Wuerl's Decisive Factor in His Signatura Reversal over Cipolla: An Archbishop Zenon Grocholewski who, as policy, sided with a bishop over the bishop's subordinate priest.

The decisive factor in Wuerl's "amazing" Vatican Signatura reversal wasn't amazing.  No

new evidence was known to have been in any of the brief case(s) Wuerl was said to have taken to Rome.  The only major factual inaccuracy was that the founder of St Luke's Institute had died, and the Saint Luke Institutes reformed its diagnosis policy.

For those of you unfamiliar, Donald Wuerl was tooted as a bishop who fought

the Vatican "to remove a molester priest."  Stop there.  There was NEVER any

evidence or credible witness accounts that the priest ever molested anyone.  The

woman who accused him of molesting her son one time decades ago was caught

lying about it, via fact checking.  After all, she claimed that the priest was arrest-

ed.  However, the priest was never arrested anywhere at any time for anything.

In addition, the Tim Bendig who claimed that the priest molested him for six con-

secutive years is a known liar who even lied to me and threatened to destroy my

life, followed by him begging me to interview him, even to the point of promis-

ing to let me see his lawsuit's deposition which was already located prior to him

turning into a begging coward.  Something that Bendig wrote to me was entirely

contrary to the modus operandi of a true molester.  Therefore, Bendig's own words

weakened his case completely.

The accused priest, an Anthony Cipolla, was found to have a  history contrary to

any molester and any homosexual.  Ironically, we found that the effeminate Don-

ald Wuerl had an extreme nexus to the Sodomite world.  In as much, Wuerl had

motive to use Cipolla as a smoke screen, being that District Attorney John Pettit

already accused Wuerl and his diocesan administrators as impeding the criminal

investigation of three priests Wuerl covered, none of whom was Anthony Cipolla.

Wuerl also had motive to cover the accusations leveled against his former boss,

John Cardinal Wright.  Now, Wright was directly accused by an individual who

claimed to have been paid $20 per Sodomy session, in regular intervals.  Wuerl

never reported Wright to any authority.  Thus, Wuerl was either complicit or

clueless.  If he were complicit, he was engaged in criminal conduct.  If he were

clueless, then it shows him to be a terrible leader who should never have been

ordained a bishop in the first place.  Ironically, the male present nicknamed

Wuerl the Girl only rose in power because of his nexus to John Wright, an

accused sex criminal.

The big mystery about the Vatican rehearing was claim of  "the major factual

inaccuracies."  The "inaccuracies" were never revealed to the public.  Well,

after three years of occasional research, the answer would be eventually be

found.  It's mentioned below.  None the less . . .

The reversal that Wuerl won didn't have anything to do with anything Wuerl

said at the hearing where Cipolla was absent.  That is to say that Wuerl was

NOT known to have performed any great oration at the hearing which ended

up changing the hearts of any Vatican officials.  If Wuerl did so, his speech

would have been published in all of the Pittsburgh newspapers and on a few

Pittsburgh walls, as well.  Instead, after Wuerl won his reversal, the front

cover of a major Pittsburgh newspaper had a full length photo of Cipolla.

This was because they had NO words with which to fill in the space.

In conclusion, there are was no indication that Wuerl used any evidence oth-

er than that which was used in the first round.  All that he was able to do was

state that the diagnose of Anthony Cipolla, by St. Luke's Institute, was not

done under the management of an out-of-the-closet homosexual who advo-

cated pansexualism.  That same diagnosis could now be applied to the new-

ly acquired definition of psychic defect.

Keep in mind that the Signatura ordered to be given the definition of that one

phrase.  Then, after Wuerl won his reversal, he presented the case in a very

false light.  All that Wuerl claimed at the Signatura was that Cipolla was sad

and might kill himself.  If you have evidence to the contrary, then send it now.

If you know the aforesaid to be true, then confirm so.

