December 20, 2018

A Fourth Pittsburgh area molester got away, thanks to Donald Wuerl, ACCORDING to Cleveland Plain Dealer & Bryant Times

    In re: Wuerl's Triple Cover-up which resulted in the indictments of Fathers
    Robert Wolk, Richard Zula, and Francis Pucci, accompanied by District
    Attorney John C Pettit calling Wuerl and his staff less-than-cooperative.

     The Cleveland Plain Dealer mentioned the existence of an alleged fourth
     assailant in the case involving Frs. Wolk-Zula-&-Pucci.  The Plain Deal-
     er mentioned four additional youths abused by either/or Frs Pucci, Wolk,
     Zula, the fourth suspect.  The Bryan Times, which served Ohioans on the
     Northwestern sector of the state reported the same things.

     The fourth person was GEORGE ZIRWAS, someone who conveniently
     found his way to Cuba, only to meet his death in an unholy setting.

    Incidentally, Robert Wolk was ordained the exact same year in which
    Wuerl was.  This would indicate that Wolk and Wuerl were classmates.
    This would indicate cronyism in Wuerl's cover-up and in him publicly
    stating that telling a priest that he can no longer be in ministry "is a
    devastating thing to do."

    In 2015, Wuerl was hailed as a Poor Richard, living the ascetic life in a
    closed- down school.  He was then discovered to be living the Marie An-
    toinette lifestyle, in a $43 million complex, along Washington DC's posh
    Embassy Row.
Wuerl was being hailed as an ascetic even when he was living 
in this Pittsburgh mansion.  The lies about Wuerl were uncovered 
with documents, photos, and news archives.  He's a walking lie.  

As a humorous note, as soon as I took this photo, a "guard" 
dog came out of the mansion.   My remaining photos of the 
area were accompanied with the hostile sound of the dog.  
    Wuerl only had a zero tolerance track record when it came to having zero
    tolerance toward whistle-blowers who tried to clean-up the corruption in
    Wuerl's own diocese.  This included James Torquato's evidence-based ac-
    cuser.  You can add the Paul Dorsch who was a credible accuser of the
    notorious John Hoehl, not to mention the Chris Witkowski whose case
    was mentioned in the 2018 Pennsylvania Grand Jury Report.  Chris's
    perp was John Wellinger.  Also add the previously mentioned whistle-
    blower roll call the deacon whom Wuerl would never allow to be or-
    dained a priest.

   The press treatment of Wuerl has been a very unconscionable lie, regarding
   him being hailed as a heroic & caring zero tolerance bishop.  He was just 
   another bishop who had his share of cover-ups and even retaliations, all the
   while having been an eight-year-long rebel against the Vatican ban on Dig-
    nity Masses.

   All in all, Wuerl was one of the first bishops caught performing a cover-up.
   My research shows that he was the second bishop, only preceded by the La-
   fayette Louisiana diocese's cover-up of Gilbert Gauthe.

The Bryan Times article:,4088961&dq=wolk+arrested+pittsburgh+zula+pucci&hl=en

The Cleveland Plain Dealer article:

December 16, 2018

Wuerl kept the notorious Father Hoehl in ministry, even after the "life-changing epiphany" dinner proclaimed by Propagandist Ann Rodgers.

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, where Cardinal Donald Wuerl's web of corruption was spun,
with the help the Ann Rodgers who was repeatedly caught lying in print, via fact checking.
Nor did he report Wolk, Zula, and Pucci to the police.  Attorney F. Peter
Dixon did.  Attn Dixon was a friend of the victimized family.

For those unaware, John Hoehl was put on administrative leave by then-
Bishop Anthony Bevilacqua.  Hoehl WAS removed from the priesthood
ministry.  Wuerl reinstated him.  THEREFORE, if Wuerl had the life-
changing epiphany that the deceptive, non-Catholic, and pathologically
bland Ann Rodgers claimed, then Donald Wuerl would have reported 
Wolk, Zula, Pucci, Huff, and Hoehl to the law enforcement authorities.  
He did not do so.  Thus, Ann Rodgers is once again found to be a liar, 
predictably enough.  

Then there was Wellinger, not to mention Wuerl reinstating Huff.  All in
all, know that Ann Rodgers IS a liar.  She was a non-Catholic Pittsburgh
Post Gazette writer who was appointed Pittsburgh Roman Catholic Dio-
cesan director of communications.  She still is a Protestant.  Her appoint-
ment is a case study in cronyism and Vatican II corruption.  Read onward,
because you need to know what liars comprise the Wuerl propaganda
machine.  Incidentally, he did NOT write the Teachings of Christ.  He
was merely one of three editors of the catechism book which had a
multiplicity of authors.  Wuerl, himself, begane the lie which claimed
that he wrote that catechism book single-handedly, doing so in 1979,

Concerning the two lads corrupted by Wolk, Zula, and Pucci, know that
each priest performed his antics at different times, on different occasions.
It wasn't one of those "all-three-at-once" scenarios, to state it politely.

The Pittsburgh Post Gazette story which was easy to prove false was that
Wuerl had a life-changing enlightenment when he went to the home of the
two lads sodomized by Wolk, Zula, and Pucci, and then instantly became
the champion of zero tolerance.  That scenario did NOT happen.  Ann
Rodgers (formerly of the Pgh Post Gazette) was and is a liar, and she
never sued me for calling her a liar.

Proof that the Ann Rodgers story is a fairy tale exists in the fact that District
Attorney John C. Pettit issued a press release which stated that Donald Wuerl,
as well as staff members of his then-diocese of Pittsburgh, were uncooperative
with law enforcement officials throughout the investigation that resulted in the
indictments of Wolk, Zula, and Pucci.

In addition, if Wuerl were the heroic bishop of zero tolerance that Ann Rodgers
said he was, then Wuerl would have immediately suspended the notorious John
Hoehl whom Wuerl personally put back into ministry, shortly before that dinner
transpired.  For the record, it was Donald Wuerl's predecessor, the destined-to-be-
disgraced Anthony Bevilacqua, who ordered Hoehl on administrative leave.

Now, if the 5'4" Donald Wuerl whom Ann Rodgers falsely described in print as
an ascetic 5'11" were the model of zero tolerance, then Donald Wuerl would also
not have reinstated into ministry the Fr Edward Huff who would eventually be-
come criminally indicted and convicted.  Wuerl was covering-up Huff while he
was being lauded as a bishop of zero tolerance in the Anthony Cipolla Case.

And of course, after the fact-checking, and after Bendig multiply lied to me,
and after the spiritually grotesque Diane Thompson repeatedly lied about me
and changed her story about Anthony Cipolla, it was confirmed that Anthony
Cipolla was 95 to 98% innocent as accused.  After all, Cipolla never was in-
dicted, and a DA can file an indictment without Diane Thompson's permis-
sion to do so.  Of course, this refers to my future defendant, Diane Thomp-
son, who harassed me and repeatedly committed libel against me.  She is
quite arrogant, as well as erratic in her writings which were fact-checked
and found to be bullet-riddled with easily provable falsehoods, as is ex-
plained in a few Wuerlgate articles.

