January 11, 2017

Molestation NOT anatomically doable as was described by Randy Engel: So asserted child care professional of many years

Keep in mind that I am more willing to declare Anthony Cipolla a molester,
if only someone would provide due cause for me to do so.  No evidence yet.
Only fact-checked falsehoods and contradictions.  Incidentally, a witness'
account does not constitute "evidence" until the individual either norarizes
a witness statement for public view or is cross-examined, to see if the per-
son's testimony can be "impeached."  I am waiting for the evidence and
I am equally waiting for testimony that doesn't contradict past testimony,
known fact, and similar witnesses.  Let's proceed.
Randy Engel did NOT show you this plaque.
In as much, how does a molester get the POLICE
to put a plaque of appreciation into his hands
and not handcuffs around his wrists?  Hello?
Yes, a security cleared & direct caretaker of children for many years said that
Randy Engel's narration of Anthony Cipolla's ALLEGED molestation of a
young Tucker Thompson was NOT even physically possible, short of doing
it in a way that would have been very inconvenient to Cipolla, and cramping
to his hands, thereby negating for Cipolla any perverse pleasure sought.

In other words, concerning Randy Engel's damning description of Anthony Ci-
polla's alleged molestation of Tucker, the child care vet said, "No way."  "She
doesn't know what she's talking about."  The professional caretaker basically
said that Engel's account was certifiable bull crap.

Now, the reason as to why it was not possible to have been done in the way
Engel said it was done, without it having been an irritating inconvenience to
Cippolla, was extremely simple.  It was so simple that anyone reading the
Engel article should have immediately caught it.

Concerning this, it is disconcerting to see how people can be so easily deceived
when the evidence opposite of a bold assertion is so clear to see.

Concerning the implausibility of the criminal sexual act described by Engel,
it was as easy to catch as was Randy's blatantly bogus claim that a young
Tucker Thompson was faithfully sitting at his family's kitchen table doing
his homework like a good little boy . . . . . . in late July.  

For those who are not American, know that there is NO SCHOOL in the United
States at the end of July, and therefore, Tucker didn't have any homework to do,
in the first place.  This means that Randy Engel lied to you, the reading public.

This sight is NOT seen in America in late July, as Engel
would  have lead you to believe.  Diane Thompson has
been proven to be a pathological liar and Engel has now
become Diane Thompson's pathological lie.
All in all, I am more than willing to declare Anthony Cipolla a sick and twisted
molester who is probably burning in Hell, but the fact-checking of the damning
articles, the damning emails, and the damning accusations against him resulted
in falsehood after falsehood and contradiction after contradiction being uncover-
ed.  In as much, I am waiting for the corroborative witness accounts (that don't
contradict those of others) and/or the documentary evidence and/or the direct
evidence that will have the reasonable person conclude that Anthony Cipolla
was actually a molester.  So, where is it, if Cipolla were an egregious molester?

Concerning the very simple and even clever reason as to why it was not possible
for Tucker to have been molested by Anthony Cipolla the way in which it was de-
scribed by Randy Engel in her Nov/Dec 2016 three-part article, I'm going to wait
a short while, before mentioning it.  This is because I want to see if any of you see
why that sexual act, as was described by Randy Engel, is prima facia bogus.

PLUS PLUS PLUS, keep in mind that, in the October 1995 Pittsburgh Post Ga-
zette article that trashed Cipolla, Thompson (while being kept anonymous)
claimed that she walked in on Cipolla and Tucker, in Tucker's bedroom, while
Tucker had a thermometer up his rectum.  Thompson staged the story, yet again.

If you see what's wrong with the picture described by Engel, please write to me
and let me know that you know what it is, so that I can have my faith restored in
humanity.  It actually is disconcerting, discouraging, disheartening to have found
that people today can be so easily deceived.  You have to test accusations for cracks.
You don't mindlessly believe people..



Engel stated that Diane Thompson said that things were bad in 1978 and that
Cipolla's appearance on the scene was seen as a God-send.  Yet, the same Randy
Engel stated that Diane Thompson's daughter said that things were good in 1978
and that they didn't become bad until Cipolla showed up?  Okay then.  Which
is it?  Was Cipolla seen as a Saint Bernard Rescue Dog or an intruder who very
unwelcomely bullied himself into Frank and Tucker's airspace?  Thompson and
her daughter contradict each other more than once.  How can he believe either
one of them.

Now remember:  I am more than willing to declare Cipolla a wicked molester,
but you people aren't helping to make that happen.  You are actually doing the


Concerning Anthony Cipolla's alleged molestation of Frank Labieaux at a
motel/hotel near the Henry Ford Museum, there is a red flag attached to it.

Uuuuuuhm, Randy Engel ever-so-coincidentally described the MO of the
infamous Father John Hoehl.  This is pertinent, because Diane Thompson
obsessively read my posts and even viewed my photography, meaning that
she knew that my high school principal was the infamous John Hoehl.  So,
she ever-so-coincidentally described Cipolla as molesting her son the way
in which Hoehl, and such a thing would give an air of credibility  HOW-
EVER,  Thompson or Frank left out a huge feature to the Hoehl MO
which made the description of it sound suspect ... and even bogus.

Now, Thompson said that Cipolla made Frank were his T-shirt top only,
and get in bed with him.  Big Problem with this:  John Hoehl used over-
ly sized night shirts, likened to the ones used in 18th Century Europe.
In that way, you can sneak your hands into a student's body.  In con-
trast, standard modern T-shirts and tight fighting and don't provide
space for roaming hands.  This description sounds all too suspicious,
as in plagiarization.  At face value, it seems as if a very incompetent
attempt to plagiarize Hoehl and sound credible failed.

PLUS, if Frank were molested by Cipolla during the Henry Ford Museum
trip ... if there ever were such trip ... then why would he want to go to the
PIME seminary grounds after the  molestation?  Wouldn't he want to avoid
Cipolla like the plaque?

Moreover, there was NO $45 fee for going to the seminary for a visit.  The
purpose for those visits were NOT to make money.  There were to find re-
cruits for the seminary.  There were designed to inspire young men into
becoming missionaries.  That was the only reason:  recruits.

Incidentally, the Nov 2016 article was the first time when I read that Di-
ane Thompson mentioned that Cipolla took her son to the Henry Ford
Museum.   In as much, there is never to be found any consistency in
Thompson's allegations.

Concerning the allegation of the 70 year manager / cashier / worker of a
nearby convenience store who viciously slapped Tucker in the fact, you
need to think:

Firstly, neither Diane Thompson's name nor Tucker's name was in the
newspapers, on TV, or on the radio.  So, who would anyone have known
that Tucker accused Cipolla of anything?  More importantly . . .

We are talking about the Northside of Pittsburgh here.

Q:  And what did that mean  in the 1970s?  ANS: High Crime Area.
In as much . . .

If a 70 year old person were working at a convenience store in the high crime
area of the Northside, then he would have been an easy target for robberies.
This means that the 70 year old have been repeatedly targeted and robbed.
This means that he wouldn't have been at that convenient store for very long.

All in all, do you believe all of the theatrical tales that Thompson told?
Don't you think that it was a bit too much for believability?

Concerning her allegation of violent and forceful retaliations, I previously
told you .... as one who was caught in the middle of clergy retaliations ...
that Thompson's description is NOT what I experienced.  Now, I already
mentioned that, in retaliations, it gets to the point where the corrupt clerics
try to turn the tables and get the accuser in court as a defendant.  But, there
are some things that I did not yet state about retaliations, as I have experi-
enced them:

1}  The first leg of retaliation involves MONEY, as in cancelling business
contracts, firing someone, and cutting off a person's income in other ways.

2} When people learn that someone accused a priest of wrongdoing, they
do not call the guy on the phone or send letters ... from my experience.
They shy away from the person, not wanting to get involved.  Getting
phone calls from non-relatives didn't happen to Torquato's credible wit-
ness.  Thus, Thompson was NOT believable in her theatrical account of

3} A DA doesn't have to intimidate a civilian into dropping charges, being
that a civilian is NOT the one who files charges.  All that a DA needs to do
is NOTHING ... to NOT do his job.  Therefore, it's NOT up to the civilian
to file or drop charges.  In fact, if a sheet of paper accusing someone of
some wrong doing does NOT have the signature of a judge, then there has
not yet been the filing of charges.  Now, I have explained this previously.
I have explained the procedure of a private criminal complaint which is
what Thompson filed back in 1978  So, at this point, I perhaps need to ex-

Firstly, Engel lied when she stated that "the police" filed charges on Cipolla.
I've explained this, as did certain law firms on their websites.  Therefore, in
Thompson's case, the police did NOT arrest Cipolla and charge him.  That
which Thompson did was file a Private Criminal Complaint.  She was at
the stage when the actual filing was next to be done, if and only if she
could convince a judge that there existed PROBABLE CAUSE that
would warrant a warrant for Cipolla's arrest.

Now, I previously explained the Private Criminal Complaint law of PA.
I did NOT explain its origin.  Well, it goes like this:

It dates back to 1963.

Q:  And what was so important about 1963?
ANS:  The NAACP vs Button Supreme Court case.

Q:  And what was so big about that case, aside of the fact that the US Su-
preme Court ruled that a state supreme court ruling could be appealed to
the US Supreme Court directly, as opposed to the US District Court?

ANS:  It answered the question if whether or not a private citizen or an
association such as the NAACP had the constitutional right to plead cases
in courts of law, as if to be attorneys.

Q:  What was the answer?

ANS: Yes.  Such a right is an element of freedom of speech, being that one's
Freedom of Speech is NOT limited to "abstract discussion."  Thus, the right
to litigate was constitutional, and therefore, a private citizen or association
had the right to appear as attorneys ... under well regulated rules.  Thus, in
1963, the Pennsylvania State Legislature placed into law the well regulated
rules by which a private citizen could file a private criminal complaint and
act as a prosecuting attorney.  Such prosecutorial status was still under the
power of a judge, and therefore, any such prosecution was first subject to
the signature of a judge on an official sheet of paper.  In other words, you
can't become a prosecutor in place of a DA or solicitor until a judge said
you could do so.

All in all, all that Thompson did was begin the process of a private criminal
complaint.  She still had a couple more steps to go.  Yet, she made it sound
as if the police arrested and charged Cipolla, as if the police were the judges
of America.

Well, Thompson suddenly refused to continue the private criminal complaint
process.  She refused to prosecute.  Now, she gave a theatrical narration of why
she refused to continue with the process.  But, there are more viable possible

One reason for her dropping the case before it became a case would possibly
have been her being told that she would have to pay fees, in order to continue.
Another reason could have been the DA telling her that she needed to present
proof or witness corroboration to a judge at city court and that she had none.
She wouldn't be honest and mention what actually did happen.  She exaggerat-
ed severely.

Keep in mind that, if there were plausible evidence in existence against Cipol-
la, then the police would have filed the paperwork that would have resulted in
a judge indicting Cipolla.  They would not have needed her.  However, she de-
scribed things according to fictional TV detective shows, and such things did
present the law in a way different than the reality.

For example, you might have watched a fictional show where a witness said
that he/she refused to testify against a certain criminal and therefore the police
had to let the criminal go.  Well, that was merely for theatrical fictional effect.
The truth is that ... unless you are a spouse or priest confessor or psychologist
of the accused ... if you get a subpoena to appear in court as a witness, you
HAVE to testify, provided you are provided with the compensation of food
expenses, travel expenses, and lodging expenses.  So, Thompson seemingly
and apparently told a story according to the TV fictions that she watched in
the 1960s and 1970s.  Thus, we don't know the truth about the Cipolla Case.


Concerning the claim that Cipolla was diagnosed as having severe sexual

The allegation only came from Diane Thompson and she had zero evidence
to prove it.  MOREOVER, Chicago journalist, Mike Volpe and I did see the
psychiatric reports papers about Cipolla.  Both Mike and I, in our own separ-
ate and autonomous writings, told you that all that Cipolla was diagnosed as
having was:

1} Suicidal Tendencies   and  2} Severe Depression.

Concerning the papers that I personally held and viewed, there was NO MEN-
TION of sexual perversity in any of Cipolla's psychiatric reports.  Engel was
merely quoting Thompson while have ZERO EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT.


Incidentally, any priest who was removed from ministry has to be sustained
with a pensions (aka stipend) from his bishop.  After all, the convicted felon,
Richard Dorsch, received monthly stipends from the Diocese of Pittsburgh.


Another Thing:  The Charlie Wilson with whom I spoke is a fine man and
NOT the louse Randy Engel made him out to be.  You have to remember
one thing:  Randy Engel is an outsider.  She was not on the inside of any
church corruption matter.  She never had thugs physically go after her.
I know what that is like.  NOT Engel.  Engel is merely a spectator in
the cheap seats.

As I told you previously, if you want to know what it's like to be the target
of retaliation, then come to me to find out, and not Randy Engel from her
cheap seats.  If you want to know what it's like to have someone attempt
to literally kill you, and to be told about it from personal experience, you
come to me.  NOT Engel.

Remember, in all that I wrote about the Torquato Retaliations.  I didn't write
it as a journalist.  I wrote it as a witness who was there.