The Twisted Legal Logic Of "Mariana"

Careful, Mariana might be watching

By Ralph Cipriano

for BigTrial.net

If "Mariana" ever chaperoned an eighth grade dance, many junior high boys might leave in handcuffs.

Going by the legal logic expressed on this blog by "Mariana" -- who may or may not be former Assistant District Attorney Mariana Sorensen -- any guy in pants who presses his penis against another clothed person may be guilty of rape. That's the stated opinion of a commenter on this blog who identified herself only as "Mariana." A commenter who, in a question directed by me to former ADA Sorensen, may have divulged the legal logic behind that fatally flawed 2011 grand jury report that Sorensen wrote.

Regular readers of the blog may recall that I occasionally mention that 2011 grand jury report and how it contained more than 20 factual errors. After three years of hearing about that, "Mariana" apparently got pissed enough to spill the legal beans in the commentary section on this blog.

For three years, Sorensen's old boss, District Attorney Seth Williams, has relentlessly stonewalled all of my questions about that flawed 2011 grand jury report, still proudly posted on his website. Williams may be reckless enough to misstate facts at press conferences when he knows the rest of the media won't hold him accountable. But he's not dumb enough to be drawn into a battle he can't win, namely any discussion about the mistakes in that 2011 grand jury report.

But, thanks to "Mariana," we may now have some insight into the twisted legal logic behind that 2011 grand jury report. 

Here's how the commentary went down between myself and "Mariana." It began under a story I posted about our grandstanding D.A. making erroneous statements at a press conference where he announced he would do everything in his power to keep Msgr. William J. Lynn in jail.

Lynn is the trophy head Williams bagged in the Billy Doe prosecution. An anonymous commentator who was ripping prosecutors in general then wrote that he was "in possession of grand jury testimony [where] prosecutors invented facts."

That prompted "Mariana" to ask who gave the anonymous commentator the grand jury testimony not introduced at trial. "Sounds as if there should be another investigation,""Mariana" concluded.

I jumped in and asked, "Is this Mariana Sorensen? If it is, maybe you can explain all those errors in  the 2011  grand jury report." That prompted "Mariana" to unload. I broke up what she wrote into paragraphs so that readers could draw a few breaths while going through her legal diatribe:

Ralph -- I have nothing to explain to you. Except that I can't even begin to quantify your "errors." Especially counting, as you do, every repetition of a single purported mistake. Your original article claiming 20 errors in the grand jury report is completely bogus. So every time you've quoted or referenced your own dishonest work would constitute another error (lie??). Given how often you like to do that, I would estimate that your untruths are approaching triple digits. 

I'm not going to go through all your misrepresentations of the facts, but given that you count the use of the words rape and sodomy with respect to Fr. Brennan's crimes as 11 discreet errors (because, according to you, it is impossible to commit a rape if the victim is wearing underwear), I suggest that you consult your blog's sponsor on the law. Last time I researched the topic, there was no ruling by Pennsylvania courts, but several other states and federal courts that have considered the question have held that rape and sodomy can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt even when the victim is wearing underwear or other clothing.

The necessary “penetration no matter how slight” can be accomplished through or around the clothing. See, for example, Davis v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 643 S.E. 2d 322 (Va. 2006)(penetration found through “regular issue . . .polyester pants . . .and undergarments as well), citing United States v. Norman, 139 F.3d1099, 1103 (10th Cir. 1997)

(“Unquestionably, some penetration could occur through pliable clothing. . . . Existence of such material does not ... protect defendants from prosecution under the statute [object sexual penetration of a child].”); Nguyen v. Cate, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33561, 33 (U.S. District Ct. N. Cal. 2012) (Where the victim described contact “in the middle …[of her] butt,” ”“the jury could find sufficient evidence of sodomy even if they believed that the contact occurred outside Sandy’s clothing.”); People v. Ribera, 34 Cal. Rptr. 3d 538 (Ct. of App. Of Cal., 5th App. Dis. 2005)(evidence was sufficient to prove sodomy where victim testified that defendant “poked” his penis into her behind, even though victim was wearing underwear). 

See also, Chrobak v. State of Arkansas, 58 S.W. 3d 387 (evidence was sufficient to prove rape where defendant penetrated by moving the victim’s underwear and pajamas to the side); Cummings v. Burge, 581 F. Supp. 2d 436 (W.D.N.Y. 2008)(rape accomplished by pushing underwear aside).

Now, I have a question for you. Who gave you copies of grand jury testimony that was not ever made part of the public record?

Here's what "Mariana" and I were referring to. Eleven times in the 2011 grand jury report, the district attorney stated that in 1996 Father James J. Brennan raped 14-year-old Mark Bukowski during an overnight stay at the priest's house, a visit requested by Bukowski's mother. The subject is actually of current interest as the DA has announced plans to retry the case Oct. 24th, more than four years after a jury deadlocked on the original charges against Father Brennan.

Now we can all agree a priest should never have been in bed with a 14-year-old under any circumstances, nor should he have ever touched the boy in any inappropriate way, as the allegations claim in the Father Brennan case. Again, we have to remember that the accused is innocent until proven guilty, which didn't happen in the first trial. My sole aim in discussing this again is to show the intellectual dishonesty of the district attorney's office.

