Lynn’s Lawyers Fight Appeal


Click here to read: “Lynn fights attempt to block a new trial,” by Justine McDaniel, The Philadelphia Inquirer, March 23, 2016

Excerpt:

In court documents filed Tuesday, lawyers for Lynn, who was granted a new trial in December after being convicted for his role in supervising Catholic priests who molested children, contend that there are no grounds for appeal under state rules.
Advertisements

19 Responses to “Lynn’s Lawyers Fight Appeal”

  1. The information surrounding this case goes back quite a few chapters. A majority of the sexual abuses and cover up or priest transfers happened in the 1970s and 1980s . How convenient the Archdiocese of Philadelphia continues to employ lobbyists to fight #SOLreform. In three years, if legislation is not passed, the Archdiocese will be celebrating because a majority of the past victims wil have reached or past age 50.
    Having been subpoenaed to the Lynn trial, I was shown and given a copy of a letter that WAS to be sent to my parents back in 1981. The letter alerted them that I and orher young biys may have been subhected to inappropriate conduct by the now defrocked Francis Trauger. The stamp was .15 cents and never left the Archdiocese. Many victims couldnt gave been saved had that letter been mailed. Lynn needs to blow the whistle on whos sentence he is really serving. Krol, McFadden, Shoemaker, Pepe, Bransfield, McIntyre, Senior, Rigali, Bevilacqua and the list goes on. The prosecution is now attempting to save face with a new trial. Lynn, was so far down the totem pol and the best lamb to be sacrificed.

    • Is Lynn hiding behind his vow of obedience to his Bishop? Counting on a comfortable retirement after time served? Brainwashed? Who knows? It would take a miracle for him to speak up. Anyone watch Law & Order last night? Truth is uglier than fiction.

  2. Mike who signed the letter in 1981? Was that during Krol’s time?
    Susan ,we saw Lynn on the stand and to me it was the best example of clericalism. i think he will always do what he feels is best for the Church when in reality the best thing for the church would be for him to tell all so that more people could be held accountable,children could be protected and clericalism could take a much needed hit. I don’t know that he would do that, but would love to be proven wrong.

  3. Honestly, Susan, you’re too dependent on the Inquirer for news. A much more thorough story was up on my blog eleven hours earlier:

    http://www.bigtrial.net/2016/03/msgr-lynns-lawyers-da-breathtakingly.html

  4. “But Lynn’s attorney, Thomas A. Bergstrom, argued that the case does not meet the general standards for appeals because the Superior Court’s decision was an unpublished opinion” (The Philadelphia Inquirer).

    Lynn’s lawyer are doing exactly what they’re paid to do; defend Lynn. I have no problem with his lawyers, but I have an enormous problem with the people supporting the Church that pays those lawyers.

    If you’re still giving money to the RCC you do not have a legitimate right to object to Lynn’s defense. .

  5. The church is paying for Lynn’s defense to ensure that he remains the firewall, and that nobody above him gets jammed up. That’s what it’s all about.

    • Interesting insight, you gave me something to ponder.

    • Even though the Archdiocese may be paying for the defense,doesn’t the defense owe it to the client to advise him that his best defense could be to turn on the others? Lynn has some control here..

      • His defense has been basically to turn on the others, especially Bevy. I believe a judge at one point gave him that lecture.

        • Bevy was dead. Easy to turn on him. Turning on Bevy helped Lynn; didn’t hurt dead Bevy. Let’s see Lynn turn on the ones still living.

          • Bev was fine during deposition one week before his death. …..weak but sound. The angels of mercy slipped him an extra pain pill or two and ….nite nite. His body was embalmed before any autopsy. Lets not forget Rigali getting out of dodge quick either. McFadden, whom I believe knew the most as secty under Krol, had a suspicious end as well upon return to Philadelphia for some business.

        • Ralph,I know Beisel testified at the trial about the shredded memo but Cistone and Cullen did not if I remember correctly. Why were they not called to testify?

    • Then would it be fair to say that the enabling and protecting continues as evidenced by lynn being the firewall ? Who up hierarchial ladder is being protected ? So chaput was sent here for damage control ? So the rcc will never change unless the laws are changed to compel the rcc to comply ?

  6. They were never called to my knowledge but they both gave depositions in the Billy Doe civil case.

    • Couldn’t Lynn’s defense team have called them to testify in reference to the shredded memo to prove that Lynn was lower on the totem pole? Wouldn’t that have scored some points for the defense in reference to the EWOC charge involving Avery since his name was on the shredded memo and there were others in higher positions not being charged with the EWOC? I don’t understand why the defense would not have called them. I understand why the prosecution wouldn’t if they were trying to pin it all on Lynn alone , but the defense?

      • Kathy, are you suggesting that, in not calling higher ups to the stand, Lynn’s defense team was in on a pact with Lynn and the archdiocese for Lynn to be the fall-guy, for the others to be protected, and for Lynn to possibly be rewarded monetarily once he served his time?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: