Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Sex-for-tix case going to trial: January date set in Common Pleas Court, Doylestown
Philadelphia Daily News ^ | Dec. 17, 2009 | REGINA MEDINA

Posted on 12/17/2009 6:55:17 AM PST by South Hawthorne

Susan Finkelstein sat down with undercover Officer Michael Brady at a Bucks County bar and allegedly gave him a bold confession for a first meeting, according to his testimony yesterday at her preliminary hearing.

"I admit it. I'm a prostitute. I love sex. I'm a whore," the Bensalem police officer testified that Finkelstein had told him as he posed as "Bob" at Manny Brown's in Bensalem.

[excerpted for graphic content]

The Southwest Philadelphia woman believed Brady had three tickets to a Phillies-Yankees World Series game and, Bensalem police say, was willing to exchange sex for at least one.

In reality, it was a sting operation by Bensalem cops, who had found the "desperate blonde," as Finkelstein reportedly called herself, while trolling Craigslist for illegal activities.

Finkelstein, 43, was also told in an e-mail written by Sgt. Robert Bugsch that "Bob" had a brother, Bugsch said on the stand. That apparently upped the possibilities for Finkelstein.

[excerpted for graphic content]

Brady's and Bugsch's testimony - along with the introduction of topless photos as evidence, images Finkelstein purportedly sent to Bugsch before the meeting - was apparently enough for Falcone. He held the case over for trial in Common Pleas Court, set to begin Jan. 5 in Doylestown.

She was charged with promoting prostitution and, yesterday, with general prostitution.

Brennan suggested he may appeal the ruling, claiming that Falcone's decision was based on "unsubstantiated, unrecorded testimony of one officer," he said, referring mainly to Brady's testimony.

Finkelstein, a woman with a self-avowed "big mouth," spoke with the swarm of media after the hearing, despite Brennan's assurances that she would not comment on the proceedings.

"It was very hard to hear the untruths that were said about me and my actions without being able to respond," she said in a soft, melodic voice. Later, she said, "It is not in my vocabulary to use those words."

Earlier, when Brady used the term "whore" in court, Finkelstein let out a sigh of disbelief.

After the hearing, Brennan wondered aloud why Bensalem police didn't record the conversation or why three other police at the bar weren't close enough to listen in on the conversation.

Regarding the topless photos, Brennan said, the police officers admitted that sending them was not illegal.

"She's here charged with a crime," he said. "The crime isn't bad taste. The crime is prostitution."


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; US: Pennsylvania
KEYWORDS: phillies; tickets; whore; worldseries
Typical lib.

A grad student at U of P, she has no morality, and commits disgraceful acts, and when she's caught, she blames others.

How proud her husband and children must be.

1 posted on 12/17/2009 6:55:20 AM PST by South Hawthorne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Owl_Eagle
Falcone's decision was based on "unsubstantiated, unrecorded testimony of one officer,"

So, let's charge this woman without any evidence; we'll just take the word of this one Cop, acting alone, without any recordings, without any witnesses as just plain "Good Enough" and then we'll press charges against this young lady that will follow her the rest of her life. .... < /sarcasm>

No evidence, no crime.

2 posted on 12/17/2009 7:02:13 AM PST by Hodar (Who needs laws .... when this "feels" so right?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Owl_Eagle
"I admit it. I'm a prostitute. I love sex. I'm a whore,"

An honest politician, what a rarity!

3 posted on 12/17/2009 7:02:13 AM PST by NaughtiusMaximus (Crouching Tiger. Hidden fire hydrant.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Owl_Eagle

“The Southwest Philadelphia woman believed Brady had three tickets to a Phillies-Yankees World Series game and, Bensalem police say, was willing to exchange sex for at least one.”

Sex always was and always will be an “exchange”. Both parties always want something... It’s unusual for it to be baseball tickets, but it’s always something.


4 posted on 12/17/2009 7:04:20 AM PST by babygene (Figures don't lie, but liars can figure...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Owl_Eagle

Her Facebook page:

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1067397945&v=wall


5 posted on 12/17/2009 7:05:40 AM PST by walford (http://the-big-pic.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Owl_Eagle
How proud her husband and children must be.

Judging from the photo, hubby is a Sugar Daddy. She probably got him on Craigslist also.

6 posted on 12/17/2009 7:06:34 AM PST by TC Rider (The United States Constitution - 1791. All Rights Reserved.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hodar

>> No evidence, no crime.

Testimony is evidence ...

SnakeDoc


7 posted on 12/17/2009 7:11:02 AM PST by SnakeDoctor ("Talk low, talk slow, and don't say too much." -- John Wayne)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Hodar
Not included in the above article was the craigslist ad:

“DESPERATE BLONDE NEEDS WS TIX (Philadelphia):” “Diehard Phillies fan — gorgeous tall buxom blonde — in desperate need of two World Series tickets. Price negotiable — I’m the creative type! Maybe we can help each other!”

The topless pictures she sent detectives also lends credence to the testimony of the officer.

I'm finding it difficult to imagine an alternative scenario.