Wolk, Zula, & Pucci

The first of the three to be indicted was Wolk, and after Wolk was indicted,
Wuerl gave an excuse for his cover-up of him.  Only afterward did Wuerl
do the artificial grandstanding, with sleight of hand semantics involved.
Wuerl was no champion of Zero Tolerance.  Wuerl was caught and then
had to quickly construct a facade.

The other proof is that Wuerl reinstated the suspended Father John Hoehl.
After that dinner, Wuerl kept Hoehl in ministry, thereby very much tolerat-
ing a priest who caused a lot of lingering psychological damage to a num-
ber of individuals.  Wuerl stubbornly kept Hoehl in ministry until Father
Robert Wolk was indicted.  Then Wuerl treated Hoehl as a hot potato and
showed him the exit door.

Now, do you see what a liar Ann Rodgers and the other Wuerl People are?
Concerning Rodgers, she meddled in influencing the Catholic mind.  Yet,
she refuses to be a Catholic.

An added scandal  is in the fact that David Zubik, a secretary of John Hoehl,
never reported Hoehl for his well-noted sex crimes.  However, my opinion is
that David Zubik had no idea of what Hoehl was doing in his private life.  I
personally knew Fr. Dave.  Dave didn't buddy around with the athletes whom
Hoehl targeted.  Dave wasn't in the inner circle.  In my opinion David Zubik
isn't an accomplice.  The problem is that he wasn't alert to his surroundings.
He needed to reach-out more.  If he did, he could have spared someone of
the grief that comes with being a high school headmaster's prey.

As was previously stated and ignored by the Vatican . . .

Added proof that Wuerl was NO hero of zero tolerance exists in the fact that
Wuerl  also reinstated the Edward Huff who ended up being indicted and con-
victed.  Thus, as you can see, the story of Wuerl being a crystal clear saint of
zero tolerance is a complete falsehood.  Wuerl IS as corrupt as they come, and
the stories were a part of that criminal corruption.

Concerning Hoehl and the time of the Wolk indictment, if Wuerl were found
to have a criminal in ministry, law enforcement would have scoured the Pitts-
burgh diocese and Wuerl in investigative detail.  Wuerl's private life, even
when he was the long-term secretary under John Cardinal Wright, would
have been revealed to law enforcement authorities.  Wuerl stubbornly kept
John Hoehl in  diocesan ministry for as long as he could do so, without hav-
ing the Diocese of Pittsburgh become a magnetized target of a detialed law
enforcement investigation.

Added proof that Wuerl had NO change of heart after the dinner evening
with the family victimized by Wolk, Zula, and Pucci was that he did NOT
report those three priests.  An attorney who was a friend of the victimized
family did the reporting thereof.  So, as you can see, Ann Rodgers, former-
ly of the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, is a liar.  Rocco Palmo and Christopher
Dickey were fools to have used her as a source in their articles about Don-
ald Wuerl which were basically two plagiarisms of Rodgers; falsehoods.
They lost credibility with anyone familiar with the Wuerlgate Jpegs, news
archives, and witness accounts.  They lost credible with anyone who was
there in Pittsburgh during the 1990s.

IN AS MUCH,  contrary to what Christopher Dickey wrote, the truth is that
the only reason why Wuerl and his former Diocese of Pittsburgh had one of
the first no-tolerance sex abuse policies in America was because:

Wuerl was one of the very first bishops in the United States who got 
caught concealing criminal priests from law enforcement authorities.

So, he had to strike the disciplinarian pose while the law enforcement
spotlight was on him.  Wuerl was caught being uncooperative with
DA John C. Pettit.  So, Wuerl fabricated a new image of himself.
It included him announcing a zero tolerance sex abuse policy.


Wuerl's sex abuse policy did NOT apply to 1} the case of  Edward Huff
who would eventually be criminally indicted, 2} the credible seminarian
Wuerl prevented from being ordained, 3} the  case of Fr. James Torquato,
4} the case of Fr. John Wellinger,  Plus, the policy was NOT implement-
ed until after Wuerl put the notorious John S. Hoehl back into ministry.
Even more hypocritical was the fact that Wuerl put back into ministry
the previously mentioned Edward Huff who was reported to Wuerl
three different times, by the differing sets of concerned Catholics.
The Zero-Tolerance label placed on Wuerl was a fraudulent claim.

For those unfamiliar, Ann Rodgers was a writer for the Pittsburgh Post Gazette.
Even though she was never any type of Catholic, she was assigned to be head
of the Communications Dept of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh.
On multiple fact-checking occasions, Ann Rodgers was caught lying in print.

A Review of Wuerl's Triple Cover-up

To start, Wuerl had a Father Arnott go to the violated family, to see if they
would be willing to meet with Wuerl.  But, this only occurred when Wuerl
learned that the family was going to report the priests to law enforcement
authorities.  The Donald Wuerl who was sued many times by Pittsburgh
area residents sought to get his foot into the door.  Wuerl basically invited

Do NOT ever be deceived into thinking that Wuerl was a revered presence
in Pittsburgh.  The number of lawsuits filed against him proves  otherwise.
Wuerl had contrived press and media coverage, as well as the pit bull Ron
Lengwin who actually is very tall and who allegedly sought to intimidate
people in the mode of a big bully.  Me seeing how tall Lengwin is was as
shocking to me as having seen how tiny Wuerl is.  All that Lengwin ever
did to me was smile at me with gritted teeth and a snarl.  He kept moving
and I never saw him again.  This was at the diocesan building.

If Wuerl's meeting with the family were similar to other people's encounters
with Wuerl, then I can assure you that he left the family feeling violated and
outraged.  I can assure you that he triggered a sense of insult so intense that
they went forth and gave the greenlight to Attorney F. Peter Dixon who end-
ed up reporting the three priests to law enforcement officials.

As soon as the indictment was filed, Wuerl got rid of Hoehl like a sand bag in
a hot air balloon losing altitude.  But, not until then.  This is extremely interest-
ing, in that it indicates that Wuerl seemingly assumed that the violated family
would not report the three molester priests to the police.  If Wuerl anticipated
the reporting thereof, he would have gotten rid of John Hoehl immediately.
Wuerl let Hoehl remain in ministry, as if Wuerl arrogantly assumed that he
controlled the violated family on a set of puppet strings.

Wuerl keeping Fr. John Hoehl in ministry after the meeting with
the family of two molested altar boys proves that  Wuerl had no
change of heart or policy that resulted from the meeting/dinner.
The claim that the meeting changed Wuerl is lying propaganda.

During the journalists' 2013 papal conjecture phrase, shortly before Francis I
ascended to the Chair of Saint Peter, the Daily Beast's Paris bureau chief con-
jectured that Cardinal Wuerl was America's candidate for pope, in light of the
newspaper articles that glorified Wuerl, especially in the heavily misrepresent-
ed Anthony Cipolla case that starred a seminary flunk-out who was described
as a perpetual and pathological liar by multiple persons who knew him.  In fact,
the Cipolla case starred an individual who was even declared NOT credible by
Donald Wuerl, at one time.  His name is Tim Bendig and he lied to me four
times in a row in the Year 2014, during a telephone conversation that he
initiated with me during work hours.  I conducted that conversation in a
construction trailer office, next to a drawing board.

