Opening Note: It was vehemently concluded that the Donald Wuerl who, in 2018, was finally caught engaging in cover-ups as a matter of habit, placed the Cipolla Case in neon lights, in order to use it as a diversionary tactic, to hide Wuerl's multiple cover-ups of abusive priests. Moreover, Wuerl let that case be presented in a false light, allowing for it to be hyper-exaggerated, for greater diversionary-tactic-effect.
This is the case whether Cipolla were fully guilty, only partially guilty, or not guilty at all. The Cipolla Case was presented to the public here, to show Wuerl's egregious degree of premeditated deception.
The 1978 accuser of Anthony Cipolla told a certain individual that her son, the young Tucker (aka Tommy), alleged the following ====> that Cipolla had sores all over his body, while he was allegedly consummating unnatural lust with Tucker. Got it? Cipolla was made out to be a grotesque monster in physical appearance, thereby adding to the theatrical sensationalism of the story which I previously covered in detail, years ago.
At this point, Ladies & Gentlemen of the jury, what is ridiculously wrong with this picture?
ANS: Find me one person who has sores all over his body and who does NOT
cringe and seethe in pain while making contact with another person's body. In
addition, Cipolla was a young man at the time, only in his thirties; and he wasn't
living in the sewers. Neither was he bedridden to the point of getting bed sores.
Do you really believe that Cipolla had sores all over his body in the 1970s? They would have been on his face, arms, and hands, too. This means that there would have been numerous witnesses to this allegation. This destroyed the credibility of the 1978 accuser of Cipolla.
However, her credibility can assuredly be regarded as additionally destroyed, in her having claimed in print that I was Anthony Cipolla in disguise, operating a child mo- lestation ring. For the record, Cipolla died SIX years ago, and his ghost is NOT typ- ing this text. Liars always get found-out. Their believers become proven fools.
BTW, I NEVER Stated Such an Assertion as Follows
At this point, I need to remind you that I NEVER confidently claimed that Cipolla was "not guilty" of committing molestation in 1978. I NEVER assuredly stated that he was guilty, either. I simply stated in detail that the horror story of a DA bullying the 1978 accuser/mother into dropping criminal charges that were NOT even filed in the first place was a complete lie that contradicted all the processes of Pennsylvania Criminal Procedure, as well as forensic investigation protocol.
Very simply, reasonable doubt exists squared & cubed in this 1978 case which never resulted in an arrest, and which never resulted in a trial.
My point was to show that Donald Wuerl was using the hyper-exagerrated Cipolla Case to hide Wuerl's many molester priest cover-ups ... and to deceive the public into thinking that Wuerl was a man of untold Bravery & Holiness. Well, the 2018 Pennsylvania grand jury findings proved that I was correct in warning the public that Wuerl was a deceitful Con Artist & Cover-up Artist ::: The Picasso of Deceit.
Furthermore, if Cipolla's friends smashed her apartment windows as she theatrical- ly claimed, her landlord would have bellowed at high volume. The police would have intervened, and the whole thing would have been front page news. It would be an archived newspaper article easy to locate on the Internet. This is especially true, because, earlier in 1978, the Pittsburgh police already arrested a defrocked priest, for immoral actions with minor males.
News of a second priest being indicted for molestation would have made the front pages in 1978. Smashed windows resulting from a priest's friends retaliating would have been the story of the week. So, go and search for a 1978 news article reporting the smashing of windows shortly after a priest's arrest which never occurred in the first place.
And remember ===> I DIDN'T trust Cipolla. I simply could not catch him con- tradicting himself. Then, I would discover that the post-arrest allegations were completely false, being that there was no arrest. I previously heard Tim Bendig lie to me four times in a matter of minutes over the telephone, making me con- clude that Bendig was a con artist. So, when it comes to the actual molestation allegations themselves, I don't know whom to believe. I simply know that Wuerl made the Cipolla Case sound iconic, so that Wuerl would be rocketed into very undeserved stardom.
None the less, I remained suspicious of Anthony Cipolla. Yet, I couldn't find the evidence to assure his guilt. There was reasonable doubt in the 1978 case. And there was a lot of doubt in the Bendig case, being that Bendig was a proven liar. Even at that, you don't know for sure. It's just that there was no evidence to war- rant a noose around Cipolla's neck at high noon, especially in light of the fact that his accusers were caught lying about him, repeatedly.
The Number 1 reason why I still entertained the possibility of his guilt was in the fact that he once tried to get a home-schooling job. But, this dwindled, when it was discovered that he never tried to get any kind of home schooling job again.
In addition, the Number 1 reason why I entertained the possibility of Cipolla's innocence was in the description of how he "allegedly" molested a nine year old child who naturally carries - shall we politely say --- certain body parts too too small to be molested by an adult-sized hand. Nine year olds were molested in other ways, concerning such molestation cases. It sounded like someone was making up a story that didn't match past cases or the biological sciences.