The deciding factor in Wuerl's reversal had nothing to do with the secret brief

cases mentioned by Pgh Post Gazette writer Ann Rodgers who would soon be

caught lying to the public in print.  The deciding factor of Wuerl's "rehearing"

was allegedly Polish.  It was human.  It was alive.  It was allegedly an arch-

bishop on the Signatura's panel who, as a matter of policy, believed in siding

with bishops over their subordinate priests.  The deciding factor in the Wuerl

reversal was named Zenon Grocholewski.

Concerning the only "major factual inaccuracy"

found in the Cipolla case, it goes as follows:

Firstly, Wuerl's only evidence against Cipolla was the diagnosis of a St Luke's

Institute in Maryland.  It's doctor(s) who assessed Cipolla simply stated that Ci-

polla suffered from Depressin & Suicidal Tendencies.  In as much, the Vatican

Signatura, in the first hearing, judged that the diagnosis given  to Cipolla was

invalid.  It's reasoning was that a place operated by an out-of-the-closet homo-

sexual who advocated pansexualism did not have valid diagnoses.

The Vatican Signatura's ruling was written in 1993.  Well, the founder of Saint

Luke's Institute died of AIDS in 1987.  Thus, in 1993, St. Luke's was no longer

being operated by an out-of-the-closet homosexual who advocated pansexual-

ism.  Therefore, the time line enabled a person to reconsideration if whether the

assessment of Saint Luke's was valid or not.

The aforementioned is the ONLY major factual inaccuracy found in four years

of co-research.  In as much, if media hog, Donald Wuerl, had any damning evi-

dence against Cipolla, you can be reasonably assured that Wuerl would have

had the evidence published in the newspapers & aired on Television,  All that

was published in the newspapers were a number of falsehoods and sleight of

hand deceptions which made Cipolla look like the monster that he was never

proven to be.  In fact, the newspaper testimony of the 1978 accuser was easy

to prove false.  The problem was that no one did any fact checking for years.

Plus, it had long since been concluded that 1988 accuser, Tim Bendig, was a

perpetual liar who might have plagiarized the 1978 accusation which has zero

evidence or witnesses to support it.  In fact, Bendig's lawsuit was so weak that

his attorney had to use the 1978 case in very exaggerated and fraudulent terms.

The 1978 case was presented in a false light.  Rather, in the early 1970s Cipol-

la was given plaques of appreciation for his services in two youth groups, and

no one in those groups ever accused him of any ill conduct.

Keep in mind that the media deceptively made it sound as if Cipolla were an

out-of-control monster in need of long-term psychiatric care, in that no one

from the Pittsburgh media stated that Cipolla's diagnosis was merely Depres-

sion and Suicidal Tendencies.  Well, the second psychiatric institute to assess

Anthony Cipolla's mental health said that he had no such Suicidal Tendencies

and that being sad on account of having your reputation destroyed is a normal

reaction.  St. Michael's of NY, the second institute, gave Cipolla a clean bill

of health.

_____________________________________________________________

The 2016 Randy Engel Article: Fact-checked falsehoods w/ contradictions of previous testimony

Pittsburgh:  Where Wuerl severely abused his position.

NOTE:  The PA Grand Jury report on Anthony Cipolla is much different than

the hyper-exaggerated stories of 1995, 2015, and 2016.  The Randy Engel

version is a showcase in out-of-touch-with-reality conspiracy theories.  It

was beyond pathetic.  In as much, it's the tamed versions of a priest cover-

up which has credibility, being that the church was dealt in pernicious &

subtle pea-and-shell game approaches in sexual aggression cases.  She

should have simply waited for the 2018 PA Grand Jury Report to have

come, and if she thinks that her overly-sensationalistic version is like

the PA Grand Jury Report, then the aged women is psychotic.  Her

version is a pathetic embarrassment to any writer who seeks reality.

Thesis Statement:

The November 2016 article of Randy Engel proved how much of a liar is Di-

ane Thompson, because the allegations of Diane Thompson stated in Randy

Engel's article contradicts the October 13, 1995 article that quoted Thompson

on two pages of newspaper print.

Whether Cipolla committed molestation or not, Diane Thompson IS a liar, and

I concur with famed journalist Jason Berry, of Maciel Fame, on this case.  Mr.

Berry stated that the Cipolla Case was a "peculiar one from the start."  My ex-

act quote on the case was that:

If Cipolla did molest and then harass anyone, it was not the way Diane Thomp-

son narrated it.  I also said:  This is the one case where you can't believe any-

one who was there in 1978, with any degree of confidence.

______________________________________________________________

I was alerted to the existence of a November 2016 article by Randy Engel

where within she claimed to have interviewed one of Diane Thompson's

two sons.  It would sound like a trustworthy article consisting of true alle-

gThompson's past accusations, and it contained new allegations which were

fact-checked and proven false.  The allegations of criminal procedure do

NOT correlate with the actual Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure.

In order to cut to the chase and give examples of the falsehoods which appear

in the November 2016 Engel article, it was alleged by Diane Thompson that

she had to pay a $45 admission fee, in order for her eldest son, Frank, to go

to the Michigan summer camp that was held on the seminary grounds of the

Pontifical Institute for Foreign Missions.  She made herself out to be the har-

rowed and heavily burdened martyr who had to sacrifice greatly, to pay the

$45 admittance fee.

NEWSFLASH:  I am in contact with a family who has two sons who were 

in Cipolla's company very often.  One of the two gentlemen attended the 

exact same Michigan seminary summer camp as did Diane Thompson's

eldest son, though in a different year.  This particular youth traveled to

Michigan with the Tim Bendig who claimed to have been molested by Ci-

polla for consecutive years.   According to that gentlemen and his mom,  

they did NOT have to pay any $45 fee.  Diane Thompson lied yet again.

Furthermore, the gentleman said that NOTHING suspicious between

Cipolla and Bendig was ever observed by him.  However, he did say,

"Tim was weird.   Really weird."  Furthermore, he stated that Cipolla

never tried anything on him.  He is in the approximate, though general,

age range as is Frank Labieaux, the son whom Thompson claims was

molested by Cipolla in Michigan.

At this point, it is important for the reader to know of the existence of the long

Pittsburgh Post Gazette which quotes Diane Thompson's damning allegations

against Anthony Cipolla and then-Bishop Vincent Leonard, all the while keep-

ing Thompson's name anonymously held in confidence.  It appeared in the

OCTOBER 13, 1995 EDITION OF THE PITTSBURGH POST GAZETTE.

Pages A-16 and A-17, as well as the front page.

As an example of how the Engel article contradicts the allegations of Diane

Thompson in the October 13, 1995 Pittsburgh Post Gazette article that at-

tacks Cipolla's character to the depths:

IN the October 1995 Pittsburgh Post Gazette article, Thompson stated that

she had TWO daughters in a "first marriage" and TWO sons in a "second

marriage."  IN the Nov 2016 Engel article, Thompson claimed to have three

sons and one daughter, and that Tucker Thompson and Frank Labieaux 

had different dads.  According to her in 1995, Frank and tucker had the 

same dad.

The fact is the she did have three sons, and one of the three's 2009 obituary 

can be readily found online.  Nothing about his death is mentioned.  In as much,

Thompson lied to the Pittsburgh Press on that allegation.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

As another example, the Engel article alleged that Cipolla was taken into police

custody, thereby being officially arrested.  The Engel article then stated that the

same Anthony Cipolla was released on his own "cognizance," and was told to

reappear for his arraignment.  Stop there.  This is the writing of someone who

does not know the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Firstly, a person is only released on his own recognizance by a judge at the

person's arraignment.  The arraignment is simply the bail hearing where it's 

surmised if the defendant is 1} a flight risk, 2} a danger, 3} no physical

threat, etc.  The defendant is also checked if he/she has to automatically

be placed on "detainer."  For example, if the defendant was arrested 

while being on parole, that person gets an automatic detainer.  If that 

is the case, then the defendant is denied bail.

When you are officially arrested, you are held overnight, and then sent to 

your arraignment pronto.   You don't go home and wait for arraignment, 

BECAUSE the arraignment is the official assessment that sees if you get

to go home, in the first place.

________________________________________________________________

The Engel article also stated that detectives from Police Station #9 were sent

to Cipolla's Northside residence.

Firstly, there are only SIX police zones in Pittsburgh.  The North Side of 

Pittsburgh is Zone #1 ... not #9. 

Now, in Pittsburgh Police history,  Police Station #9 was/is located on Mount

Washington, in the South Side of Pittsburgh, and NOT on the North Side of

Pittsburgh, as Randy Engel claimed.

PLUS, PLUS, PLUS:  Engel stated that there was one piece of evidence that re-

remained in tact, certain the Diane Thompson case that accused Cipolla of moles-

tation.  It was the Offense/Incidence Report, signed by a couple detectives.

Uhhhhm,  ladies and gentlemen, that is NOT evidence.  That is the PRIVATE 

CRIMINAL COMPLAINT FORM as was used in the 1970s.  I filled out a

couple of those Offense/Incidence Report, in order to have criminal charges

filed against certain persons.  I'm no stranger to it.  

All in all, there is a difference between the accusation and the evidence.  That 

sheet was the accusation.  It was NOT the police officer's or detective's affi-

davit.  Proof consists in the fact that, at the right hand side of the paper, 

there is a box where it is asked, "Do you want to prosecute."

Now, police NEVER prosecute.  Thus, no page of legal procedure will ask a

policeman if he/she wants to prosecute.  It is a question to civilians.  I already

explained how the Private Criminal Complaint works in Pennsylvania.  For

starters, the initial paperwork is filed at a magistrate's office.  Diane Thomp-

son neglected to tell any journalist that she was in need of filing at Baldy

Reagan's office.  Baldy Reagan was a Pittsburgh magistrate.

In as much, a detective might have filled it out for a citizen who had trouble

filling it out, or a detective might have dictated what the citizen needed to

write.  It was not his legally binding testimony.

None the less, a question should immediately pop into your mind.  Q: Why 

would a citizen go to a magistrate to fill out a private criminal complaint 

form if he/she doesn't want to prosecute?  

ANS:  For insurance claim purposes.  The last time we had a police officer at

the Pittsburgh office, in reporting yet another burglary, we were asked if we want-

ed an investigation or if we just wanted a police report (with official CCR number)

to give to the insurance adjustors.

There are more ways to convince people who have no legal training that the report

to which Engel referred was NOT a police officer's report but only the private crim-

inal complaint

Once again, the thing which Randy Engel falsely called evidence was nothing

more than the private criminal complaint form.  In fact, it contains blocks

were the private citizen writes in the witnesses to the wrongs done, and their

contact information.

___________________________________________________________________

Cipolla was NEVER arrested or charged.  He was merely served a Summary 

Notice signed by Diane Thompson which instructed him to show up in City 

Court for a MOTIONS HEARING ... aka "Probable Cause Hearing" which

had the equal effect of a preliminary hearing.

It was part of a private citizen's private criminal complaint, where Thomp-

son was required to show due cause as to why the presiding judge was to 

"Issue Process" and have Anthony Cipolla indicted and arraigned.  But,

Diane Thompson withdrew her private criminal complaint shortly before 

the Motions Hearing, aka the hearing equivalent to a quasi-preliminary

lhearing.  Anthony Cipolla was NEVER in handcuffs.

__________________________________________________________

The 2016 Engel article mentions that Diane Thompson remarried in 1984.

The 1995 Pittsburgh Post Gazette NEVER mentioned this.  Instead, it stat-

ed that the "second marriage" guy was coming in and out of her life even in

1995.  Now, if that was happening, it was a bizarre setting of two de facto

husbands at the same time in her life.

Even at that, there are a string of contradictions of Thompson's allegations.

Here is another example:

I have digital evidence that it was alleged directly to me by a confidant of Di-

ane Thompson that Tucker told Diane that Anthony Cipolla had sores all over

his body.  NOW . . .

In the Engel article of 2016, the damning allegation was that Cipolla played

proctologist and invaded Tucker's private regions with one hand, while doing

an invasive sexual act upon Tucker front side with the other hand.  This would

mean that Cipolla was clothed.  So, how could Tucker see the sores?

____________________________________________________

In the 2016 Engel article, Thompson alleged that Frank Labieaux went to live

in Florida after being arrested for vandalizing a neighboring church.  She then

said that Frank called her from Florida, to tell her what Cipolla allegedly did

to him.  Well . . .

In the 1995 Post Gazette article, Thompson alleged that she sat down BOTH

of her sons, telling them that they were going to have to put the Cipolla inci-

dent out of their minds.  In order to do that, Frank had to have been in Pitts-

burgh.  So, where was he?  In Florida of Pittsburgh?  

Take note that, in the 1995 article she said that she only had TWO sons.  She had

three, one of whom died in 2009.  There is no information in print as to how he

died.  None the less, she had three sons and told the Post Gazette that she

only had two.

 ________________________________________________________________

The falsehoods and contradictions go on and on and on and on, in the November

2016 Engel article.  It severely contradicted the 1995 article that the Pittsburgh

Post Gazette published on the subject.  It was the article where Diane Thompson

was quoted as having alleged overly-theatrical things, while keeping Thompson's

name confidential.

The November 2016 article attributed to Randy Engel was at variance, in pertinent

part, with Diane Thompson's own 2015 & 2016 web log posts, as well.  It was also

different, in specific part, from the narration that Thompson gave to a certain per-

son who asked to be kept in anonymity.

The article was also at variance, in part, with the contents of the harassing, rude, and

derisive emails that Thompson sent to me in 2015.  I was compelled to block her in

short order, being that she was so podunk-trash-crass and intrusive.  The woman has

no temperance, to say the least.

When a Retraction is Needed

I learned from my lawyer conference that a person must first give a writer or editor

or published the opportunity to make retractions.  And the need must be stated in

specificity.

As an example in the Year 2015, someone not related to the Cipolla case wrote to

me about another subject about which I wrote.  That person definitively stated what

needed to be changed the third time he wrote to me.  I then changed what needed

to be changed on his third communication, being that the first two were too vague.

So, if there is an error on this site that needs correction, simply state it specifically

and get to the point.  I will then change it, if what you state it true.  If it's plausible,,

but not proven true, I'll add 'alleged.'

All that Diane Thompson did was attack and ridicule me.  Her first sentence to me

contained "bull s**t."  She didn't state what was erroneously stated in as far as went

names, dates, locations, spelling, etc.  She simply attacked my character.  If she only

would have acted civilized on the first, second, or even third email, I would have had

a series of conversations with her.  However, she is a liar, whether Cipolla molested

her two sons or not.  Her account of the Cipolla transactions, as appeared in the Pitts-

burgh Post.

Now, every time Thompson speaks to someone new, she tells a new and amended

story about Cipolla and her family.  Cipolla, on the other hand, to ld the same story,

inserting the same names, over and over.  It had gotten to the point where Cipolla

would tell me the same story, and I would start reciting it word-for-word.  He re-

sponded once by saying, "I'm trying to talk here," upon which I realized that he

kept telling me the same set of stories for the sake of emotional release.

ANOTHER EXAMPLE:

Thompson said to a Pittsburgh Post Gazette journalist in 1995 that then-Bishop

Vincent Leonard instilled a sense of guilt in Diane Thompson for filing what

the Post Gazette in 1978 stated was a Summary Notice and what the 1995 Post

Gazette stated was the "filing of criminal charges."  Thompson said that Vincent

Leonard said that the Church had just lost two popes and her suffering greatly.