The Paris bureau chief then stated that Wuerl apparently became too tired to
fight the good fight that the media described Wuerl as having fought.  Dickey
then referred to one of Ann Rodgers' Pgh Post Gazette articles, stating:

     But a few weeks after that decision Wuerl met with the devout, deeply
     disillusioned, and increasingly litigious family of one victim.  They in-
     vited Wuerl to dinner and, according to a lengthy and laudatory report
     in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in 2003, when Wuerl left that table his
     views of the issue had changed.  Before, his actions had been closely
     aligned church policies, which were basically a CYA masquerading
     as piety.

     Now Wuerl told his staff it had to get its priorities straight: the first
    concern was the injured party, the second was for the person’s family,
    the third—and only the third—was the potential harm to the church
    and its reputation.   He’s on the record declaring zero tolerance for
    priests accused of sexual abuse 14 years before that became official
The decision to which Dickey referred was Wuerl's decision to put back
into ministry the notorious John S. Hoehl, former headmaster of Quigley
H.S., in Baden Pennsylvania.  I attended that school for four years.  And
yes, I heard the rumors while in school.

Furthermore, Wuerl did NOT observe the policy he announced in the case
of Edward Huff.  Plus, his policy did NOT apply to Torquato's prey or to
the credible deacon whistle blower Wuerl trapped and refused to ordain
into the priesthood.  Yet, Wuerl ordained the homosexual predator, James
Torquato, and covered up Torquato's wrongs, thereby approving of them
in deed.

The source of this letter is self-evident.

December 13, 2018

The News Reports on Fr. John Wellinger, in Review

The downtown building still stands, but headquarters was moved
to a section near Heinz Field, on the North Shore of Pittsburgh
The news from Western PA's mainstream media now serves as a quasi-
corroboration, but not specific corroboration.  It refers to the allegations
pertaining to Wellinger and the claim that Pittsburgh diocesan personnel
neglected to act when Wellinger was reported for suspicious conduct.

The thesis statement is that the Diocese of Pittsburgh was ALLEGEDLY
notified about Wellinger long before diocesan spokesman Ron Lengwin
claims that it was.  The allegation goes on to state that the diocese did no-
thing when John Wellinger was first accused.  Therefore, the recent main-
stream media reports give my sources on the issue much more credibility
in my eyes.  This includes the credibility of Mike Ference.

Now, concerning Mike, I am well aware of his comment board statements
throughout the internet.  Keep in mind that he was the dad of the high school
student shot in the back of the head while sitting on a bus, about to disembark
for another day of school.  Then came the truncating of the investigation, in as
far as concerned who and what was the cause of a fellow student firing a round
from a 32 caliber hand gun into the head of young Adam Ference.  There is al-
so the matter of how Mike was badgered out of his regional management job
with a company who had Pittsburgh diocesan entities as customers.

Add to this the intimidating theatrics played by a Pittsburgh Diocesan attorney,
during a deposition which pertained to the Ference lawsuit.  Keep in mind that
the Ference attorney simply asked a law enforcement man what he knew about
a John Wellinger molesting youth of the McKeesport area (a Pittsburgh, suburb
located near the Clairton PA which was made famous by the Deniro & Streep
movie called, the Deer Hunter.)

Mike was told that customers complained about him, but only after the shoot-
ing and Mike's desire to get to the root cause of the shooting.  In defense of
Mike, I posted a number of letters of recommendation from clients of his who
had no complaints against Mike.  Thus, it caused to wonder if the Diocese of
Pittsburgh, when under Donald Wuerl, performed a few bully tactics, in order
to get Mike Ference dislodged from his employment position.

You must keep in mind that Donald Wuerl brings out the worst in everyone,
even in those regarded as his friends.  In those who are regarded as being in
Wuerl's circle, Wuerl brings out arrogance and conceit, as well as ruthless-
ness.  In as much, you can see why Mike would write what he did on some
internet comment boards.  He was actually trying to trigger the re-opening
of Adam's case.

Now, concerning Mike, he sent me a few pages of Jpeg evidence which I
did NOT post.  None the less, that evidence gave plausibility to Mike's alle-
gations.  Plus, two accused men of the cloth, namely Br. Kenneth Ghastin
and Fr. Michael Ledoux, ever so coincidentally were stationed at the same
Serra Catholic High School that hosted the attempted murder and success-
ful suicide involving Mike Ference's son.  Think!  What if it happened to
you?  Would you have sat back and said, "Ho hum, twindly dee.  Who
cares?"  ANS:  Not if you're human and still have blood circulating with-
in you.  You would have ended doing what Mike Ference did.

The aforementioned pieces of evidence, both circumstantial and material, are
more than enough to give a degree of plausibility to Mike, in as so far as goes

1} truncated investigation of the attempted murder of his son,
2} the loss of a job that paid a bit more than that of a night watchman,
3} the intimidation tactic of a Pgh diocesan attorney during a deposition.

Mike has suffered greatly for years.   I don't abandon those who suffer intense-
ly.  Of course, I only posted a small fraction of what he submitted to me and
heavily edited it, as well.  Plus, I only posted that which pertains to the shoot-
ing of Mike's son.  None the less, that which is posted here about the shooting
of Adam Ference is worth the read.  In fact, the recent news about Father John
Wellinger gives Mike much more credibility.  At the very least, give Mike your
emotional support, in at least wishing him well.  After all, how you would like
it if all the things that happened to Mike happened to you?  So, extend charity
to him.

The second person to report Wellinger alleges that Donald Wuerl treated 
him with indifference, upon the reporting.  The second accuser became 
party to a class action suit and received an out of court settlement in the 

When he was bishop of Pittsburgh, Donald Wuerl was caught performing the
simultaneous cover-up of four diocesan priests, three of whom were criminal-
ly indicted.  Wuerl disregarded of the Child Protective Services Act which re-
quired all "mandated reporters" to report molesters to Child Youth Services.
The Diocese of Pittsburgh's claim that it had no obligation to report molester
priests contradicts itself in that it operates grade schools and high schools, as
well as employs the services of youth, in the capacity of altar servers & choir
members.  If it's not a mandated reporter, then no institution is.

The official diocesan spokesman, as well as the Allegheny County 
district attorney, claimed that the Diocese of Pittsburgh had no ob-
ligation to notify Child Youth Services about the priests, as  was
prescribed in the Child Protective Services Act.    In direct  con-
trast was James A. Esler, head of the human service section of
Allegheny County's Law Department.   He stated that there  was
no question in his mind that the Diocese of Pittsburgh had the
obligation to report those priests.   Today, it is understood that
anyone aware of a molester has the obligation to report him,
for the sake of those who would otherwise become future sex
abuse casualties.  

