, "I think Jim molested me." But he waited until 2006 to report it to the archdiocese. Bukowski also filed a civil suit against the archdiocese last year that is pending.

The problem with the witness was that Bukowski had to admit that he had been arrested multiple times over the years, for filing a false report to police, forgery, credit card theft and identity theft. He also admitted to problems with alcohol, marijuana and opiates. As of ten days ago, he was being treated for addiction at Eagleville Hospital, but Bukowski maintained that he had been sober for a year. He also said he had been discharged from the Marines for mental health reasons, and three times had attempted suicide.

The jury wasn't told about another problem with the witness's credibility. Back in 2011, a grand jury  report said the victim, referred to as "Mark," "felt Father Brennan's erect penis enter his buttocks." "Mark began to cry over and over again, 'Why is this happening?' as Father Brennan anally raped him," the report said. "Mark fell asleep that night with Father Brennan's penis still in his buttocks."

Father Brennan initially was charged with rape, but now the charge has been downgraded to attempted rape. Since there is a gag order in the case, barring lawyers from talking to the press, there has been no official explanation for the change in charges against Father Brennan.

Bukowski's story that he told in the courtroom Wednesday had a couple of other bewildering turns. Bukowski told the jury that even though Father Brennan had allegedly assaulted him in 1996, three years after the alleged attack, the victim turned to the priest for help. At the time, Bukowski had to do 30 hours of community service for one of his arrests. He said he volunteered to do his community service, namely mowing lawns, at Assumption BVM in Feasterville, where Father Brennan had been transferred by Cardinal Bevilacqua the previous year.

At the church, Bukowski said, the priest called him over to a shed, and when he got there, he saw the priest had his pants down and was fondling his penis. Bukowski said he ran away.

During cross-examination, Bukowski was combative, telling William J. Brennan, the priest defending Father James Brennan, "You're extremely aggressive." When attorney Brennan told Bukowski he didn't know what spooning meant, Bukowski said, "If you've never heard of spooning, you ought to get out more." It was a line that got big laughs from the jury.

During direct testimony, Bukowski had contended that the 1996 spooning incident, which happened after the boy graduated from seventh grade, put him in a downward spiral from which he never recovered. Bukowski said he had been a straight A student, but his grades headed south after the attack, and subsequently began the addictive behavior that led to his criminal arrests and convictions. But Brennan got Bukowski to admit that he had had a depression problem in seventh grade, where he had been "acting out" as the "class clown."

When Brennan began quizzing Bukowski about the details of the alleged attack, such as whether he had called his mother afterwards, Bukowski became angry and yelled, "His erect penis was in between my butt cheeks." That was what mattered, he yelled, not details like whether he called Mom.

Under Brennan's cross, Bukowski also said he was currently on probation for having violated probation. When the prosecutor objected to Brennan's questions, Bukowski appeared confused about whether or not he should answer. At times, he answered questions when objections were sustained. He didn't get much sympathy from the judge.

"Be quiet," the judge yelled at Bukowski. "Sorry, I can't hear out of my right ear," the witness apologized. "Well, maybe it would have made sense to tell somebody about that sooner," she lectured him.

Under cross, Bukowski said all of the crimes that he had been arrested for "were drug-related." Again, he blamed the priest for his addictive behavior, and criminal record. He was trying to "numb the pain," he said.

Attorney Brennan scoffed at this, saying the one incident, which Brennan has described as a "pelvic bump," had prompted "a decade-long crime rampage." That brought an objection from the prosecutor, which was sustained by Judge Sarmina. Attorney Brennan also kept questioning Bukowski about why he took a subsequent motorcycle ride with the priest, and then turned to him for help with his community service when Bukowski claimed he was "in fear for [his] life."

Bukowski said he took the motorcycle ride because his parents convinced him to give the priest another chance. He said he went to the priest for help with his community service at the suggestion of his mother. He also blamed his parents, saying the first duty of a parent is to protect their children, but that his parents had allowed "a sexual predator" to enter their home.

After the jury requested an afternoon break -- maybe they saw something the judge didn't  -- the witness began crying. He said it was attorney Brennan's fault. "I'm up here in tears, and you're being too aggressive."

"I see him crying," Brennan countered. "I'm cutting him a break." Brennan agreed to stop the cross-examination for the day because he didn't want the jury to see the witness crying. The cross-examination is scheduled to resume at 10 a.m. Thursday. Before he left, the judge gave Bukowski a stern warning about not discussing his testimony with anybody, including the prosecutors.

After court was over, two courtroom spectators saw Bukowski alone outside the Criminal Justice Center, running down 12th Street. Both spectators agreed he should have had a chaperone.


  1. Sorry if I keep fawning over this blog, Ralph, but you are really doing a terrific service. This reporting far surpasses anything from the Inky or the AP.

    As for the case, I genuinely feel awful for the accuser. He appears to be very troubled.

    There seem to be a lot of oddities/problems in his testimony:
    ... "[Mark] told a story about being sexually abused by a defendant priest, a story that was drastically different from the original charges in last year's grand jury report."
    ... "three years after the alleged attack, the victim turned to the priest for help."
    ... "'Sorry, I can't hear out of my right ear,' the witness apologized." (Wha--? This should be able to be checked easily. I doubt he would have qualified for the military if he were deaf in one ear, but I could be wrong.)
    ... "Bukowski said he took the motorcycle ride because his parents convinced him to give the priest another chance."

    Because this is a criminal trial, the burden of proof of guilt has to be "beyond a reasonable doubt." Imho, there appears to be reasonable doubt so far.

