A Split In The District Attorney’s Office Over Billy Doe’s [Lack Of] Credibility

PHILADELPHIA (PA)
Big Trial

Friday, March 1, 2013

By Ralph Cipriano
For Bigtrial.net

In July 2012, Michael J. McGovern was preparing for the upcoming trial of his client, Father Charles Engelhardt, on charges that he had raped a former 10-year-old altar boy.

The phone rang. A high-ranking official at the district attorney’s office was on the line, wanting to know why McGovern was refusing to even discuss a plea deal on a case scheduled to go to trial in early September 2012.

I’ve got a problem, McGovern recalled saying. My client’s been a priest since 1967. If he even pleads no contest to a misdemeanor, such as corrupting the morals of a minor, and just gets probation, he can’t be a priest anymore. And that’s the only thing that matters to him. He also happens to be completely innocent.

The response he got surprised him, McGovern said. The high-ranking official on the other end of the line said, well there’s a split opinion over here [in the district attorney’s office] about whether the complainant is credible.

“He’s incredible,” McGovern recalled telling the official about the former altar boy identified in the 2011 grand jury report as “Billy Doe.” “He’s a lying sack of shit.”

Note: This is an Abuse Tracker excerpt. Click the title to view the full text of the original article. If the original article is no longer available, see our News Archive.