Well, the second pope to die in 1978 wasn't even elected pope yet.  This proved

Diane Thompson to be a liar.

Well, in the 2016 Randy Engel article, it is alleged that Bishop Leonard only

pointed out the one death of Paul VI.  Thus, Thompson changed her story yet

again.

In addition, it was proven that the Vatican Case against Cipolla only dealt

with his diagnosis of Depression & Suicidal Tendencies, given by a doctor

of St. Luke's in Maryland.  It was a Psychic Defect case and did NOT cover

molestation. 

Plus, Ann Rodgers of the Post Gazette stated that Wuerl went to Rome with

a Police Arrest Report in his brief case.  No such thing ever existed.  Cipolla was

never arrested, never charged, never arraigned, etc.  This was being mentioned

numerous times

Engel Severely Misrepresented Elements of Law ... to the point of lying ... to fit her story and make it sound like the truth.

All she had to do was wait for the PA Grand Jury Report.  Instead, she was arrogant enough to have believed that her Cipolla story was anything other than a hyper-exaggeration that proved that she knows nothing about American law.

She comes off as a know-it-all, but she knew ZERO about law.  After 70+ yrs of living, you would think that she would have learned a little bit of American law.  No.  Not at all.  Such a person is usually nothing more than a gossip, in being too lazy to learn law or basic economics or basic physics or even basic statistical analysis, etc.

Now, let's get to an element of law that Engel pathetically massacred, in Randy Engel's attempt to explain it:

She stated that Anthony Cipolla was arrested upon Diane Thompson "pressing charges" (which is 100% false.)  She then stated that a conspiracy started, with the help of then-Bishop Vincent Leonard.  She furthermore claimed that District Attorney Bob Coville forced the same Diane Thompson to drop charges, by signing signing a sheet or two of paper that enabled Anthony Cipolla's criminal record to be expunged.  

Newsflash:  All that Colville needed to do, in any case already filed, was to dismiss the charges himself.  No signature of any civilian has any legal bearing thereof.  Now, another question should arise.  Q:  What is done to a corrupt DA who dismisses the case of someone actually guilty of a crime?  ANS:  The corrupt DA is brought before a "review board."  The review board could possibly have his power taken away from him, for starters.

Now, one of two the retired officers who were said to have arrested Cipolla as detectives was located.  I found him through the Pittsburgh Steeler Corporation, and MARK NINEHOUSER expressly told me that he never did such a thing.  He never arrested Cipolla.  Neither did his work partner.  Moreover, he and his work partner were NOT detectives.  They were uniformed police officers, clad in blue.

Secondly ::::::: Engel wrote that "an expungement is a civil action."  Uhhhhhm no, it's not.  A civil action is a lawsuit.  An expungement is a court order, arising from a motion to the court, at the end of a criminal action where the defendant prevailed.  More specifically, an expungement is the final process of a criminal action which has been dismissed in favor of the defendant.

Engel also said that the expungement process is STARTED by the accuser of the person whose criminal record is sought to be expunged.  Woooo doggie!  Someone has checked-in to the Non-Reality Motel.  Why would anyone who accused a person of a crime want to have that person's record disappear and then to have that person walk free???

The following is what an expungement  actually is, and it's very simple to explain:

An expungement consists in destroying all vestiges of the defendant's arrest and due processing thereof.  It destroys more than the paperwork.  I am not getting into detail what is actually destroyed and how, because Diane Thompson will use my detailed

explanation in her next set of lies, in order to make her story look authentic, if I publicly post it.

Now, Engel said that expunged records are sealed and placed in a secret archive.  FALSE.  They are entirely destroyed, a la paper shredder.  Even evidence gets a visit to a trash can.  None the less, concerning Engel's false definition of an expungement:

If an expungement were a civil action, it would denote an entirely new case that starts from Stage 1, and an entirely new docket number.  An expungement is the final stage of an existing case, and not a new case in itself.