    Also, I know all people act differently, but Mark's erratic behavior on the stand seems odd considering the fact that this would appear to be his big moment for redemption. The contradictions, confusion, and testiness don't seem to jive with a defining 'moment of truth.'

    That's my two cents.

    Thanks again, Ralph!


    1. Note that themediareport wis written by Dave Pierre, who is trying to sell a book about convicted pedophiles, trying to show Catholics that convicted and admitted pedophilia aren't that bad. He lieterally makes money if he can convince Catholics that their priests or child rape aren't that bad, so he is on countless blogs defending priests like Fr Avery, who finally admitted after 3 decades that he lied about having sex with a child.

      He is working in tandem with convicted pedophile priests like Fr Gordon Macrae, a convicted pedophile priest who is spending 30-60 years in jail for raping one child. Macrae also ADMITTED to sexually abusing another 3 children, and pleaded guilty in court. At least 7 other victims came forward, accusing Macrae of raping them. There are undoubtedly at least 10-20 more who will never be heard from.

      Pierre and Macrae endorse each other on their web pages, and are followed by a congregation of Catholics that forgive pedophile priests and fight the victims.

    2. Despite the fact that I have told Neil that he is lying repeatedly, he continues to post the same falsehoods over and over again.

      I do not defend any wrongdoing whatsoever. I do not say that "admitted pedophilia (sic)" or child rape "aren't that bad. I do not "fight the victims."
      In fact, I support victims even more than Neil does.

      From my site:
      "One can hardly imagine the unquenchable pain and intense suffering which so many victims must endure today and throughout their lives as a result of the betrayal of trust by the very adults charged with their care. Justice demands first and foremost that those who misuse the trust placed in them and use innocent children for their own gratification be incarcerated and severely punished. The protection of children is paramount.
      "But the media's treatment of sex abuse in the Catholic Church is a different story."

      As for Fr. MacRae, his primary accuser has ADMITTED that he made up the charges. Another accuser RECANTED because he did not want to go along with something that he knew was a scam. And there are other good grounds for a new trial. Read for yourself:

      Neil Allen is deliberately bearing false witness.


    3. Fr Macrae admitted to having sex with 3 children. Pierre's argument is that the proof isn't good enough about the 4th child that he had sex with. The 4th one didn't admit it in a court of law, and there's nothing in the law that says you have to admit being raped by a priest in front of everyone you talk to.

      Macrae was also accused by 7 others, although they didn't take him to court to be humiliated like Mark was humiliated today.

      Macrae is doing 30-60 years as a convicted pedophile priest because that's what they proved in a court of law. Its a shame they let him plead guilty to the other 3 charges. Thankfully, prison justice was done.

    4. Corrections:

      - the 4th DID admit it in a court of law
      - Macrae admitted sexually abusing a 4th boy, as the story from the NH paper tells you at
      - the Boston Globe report shows how he got 10-14 year old boys drunk (which is What Jesus Would Do) before he had sex with them. See
      - note that one of the victims joined the military and was also discharged for medical reasons. It is common for Catholic priest rape victims to commit suicide or join the military, since death is sometimes preferable to the constant nightmares

      Of course, Dave Pierre's argument is that Macrae admitted to having sex with 4 children, and 7 others accused him, but the one that he went to jail for once told someone somewhere that it didn't happen, so let's let the child rapist out of jail.

      Macrae is one of 800+ pedophile priests in the Boston area. Buy Dave's book,....

    5. Neil Allen is lying again folks.

      ... Fr. MacRae has never "admitted to having sex with 3 children" - or any children. That is false. (

      ... Neil linked to the court papers about the accuser who has ADMITTED he lied! LOL!

      ... The "other" accusers came forward only after MacRae was in jail, to gain a monetary settlement.

      ... The prosecution actually offered MacRae a plea deal of jail time of only ONE YEAR if he would plead guilty. MacRae insisted on his innocence, however, and the judge in the case - who is now a wacky "Occupy Movement" leader ( - blasted him with a sentence MANY TIMES what the state offered.

      Again, Neil insists on misleading people.

    6. Wow, Dave, you're embarrassing yourself.

      From the "Union Leader", the NH newspaper, "The priest was convicted of the crime in 1994, when he also pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting three other boys", as anyone can read from my first link at

      Dave, pleading guilty to 3 cases of having sex with children is admitting to it.

      Dave, are you out of your mind? The court papers that I linked to don't say the accuser lied. Everyone is free to read them, at the link above, which is and they say Macrae performed fellation on one boy after berating him in counseling (p 4), and that Macrae found out that one boy had videotapes of Macrae and a naked boy and Macrae said he would kill the kid if he didn't return them.

      Some gets worse, including on Page 2 where he suggested that a young boy prostitute himself to other gay friends of Fr Macrae.

      Please read my links - its all in the newspaper account and the court papers. Out of the 220+ pedophile priests that they know about in the Boston area, Macrae was one of the few that they convicted.

      My links are all free, or you can buy Dave's book.

    7. Neil - Your dishonesty is astounding! Did you even read the links I posted?

      1. When Fr. MacRae was found guilty after the first trial, he had exhausted his defense resources and entered into what he calls a "negotiated lie" for the others. According to The Innocence Project:

      "In about 25% of DNA exoneration cases, innocent defendants made incriminating statements, delivered outright confessions or pled guilty.

      "These cases show that confessions are not always prompted by internal knowledge or actual guilt, but are sometimes motivated by external influences."