See also:

The four documented priests not reported by Wuerl to the CYS were Wolk,
Zula, Pucci, and Hoehl.  Pursuant to recent evidence and to evidence which
already existed, Donald Wuerl's former diocese was allegedly engaged in a
fifth cover-up in the same one year ... in Wuerl's first year as bishop of Pitts-
burgh.  The existence of a fifth priest as being held in Wuerl's shadow was
confirmed via recent electronic communication.  It was a communication of
the alleged first victim of the alleged fifth ausive priest.  The evidence of this
fifth priest was also supported by the actions of a diocesan attorney during a
lawsuit's deposition, by which he acted as if the diocese had something seri-
ous to hide about the priest.  The priest was Fr. John Wellinger.

    The electronic communication was NOT intercepted.  It was freely
       given by the communication's recipient.  It was perfectly legal.

John Wellinger was accused of having spiked a youth's drink, rendering the
young man unconscious.  When the youth awakened, he managed to call 911
and get taken to a nearby hospital, allegedly.    He then notified the attending
nurse that the priest who made his way into the hospital was the one who "did
this" to him.

In addition, the individual claimed that no doctor treated him and that the
police were never called.  However, the accuser's dad allegedly received
written notice from the diocese, informing him that he was banned from
the grounds where the accused priest lived.  This is because the dad of
the spiked-drink victim allegedly went to confront the priest during a par-
ish council meeting.  The same priest would later be accused of harming
yet another youth, only more graphically.

This allegation, on it's own, is weak and needs some type of corrobora-
tion.  Well, a plausible form of corroboration occurred during a lawsuit's
deposition.  You see, there was a Serra Catholic High School student
who was shot in the back of the head shortly after the bus rolled onto
Catholic Church grounds.  A lawsuit ensued, and during a deposition,
the witness being questioned was asked the following, to the effect

"What do you know about a Catholic priest by the name of John 
  Wellinger sexually abusing any students at Serra Catholic High 

The question was inspired by the local law enforcement head who pro-
posed that the Serra Catholic student who was shot in the head was shot
by a fellow student who might have been molested and/or psychological-
ly influenced by Fr. John Wellinger.  If no accusations against John Well-
inger existed, then the witness under oath could have simply said that he
knew of no such thing.  However, the diocese's defense attorney immedi-
ately pounded his first on the table and loudly objected, as if the diocesan
had something to hide.

In addition, during this time was Wuerl's long distance musical chairs
cover-up of Edward Huff, between Pittsburgh and St. Louis. 

In his fit of rage, the diocesan attorney mentioned that he would file cer-
tain motions, should the question be pursued.  This indicates that Wuerl
and his diocese had something to hide.  Well, ever so coincidentally, the
same Fr. John Wellinger would come to be accused of molestation by
an entirely different person in the years to come. 

Concerning any valid objection at the deposition, it would have been the
common "assumes facts not in evidence," upon which the plaintiff's at-
torney could have easily rephrased the question.  He didn't rephrase it.
That was suspicious.  In the end, the attorney for the shooting victim's
family did more for Donald Wuerl than the victimized family.  Why?

The theatrical display of the diocesan attorney frightened the father of the
young man who was shot in the head.  Therefore, the family resolved to
walk away from the case.  But a few weeks after the fist pounding inci-
dent, the victim family's attorney contacted the dad, to let him know that
an out of court settlement had been reached with Wuerl's diocese.

The father and son both agreed to refuse the offer, so that it could never
be said that they were only in it for the money.  However, the family's at-
torney urged the settlement to be signed, so that the law firm could be
paid through a percentage thereof.  If there would be no settlement, then
the law firm's share would come out of the escrow account that was cre-
ated to cover the costs of the case.

Sadly, the father and son agreed to the settlement, under a sense of com-
pulsion and duress.  The settlement was for only $5,000 ... a very small
sum for an attempted murder civil action.  None the less, it was the result
of fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation, in that the lawyer never told
the father that the deposition question could have easily been rephrased
and that the dad was within his rights to pursue the case.  The dad was
made to live in fear, due to a mistaken notion.  That constitutes fraud.

The dad of the young man shot in the head realized later that the theatri-
cal display of the diocese's attorney was exactly that ... a show.  What
disturbed the dad was that his attorney had the fiduciary obligation to
tell him that the diocese's attorney was playing games, and that fist-
pounding-the-table-routine was merely an intimidation tactic.

Fr. John Wellinger: Either the Pittsburgh diocesan spokesman lied about him or the secretary of Wellinger's former parish did.

Below is the transcript of the alleged recorded interview of a former secretary
of Fr. John Wellinger's former parish.  The secretary alleged that she informed 
Pittsburgh diocesan spokesman, Fr. Ron Lengwin, about Wellinger in the late 
1980s.  In contrast, Lengwin publicly stated that Wellinger was not reported to 
the diocese until 1995.  This means that someone is lying about a Father John
Wellinger who walked away from ministry on his own accord; either Lengwin
or the secretary of the late John Wellinger.

Now, the red flag about the Wellinger case is that he left ministry via "personal
leave."  There was no strong disciplinarian enforcing administrative leave on 
him.  In addition, since 1999, I have never heard anything honorable about the 
very tall Ron Lengwin, by any of my sources.  He was repeatedly alleged to be 
Donald Wuerl's attacking pit bull.  A bully ... allegedly.

And yes, I surprised to see how tall he was, as we passed by each other in a dio-
cesan building hallway, during the Torquato Retaliations.   Incidentally, when 
he did say hello to me, he did so with slightly gritted teeth and an ornery facial 
expression.  I kept walking.

The transcript is preceded by an introduction, written the Mike Ference who 
is no stranger to diocesan intimidation tactics ... allegedly.

In the Ference case, the Ferences had the right to know the motivating force
behind Bobby Butler pulling the trigger of a lethal weapon twice on a school 
bus of unarmed teenagers.  Add to the Serra Catholic equation, the previous-
ly accused Kenneth Ghastin who was stationed there when the shooting oc-
curred.  Include the accused Fr Michael LeDoux who would be assigned to 
Serra after the Adam Ference shooting.  There is something of substance in 
the Ference case, in as far as goes the motivating force in sweeping the en-
tire matter under a carpet.

Incidentally, all that is posted herein is presented to you as 'alleged,'
 concerning the contents.  Now for guest writer Mike Ference:

This is part of a taped interview with Marta P******* which I had got-
ten transcribed.  It's her describing her attempts to inform the Pittsburgh 
diocese of possible sexual abuse, along with drug and alcohol abuse, di-
rected toward Pittsburgh-area youths by late Catholic priest, Father John 
Wellinger.   For a description of Father John Wellinger’s alleged crimes 
visit either or

At least one alleged victim of John Wellinger credits my (Mike Ference's
years of investigation as helping to force the Pittsburgh Diocese to settle 
out of court with 31 other alleged victims of clergy abuse.   He's Chris 
Mathews, and if you would like to contact Chris, let me know and I'll 
pass your phone number or email address to him.