 

More importantly, expungements have a FEE attached to them.  Depending on the city and state, the price (before Biden Inflation) was $200, $250, $300, $400 or so.  Now, let me show you how much Engel knows NOTHING about law.  You will see her asininity in the following comment that she made in her three-part article.  Let's go to it:

Engel made reference to the 1989 Beaver County DA's formal findings on the investigation started by Tim Bendig's private criminal complaint against Anthony Cipolla.  The findings were that there were no grounds upon which to file criminal charges against Cipolla.

Concerning the official DA letter,  Engel went on to state to the effect, "What about all the molesting that Cipolla did" (if any at all) "in 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, & 1986?"  Engel stated that the Beaver County DA should have filed criminal charges against Cipolla for Bendig's accusations of 1981 to 1986.

Now, what is completely asinine about  that statement by which it proves that Engel knows nothing about law and doesn't think rationally?

ANS:  Bendig's accusations of 1981 to 1986 involved acts that he alleged to have been committed upon him IN AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT JURISDICTION.  They involved Allegheny County, and the Beaver DA cannot file criminal charges against anyone for allegations said to have been committed in another county jurisdiction.  Bendig tried in that "other jurisdiction" and failed to obtain an indictment.

Why didn't Engel mention the Allegheny County DA's office denying Tim Bendig his petition to have Cipolla indicted, along with the Beaver County DA?  And why did she never mentioned the Oakland NJ Police Dept giving Cipolla a plaque of appreciation, thereby showing that those policemen never had reason to suspect him of being a molester?

More Notes:

Oh, by the way, concerning the damning allegation of a 70 year old convenience store owner hitting young Tucker in the face, for accusing Cipolla of molestation, do you really believe that that overly theatrical story ever happened?  Now think.  Diane Thompson's name was NEVER in the newspapers, never on television, and never on the radio.  Tucker's name was never in the papers, never mentioned on TV, and NEVER mentioned on the radio.  So, how would that store owner have known  that Tucker made the accusation, in the first place?

Did such a store owner exist?  The story is too theatrical to be taken seriously.

In addition, we are talking about a major American metropolis here.  How many 70 yr old seniors work at a store that is corporately owned, (or corporately leased)?  When was the last time you saw a 70+ yr old gentleman working in a metropolitan convenience store?  Keep in mind that, in 1978, the retirement age was 65 years old.  Plus, in 1978, Pittsburgh was the King of Steel, and those steelworker pensions were plentiful.

Next:

And then there was mention of a Bernie Thompson suddenly dying in the State of Florida where I went to college.  Engel stated that he was hit by a car while crossing the road/street/highway, trying to get a homeless man a "decent meal."

Uhm, if he were crossing the street, trying to get a homeless man a decent meal, then the man was walking next to him.  So, why didn't the homeless man get hit by the car and killed, too?  I have a subscription to the archives of thousands of American newspapers, and I could NOT find any article of any man getting hit by a car while trying to get a homeless man a decent meal.  None the less . . .

Being that one of my alma maters was a Florida university that borders the Hillboro River and West Kennedy Blvd, I am very familiar with the homeless.  What a person usually did, if he didn't ignore the homeless person, was give him money and let him get the meal himself.  Plus, some of those guys were super harassing people.  A person would cross a street / road / or highway, just to get away from the overly obnoxious homeless person.  When fleeing someone pushy, we sometimes don't look both ways before crossing the street.  None the less . . .

I could neither find any article about a "Tommy Thompson" taking his own life at the hands of sleeping pills or pills similar, despite my subscriber's access to over a thousand American newspapers.

By the way, the most common form of suicide for a woman, and NOT a man, is death by barbiturate overdose.  The most common form of suicide for a man is death by gun shot.

For Future Article Writing:

Then comes the Mexico Street allegations in the Engel article.  Nothing in those damning allegations fit.  Now, I am all for reporting Anthony Cipolla as a criminal, but all of the articles that damn him to the pits of Hell are bullet riddled with fact-checked lies..