      2. You wrote, "The court papers that I linked to don't say the accuser lied."

      Of course they don't because that fact was not known until years later! Again, get your facts straight.

      3. You wrote, "MacRae found out that one boy had videotapes of Macrae and a naked boy ..."

      Wrong. There was never any evidence of videotapes. Even the detective in the case had to admit, "There was never any evidence of child pornography."

      4. You wrote, "Out of the 220+ pedophile priests that they know about in the Boston area ..."

      Wait a minute, in your last comment you said it was "800+" in the Boston area. Which is it, Neil?

      Do yourself a favor. I know a lot more about the MacRae case than you do. You don't know what you're talking about.


    8. 1) Macrae enterened into a "negotited lie" admitting that he raped 3 children out of the 7 that came forward? But he now you're saying he didn't rape them even though he pleaded guilty to THREE of them.

      Nobody (who wasn't a pedophile) would admit to THREE child rapes. Nobody who wasn't a pedophiel would plead guilty to one.

      2) I forgot the way you mislead people and try to sell your books.

      You said, "Neil linked to the court papers about the accuser who has ADMITTED he lied! LOL!" But my links didn't show it, I have to buy your book to see it. I get it.

      3) Where does the detective admit there were no videotapes? Court transcripts say there were. Or is this in the book they can buy from you?

      There were 220+ pedophile priests and 80020+ victims. THose are the numbers. I'm sure you know most of the priests and none of the victims.

  2. The victim or as you put it the "accuser" is not on trial. Brennan is. All of your "oddities/problems" can be explained. He may not be the best witness but it is all the prosecution has. There is a reason for that. 88% of those abused by a priest will never come forward. There are therapy groups now, of victims of clergy abuse who will never speak to anyone aside from their therapist or therapy group. The reason is simple. The lack of compassion and scrutiny they are put under by people who will never believe them. People who will look at their lives, which have been left in shambles by the abuse, and attack every aspect. There are actually people out there that don't believe that priests ever sexually abused children. There are people who actually believe that all the priests are innocent, even the ones that have ADMITTED to raping children. Brennan has more than one victim. He has many but this is the only one within the archaic statute of limitations that was brave enough to say something. Now he is more than troubled, he is scared, alone and vilified.

    1. ANd brennan was moved mutliple times for similar behaviour, in the Catholic church in Philadelphia, whose Cardinal destroyed evidence of 35 known pedophile priests in 1994, 13 of which admitted it, and allowed all of them to roam free for 17 years.

      The Catholic church is the worlds most powerful pedophile protection program, and Brennan is just another of thousands and thousands of Catholic pedophile priests (by the church's own admission) in the United States.

      Any kid raped (or attempted to be raped) by a Catholic priest when he was 14 is going to have a lifetime of confusion, but "Themediareport" leads a group of Catholics that are vigilant in protecting these child rapists, just like their leaders do.

  3. Dear Mr. Cipriano and Mr. Kennerly,
    Thank you so very much for your excellent and comprehensive detailing of this very painful, yet necessary chapter that begs to be told with such clarity. My soul truly bleeds for the church. However, I believe that what you're doing is such an incredible step, among many, that needs to be taken on the path to healing.
    One question/statement: I believe that the "dirty dozen" who are suspended and in "limbo" are in such a state for two specific reasons. 1. Some have had their past/present catch up with them. 2. Some are being silenced by the powers that be because they know too much. Has this ever been investigated? Have they ever been offered to break their silence?

    1. jerchap10,

      My soul truly bleeds for the church? Really? Very Catholic of you.

      A true Christian, or a true humanitarian's soul would bleed for the hundreds of thousands of victims worldwide who thought they were raped by Christ when they were children.

      Your soul bleeds for the child rapists and those that protected them. God has a special place for you.

  4. After re-reading my post I also feel the need to express my sincere sorrow for the loss of innocence that so many have experienced at the hands of those they thought they could trust. ALL of YOU are in my daily thoughts and prayers. I walk with you.

  5. I would like to bring up for public debate whether the media should be printing the names of alleged victims. So far, as a representative of the district attorney's office has pointed out to me, this blog is the only voice in the media that is naming the accusers.

    Here's my take on this. I have been writing stories critical of the archdiocese of Philadelphia for 20 years. And yet, I feel if the accusers are going to come into open court, they should be named. I cannot believe the media is granting anonymity to one group of legal combatants, the accusers, and yet naming all the alleged perps, as well as printing all the lurid details of their alleged crimes. To me, this is blatant discrimination. No matter what we think of the defendants, they are presumed innocent. To confer victim status on an entire group of accusers seems indefensible. Especially since some of them will follow this criminal trial with civil cases.

    What do you think? I found it amusing that the representative from the district attorney's office accused this blog of violating the victims a second time by printing their names. As if they all can be painted with one broad brush. Some seem to want their names in print, others would prefer anonymity. Are they all seeking the same thing, namely anonymity? And can we say with certainty which ones are telling the truth, and which ones aren't? I can't presume to judge. And when I asked the rep what if some of the alleged victims are lying, she looked at me as if I was from Mars.

    The most amusing part of the discussion with the DA's rep was that I was told it was Ok to print the name of Mark Bukowski because he was OK with it. But everybody else isn't? Makes no sense to me. I am afraid by granting favoritism to an entire class of legal combatants, namely the alleged victims, at the expense of the alleged perps, the media is creating a simple black-and-white story line -- sobbing victims confronting evil predator priests -- that is far too simplistic for what is playing out daily in Courtroom 304.

    What do you think?

    1. Well, I think you know where I stand on this, Ralph. There is indeed blatant discrimination.

      As a defense lawyer in Hawaii said after his accused priest-client was acquitted:
      "In cases of being falsely accused, the priest's reputation is effectively destroyed while the accuser, on the other hand, enjoys anonymity and suffers no loss of reputation or negative material consequences."
      That is simply unfair.

      Your last line hits the nail on the head: The result of this imbalance is that "the media is creating a simple black-and-white story line -- sobbing victims confronting evil predator priests -- that is far too simplistic for what is playing out daily in Courtroom 304."

      My two cents.

      Keep up the great work.

    2. You don't put in the names of the accused. This is about balance of power and humiliation of victims, which the Catholic lawyers clearly abused today (as they'd teach you Jesus Would Do, of course).

      This isn't a crazy one time accusation of one person against the world's most honorable people.

      This is the 10,600th victim of Catholic priest child sex to come forward to humiliate himself in front of the world and tell people what happened to him.

      The Catholic church is riddled with these predators, and Philly didn't have as many as a lot of other places, but a few victims had the guts to try to expose them. Now we know that Cardinal Bevilacqua and 2 bishops, Cullen and Cistone, knowingly destroyed a report of 35 pedophile priests, 13 of which ADMITTED it, and they all allowed those priests to roam freely around children for 17 years until they got caught last year.

      Of course, Cardinal Rigali, the leader at the time, lied to the congregation until 2 weeks before the grand jury report came out.

      This is clearly organized crime, where the crime is sex with children. Its like the mafia of the child sex world, and they have the power of the richest lawyers and a billion bullies that will call every victim a liar, even if there are 100,000+ known victims worldwide and 13 pedophile priest in Philly that admitted it. Others, like Fr Avery, lied for 3 decades before admitting it, and most other pedophile priests will never tell the truth about it.

      The REASON victims don't come forward is because they know Catholics will say they are lying, and its completely humiliating to prove that they're telling the truth.

      You publish their names, you make them subject to further humiliation by Catholic spokespeople, and you prevent other victims from wanting to come forward. That is exactly the Catholic strategy - fight every victim, get the word out that you will be humiliated if you come forward, sacrifice the child rape victims, and save the child rapists.

      Just last month, the country's top Catholic spokesperson called child rape victims "crybabys" and "a pitiful bunch of malcontents" just because they were raped by "Christ on earth" when they were 12 years old. See

      Don't worry, he says, Catholics have moved on.

    3. It is hard to say. I think if someone is showing up in court, it is public record and therefore their names are going to be known. How are reporters to know if the person is "ok with it" or not? The alleged victims have to know that they are no longer anonymous if they are in a public court. Right? I may be wrong here.

    4. There's a difference in how easily the Catholic church can intimidate the victims. If the names are easily made public, a billion bullies have a chance to discredit the victim.

      Usually, the way the Catholic church does this is that they send in someone like the Catholic League, which distorts the story, and then Cardinal Dolan publishes it on his blog, which is read by younger people, who now get the message that victims who come forward will not be accepted and helped by Christians, but will be humiliated in front of everyone that their Catholic leaders can persuade.

      Its certainly not Christianity.

      For just one example of the Catholic League and Cardinal Dolan bullying a 16 year old girl from the Bronx who was repeatedly, disgustingly massaged by an 87 year old priest, see


    5. These victims have been through enough.... This victim today tells a very familiar story. When a child has been sexually abused by a clergy who 'we were taught was god almighty'... that child is given a life sentence of trauma, pain, self destruction, confusion, drugs, broken marriages, low self esteem. They feel like they are a bad person and many times blame themselves, "How and why did I make this holy person do this horrible thing to me" that is a child trying to comprehend what happened to them.

      It is no wonder this victim has been in so many awful situations.. this is the vicious cycle. this cycle of being sexually abused as a child has got to stop... It creates a huge problem... !!

      This victim did not deserve to be treated in such a manipulative callous way. He was just a kid.

      Do any of you remember being a kid?

      btw.. my brother was sexually abused by our long time parish priest. There was not much show love in our very catholic stoic family of 11 kids. My brother actually though he loved this priest and that the priest loved him.. NOT SO..!!!

      Judy Jones, SNAP Midwest Associate Director.

    6. Contrary to popular belief, the Church does NOT fight the right of victims to keep their names private. I have never heard of a Church official here in the United States arguing that accusers' names should be made public. (If anyone has a *recent* specific example, I'd like to see it, and I'll stand corrected.)

      And there is little support for the claim that "victims don't come forward [because] they know Catholics will say they are lying." In fact, as a review of media coverage clearly shows, claims of abuse are almost always taken to be true! Rather than the assumption of "innocent until proven guilty," the landscape for accused priests is now backwards, "guilty until proven innocent," or, as one Chicago attorney once said, "guilty until proven guiltier"!


      One last point: The web site posts the names and (often) pictures of nearly ALL "publicly accused" Catholic priests.

      Even in cases where the claims were found to be completely bogus, the site still keeps their names and pictures up to be seen! I know of cases where the accusers even reportedly recanted their claims, and BishopAccountability still has their names and pictures up there! Talk about humiliation!

      Does anyone, besides me, object to this practice?


  6. Now imagine life from that child's point of view.

    Great Catholic boy. At 14, attempted rape by a priest. Knows no Catholics will believe him. Stays silent, but thinks about it non-stop every single day.

