Tuesday, July 9, 2013

"A Single Breathtaking Admission"

Msgr. William J. Lynn
By Ralph Cipriano
for Bigtrial.net

It's the lawyer's version of yelling, "Gotcha."

In a 12-page reply brief filed today in Superior Court, defense lawyers for Msgr. William J. Lynn argued that District Attorney Seth Williams blew the entire case against Lynn by making a "single breathtaking admission."

The alleged admission: that the D.A. prosecuted Lynn "ex post facto," or after the fact, under the standards of an amended child endangerment law.

The district attorney's "single breathtaking admission" was contained in a 63-page brief filed June 25 in Superior Court. In the brief, the D.A. stated that Lynn had "endangered the welfare of" Billy Doe by "breaching his duty to prevent priests under his supervision, such as [Father Edward V.] Avery, from sexually molesting children. The evidence is sufficient because [Lynn] was Avery's supervisor, with a specific duty to prevent Avery from doing exactly what [Lynn] instead facilitated."

The D.A. was referring to Lynn's failure during the 1998-99 school year to prevent Avery from raping the 10-year-old altar boy known as Billy Doe. According to defense lawyers Thomas A. Bergstrom and Allison Khaskelis, the D.A.'s prosecution of Lynn for failing to supervise Avery was a "glaring ex post facto violation of the Constitutions of the United States and Pennsylvania."

"This is unquestionably the standard set forth in the 2007 amendment, which the Commonwealth has plainly admitted would violate the ex post facto provision," the defense argued, namely that Lynn was responsible, not for supervising the welfare of a child, but for supervising Avery.

The state's 1972 statute that makes it a crime to endanger the welfare of a child [EWOC] applies to "a parent, guardian or other person supervising the welfare of a child under 18 years of age."

The amended EWOC law, which took effect in 2007, was changed specifically to include supervisors such as Lynn. The amended law applies not only to "a parent, guardian or other person supervising the welfare of a child under 18 years of age," but also to "a person that employs or supervises such a person."

"By its own admission, it is evident that the Commonwealth did not even attempt to demonstrate that [Lynn] was a supervisor of a child," the defense lawyers argued in their brief.  The prosecution's "entire theory of the case and subsequent argument was geared to show that [Lynn] supervised Avery, who, in turn, allegedly supervised" Billy Doe, the defense lawyers wrote.

"By its own admission, the Commonwealth committed an unconstitutional ex post facto violation that merits the reversal of [Lynn's] conviction," the defense brief stated. "It was the Commonwealth's burden to demonstrate that [Lynn] was a supervisor of the welfare of a child ... This it could not and did not do under the law or on the facts."

Lynn is currently serving a 3 to 6 year prison term after his June 22, 2012 conviction by a jury on one count of EWOC.

The defense brief also took exception to the district attorney's characterization of the original 1972 EWOC law as being written in "unambiguous language."

The law is unambiguous "in that it did not cover individuals like [Lynn], the defense lawyers wrote. The defense lawyers pointed out that it was the district attorney's office that "unanimously spearheaded the effort to amend" the EWOC law, so that it would apply to "individuals like [Lynn]."

The defense brief refers to the "unprecedented flip-flop" of the district attorney's office over the interpretation of the meaning of the original EWOC law. In 2005, then-District Attorney Lynne Abraham and a grand jury concluded that the old EWOC law did not apply to Msgr. Lynn, Cardinal Bevilacqua, or any other high-ranking official of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia.

In 2011, District Attorney Seth Williams and a new grand jury concluded that the old EWOC law did apply to Lynn, as well as Fathers Avery, William J. Brennan, Charles Engelhardt, and a lay teacher, Bernard Shero.

"As has been demonstrated before, the Commonwealth has been willing to change its theory of this case at every juncture to suit its thirst for a high-profile conviction," the defense lawyers wrote.

The district attorney has the option of responding in writing to the defense brief. Or the district attorney can respond when oral arguments are made in Superior Court later this fall on Lynn's appeal.

Meanwhile, Msgr. Lynn remains in jail at SCI Waymart, about 30 minutes north of Scranton.


  1. And what will happen to Seth Williams when all this is over and the verdicts are overturned? Nothing as he will probably be sitting in the mayor's office. Be proud Philadelphia of your elected officials!!!