The Diocese of Pittsburgh could have prevented some tragedy, perhaps.

If the Pittsburgh Diocese had done the prudent thing, instead of adopting the
policy of disregarding people, Chris Mathews wouldn't have been sexually 
abused by John Wellinger, as was alleged.   Bobby Butler, Jr. may not have 
attempted to murder my son.  As importantly, Bobby may still be alive to-
today also, depending if he too were molested by Wellinger.  However, the
Pittsburgh diocese didn't seem to care.

Editor's Note:  Keep in mind that, during the deposition of a Clairton law
enforcement man, the Ference attorney asked him if he new anything about
John Wellinger molesting youth in the Clairton area.  The diocesan attorney
then banged on the table and starting employing intimidating speech which
under oath.  This makes the Diocese of Pittsburgh (under Donald Wuerl at
the time) look extremely suspicious.   Back to guest writer, Mike Ference: 

Had the Diocese of Pittsburgh done the prudent thing, then John Wellinger’s
alleged lover, laicized Catholic priest, Richard Dorsch, may have been halt-
ed before he began to sexually abuse youth.  Even Archbishop Bevilacqua 
may have been prevented from causing so much pain and agony in the Phil-
adelphia Archdiocese, as was described in the scathing report of the grand
jury investigation that transpired through the Philadelphia District Attorney’s 

Respectfully, Mike Ference

Beginning of interview

Mike: And I’m talking to Marta P******* (Mike then spelled her full name), 
           is that correct?
Marta: Right.
Mike: Your telephone number is 412-***-****.   What is your mother’s maid-
           en name, if I may ask?
Marta:  And you need this?
Mike:  I just wanted to identify, again if some one says “How do we know 
            we’re talking to Marta?”  You know what I mean, if that’s okay with 
            you?   If not, that’s okay.  You do not have to give that.
Marta: No, I don’t.   No.
Mike: You’d rather not give that?
Marta: No.
Mike: Ok, that’s fine.  That’s fine.
Marta: I mean, I am in the church year book, if you were to need anything 
Mike: Okay.
Mike: You are a resident of West Mifflin, is that correct?
Marta: Right.
Mike: You have been a member of the Holy Spirit Church for some time now, 
           for a number of years, since at least 1980 or 81?
Marta: Since 1968.
Mike: 1968! Oh my goodness.  Okay.
Mike: At the time a Priest by the name of (John Wellinger) came there, you 
          had a position with the church if I am not mistaken.  What position was 
Marta: I was the Parish secretary.
Mike: Was this a fulltime or part-time position?
Marta: It was part-time.
Mike: If I am not mistaken, you became suspicious of John Wellinger based 
           upon a couple of things that were occurring.  Is that correct?
Marta: Well, yeah.  I had a feeling that there was something not right. 
Mike: You were also told about a possible assault on a young boy by the 
           name of (*********).  Is that correct?
Marta: I wouldn’t say assault. 
Mike: Okay
Marta: What was told to me was that, he had given, I guess, liquor and 
            drugs to this young man, and was taken to the hospital. 
Mike: Right, okay.  And that Hospital was Shadyside Hospital, if I am 
           not mistaken.  Is that correct?
Marta: I am not sure. 
Mike: Okay.  And this would have happened? Do you think this happened 
           sometime in 1987?
Marta: Yeah, I guess so. 
Mike: Okay, so this happened in 1987.  You are also aware of the alleg-
           ed abuse that took place with a young boy by the name of (Chris 
           Mathews) sometime in 1989.  Is that correct?
Marta: Only that, I knew about it when it was in the paper.
Mike: When it was publicized.  Okay, it was publicized in 2003, or some-
           thing like that. 
Mike: The (*********) boy, I believe his first name is (****)?
Marta: Right. 
Mike: Okay.  At the time, he would have been about sixteen (16) years of 
           age, do you think?
Marta: Yeah, maybe fifteen (15) or sixteen (16).
Mike: Okay.
Mike: You can be relatively sure that he was under the age of eighteen (18)?
Marta: Yeah.
Mike: (**** *********’s) mother would have been (**** *********), 
Marta: Yes.  
Mike: She also worked for the church, or (John Wellinger) at that time, is 
           that correct?
Marta: Yes.  She was the CCD coordinator.
Mike: So, she was often around the church, and often either with John 
          Wellinger or performing church duties.  Things like that.  Is that 
Marta: Yeah. 
Mike: Am I permitted to ask you who told you about (****’s) incident?  
           I believe initially you may have said so.  Did you say it was (****
           *********) who told you this happened? 
Marta: No.
Mike: Okay, I am sorry. 
Marta: It wasn’t her.  You know, I can’t remember who told me.
Mike: Okay.
Marta: I kinda think it may have been (Michelle ********). 
Mike: She was the organist?
Marta: Right.
Mike: Okay.
Marta: But, I am not sure.
Mike: Okay.
Mike: Put it this way.  There were several people who were well aware 
           of this.
Marta: Yeah.
Mike: Okay, Okay.
Mike: So, again, we are proceeding with the assumption that John Well-
           inger may have given drugs and alcohol to a boy by the name of 
          (**** *********) sometime in the year of 1987.  The boy was 
          certainly under the age of eighteen (18), and was a minor to the 
          best of your recollection.
Marta: Right.
Mike: Okay.  Now, you also told me during the conversation we had,
           I believe back in August, that you had gone to the Pittsburgh 
           Catholic Diocese to talk about some of your concerns about 
           John Wellinger.  Is that correct?
Marta: That is correct. 
Mike: Would you say that you did that some time in the year 1988.