    Why me, God?
    What did I do wrong, God?
    Why am I the only one that a priest tied to rape, God?
    Why do you hate me, God?

    Every single day.

    Then he finds out it was a conspiracy, and its been happening to tens of thousands of children, who all thought the same thing. And the conspiracy has tons of God's money.

    Now it gets to court, and one of the pedophile priests admits, after 3 decades of lying, that he did sex with a child. Three decades of Catholic lying, just like thousands of other priests in the US.

    Regardless, lots of God's money left to buy the most vicious lawyers to humiliate this victim even more. Fewer than 1% of Catholics will do anything at all to defend this poor child, now 30 years old.

    That IS the Catholic church today.

    "That which you do to the least of my brothers, that you do undo Me."

    I hope that God is just as vicious with everyone who did nothing when their judgment day comes. Every Catholic loves confession, which was invented by Catholics based on John 20:23

    "If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven;
    if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

    but EVERY Catholic priest and follower forgets the second part. There is some judgment there, and these sins aren't forgiven. Let me be the prophet that tells you that.

    Every Catholic better have better lawyers than this for their own judgment day with God.

  7. Dear Mr. Cipriano,
    You, Sir, are doing the right thing. Stay on your path. Please, don't ever give into either side who asks/demands/threatens You to withhold anything or anyone that prevents the whole truth. As You know so well, it is the only thing that will set us free. "Stay the course."

  8. Dear PatO,
    Thanks very much. I deserved that. It's certainly NOT what I intended and realized as soon as I hit "publish." Believe me, I know their pain more than I hope you can imagine. Let's continue to support this incredibly important site by encouraging their efforts for information and reformation.

    1. I don't know what to say. I've never seen a Catholic who made a comment like that, defending the church, and then

      - accepted responsibility
      - acknowledged they were wrong
      - seemed to understand the pain of the victims
      - gave an honest apology

      jerchap10 actually seems to understand Christianity.

      Your sin is forgiven.

  9. PatO,
    I do understand the pain of the victims. Please listen. We need to understand that the justice system is such that the rich usually come out victorious. However, in order to truly achieve justice, the names of everyone involved, perps and victims, need to be published in order for justice to truly prevail. I feel your anger and know it's justified. We need to recognize the incredible contribution of our Hosts and acknowledge their contributions to this vital cause. The victims deserve everything and more. This, in regards to our justice system, necessitates that they "put themselves" through hell and back to get it. So VERY sad, but true.

    1. "We need to understand that the justice system is such that the rich usually come out victorious."

      And you accept that the Catholic church will break all of God's laws if they can use parishioner money to pay for the best lawyers to hide behind weaknesses in man's laws.

      Here's the way I look at it, and I'm right:

      - Catholic priests should NEVER have raped children.
      - after they raped children, they should NEVER have lied about it. Period.
      - other priests should not have forgiven them in confession unless they went to jail (Catholics need weeks to ponder this one - confession isn't guaranteed without fully rectifying the sin)
      - their bishops and cardinals should never have continued the lie (and don't tell me it isn't really a lie if you don't tell new parents you're leaving their children with a known child rapist)

      None of this should be necessary. The Catholic church should have told the truth. The whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Period. Instead, they lied, moved known rapists, and now fight the victims, and they are doing it mostly to save money at this point.

      Here's the only thing that matters - your eternity depends on what you do, and whether God is smarter than you and your excuses, and those of your church. Choose wisely.

    2. Thank you PatO. The rapists should have been tried in civil court. The RCC did not want the world to see their priests as sick, sinful, lawbreakers, so they covered up the sins of the clergy and thereby enabled them to violate more innocent people.

      The fact that the RCC has been able to continue its obfuscations, its denials, its abuse of victims who come forward shows its power as an entity that is more interested in worldly success than in the spritual development of its members.

      The whole mess has been helped by the fact that the civil authorities in this country--and probably everywhere--have allowed the RCC the power to be judge and jury for its clergy. The people of the world must demand that rape be prosecuted in civil courts. The people of the RCC must realize that reporting abuse by a clergy person to a clergy person is useless. Rape is rape and should be prosecuted, prosecuted in civil court.

    3. Elizabeth,

      Its more than just rape - its organized crime.

      The Catholic church moved known child rapists to places where they could rape more children, and they did. Then they moved them again.

      They are the organized crime syndicate of the child rape world.

  10. This victim is extremely brave for telling his horrific story. And to all the victims who were sexually abused in the Philly Archdiocese or any diocese, stay strong, You are very brave, your voices are powerful and they are being heard.

    The truth is being exposed and children will be much safer because you do 'not' stay silent. There are thousands of victim who are with you in spirit.

    Judy Jones, SNAP Midwest Associate Director, USA, 636-433-2511
    "Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests" and all clergy.

  11. Here's what we know about Judy Jones and the professional victims at SNAP.

    What don't we know? Much as they are very secretive.

    1. Really, Rufus? Read this blog. Read the grand jury report.

      No one is more secretive than the Catholic church, and they hid 4,392 child rapists as they admit in their own John Jay report. Read about Cardinal Bevilacqua, Bishop Cistone and Bishop Cullen secretly shredding evidence of 35 known pedophile priests (13 who completely admitted it) in 1994, and then letting them roam freely around children for 17 years until they got caught.

      And by the way, I already told the secret of Dave Pierre's themediareport, Dave's book, and Dave's defense of serial child sex abuser, convicted pedophile priest Fr Macrae.

  12. The victim's criminal and drug past just proves to me that he's telling the truth. Being raped by a priest as a kid can have a bad effect on your life...