  2. A 12-page appellate reply brief? That may be the shortest reply brief ever filed. It takes about half that many pages just to list the style of the case, signature blocks, certificate of service, etc. Was there any case law in it? Was there a table of contents? How could they possibly have replied to all of the arguments and case law in the D.A.'s 63-page brief? Again, it sounds like these priests just can't seem to get adequate representation.

    1. Was it Ben Franklin that said "If I had more time, I'd write you a shorter letter..."

      THERE AIN'T MUCH THAT NEEDS TO BE SAID HERE, Sarah. This whole fiasco was driven by spite, scandal, and powerlust! That is obvious!

    2. Well, if their lawyers actually want their convictions to be overturned, they need to file a proper appellate reply brief. They need to do legal research and provide the appellate court with the legal means for overturning the convictions. That's what a "brief" means, briefing the court on what the applicable law is. The longer name for a "brief" is a Memorandum of Authorities in which the lawyers state by what authority the appellate court can overturn these convictions.

      Again, a 12-page reply brief indicates that their lawyers are not attempting to overturn the convictions.

  3. Not to Sarah. Or her pals Dennis and Jim. Deaf, dumb and blind.

    1. Once again we hear from COWARD 8:44 (as he defines himself) and his very educated comments.

      We are reading the attempts of the defense to get their clients released on a loop-hole not by proof of their innocence.

      Think about it. You have an individual who knows that another individual can be a threat to a child, but what does he do ? Unlocks the door to the hen house and places the wolf right inside. Lets give the arsonist a pack of matches.

      But that's o.k. to all the bleeding hearts.

    2. This comment doesn't make sense. "Not" to me? Not what?

    3. Sarah TX2: on another planet.

  4. Where is the huge outcry over this miscarriage of justice? You want discrimination - the treatment of Lynn, Engelhardt, and Shero - nothing more than anti-Catholic bigotry. If those sitting in jail were an Imam or a Rabbi - we'd see riots. Where is the Phila Inquirer and Phila Magazine? Rather than reporting on this story we get not one, but two articles on the Fumo family fights. The press is all over the Archdiocese's financial issues and the AOPs selling of real estate. Philly Magazine is all over the anonymous letters detailing indiscretions within the DAs office. Where are the stories about the discrimination lawusits pending against Seth? Why are the ADAs fleeing Seth?
    And Sarah - the day Seth Williams becomes Mayor is the day all Philadelphians should join Snowden in seeking asylum. The incompetence of Hughes, Sarmina, and Ceisler are the greatest arguments today for merit selection. Way to go Ceisler - 6 people die in abuilding collapse and the only person you have in jail is a poor schmuch crane operator - at least you incompetence is consistent
    The facts remain the same. Children were abused by priests. Elements of the AOP covered it up. The entire AOP is suffering because of the sins of a few. Many involved in the cover up are dead and cannot be prosecuted. The Philly DAs office couldn't get these perverts (or others) but was going to get its pound of flesh - anyway they could - including making deals with scumbags aka Billy Doe/Gallagher.
    And where are we today? Three "Holy Innocents" sit in jail. While an admitted drug abuser/traficer/convicted criminal walks free with the help of Phila police and the DAs office. Who else have they made deals with? Makes you safe walking the streets of Philly.
    When can the "Holy Innocents" appeals be heard?
    Ralph - you are doing a great service by keeping us informed. Please keep it up. I do hope you write a book about it.

    1. Okay, today's column doesn't have anything to do with Snowden or who the next Mayor is or whether media is reporting on these cases. This column is about the failure of the defendants' appellate lawyers to properly represent the Three "Holy Innocents." You should be writing to the appellate lawyers and asking them why they're letting these men go undefended.

      I'm gonna guess right now that most of the people reading this column will not understand that the appellate court only deals with case law as presented to it by counsel. And I'll further guess that Ralph will not apprise his readers of how an appeal works. Because if he did, you would all be clamoring for a response, not from me or Dennis or other readers, but from the lawyers who filed the 12-page brief and the lawyers who failed to defend these men in the trial courts. If there's a miscarriage of justice here, it has everything to do with how these men were and continue to be inadequately represented.

    2. Right you are, anon! And please, Ralph, this is a book waiting to be written (I mentioned this before -on 7/2- in the comment section of the DA flip flop entry), maybe with a novel historical twist-the characters are so well defined.

      P.S. Ralph, my thinking is that Msgr. Lynn's family have declined being interviewed. I say this not knowing them. I do know Msgr. Lynn to be rather reserved person. If I were his family, I would be angry as you can get. This is such a travesty!

    3. Inadequately represented? is that what you are basing your beliefs on now?

      Beyond a resaonable doubt is what was needed to be proven and was in both trials. Let me guess, you were not in the courtroom for either trial.

      This was a witch hunt from the start. Any individaul who wears a collar would have been found guilty based on the evidence provided. And for the Lynn trial remember that cases of abuse from decades past were allowed to be submitted as evidence. What justice could have come out of allowing that evidence in. The RCC has its skeletons and all the DA, judges and prosecutors did was se their authority and connections to ensure that Philadelphia got the notoriety for being the first city to convict a leader within the diocese and not an abuser. And all that did was lead to guilty verdicts in the second trial. You may argue that, but remember the faces of the innocent men who sit in proison today were plastered all over the media from day one. Not one of them could have ever gotten a fair trial in this city. Now you may say they were convicted by a jury of their peers - guess you missed the all the information on jurors sleeping, only worrried about breaks and lunches that Ralph reported on.

      Now, the anti-catholics will respond - "the facts are in, they are guilty." Well you have it wrong. The only one who is guilty is the one who took the plea bargain and that was not for the case against billy doe. it was for previouc acts of abuse towards children. The men who went to trial did so becasue they knew they were innocent and would not take a plea for crimes they did not commit. They are taking the blame for every priest out there who was not able to be brought up on charges based on the SOL.

      Should any individual have to give up their freedom for a crime they did not commit? From what i gather it is only the DA, the judges who presided over these trials and a few select members of society who participate on this blog.

    4. Yes, they were inadequately represented in their trials by their defense lawyers and are now being thrown under the bus by their appellate lawyers (they're not the same lawyers, are they?). Their defense lawyers should have tried to mitigate Shero's suicide attempt and suicide note that did not declare innocence. They should have stopped the Avery debacle. They should have brought in all of the evidence that Ralph acknowledges was left out. They should have cross-examined Billy Doe more skillfully. They should have advised the defendants to take the stand and declare their innocence.

      Ralph is right that there is something terribly wrong with the Philadelphia Sex Abuse Trials, but it's not the juries or the judges. These cases have the smell of malpractice all over them. Those who believe these men are innocent should immediately raise funds to hire proper appellate attorneys to do legal research on attorney malpractice. That is their best shot at winning on appeal. They will never win an appeal with a 12-page appellate reply brief. There couldn't possibly be enough citations (cites to statutes and other court cases) in these few pages to convince the appellate court that they were wrongly convicted.

      One has to ask, who hired and paid their defense lawyers and their appellate lawyers?

    5. Here is that answer SarahTX2.

      The Archdiocese of Philadelphia

      $4.65 million in expenses for investigations of abuse allegations against priests and $6.69 million in miscellaneous legal and professional fees, including costs for Msgr. William J. Lynn's criminal trial
      Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/business/20130704_Archdiocese_report_unveils_huge_financial_concerns.html#WgZsR0SlXCDiujiP.99

    6. Yeah, the Inquirer; they've really done some great reporting on this case!

    7. You have to make up your mind son.

      You complain when the Inquirer does not report anything about these cases, and when they do report about these cases you complain again.

      No one is your enemy, but you sure are looking for some. I suggest you look in a mirror, that is your only enemy.

  5. What is anon so right about ?

    Family member or not he is making a fool of himself.

  6. Ralph-
    Accurate and superb as always! God bless you for your coverage!

  7. Let's assume - for the sake of argument - that the Superior Court determines that both Seth Williams and Sarmina misapplied the EWOC statute. What happens next?

    Would Monsignor Lynn be immediately released, or could the Commonwealth sequentially appeal to the State Supreme Court keeping Lynn behind bars even longer, perhaps even (pardon my cynicism) until the November Philadelphia DA election is over? Sarmina herself was almost 6 months late providing her trial report and order to the Superior Court and actually had to be 'compelled' to do so. Check out 2172 EDA 2012. There should be some significant 'delay of game' penalty applied within the judicial system.

    Now, if it is ultimately proven that both the DA and trial judge made an egregious blunder in applying the EWOC statute, would Monsignor Lynn have any recourse to compensate him for his loss of treasure, freedom and reputation?

    Let's hope so, and let's also hope that Sorensen's 'resignation' is followed by a long overdue catharsis within the DA's office.

  8. Another thing to be understood is that appellate courts seldom overturn jury verdicts or trial court judges' rulings. There has to be very compelling argument regarding the statutes (state laws) and/or clear-cut precedents (other court rulings, preferably higher courts) to convince the appellate court that it has the authority to overturn a verdict or ruling.

    That's why our justice system is one of the best in the world, although it apparently isn't much appreciated in Philadelphia. No matter what a D.A. does wrong, a well-trained lawyer or team of lawyers can expose it. If Seth Williams always seems to win, I would suggest that perhaps the lawyers in Philadelphia are not dedicated to undoing his actions. Same for the previous D.A. and the next D.A. The justice system is only as good as those who keep their eyes on it.

    I am wondering, who are the appellate lawyers in these cases who chose to file a 12-page reply brief focusing on one breathtaking admission? Keep in mind that they are not limited to filing only one brief. Another brief can be filed as soon as it is ready and researched.

  9. It would also be interesting to know how much the appellate lawyers charged for the preparation and filing of their 12-page reply brief.

    1. More from the masters of misdirection.

    2. SarahTX2,

      I cannot give you an answer to your latest question, Because truly I don't know. But I do think you are asking some interesting questions.

      But please remember what Chaput has said about these abuse cases having nothing to do with the money problems of the archdiocese.

      I think the defense does know about how hard it will be to overturn the verdict. We have seen the plunders of these lawyers time after time and frankly I would not hire them to fight a parking ticket for me.

      This then leads to another question is these lawyers dragging out these proceedings because they know they have a "cash cow" in the AOP ? Are they already receiving that big payout that so many claim that is the only thing victims are after.

      I think instead of looking for that loop-hole in the law, Lynn and the rest of the convicted would have a better chance at receiving a new trial if these lawyers would admit to a judge they did not properly defend their clients.

  10. To Anon 5:02 am:
    Is your comment directed at Sarah or something else? I find Sarah's info. about the appellate courts very informative. Believe me, I get the gist of the whole trial, witnesses, verdict, etc., but I don't understand the legal aspects of appeals, briefs, tec. Even while admitting this, it does seem like a 12 page reply to a 63 page brief is sincerely lacking. Would you agree or not?

  11. This strikes me as a silly argument. I'm going to crib from a previous story:

    On April 26th, defense lawyers Thomas A. Bergstrom and Allison Khaskelis filed a 16-page supplemental brief, on top of their original 71-page appeal on April 16th, to refute what the judge had to say in her 235-page opinion.

    So the defense has already weighed in with 87 pages, before the last 12-page blast. As somebody who's had to wade through all this stuff, I can tell you that the prosecution has buried all of us in needless paperwork. Their arguments are endlessly repetitive and every chance they get, they file summaries of all 21 supplemental abuse cases in nauseating repetitive detail.

    I found the last 12-page reply brief to be refreshingly brief and on point. You can criticize the lawyers in this case for many things, but losing the paper war isn't one of them in my opinion. But the only opinion that counts will be what the Superior Court judges make of this.

    1. Hopefully, we will get a honest bench of Superior Court judges to take the time to read the compelling arguments filed by Thomas A. Bergstrom and Allison Khaskelis. I say that because it is very easy for Superior Court judges to cut down their imposing workload by declining to review appeal filed on a case.

      If Superior Court rules in favor of the defense, then it will bring in a breath of fresh air to the stale courtroom air of oppressiveness put on by a corrupt DA. We need to be rejuvenated once in a while that a good legal argument will be used to win the day and thus cause us to appreciate fully the legal system that works its way each day.

  12. To convict Lynn on a 1972 law that did not apply to Lynn as he did not have contact with Billy Doe as he was only supervising Fr Avery. And to use revisions made in 2007 to use in convicting Lynn of allowing alleged child abuse in 1998-99 is akin to awarding the Kansas City Royals the 1980 World Series by invalidating the last strikeout Tug McGraw made.

    No first year law student would think of doing something DA (not even ADA!) Seth Williams did.

    When the conviction is overturned, it will be Seth who will have to face the brunt of the criticism.

  13. James,

    Very nicely said - good hypothetical analogy!

    I'm hoping and praying that 'Seth and Company' have to face a lot more than just public criticism.

  14. In terms of inadequate representation, another thing to remember is that Lynn was warned over and over by the trial court judge that it is a serious conflict of interest for him to have the Archdiocese paying his legal fees. Lynn said he understands that and nevertheless wishes to have the Archdiocese pay his legal fees.

    The judge had to get a clear record of the understanding, so she broke it down for Lynn as to how serious of a conflict of interest it could be. The judge was practically advocating for Lynn as she questioned him in various ways to make sure he understands what's at stake. Lynn understood and accepted the conflict of interest.

    The sense I had from reading about it was that it sounded like Lynn was presenting himself as something of a sacrificial lamb. As it happens, it did play out that way. His defense lawyers and appellate lawyers have made minimal efforts at his defense.

    For an appeal to succeed, you simply can't submit short pleadings. There should be lots of case law discussions with cases attached as exhibits. There should be trial transcript excerpts discussed and attached. There should be statutory language discussed and attached. You have to keep re-attaching exhibits because you don't want to rely on the judges having to go back to previous filings looking for exhibits and arguments. So you have to keep re-stating your case and exhibits. That's why it's so repetitive. You do everything you can to make it easy for the appellate court to rule in your favor. That's not the fault of the prosecution. That's the way you do appeals. And Lynn's appellate lawyers know that.

    Lynn took the deal before trial even started. And it predictably went against him. It does seem like he doesn't even have an option to claim inadequate counsel since he accepted that condition in the first place. However, the other defendants may be in a different position. I don't remember reading about whether the other defendants were questioned as to conflict of interest like Lynn was. Are we sure that the other defendants' legal fees were paid by the Archdiocese?

  15. SarahTX2-----You don't know the scoop and you continually get it wrong! It is ludicrous that you comment so readily on the Philadelphia case. The legal bill for the "other" defendants was NOT paid by the AOP.

  16. Why would Lynn renounce financial compensation of his attorneys by the AOP to avoid a conflict of interest? Besides it was the advantage of the AOP to see Lynn win his case as opposed to losing his case and being in jail as a sacrifical lamb.

    Lynn knew he could not afford legal representation. Sounds like Judge Sarmina tried to take away legal advantage Lynn supposedely had with good lawyers paid on the AOP's dime

    On the Appellate front, it is advantage for Lynn over the prosecution.

  17. Would anyone like to define the term "malicious prosecution" for me, this seems to be a perfect case as an example of prosecutorial misconduct by the DA and his staff, several of those prosecutors have "miraculously" left the DA's office since the conclusion of this most recent trial of Father Engelhardt and Bernard Shero less than 6 months ago.

    1. @anonymous 7:35

      Aside from Sorensen (who authored the Grand Jury reports) and Cipoletti (who prosecuted Engelhardt and Shero), has any other ADA left the Philadelphia DA's office?

    2. One of the senior detectives originally on the case I believe has retired, and the senior DA who originally would have had the case handed to him JANUARY 2009 when the accusation was first presenetd to the DA's office retired but is now working in another county upstate. If an investigation is ever launched and it certainly should be, everyone connected from the start to the finish should be included in that investigation. The entire process particulary the early proceedings in front of Ex-Judge Hughes was an absolute disgrace, if you weren't in the courtroom, you haven't a clue what went on here with regard to these defendants.

    3. My understanding is that the judge flat-out told the lawyers, Somebody's going to jail for this.

  18. I go back to my previous statment that if an Imam was in prison we'd have riots like we are seeing due to the Zimmerman verdict. Signs around the Rizzo statue? The inmates are running the asylum.

    Not one word from the Philly News who chooses instead to write drivel about Phillies fireworks being confused as being set off by white supremicists.

    As its been said "justice delayed is justice denied" Kudos to those supporting our "Holy Inncents" Every day that Msgr Lynn, Fr Engelhardt, and Mr Shero sit in jail it furthers the mockery of the American justice system committed by Hughes, Sarmina, Ceisler, and Williams. Do you really think its normal for the tunrover in Williams' office? Why isn't Holder and the Justice Dept investigating them?

    Thank you again Ralph for the updates. It is a shame that Msgr Lynns Appeal won't be heard until the fall

  19. Malicious prosecution refers to filing a lawsuit for purposes of harassing the defendant when there is no genuine basis for the suit. If the defendant in the lawsuit wins and has evidence that the suit was filed out of harassing motives and without any legal or factual foundation, it may be the basis of a claim for damages against the person who filed the original action. If malicious prosecution is clearly proved against the party who brought the original suit, punitive damages may be awarded along with special and general damages.

    As read you can see that malicious prosecution does not apply to any of the recent cases.

    In all the cases there is a legal and factual foundation to bring charges against those convicted.

    Hope this helps.

    1. What factual foundation? If your saying that the statements made by two drug addicted criminals is the foundation on which you believe then you are just as niece and blinded as people have been saying.

      Take a look at the grand jury and all the errors and missing facts from that report. What actual facts are listed in the report?

      Review BD's statements with his parents present (where was he picked up at), look at the connections his family has within the police and city departments. Those are facts you should be reviewing and judging.

      Instead of skipping over Ralph's articles and going straight to the comments section you should think about reading them first. You would be well educated on what did happen versus what you have been reading in the inquirer and saw on the nightly news.

    2. there are no facts, no physical evidence, no corroboration except from the friends who popped out of the woodwork like the one he met at Hammerheads bar (is that a sanctioned rehab center, one of the 23) in Sept/2012 that he obviously sought out to testify to his "mysterious change" in the upper grades at St Jerome's which actually was 9th grade as testified to by his own mother & father in court...he changed when he went to Archbishop Ryan, 9th grade, got in the wrong crowd, when he decided then and there to use drugs more extensively and become a lifelone drug addict and thief, another drain on our society. Addicts lie, they lie to their families and friends, they steal from their family, friends and anyone in their path to feed their habit. AND they lie, they lie to feed their habit and not surprisingly, they lie in court, lying becomes a natural habit for those individuals.
      This whole set of accusations was built on a foundation of lies.

  20. Did someone say something ?

    Fool !

    1. You haven't said anything yet in all your comments, except you claim to have been abused decades ago, you are just another fraud, Dennis...or are you Billy Doe's cousin perhaps...?

    2. I now believe without a doubt that Dennis IS a fraud.

    3. Oh well, if you wish to believe I'm a fraud then you believe that.

      But, fraud or not when everything is said and done I'm still not the one sitting in a damp prison cell convicted of sexual abuse of a child, nor do I have any family members sitting in prison.

      You have a nice weekend now. I know I will.


      Fools !

    4. Here we have the true essence of Dennis Ecker. A man who gloats over the suffering of others. Even if you believe Engelhardt and Shero are guilty, and I don't, what did their families ever do in this case to hurt anybody?

    5. Get it right. I'm not gloating.

      If those who wish to feel I'm a fraud so be it. That is their freedom of speech.

      But that freedom of speech goes both ways especially WHEN I SPEAK THE TRUTH, something they cannot do.

      And if anonymous wants to act like a fool, HE WILL BE TREATED AS A FOOL. If the family wishes to allow him to be a fool so be it.

    6. You know YOU or anyone else here cannot push my buttons.

      You know why ? I'm better then you and them.

      I have invited you on numerous times to look into my past but you fail to do so. Afraid of the truth you might find ?

      Instead of allowing the families to adjust to what is happening in their lives you continue to be that bottom feeder who lives off their pain to only keep this blog going.

      I maybe a fool thinking I might be able to continue to be a voice for survivors, but YOU and your friends are even bigger fools thinking I'm going to give up.

      You won't post this because you know its the truth and it shows your true character, but I do know you will read it.

      Have a very nice weekend.

    7. Ralph must be doing something right cause it keeps you coming back to post your "I am Dennis Ecker" comments.

      Who would you call a fool now? I'll give my vote for Dennis Ecker.

  21. Yada, Yada, Yada.

    Fool !

    I have to ask you this. I went to grade and high school with a Thomas Engelhardt, who also had two twin sisters. His family lived over by Crispin Gardens. Are you related to my old buddy Tom ? If you are talk to him. Tell Jack R I said hello.

    1. Has billy been sharing his "magic mushrooms" with you?

      What is the point of this post? Who cares who you went to school with.

    2. You must love the taste of shoe.

      Let me point out some facts to you. Remember I was the one who received that so-called lifetime ban. I was also the one who received an e-mail by your boy Ralph to return and place my comments with him stating "lets have some fun."

      Now to this day I still wonder what he meant by "lets have some fun" because I don't think any of this is funny or entertaining. Maybe you can ask him what he meant by his statement or maybe Ralph can post here himself what he meant by that statement so ALL can read, but no matter what he might say I don't see any respect for you, the covicted or their family by your boy Ralph.