Marta: Yeah, I think so.  Although, this was before I resigned.
Mike: So this was before you resigned.  Do you know when you re-
           signed your duties from the church?
Marta: No.  I would have to look at my records. 
Mike: Do you have any idea when it might have been?
Marta: Um, It was probably in 1988 or 1989.
Mike: If it were 1989, do you have any idea about what month or any-
           thing like that?
Marta: That I resigned?
Mike: Yeah.
Marta: It may have been like late summer.
Mike: Late Summer of 1988 or 1989. Okay.
Mike: Is there any way you could double check this to see?
Marta: Yeah, If I am thinking if I still have my pay records or not.  Then 
            I could look that up. 
Mike: Okay, very good. 
Mike: So, you proceeded to go to the Pittsburgh Catholic Diocese.  Any 
           idea who you might have met with at the diocese?
Marta: I don’t remember.  I am thinking it was (Ron Lengwin) but I am 
            not sure.
Mike: You are not one hundred (100) percent sure?
Marta: No.
Mike: Okay.  Well let me ask you this.  To get a time frame on this, was 
           Bishop Bevilacqua that bishop at the time?
Marta: Yes, he was.
Mike: So, this was before Donald Wuerl?
Marta: Yes.
Mike: How do you know Bishop Bevilacqua was the bishop?  Is there 
           anything that you can say for sure other than “you know what, 
           I knew that when I went down there Bishop Bevilacqua was the 
           bishop, simply because he was the bishop”.  Maybe that is suf-
Marta: Umm, Yeah. 
Mike: Okay.  We could probably re-establish these dates, if we wanted to.
Mike: So, you met with a gentleman who you think may have been Fr Ron 
           Lengwin).  Do you recall some of the things you told him. 
Marta: Umm, Yeah. 
Mike: And, what were they?
Mike: I think, if I am not mistaken, you mentioned that there was a young 
           boy living at the rectory at the time?
Marta: Right.
Mike:  Did you tell that to Father Lengwin?
Marta: Yes.
Mike:  Do you recall what else you told to Father (Lengwin)?
Marta: Oh. Probably that a young couple spent the night at the rectory.
           They were trying to sneak out the next morning, and I just hap-
           pen to come by the stairs when they were trying to get out.
Mike: When you say young couple, do you mean young boy and girl?
Marta: I would say in their early twenties. They were friends of his.
Mike:  Do you know who they were?
Marta: No.
Mike:  Was that the type of behavior you might have experienced or at
            least heard about on a regular basis, or was this something new?
Marta: As far as the young couple, this only happened the one time that
           I am aware of.
Mike:  Okay
Marta: I did tell Father (Wellinger) that I saw them there, and He said it
            was only a few friends of his that stayed there.
Mike:  Okay.   You felt there was much more to it than just people staying
Marta: Well, I don’t know. I did not think it was proper for them to stay all
            night at the rectory, and then try to sneak out.
 Mike:  Okay.
 Marta: If they had been proper guests there, then why would they be
             hiding? Why wouldn't they just come out in the open?
Mike:  What makes you think they were actually sneaking out?
Marta: Because, there were people in the dining room.  That is where
            we would meet to have our staff meetings, and I came to my
            office through the living room to the dining room.  In that hall
            between the rooms is the stairs . As I came around the bend, the
            two were coming down the steps. They were trying to be real quiet.
Mike:  Do they know that you saw them?
Marta: Yeah.
Mike:  You were startled, and they were probably startled, I guess.  They
           were also kind of embarrassed, too?  I am guessing.   And then they
           just kind of …
Marta: ... left
Mike:  They shuffled out without saying hello, goodbye, or anything?
Marta: Yeah.
Mike:  Now, what did Father (Lengwin) say about this?
Marta: You know, I really do not recall.  I think he was just trying to write
            things down, not really making any comments about it.
Mike:  And you also told him about the young fellow that was living there
           for a time.   Do you have any idea on about who he was, or how old
           he was?
Marta: I do not know who he was.  I would say he could have been around
            seventeen or eighteen.
Mike:  Okay.
Marta: The only reason I knew, because I did not realize there was anybody
            up there, was the telephone bill came in, and I questioned Father
          (Wellinger) about it.   It was a big, long list.  I called the telephone
            company about this one number, but I am not sure what number it
Mike:  Was it like a 900 number, or something similar?
Marta: Yeah.
Mike:  Okay.
Marta: This is the only way I knew, and he said “Oh, that’s ( ).”  I am not
            certain of what name he gave.  He then said “he has been staying up
            there, and that would be him.  In fact, I think (Maria C******) hap-
            pened to pick up the phone, and heard him on the phone.”  Although,
            nothing was apparently ever said or done, because we got the tele-
            phone bill listing all those calls.
Mike:  So you told Father (Lengwin) about the boy living up there.   Was
            there any reaction from Father (Lengwin)?
Marta: Not that I can recall.
Mike:  After, was there anything else that you may have told Father (Lengwin)?
Marta: Umm, I am trying to think. 
Mike:  Did you tell him about the (W********) boy?
Marta: I don’t think I knew that at the time.
Mike: To make along story short, or to paraphrase it, you went to Father
          (Lengwin) with concerns about John (Wellinger) because of inap-
           propriate behavior.  Did you think at the time that it could have
           been some type of sexual behavior that may not have been accep-
           table for a Priest?
Marta: No, not at that time.
Mike:  No,  OK.  Not at that time.   Basically, you were reporting behavior
            that in your mind was suspicious.
Marta: Right.
Mike:  OK
Mike:  Now, so you left the diocese.   How did the diocese react to your
Marta: Well, they ... um ... Let’s see:  I know that I had put another call in
            to them, or they called me.  I can’t remember.
Mike:  That’s OK
Marta: They said it sounds like people inform you of things, and they made
            me feel like I was a busybody or something.
Mike:  Like you were sticking your nose into somebody else’s business
           where it did not belong, maybe?
Marta: Because people would tell me things.   I was they’re secretary, and
            people would tell me things.  I don’t know.  They would express
            concerns or thoughts.
Mike:  So, people would come to you because they had confidence in you.
            Probably also because of the fact that maybe you had been privy to
            something, and maybe they felt like they were helping in some way
            by putting some of the pieces together by giving you additional in-
Marta: Or they were curious and wanted to know.
Mike:  They may have come to you and said, what do you think?  And
            people were coming to you about his behavior, showing concern.
           As a result of this, you went to whom we think is Father (Lengwin)
           and, said, "Hey, I’m not sure if anything is going on, but here is what
           we have so far.
Marta: Right.
Mike:  Father (Lengwin) or whomever you spoke with, said “quit being such
           a busybody, and mind your own business.”  Now, did they send you
           any type of a letter or anything at all?
Marta: Oh, yes.   They sent me a letter, and asked me if they questioned
          (Wellinger) about anything that I said, would I want my name
Mike:  Okay.
Marta: I said no, because I think at that time I was still working.
Mike:  Okay, you were still working.
Marta: Right.
Mike:  Did they state anything else in that letter that you can recall?
            By the way, do you still have that letter?
Marta: I don’t know. I would have to look.
Mike:  Okay, you would have to look.  Do you recall anything else in that
            letter that may have been stated, or who the letter may have come
Marta: I know it came from the diocese.
Mike:  Okay.  Have you ever told anybody else about this, such as law en-
            forcement officials or anybody else that may have been able to help
            in this situation?  I think you did as much as you could with as much
            information as you had.  Is that a reasonable assumption on my part?
            I mean, you don’t have the authority to arrest anybody.    For you to
            question (Wellinger), that really doesn’t do any good, although you
            may have questioned him, or put him on the spot at times. 
Marta: Right.
Mike:  That doesn’t mean he’s going to tell you the truth or anything like that.
Marta: Yeah, I know.
Mike:  Did you ever talk to anybody else about this that may have been in a
           position to get some things done?
Marta: I’m not sure.   At one time, I think I did talk to one of the parish
            council members.
Mike:  And who would that have been?
Marta: That would have been (Rick M**********), but it would not have
            been about this.  It would have been more about how the money was
            being used.
Mike:  I see.
Marta: This would have involved with the parish share money.
Mike:  Okay.   Now when you are talking about money, are you talking about
            inappropriate expenditures in any way, or question about where some
            of the money was?  Was it something like that?
Marta: Well, yeah.  The parish share money wasn’t necessarily going to that.
             I didn’t know where it was going, you know.
Mike:  Okay.   Did anybody ever look into that?
Marta: I don’t think so.
Mike:  Okay.
Marta: You know. Nothing ever came back to me.
Mike:   Okay.  And what was that gentleman’s name again that was on the
             parish council?
Marta: That was (Rick Manischevic).
Mike:   Is he still a member of the parish council?
Marta: No.
Mike:   Okay.  Is he still involved in the church in any way?
Marta: yes. I believe he trains the ultra service.
Mike:  Were there any people who may have covered for John (Wellinger)
            if he did anything wrong that the church?
Marta: Oh, sure.
Mike:  Who do you think some of those people might have been?
Marta: Well, (Marie Capana), would have been one.
Mike:  Okay.
Marta: (Marina C*******) I think too, and there may be one more,
            although I’m not sure.
Mike:  Okay. Mike: Do you mean (Marina Cataro)?
Marta: Yes.
Mike:  I tried talking to her, and she wouldn’t talk to me.
Marta: No, she wouldn’t.
Mike:  Do you think she may know something?
Marta: I am sure, yes, she would know something.   I am sure somebody
            would have said something to her.
Mike:   Okay. Did you ever discuss anything like this with (Gretchen
Marta: Yes.
Mike:   She is the sister of mercy, I believe?
Marta: Right. Mike: I think (Gretchen W*****) had some suspicions con-
            cerning (Wellinger)?
Marta: Oh Yeah.
Mike:  Do you know if she ever went someone at the diocese to say, "Hey,
           something is amiss here?"
Marta: I don’t know that.  I kind of think not, but I don’t know.
Mike:  Okay.  Any idea what she may have known?
Marta: Umm, Well...
Mike:  Did she know about the (W********) boy?
Marta: I believe she did.
Mike:  Okay.
Marta: All I remember her telling him was that she was not going to fight
            his demons.  That’s all I can remember.
Mike:  I see.  I’m trying to think if there’s anything else.  Somewhere around
           1988 or 1989, you resigned as the parish secretary, but you still stayed
           on as a member.  No one was going to keep you out of a church you be-
           long to and helped build, and all that kind of stuff.  Somewhere around
           1991 is when (Wellinger) left, is that correct?
Marta: I believe so.
Mike:  Do you remember anything surrounding when he left?  Usually when
            a priest leaves, there is some type of formal announcement like in a
            month I’ll be leaving.   Do you recall anything like this with ...
Marta: No, I don’t recall that.  All I recall at that time is that Bishop (Boal)
            came to our church or some type of function, maybe for confirmation,
            although I am not sure, and within like two weeks (Wellinger) was
            gone.   I just thought, well, somebody with some type of clout may
            have sent the bishop here.
Mike:  Okay, but you’re not completely sure.
Marta: No.
Mike:  You do, however, know where he stayed when he left Holy Spirit
Marta: Right. Mike: Where did he stay?  I think he first went to Allentown.
Mike:  But you said ...
Marta: I think he did stay with … but then he went to Allentown as a priest.
Mike:  Okay.
Marta: After that, I think he went to St. Francis with Father (Dorsch).
Mike:  When you say he went to Allentown, he left Holy Spirit Church
Marta: Yes.
Mike:  And, was immediately assigned to a church in Allentown?
           Was that the way it went?
Marta: Yes.
Mike:  If I’m not mistaken, Allentown may be a separate borough,
            but it is also part of Pittsburgh, near Carrick and that area.
Marta: Right.
Mike:  And then from there, he may have stayed just for a short time.
           Now, how do you know?  Did he just go down to St. Francis on
           his own, or was he like an assistant pastor there?   Do you have
           any idea?
Marta: I don’t’ know.  I think he was just staying there.  I got a copy of
            a letter that he wrote, although I’m not sure where I got to copy
            from or who I got the copy from, to some friends.   In his letter
            he was just complaining about what he had been through over the
            past year or so.  It was written on stationery from St. Francis.
Mike:  Okay.  The reason why you are familiar with St. Francis, which is
            the Church in the McKees Rocks area, you were a parishioner there
            at one time?
Marta: Right.
Mike:  So you’re very familiar.  You are assuming that, if you received a
            letter or saw a letter from St Francis, he had some connection there?
            That’s where he was staying there as a result, or did he mention in
            the letter that he was staying there?
Marta: I believe he did mention it
Mike:  Okay. He wouldn’t have sent a copy of that letter to you right?
Marta: Oh no.
Mike:  Any idea who he sent that letter to?
Marta: I’m not sure. It might’ve been Marina or it could have been ... I really
           don’t know.
Mike:  Okay
Marta: All I know is that it was a copy.  Somebody had made a copy of
           the letter.
Mike:  Okay.  So we are assuming that, from this letter, he stayed with
            Father (Dorsch) at St. Francis in McKees Rocks.  Father (Dorsch)
            was the head pastor there for some time.
Marta: Right.
Mike:  This would’ve been around 1991 maybe 1992 correct?
 Marta: I think so
Mike:  Are you aware that Father (Dorsch) was eventually convicted of
           sexual abuse?
Marta: I am aware now yes. I was unaware of it then.
Mike:  Do you know who made you aware of that?
Marta: I believe you did. Mike: Okay.
Mike:  Do you know if Father (Dorsch) was a regular visitor from time to
            time with John (Wellinger)?
Marta: Yeah, I think he did visit sometimes.
Mike:  Okay.  Did he ever mention where he met Father (Dorsch)?
Marta: No.
Mike:  No, okay.  At this point, is there anything you would like to add 
            to our conversation that you can think of?
Marta: I don’t know.   I just know that I did not have a good feeling from
            the time he came there, and when he was instilled as pastor, I re-
            member him mentioning that I think he came from Clairton to
            Holy Spirit.
Mike:  Right
Marta: He also mentioned that his friends gave him different gifts, and
            some more drugs.
Mike:  He indicated that his friends had given him drugs as a kind of
           going away gift?
Marta: Yeah
Mike:  He didn’t mention that those friends were?
Marta: No, Just that they were friends from Clairton.
Mike:  Do you think he was serious?
Marta: Well yeah.
Mike:  In other words he talked about this in such a fashion, that if I were
            to say to you even though I don’t know you that well,  “Oh. I just
            left my old job, and those folks were kind enough, they gave me a
            bottle of wine, they gave me watch,” it was that carefree?
Marta: Yeah