    If you testify in court and say your name, it's public information. If more victims went public, there would be a lot less doubt about the truth of these crimes. Who is helped by keeping it secret?

    Lots of victims have strange relationships with perp priests into adulthood. I know of several who have asked their perp to perform their marriages as adults. Having a confused relationship with the priest who raped you as a kid is not at all out of character.

    The victim is seen running down the street alone after breaking down on the witness stand? Where was SNAP? Looks like they're doing media events in other cities, some about this trial. Hmm.

    Welcome to the weird world of pedophile priest crimes, lots of things don't add up.

  13. Look, I agree that something like a RICO conspiracy has been brewing for quite some time in the archdiocese of Philadelphia. And that countless children were damaged forever, and that church leaders conspired to cover it up, and keep the victims out of the media, and out of their bank accounts. Would love to know the real story of why the district attorney never indicted Cardinal Bevilacqua when her staff and the grand jury clearly wanted to.

    Wish they'd also done a full-blown autopsy on the cardinal before he was embalmed. I got a tip that the mont co. DA had grabbed the body and fed it to a TV reporter at Fox, who broke the story. Once again, the local media slept through that story and did a horrible job of not reporting what was really going on.

    Was the cardinal whacked? Certainly a lot of people wondered, but the local media was afraid to get into that. Remember the timing sequence: a judge declares the cardinal competent to stand trial on Monday; they find him dead on Tuesday. Should have been a full-blown investigation, and autopsy; instead the Mont. Co. DA was slow to react, and the church was quick to embalm. Talk about burying a story!

    But if you read my book, Courtroom Cowboy, and chapter 19 about my personal battle over the church, you will see that the local media taking a drive when it comes to the Catholic Church is an old story.

    Would also love to know how many millions the archdiocese over the years has paid to its lawyers and PR agents to keep everybody out of jail.

    That said, I am surprised at this stage of the trial (and it's very early yet) of the seemingly shallow depth of the case against Fr. Brennan. I do not think, however, that entering into a media conspiracy to keep the victims anonymous while pummeling the priests in print (at a trial that is being held to determine criminal guilt or innocence of the participants, and the truthfulness of their accusers) will help the cause.

    I happen to know that the media in this town did a terrible job of reporting on the Catholic Church, and it took them decades to start writing about abuser priests. That said, overreacting on this case by blatantly favoring one side over the other is not the way to remedy this. It's a mistake to enter into a media conspiracy (pushed by the district attorney's staff) to adopt a phony PC policy of suddenly deciding that anybody who says they were abused by a priest is instantly telling the while truth, and the guy they're accusing is immediately guilty, and the only thing left to do is to determine the punishment.

    We've already done that; sounds like the Salem witch trials to me.

    1. Ralph, you know I'm a big fan, but I have to disagree with you on the speculation that Bevilacqua was "whacked."

      The Church doesn't embalm people. The decisions over his body were likely handled by a combination of local medical staff, funeral directors, Bevilacqua's relatives, and Church people.

      Most notably, the county coroner stated:
      "It is my opinion there is no relationship between the judge's competency ruling and his eminence's subsequent sudden death. His eminence was 88 years old, was under very good medical care, had significant preexisting natural disease. Elderly people suddenly die. This is a natural death."

      The AP also reported: "The coroner noted that there was no evidence of any injury to Bevilacqua's body, that no unexpected substances were found and that all prescribed medications were within 'accepted therapeutic levels' ... Scans of Bevilacqua's brain also showed evidence of dementia that was 'fairly advanced' ..."


      I think the real issue is why Judge Sarmina ruled that an obviously sick and elderly man was competent to stand trial. At a deposition in November, Bevilacqua did not even recognize his old aide Msgr. Lynn!

      "There were times during the deposition he appeared to struggle, to the point of tears, at his inability to recall and effectively answer the questions. For the most part, his memory bank was an empty room," Bevilacqua's lawyers wrote afterwards.

      Associated Press:

      It is no secret that since 2003 Bevilacqua was rarely seen outside his residence. Yes, he made a few public appearances, but it wasn't a lot.

      That's my take. Thanks.

    2. Bevilacqua lied under oath multiple times, probably incessantly. He (and two bishops - Cullen & Cistone) shredded a document of 35 known pedophile in 1994, then allowed those priests to roam freely around children for 17 years. Some of them are now free in society, on a Catholic pension, at about Jerry Sandusky's age, looking out the window at your children, and no one knows where they are. That is the legacy of the Catholic church.

      Bevilacqua repeatedly said under oath that the priority of the church was the safety of children, and of course, he lied.

      Insiders like the judge and the church knew about all of this long before we did, so it would make sense if the Catholic church, (the world's largest organized child rape syndicate), had him whacked. If he was on trial, and all these lies came out, it would b e much larger story.

      Now the Catholic church is just trying to "blame the dead guy" and bury the story.

      Fortunately, we have the internet, and future generation will have proof of what we all knew - Catholic Cardinals were moving child rapists to place where they could rape more children, and then they were lying in court about it.

      The Catholic church is the mafia of child rape. Without the honor.