All in all, Wuerl needed to shut down and declare closed the Cipolla Case, lest more investigators and detectives prod through the Diocese of Pittsburgh and uncover the cover-ups that Wuerl still had in tact. Wuerl used the Cipolla Case as a diversion, so that the Pittsburgh Post Gazette would state, "Nothing more to see here, folks. Move on."
The Vatican Case Was a Jurisdictional Matter which did NOT judge if Cipolla molested anyone.
The Wuerl/Cipolla Case found its way to the highest court in the Holy See, and it asked only one question, giving one answer to that question. The question was this ===> Does a bishop have the authority to dismiss a priest from ministry, if the priest was diagnosed as having mental illness? Got it? This is what really happened at the Vatican:
Tim Bendig was an absolute failure at the Pittsburgh seminary, and he had the lack of civility, as well. So, he was asked to leave in 1987 or so. He then asked the diocese for money. The diocese refused to give Bendig money. Bendig then proceeded to accuse a number of priests of sodomy and the such.
Concerning Cipolla, Bendig accused Cipolla of having molested him for years, while Cipolla was stationed in New Brighton PA. New Brighton is 25 miles northwest of Pittsburgh, along the Ohio River.
 |
| This photo is the one closest to New Brighton that I possess. |
Wuerl understood the accusations to be that of a con artist. So, Wuerl ignored Bendig. Then, in October of 1988, Frs Wolk, Zula, and Pucci were indicted at a neighboring county where the Diocese of Pittsburgh operates. Immediate- ly thereafter, Bendig went to the media and claimed that he was molested, too. Only then did Wuerl order Cipolla to go to a psychiatric treatment center.
At the center, Cipolla said to an analyst that a man's life isn't worth living if he can't do the vocation work he was ordained to do (to the effect thereof.) So, the analyst diagnosed Cipolla as being suicidal & suffering from Clinical Depression. Wuerl then used that diagnosis to remove Cipolla.
Cipolla then filed against Wuerl in Catholic Church court. Cipolla went to an- other treatment center (in NYC) and got a clean bill of health, at his financial expense. Wuerl refused to accept the diagnosis. The Vatican then ordered Wuerl to reinstate Cipolla. Wuerl then got a rehearing, under the guise of "the possibility that the facts of the case were erroneous."
So, there was a second hearing at the highest court of the Vatican, with Cipolla not being present. It was simply declared that Wuerl had the right to remove a priest declared mentally ill, even if the priest gets a second opinion which is contrary to the original diagnosis.
That which actually happened in the Bendig Civil Lawsuit, filed in the Pennsylvania Court of Commons Pleas and NOT at the Vatican, was this:
Tim Bendig's lawyer, (who was the attorney for the local masons), didn't have
anything on Cipolla that could stick. Thus, Attorney Douglas Yauger was so desperate for evidence against Anthony Cipolla that he motioned the court for a continuance, so that he could find more witnesses. Yauger found none more than the 1978 mom who accused Cipolla of molestation.
Interestingly, concerning the out of court settlement and the lack of a trial, Yauger simply told someone in the media that the 1978 accuser was located by him (with- out him mentioning her name.) About her, he merely said that he "would like to have used her" (as a trial witness) for whatever it was worth. So, Yauger had no option other than to make a big deal out of one sore on Cipolla's arm.
Yauger made such a big deal of it that John Conte's assistant lawyer coached one of the Cipolla witnesses to say at his deposition (in the Bendig lawsuit) that the one sore on Cipolla's arm came from a spider bite. That was deceitful.
Now, how would the witness have known how Cipolla got that one sore? This particular witness was NOT a medical professional who treated Cipolla. Plus, because of that lawyer coaching that one witness, the witness being coached
assumed that Cipolla was as guilty as sin.
That one witness then decided to do some investigating on his own, he said.
Well, all that he did was talk to Diane Thompson. He did NOT seek to fact-
check anything she said, and he was so gullible that he believed her tale of
Cipolla having sores all over his body. To this day, he didn't sit back and
take note of the failure of plausibility in anything that Thompson claimed.
He didn't catch all of Thompson's contradictions. This is why the circus
master, P.T. Barnum once said, "There's one born every minute."
Concerning that one sore, what was Yauger trying to do in mentioning it?
ANS: He, in my opinion, wanted the jury to think that Cipolla might have
had AIDS. That one sore might portray an infected sexual maniac, and
cause the jury to be suspicious of Cipolla, in the trial of the civil lawsuit filed by Bendig. Well, it has been 30 years since the discovery phase of the Bendig lawsuit, and neither Bendig nor Cipolla manifested any signs of AIDS. Any insinuation of Cipolla giving Bendig AIDS was nihil.
This obsession with one mere sore on an arm showed how desperate Ben- dig's attorney was, in the quest to find any evidence in support of his client. And remember, Bendig lied to me four times in a row in a row in a matter of minutes.
RENT MONEY REQUEST DENIED IN 1978
Also remember that Thompson did NOT accuse Cipolla of any wrongdoing until Cipolla told her that the Saint Vincent de Paul Society did NOT have the money to pay Diane Thompson's rent.
Concerning the Tim Bendig who lied to me four times in a row: Proof that he was a con artist consists in the fact that he took his lawsuit settlement dollars and purchased a bar & grill with it, never spending it on psychiatric services as he claimed he would do.
Concerning that which Cippolla said to me, I never believed nor disbelieved him, being that I need someone to do some cross examining. It's just that I did NOT catch Cipolla contradicting himself. Yet, that is NOT enough for me to publicly state, "not guilty" in the 1978 molestation allegations. None the less, the falsehoods told by the accusing party were beyond ridiculous.
Now watch . . .
Then came another witness who spent time in Michigan with Cipolla and Tim Bendig simultaeously. He said that nothing suspicious between the two ever happened, as well as having stated that Anthony Cipolla never tried to molest him. Well, that particular witness said that he was NEVER coached by any lawyer on John Conte's staff. He was to be one of the trial witnesses, of course.
For those unaware, John Conte was Cipolla's defense attorney in the Bendig lawsuit. He charged Cipolla $25,000 for his law firm's services. That lawyer was my neighbor for years. I even went to Canada, on vacation, with John's
son. I went to the same schools as did his children. I knew the Conte family for years ... for decades.
One more thing: Why would Attorney John Conte's assistant act as if Cipolla were
guilty? ANS: It was because the Pittsburgh Post Gazette stated that Cipolla was ar-
rested for molestation back in 1978, and because Americans did NOT have ready
access to newspaper archives at that time. If you go to the Post Gazette archives,
you will find that, in 1978, Cipolla was NEVER arrested. He was merely served
a SUMMARY NOTICE which instructed him to show-up for a hearing 28 days
hence. The hearing was to see if filing charges against Cipolla was warranted.
The actual detective assigned to the Cipolla case told Josh Shapiro's PA grand jury that Cipolla was NEVER charged/indicted/arrested. He simply said that he told the accuser mother of 1978 that, if Cipolla would do any kind of molesting from that point onward, then he would be arrested pronto. That was a stupid thing to say, be- ing that, from July 1978 onward, there was no way in which Cipolla would be able to get near those two youths.
None the less, my intent, in addressing the Cipolla case, was to show the public that Donald Wuerl is a con artist of great deceit who covered up molester priests, all the while pretending to be the great disciplinarian of them. Cipolla was Wuerl's diversionary tactic.
Also keep in mind that Cipolla tried to get a job teaching home-schooled children after he was suspended from ministry by Wuerl ... and that Cipolla only did that one time, making someone ask, "Hey wait. If he's a molester, then why wouldn't he keep trying to get a job teaching home-schooled kids?"
Incidentally, this home-schooling incident is why I continued to have my doubts about Cipolla. None the less, there were too many lies told about the Cipolla Case, especially the lie about a DA forcing a woman to "drop charges" that were never filed in the place, and when the DA could have instantly drop them on his own. Incidentally, before I learned of the details of the case, I believed that Cipolla was as guilty as sin.
In review:
The Summary Notice was only signed by the 1978 accuser-mother. This meant
that neither the police nor the DA nor the State Attorneys General office had evi-
dence against Cipolla to warrant prosecution of him. The DA's office needed to sign it.
Thompson was taking it upon herself to be the prosecutor of the case, but needed the City Court judge's approval for her to proceed, in her private criminal com- plaint. Thompson withdrew her private criminal complaint before the hearing.
According to Cipolla, after the judge told him that Thompson dropped the case, the
same judge said, "Watch who you try to help." And of course, simply from what
Thompson wrote about me ... a person who simultaneously carried three security clear- ances and who lived 900 miles away from her ... she is a pathological liar. John Conte called her an "adroit liar." Even at that, I cannot declare Cipolla assuredly not guilty.
She alleged that Tucker (aka Tommy, now in his 40s) is dysfunctional and that the
loss of functionality was caused by Cipolla. She also stated that she is raising two teenagers, both of whom are Tucker's children.
Concerning any out of court settlement in these cases, it simply means that neither culpability nor innocence is declared. A person paying a settlement does NOT ad- mit to guilt. It's simply a payment to end contentious proceedings. That is to say, truth is NOT ascertained in an out of court settlement.
And keep this in mind ====> If a diocese refuses to give an accuser an out of court settlement, that diocese could be the target of investigators. So, settlements get paid, to keep the authorities and private investigators, as well as journalists, from digging deeper. Plus, if the price of the settlement is less than the cost of defending the de- fendant, expect a settlement to come as a result of mathematics.