      The truth be said I was the one who questioned Ralph if he truly thought what he would be doing could be looked at by you or other family members as a stab in the back. I was the one who had your feelings in mind not him, I'm also the one who has explained to you before that I and others survivors I know do not blame you for anything, but I'm gloating.

      Ralph's childish comment was an attempt to throw more wood on the fire so he could increase his comment numbers, sadly something you and i both fell for.

      So who is the fool now ? Are you being betrayed by someone who you think you can trust ?

      Now the reason I asked you if you are related to the individual above is you have from day one attacked Billy Doe and his drug use. Something I believe he did. But if Thomas is a family member of yours don't ever, ever talk about drug use by someone else.

    3. Ralph - isn't it standard practice not to print anyone's name without first getting their approval? Did TE grant permission for his name to be used?

      And Dennis your post again lacks credibility and thought. My opinion is that you are still trying to get people interested in your story that you would like to tell. That time came and went, you reneged when asked to provide details.

  22. First, Ralph or his moderators (if any) make up their rules as they feel fit. If anyone knows more about that is me. I have had comments not posted when all the rules have been followed and had comments that were posted only to be removed a few days later even when they too followed the rules. So Ralph will only respect freedom of speech or follow his own posted rules when it suits him. THAT YOU MUST GET USE TO.

    Now you state that my last post lacks credibility and thought. So I wish for your own search for the truth YOU confront Mr. Cipriano and question him regarding the e-mails and what we spoke about in those conversations. Lets see if he tells the truth. Lets see if he defends or makes a statement on his own blog regarding those e-mails, he adds his two cents other times. My thinking he will ignore the subject and I would be lucky if he posts this comment.

    Finally you once again post information about me that you have no clue about. You are not just a fool, but also a fraud. You have thought from day one that you know so much about me and have continued to guess or think you know of my past. Rest assured when you get it right I will let you know.

    I am sure Ralph will await your questions, then you can make up your own closed mind who lacks credibility.

    1. There is no standard practice on checking names mentioned in posts. As far as Dennis's most recent blathering goes, if he can make his points without being nasty and obscene, I usually post them, no matter how inane they are. Unless he's saying something I know to be false or accusing me or my sponsors of some crime they didn't commit.

    2. Ralph, Dennis is a mad man plain and simple. His 8:18 a.m. post of July 22nd in response to your 6:15 a.m. post of the same date is just further evidence of his inability to comprehend reality. For the sake of your sensible readers please banish this poor soul from the blog as he is an affront to rational discourse.

      His poor writing skills also make it very difficult to tolerate him.

    3. Let me help you out anonymous.

      Oh Ralph, please please give me a second lifetime ban so I cannot be tempted to open the eyes of these individuals who feel I am an insult to their rationality of these cases.

      Now lets see what happens anonymous !

    4. Who else is on your side here besides Jim and representatives from SNAP? One lives 3000 miles away and has no legitimate ties to this case and the other is a group of people who you do not trust.

      Open what eyes - think you should proofread what you write. Your the only one who has failed to see that this was a witch hunt. What did the judge say - "someone is going to jail for this." it was a tragedy from the start and innocent men now sit in prison as a result.

    5. Hey Bam, heard you got married. Congratulations on another successful con!

    6. Wonder what was provided to the guests as the wedding favor? heroin, coke, marijuana or all of the above.....

  23. Anonymous - There you have it.

    "I usually post them, no matter how inane they are. Unless he's saying something I know to be false or accusing me or my sponsors of some crime."

    Who else would know if my previous comment is false or not but Ralph ?

    Does he respond to deny my statement ? No

    That's because Ralph knows i do my homework, and I do not like to hit that delete key. He has taught me well by telling me "if you have those statements you don't have to be Hemingway."

    I still hope for your peace that you question Mr. Cipriano about those e-mails or better Mr. Cipriano uses his own blog to justify his statement "lets have some fun" or tries to deny my statements regarding keeping your thoughts and feelings in mind.

    Those e-mails did not only have your family feelings in mind but also the Shero family.

    Who lacks credibility now ?

    If you wish to have a copy of those conversations, send me your e-mail address. eckerdennis@ymail.com

    1. Whoever said I was family?

      Simply looking out for the interest of others who may not want their name in print.


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.