  14. Well put Ralph. I have to say, I am just a mom, raised Catholic who personally knows of 4 individuals who have been victims. Only one who came forward many years ago. Keeping things secret for years and years is hard to overcome. These cases against the priests can never be slam dunk cases in the courtroom. It is ultimately the word of one against the word of another. Since pedophiles don't just harm one child, there are many that could stand up against one, but we are not seeing that. It is the nature of the beast. I know there may be some horrible opportunists out there who may try to file a false claim. It is frustrating when I know real victims, have spoken to them, see their pain, see their lives that have been torn apart and know that there is no justice for them. I think that is where the belief that the accusers are telling the truth and the priests are lying comes from. People's personal experiences with priests and the Catholic Church. There are wonderful priests out there, but in my experience they are few and far between. That is what makes us so skeptical of them an not of the victims.

  15. Momma,

    Here's the most evil part - the Catholic church KNOWS the truth, and they're just not telling.

    Every priest confessed each child rape to at least one other priests, and none of those priests said "You're sins are retained until you turn yourself in and help the child."

    You're also right - for every victim that comes forward, there are usually 10-100 more. These were horny, deviant, dysfunctional misfits who could have sex with as many children as they could get their hands on, and they knew they could get away with it, just like tens of thousands of other priests did.

    This was an organized institutional conspiracy of child rape, and by far the largest one in history.

  16. Given the character-count limit I am now going to put up a sequential series of comments, each following from the prior one and all meant to be taken as a whole.

    The vital derangement of law in the Salem Witch Trials was the court’s acceptance of “spectral evidence”, in which a) the victim of the asserted witchcraft was the only person who could ‘see’ the witchy goings-on but b) the court considered such invisible ‘evidence’ admissible and credible.

    This was a holdover from European jurispraxis (in Protestant as well as Catholic venues, and perhaps even more often deployed by Protestants, since the Inquisition’s primary concern was heresy rather than witchcraft – whereas the Protestant tendency was to avoid ‘heresy’ trials for obvious reasons) and by 1692 English law in the mother country was already evolving away from accepting spectral ‘evidence’, towards the principle of observable-evidence that became (until recent regressive developments) a mainstay of Western law.

    In fact, a good case could be made that the glaring example of the Salem trials – and the damage they did to the integrity of the judicial process – were instrumental in establishing the modern principle over here.

    1. Seriously, dude?

      We're talking about rampant Catholic child rape, and you're talking about witchcraft and holdover from European jurispraxis and 1692 English law.

      This is 2012, and we're talking about the Cahtolic church and their practice of organized child rape.


  17. I note also the conflation of victim-status in the therapeutic forum and victim-status in the legal forum.

    In the former, one can attend a session or group where one’s issues and claims are treated with empathy and support (although not necessarily accepted as entirely accurate); such acceptance is essential in genuine and competent therapy for the purpose of enabling the patient to gain internal mastery over his/her experiences and the internal reactions to those experiences. And this is all vital, essential, and good.

    But in the legal forum you have a) a very public demand to b) have the sovereign and coercive police power of the state deployed – on your say-so – against another person. It is the unavoidable responsibility of the state – through the judicial and trial process and the careful examination of the evidence supporting the claim – to ascertain whether it can accede to that demand.

    It is necessary for the state to do this a) in order to ensure the integrity of its own deployment of its sovereign power as a matter of justice and as a matter of prudence (lest it risk the credibility of its own integrity) and b) because in the American system the Framers were profoundly concerned to boundary the deployment of the sovereign power in order to avoid its too easy or – more lethally – convenient deployment of its power on the basis not of evidence but simply the fiat or whim of the sovereign.

    So victim-status in the therapeutic forum cannot instantly transfer to victim-status in the legal forum. This is a vital distinction and the conflation of the two has resulted not only in much confusion nowadays but also to a number of folks being under the impression that the legal system is ‘insensitive’ since it clearly does not instantly accord acceptance to victim-status and credibility to victim-claims.

  18. Thus there is a vital and lethal regression inherent in certain core aspects of ‘victim-friendly’ law as that impulse has been asserted in recent decades. To the extent that the judicial forum is made to adopt the praxis of the therapeutic forum, we wind up back in the realm of spectral evidence, long abandoned in the evolution of Western and American law.

    Despite the good intentions, this is a lethal development constitutionally. Because the precedent is established that the sovereign-power can be deployed against individuals without evidence, which undermines the foundation of a free Republic and Citizenry. (Surely, the entirely predictable consequences of introducing this regression are becoming increasingly evident in many aspects of American governance and law nowadays).

    So I say that there are vital constitutional issues involved here, and they extend beyond the individual case or claim to reach the very foundations of genuinely American law and governance. These profound and potentially lethal aspects of the whole matter cannot simply be ignored, whether on the grounds of a (legitimate therapeutic) concern for the person making the claims or on the grounds of the ‘emergency’ created by the asserted claims (‘emergency law’ and ‘emergency justice’ has proven a very lethal phenomenon in recent world and Western history).

    Lastly, let me get ahead of certain predictable waves by saying a) I hold no brief for the imposition of unwanted sexual experience by one person upon any other person, and b) I am not trying to subtly re-victimize anybody by interfering with the now-conventional narrative framing of these cases and c) I am not seeking merely to shield the monsters known as (fill in the blank as desired). Rather, I am deeply concerned for the future of the Framing Vision and the Republic if this type of spectral-evidence dynamic continues to undermine – as it must – the legal system.