Mike:  And the way I describe it to you, it’s even believable, so that even
           though he is … ?  For someone of our age, for someone to say, "Oh
           they gave me drugs, …"
Marta: I don’t think he said drugs, I think he said goodies from my runner.
Mike:  So he even describe it is marijuana?
Marta: Yes
Mike:  So he didn’t leave it as drugs, he said marijuana?
Marta: Right
Mike:  Do you think he abused drugs on a regular basis, or some type of
Marta: Alcohol, as far as I know.
Mike:  What do you think his relationship was with Maria (C******)?
Marta: Well, I don’t know. I guess I always thought they were a twosome.
             I mean, she practically lived there.
Mike: Okay
Marta: I believe there was another woman, although I cant’ remember her
Mike: Was it Virginia (Voytech)?
Marta: Yes, She always hung around there too.  She was a nurse.  She would
            come to the rectory, and stay there all day.
Mike: Okay
Marta:She was also there sometimes after I left.
Mike:  Just a few more things.  You knew (Marinell), which was
          (Wellinger’s) sister?
Marta: Yeah.
 Mike:  And that’s where complete name Marinell?
Marta: M-A-R-I-N-E-L-L, that’s it.
Mike:  Do you recall an outburst, or know anything about a public out-
            burst, in the church after or during Mass by I believe it was Bob
Marta: That wasn’t in the church, it was in the parking lot.
Mike: Okay Who was this outburst aimed at, (Wellinger) himself?
Marta: Oh yeah.
Mike: Okay. Were there people around, who could’ve heard this?
Marta: Oh yes, we were having a staff meeting that morning.
Mike: Okay.
Marta: And his wife, Ann, was of course at the staff meeting.
Mike: Okay
Marta: And he was yelling.  As a matter of fact, he came into the
            rectory, grabbed her, and pulled her out.  He had been drink-
            ing.  I think he may have had a gun, or someone mentioned
            that he had a gun.
Mike:  Okay
Marta: I think it was Maria or someone who took (Wellinger) out the
            back door.
Mike:  Okay
Marta: And then they said that we should leave too.
Mike:  Okay, did Bob (W********) explain to anybody what was going
            on?  Why he was angry, why he had a gun, or why he wanted to
            talk to (Wellinger)?
Marta: No, except I guess that Ann was kind of taken with him. I don’t
Mike: Okay.
Marta: I guess they would like to have lunch together, or do things
Mike:  Was this before or after his son ended up in Shadyside hospital?
Marta: I think it was after.
Mike:  So, if it was after, he was also angry because of what happened
            to his son, and angry because his wife was still involved with
Marta: Right.
Mike:  It seems to me that one of the things that (Wellinger) used was
           women to help disguise his other bad habits.
Marta: Right.
Mike:  I would go so far as to say that, if I were a betting man and I’m
           not sure which way I would bet if someone were to say to me.
           Do you think John (Wellinger) and Ann (*********) had an
           affair?  I would not know which way to bet, but even if you
           flipped a coin, you could win. Is that a fair way of analyzing
           that situation?
Marta: Well for some reason, I just never thought of it that way.
             I thought it was more on her part than on his.
Mike:  Okay.  So she was truly infatuated with him much like Virginia
Marta: No.  It was more like Maria.
Mike:  So these women were infatuated with him, and John (Wellinger)
           knew how to use that?
Marta: Yeah.
Mike:  This included selecting **** ********* as a victim, given he
            knew he had an edge.  This may have helped him in some way.
Marta: I don’t know.
Mike:  I, myself, can’t think like a pedophile.  But, I’m guessing that
           this may have played a role.
Mike: Is there anything else you would like to add?
Marta: No not that I can think of.
Mike: When Bob ********* had this outburst, was Marinell there?
Marta: Oh.   No, I was still working there.
Mike: So, Marinell replaced you?
Marta: Yes.
Mike: Okay very good.   When Bob ********* had this outburst, even
           though he didn’t say anything about his son being hospitalized,
           you’re saying that everyone knew, at that point, what was going
Marta: Yeah, it had kind of gone around, you know.
Mike:  Is it fair to say that it may be? ... Let’s say there are a thousand
            people who are members of the Holy Spirit Church.   It would
            be real easy to say that for 50 of those parishioners, the (Wellin-
            ger) gossip and scandal may have been common knowledge.
Marta: Right.
Mike:  And the reason I asked that question is because I talked to Frank,
            the former police chief, who told me that his neighbor said this
            was all common knowledge.
Marta: Yeah.
Mike:  That he was sex idiot?
Marta: There could have been.  Like I said, I don’t think I heard anything
            else other than what I told you.
Mike:  Right
Marta: If Frank knew, I’m not sure where he lived.  Jim Matthews also
            knew of this stuff at the time.
Mike:  He was also a police officer.
Marta: Right.
Mike:  Frank (Defazio)? Frank (DeFazio) was the chief of police at the
            time, but he tells me he didn’t know anything.
Marta: Okay
Mike:  I can tell you this much, or do you think he is not necessarily
            telling the truth?
Marta: I don’t know.  Do the policemen have to report to them if anybody
           would call or anything?
Mike:  Yeah, that’s right, were the policemen summoned to any of these
Marta: Yes.   They did call the police when Bob ********* came to the
            rectory, but also the police came to my house one night because
            they were trying to get the money to (Wellinger) to get it put away
            for the night, and they could not locate him.  So they came here to
            ask me for the keys for the rectory.   I guess when Jim came back,
            he gave me the keys to the rectory and told me that (Wellinger) was
            passed out.
Mike:  Okay.
Marta: I guess that was sort of hush-hush.
Mike:  Do you think any police knew about the outburst that Bob *******
            had at the rectory?  Were any police called for that, and would any
            West Mifflin police at least be aware of something like that?
Marta: I would think they would be aware of it, because I’m almost sure
           we called the police.
Mike:  Okay, you did call police. Who would’ve been the one to call the
Marta: It wasn’t me.  I’m not sure.   It could have been Maria or Virginia.
Mike:  It sounds like people were legitimately scared, also because Bob
           had gun.
Marta: Well yeah.
Mike:  Or least people thought he had a gun, or that he might’ve had a gun.
Marta: Right
Mike:  Do you know if any of this was reported diocese?
Marta: Well it must have been because, who else could have restricted him
            from coming on church property?
Mike:  In other words, you are aware of the fact that Bob ********* re-
            ceived a letter from the lawyer for the diocese to stay away from
            the church?
Marta: Well all I know is that, I was told that he was not allowed to be on
            church grounds.  That is all I know.
Mike:  Okay, you don’t know.  Who told you this?  Was it (Wellinger)?
Marta: No wasn’t him. I guess it was just a rumor or common knowledge.
Mike:  Okay.   Sr Gretchen would have probably known about all this stuff?
Marta: Oh yeah.
Mike:  Did she live there at the time?
Marta: No.
Mike:  No? Okay.  She would have known about it certainly ...
Marta: If not from others, then at least from me.
Mike:  Okay.
Marta: I think she might’ve been there that day, as I think she was already
           on staff.
Mike:  Okay.  That’s right.  She would have been there for the staff meeting.

I want to thank you again Marta. I’m not exactly sure what’s going to happen.
But again, I applaud you for your willingness to help because this has truly
been a tragedy, and I don’t like stuff like this going on, and I don’t like stuff
like this being covered up.  We will see what happens.  Again, Michelle ****
would be willing to help me?  I have already talked to her.   There are some
things now that I just want to get squared away.  Anyway, I reserve the right
to give you a call back.  Thank you again.   Bye-bye.