Oh, and then there is a "medical report thing," about traces of a lubricant coming from a hospital.  Very simply, if it did exist ... and if it were sent to "detectives," it would have come from THE FORENSICS LAB.  Thus, if Engel would have stated that the "report" came from the Forensics lab, her paragraph on the subject would have carried a bit of plausibility.

You know, magistrates are known to order forensics testing.  Was there any magistrate ordering any testing in this case?  That's another reason why the Engel article and Thompson web log posts are easily recognizable as frauds.  There is no mention of a magistrate being involved.

One more thing, concerning Tim Bendig's alleged ability to con people:

Keep in mind that Bendig almost had me conned, until he stated something I knew to be a lie, and then Bendig changed his story three more times, making him even more of a liar in my eyes.  If I weren't a document hunter, Bendig would have succeeded in conning me as much as he succeeded in conning Engel.   Randy Engel had gotten lazy.

None the less, there is a way to tell if Bendig is lying, if you can see him speaking.  I declined to interview him in person, because he is a liar, and I couldn't risk him claiming that I said something that I never said.  So, I avoided him.  

HOWEVER, if I could interview ... interrogate ... Bendig in a public setting with a camera present (to prove that I didn't threaten him) I will be able to tell if he is lying, line item by line item.  I will then be able to follow the cues and find out, once and for all, if he were ever physically invaded by Cipolla.

All in all, Randy Engel is NOT the guardian of truth.  It was written that Engel's book, the Rite of Sodomy ... or whatever it's called ... is not for the faint of heart.   Actually, Randy Engel's writings are NOT for the high class ... or the discreet ... or those who have a sense of decency ... or those who cringe at vulgarity

__________________________________________________

The Body Sore Allegation that adds to the farcical nature of the Cipolla Case: Sores are too painful for any priest to molest anyone.

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.  

November 2023 Update:

Concerning the claim that Cipolla had BODY SORES

I was contacted recently ... by an individual whose name I'm not going to mention, for the sake of privacy ... and was informed that no one claimed that Cipolla had sores all over his body.  He merely had rashes.  

I was also told that no assistant lawyer of Attorney John Conte told anyone to testify at a deposition that Cipolla received a sore (or rash) on one of his forearms from a spider bite.  I'm going to be polite and leave "it" at this, without adding a commentary ... or a smart aleck response.  

Once again, Cipolla was now said to have had rashes, and not Biblical sores on his body.  The pertinent point is that Bendig's attorney ... during deposition time ... was so hard-up to find anything against Cipolla that he brought into the conversation a red mark-blotch-rash on one of Cipolla's forearms, as if that could prove that Cipolla were a grand molester of the ages.  

End of November 2023 Update

That which appears below was written BEFORE someone came forth to amend the story of Cipolla, as was told to him by the 1978 accusing mother who endlessly exaggerated the things she did not outright lie-about.  And remember, this was the woman who, in 2014, thought that you were such a gullible & airheaded dupe that you would instantly believe her claim that I didn't exist ... but was only Anthony Cipolla in disguise with a fake name ... operating a child molestation ring.

And of course, if you are rich ... or if you manage a wealthy corporation ... and you claim anything near to what she claimed in 2014 and at other times, you and I will end up in the same civil courtroom.  I will not settle out of court with you.  And I believe that it has already been proven that I keep my promises.

The original beginning of this post/discourse starts here:

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?  The 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 molestation ring.  For the record, Cipolla died SIX years ago, and his ghost is NOT typing 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-exaggerated 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 theatrically 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 contributing to the delinquency of male minors.

News of a second priest being indicted for molestation would have made the frontpages 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 contradicting 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 conclude that Bendig was a con artist. So, when it comes to the actual molestationallegations 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 warrant a noose around Cipolla's neck at high noon, especially in light of the fact thath is 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.  Immediately 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 another 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 (without 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 Bendig'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 arrested 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, being 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 evidence 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 complaint.  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 clearances 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 admit 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 defendant, expect a settlement to come as a result of mathematics.