This excerpt is from pages 11 and 12 of the grand jury report:

Father Brennan, who was now shirtless, insisted that Mark remove his gym shorts and climb into bed with him in only his underwear, which Mark did. Mark attempted to sleep on his side, with his back to Father Brennan, because he was afraid to look at the priest. As Mark lay in that position, Father Brennan hugged him from behind, resting his chin on Mark’s shoulder and pulling the boy closer to him.

When Father Brennan pulled Mark toward him, Mark felt Father Brennan’s erect penis enter his buttocks. Mark began to cry, and asked himself over and over again, “Why is this happening?” as Father Brennan anally raped him. Mark fell asleep that night with Father Brennan’s penis still in his buttocks.

In Mariana's legal citations she jumped between what might be described as spooning and what might be described as rape; penetration of the buttocks as opposed to penetration of the anus.

But the grand jury report unequivocally stated that "Father Brennan anally raped" Bukowski.

When he testified before the grand jury on Oct. 8, 2010, Mark Bukowski said:

I got into bed with him [Father Brennan] and he was now shirtless and insisted not in a violent or threatening way that I should remove my gym shorts. So I did, got into the bed and immediately took the position of having my back to him because I didn't want to look at him ...

He began to hug me from behind and rest his chin on my shoulder with his beard scratching my upper neck area. He continually pulled me closer, while moving closer himself with his arms around my upper chest. This time I felt his erect penis between my butt cheeks. My boxers were still on, however, I do not know if he had shorts on. With the way it felt and how aggressive, yet gentle he was, it was if he wanted to pull himself through me and for me to come out the back of him. I remember lastly thinking what the fuck happened tonight and crying myself to sleep with his penis still between my butt cheeks, saying to myself over and over again, why is this happening?

 In the grand jury report, Bukowski described a spooning, a penetration of his buttocks, and not an anal rape.

When Father Brennan was tried as a co-defendant with Msgr. Lynn, on the witness stand, Mark Bukowski testified that both he and the priest had t-shirts and boxer shorts on the night they spent in the priest's bed. 

In her legal logic, "Mariana" cited incidents where apparently the attacker pushed aside the victim's underwear on his way to achieving penetration of either the buttocks or the anus. 

"Mariana" can argue all the legal technicalities in rape law until all of our eyes glaze over and we all forget, forgive me, the bottom line of the case. Here's where the brilliant legal argument espoused by "Mariana" turns out to be, in her words, "completely bogus."

The grand jury report called for indicting Father Brennan and charging him with rape and involuntary deviant sexual intercourse with a minor. But when the actual trial began, the rape charge against Father Brennan was reduced to attempted rape, with no official explanation ever from D.A. Williams, ADA Sorensen, or anybody else.

Sorry, "Mariana," but in the real world, namely the court of law, you lost big time. Not even D.A. Williams, who would do just about anything to put a priest in jail, was willing to go to war with your novel definition of what constitutes anal rape.

Is "Mariana" really ADA Mariana Sorensen? We have one more clue.

After "Mariana" and I got through exchanging pleasantries, Dennis Ecker weighed in. Most of the regular readers of this blog will recall Ecker as a tireless [some would say mindless] victims' advocate who claims himself to be a victim of sex abuse.

Ecker told "Mariana" if Ralph and others believe she is really Mariana Sorensen, he knows her to be the "greatest kindest woman God placed on this earth. A woman I define as a hero." If "Mariana" isn't Mariana Sorensen, then "Mariana" "should be honored to be mistaken for her," Ecker wrote. 

A no-doubt blushing "Mariana" then replied, "Dennis, you are the hero." "Mariana" went on to praise Dennis for remaining "civil, kind and open-minded in the midst of all of the mean-spirited and ignorant comments about abuse survivors on this blog."

Sorry, Mariana, we were probably not talking about real abuse survivors, we were talking about Billy Doe.

Now Mariana, you state you don't want to go into all my other "misrepresentations of the facts" that I mentioned in my original post. Why the hell not? Let's go point by point. I've got the grand jury transcripts and other evidence gathered by the D.A.'s own detectives to back up what I'm saying, that you twisted the official record to fit your story line in the grand jury report.

You know, the grand jury testimony where Billy Doe's mother said that her son underwent a dramatic personality change in high school. That didn't fit your story line so you rewrote it to say that the dramatic personality change occurred in grade school, when Billy was supposedly raped by two priests and a school teacher.

Your real problem is that you never thought any of that secret stuff would ever come out in the media. And as far as who gave me those grand jury transcripts, wouldn't you like to know?

We have a shield law in Pennsylvania that protects a reporter from having to reveal his sources. Suffice to say it may have been someone concerned about the misdeeds of unaccountable prosecutors like yourself. You know, people who work under cover of secrecy, and can do anything they want. Like twisting a savage spooning into a rape.

Some zealot drunk on what Daily News columnist Christine Flowers, herself a lawyer, recently described in the Msgr. Lynn case as "prosecutorial lust."

Brace yourself, "Mariana," the whole house of cards may be collapsing.

Someday, you may be hauled into a courtroom, or before some legal ethics board. And you may have to state who you really are. And explain your blatant dishonesty, all in the name of an end result that in your mind was justified by any means necessary.