  19. The most bizarre part of some of these comments is that they are by the same people who leave the same comment after virtually every news account of every priest accused everywhere in the country. Do any of these people have jobs? Judy Jones and Neil Allen say the same thing everywhere. And it's almost always distorted. It's a sign of the great desperation of these detractors that their message is dying. So is the scam they have been running for the last decade to the tune of $2.5 billion in the U.S. alone. The Father Gordon MacRae case is a case in point. They give half the story. I have read a very compelling report by a veteran FBI Special Agent who investigated the MacRae case for three years and today reports "I have found no evidence to support that Fr. MacRae committed any of the crimes charged or any other crimes." As far as his so called "admission of guilt" Barry Scheck has written extensively on the subject of plea deals extorted from defendants who have lost everything they own trying to defend themselves in a trial. The Church hangs these priests out to dry without a dime. Barry Scheck says that fully one-third of the DNA exonerations that have given a massive black eye to the American criminal justice system have involved defendants who, like Fr. MacRae, were forced into extorted post-trial plea deals. It is interesting in this particular case that when some hard questions were finally asked, this priest's accusers all fled. They're all in hiding. None would agree to go on the record or answer any questions. Only the SNAP activists are now out there with their revisionist history trying to salvage the scam they have been running.

    1. Dorothy Stein is concealing the truth.

      She is an avid fan of Dave Pierre and themediareport and can be seen commenting on his website and blog comments.

      Of course, themediareport can be seen commenting on every blog where a pedophile priest is accused since he can advertise his website and his books, all available for profit. Dave is the one making money here and I make zero money. Dorothy is undoubtedly either a friend, a relative or somebody else with the financial gain in this matter.

      It's not important whether I have a job, Dorothy. I'm successful, retired young, and can do anything I want. One of the things that I want to do is to fight the Catholic Church because it's the world's largest pedophile protection program.

      I love Dorothy's line, "The Church hangs these priests out to dry without a dime". The Catholic church is paying top dollar for the best attorneys in Philadelphia to defend Msgr Lynn. Father Brennan, and of course Father Avery, who lied for 30 years about raping a child, and finally admitted it in taking a plea deal. Undoubtedly, Dorothy will defend him tomorrow.

      Father Macrae pleaded guilty to having sex with three children. That means he admitted it. He still went to jail for another 30 to 60 years as a convicted pedophile for crime he wouldn't admit, just like father Avery wouldn't admitted for 30 years.

      Of the 4000+ priests that have been accused only 2% of them are in jail, due to the power of the Catholic Church to protect its pedophiles.

      The Catholic Church protects its pedophile priests like parents protect children.

  20. I should also add to these comments that I have read, and have seen the first hand evidence, that Fr. MacRae passed polygraph examinations involving the claims of all of these accusers, who were all related and/or knew each other. According to the polygraph examiner, he conclusively passed these tests. Not one of his accusers would agree to a polygraph examination. Further, every single one of these adult men, it turns out, have accused multiple others of the same behaviors they attributed to Fr. MacRae. It's time to expose this fraud for what it is.

    1. Macrae ADMITTED to having sex with 3 children. We know he has a follwing of pedophile-sympathizers like yourself who would like to see him get out on a technicality on the 4th child rape, but the courts see it differently.

      When they change the laws to do things based on "Dorothy Steins first hand evidence", they can let all the pedophiles out of jail.

  21. 'Dorothy Stein's solid comments prompt me to mention that today I followed Mr. Pierre's link (in one of his comments above) to the actual recent court-filing in support of a motion for a new trial in the MacRae case.

    In its 64 pages this filing contains not only a readable and thorough discussion of case and statute law, but also contains an extensive corpus of Exhibits, including sworn statements from persons with first-hand knowledge of the accuser's statements: all of these statements lead clearly to the conclusion that a fraud was perpetrated on the court through untrue (not to also say perjurious) presentations back in the time of the trial.

    I have never followed the MacRae trial, but a reading of the recent motion certainly provides for sobering readin when you realize what can happen when courts cut loose from solid evidentiary realities.

    I am not versed in New Hampshire law, but I gather that it - following a great deal of victim-friendly 'reform' in sex case jurispraxis and evidentiary rules - merely requires a jury to determine if the accuser is 'credible', and not actually to determine if the accusation is reasonably true.

    If my impressions are correct in this, then it is a clear example of the type of 'reform' that is actually a lethal 'regression', as I mentioned in my comments above.

    May I - lastly - share my thought that a great deal of opinion I have read in some of the comments seems insufficiently grounded in facts directly related to the matter at hand. I recall Lincoln's story about the man traveling on a dark backwoods road on a stormy night: after yet another burst of teeth-rattling thunder in the dark with only an occasional stab of lightning, the man looked up to heaven and prayed: "Oh Lord, if it's all the same to You: a little more light and a little less noise".

    1. My favorite line by you above ....

      "comments seems insufficiently grounded in facts directly related to the matter at hand. I recall Lincoln's story about the man traveling on a dark backwoods road...."


  22. I am not buying the whole story. There are way too many contradictions. Was he really playing beer pong with priest prior to age 12?? Come on!! This kid is a troubled kid....and its not because of his alleged abuse at the hands of this poor priest. Unfortunately, priests are assumed guilty in today. This doesn't mean that every priest is guilty. There is clearly reasonable doubt in this case.

    1. Catholic priests raped children by the hundreds of thousands. You think they would never play "beer pong" with a 12 year old? Raping a 12 year old is ok but "beer pong" is out of the question?

      Good, Catholic-based, pedophile-protecting logic.

      Here's real logic - Cardinal Bevilacqua shredded a list of 35 known pedohplie priests in 1994, and let those priests roam freely (except for the ones that died) until 2011. Cardinal Rigali lied about them until 2 weeks before the grand jury report came out.

      This is an evil, pedophile protecting organization, with the largest pedeophile protection program in human history, and there is NO doubt about that.


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.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.