8 posted on 12/17/2009 7:19:15 AM PST by South Hawthorne (In Memory of my Dear Friend Henry Lee II)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SnakeDoctor

9 posted on 12/17/2009 7:21:52 AM PST by ErnBatavia (It's not the Obama Administration....it's the "Obama Regime".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SnakeDoctor

Unsubstanciated evidence is not evidence.

He said, she said ...

Using that ‘burden of proof’ gives the Police power to make up any story they want. Would you want to go to jail, have a sex crime added to your permanent history based upon nothing more than the word of a policeman? Look at the cop wrong, drive the wrong make of car, root for the wrong team - and you too could be charged with prostitution, assault, indecent exposure or any host of crimes.

Hell, why even bother with a court system? We’ll just have the cops assign whatever crime they want, whenever they want, against whomever they want.


10 posted on 12/17/2009 7:22:29 AM PST by Hodar (Who needs laws .... when this "feels" so right?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Owl_Eagle

Is she guilty? Possibly.

What incompetence on behalf of the policeman!! This is like turning off the video camera and the speedgun and then passing speeding tickets out. No recording, no backup, no collaborating police team?!?

Here’s what I believe happened.

The cop was out on his own, if the woman was hot; he’d have screwed her and no one would be the wiser. When she asked for the tickets, he’s toss his badge on the table and threaten her. Quick, easy piece - some would call that a job perk.

For whatever reason, when he saw her; he wasn’t interested in sex. Maybe he got some at home, or he wasn’t in the mood, or she wasn’t as attractive in person.

What other POSSIBLE reason would a policeman have to go out on a private sting operation? Hmmm, no video, no audio, no witness, no one in the office knew he was there. I have a problem with that.

I think the cop is a liar, he took too many incompetent steps to be anything other than dirty. I’d fire him for imcompetence if nothing else. He placed himself in a position where he endangered his life, without alerting or involving the policeforce as to his private activities.

Why didn’t he just go off on his own and negotiate a drug deal? This case smells to high heavens.


11 posted on 12/17/2009 7:29:35 AM PST by Hodar (Who needs laws .... when this "feels" so right?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Hodar

Prostitution rarely leaves evidence other than testimony of the involved parties. If the testimony of an undercover officer is to be universally disregarded — it would leave an unprosecutable crime.

As with all witnesses, the jury can weigh whether or not to accept the officer’s testimony as truth. If they think he is making it up, they can choose to disregard his testimony. But, his testimony is evidence, and thus can be weighed by a jury.

SnakeDoc


12 posted on 12/17/2009 7:31:21 AM PST by SnakeDoctor ("Talk low, talk slow, and don't say too much." -- John Wayne)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Owl_Eagle
I'm finding it difficult to imagine an alternative scenario.

But the defendant is ASSUMED innocent until proven guilty. For evidence, I require more than the mere word of any any human, cop, lawyer, thug or man on the street. I want evidence. Why wasn't this cop wearing a wire? Heck, even my lousy cell phone can record a conversation. No audio, no video, no observing policemen in the bar - nothing.

13 posted on 12/17/2009 7:33:36 AM PST by Hodar (Who needs laws .... when this "feels" so right?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SnakeDoctor
If the testimony of an undercover officer is to be universally disregarded — it would leave an unprosecutable crime.

Maybe it should be an unprosecutable crime. I would imagine that there are serious crimes out there that the police should be working instead of wasting their time on a victimless crime.

14 posted on 12/17/2009 7:38:36 AM PST by Retired COB (Still mad about Campaign Finance Reform)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SnakeDoctor
But, his testimony is evidence, and thus can be weighed by a jury.

Whole-heartedly agree. My issue is with the police department and DA. I raised some very basic questions, and if I were her lawyer I would raise the same questions. No recordings? A cop working entirely alone? No backup? This reeks of a cop out cruising for an easy piece.

Just think, if dinner were included in the deal, no crime would have taken place.

My issue is that whatever minimal level we use against her, can be used against us. She has her picture published, has been called a whore, slut and prostitute - and she hasn't even been tried yet.

15 posted on 12/17/2009 7:39:56 AM PST by Hodar (Who needs laws .... when this "feels" so right?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Owl_Eagle

Thank God! The streets of Philly are now safe from ruthless chicks who would have sex with me in exchange for World Series tickets that I don’t have. Whew!


16 posted on 12/17/2009 7:42:40 AM PST by Larry Lucido
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Retired COB

>> Maybe it should be an unprosecutable crime. I would imagine that there are serious crimes out there that the police should be working instead of wasting their time on a victimless crime.

Maybe so — but, that isn’t for the DA or the Cops to decide. The law is the law, and their job is to arrest and prosecute those that break it. If the law should be changed, then the legislature will have to change it.

Fundamentally, I see your point on legalization. What business is it of mine (or the governments) if a couple wants to exchange sex for cash (or whatever)? No harm, no foul. On the other hand, the law is what it is — and actively legalizing prostitution is tantamount to an endorsement, which I am not in favor of.

SnakeDoc


17 posted on 12/17/2009 7:46:37 AM PST by SnakeDoctor ("Talk low, talk slow, and don't say too much." -- John Wayne)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: SnakeDoctor

I’m a resident of the Township and I’d rather our police do other things than luring 40-something prostitutes from Philly for busts. Puh-leeeez.


18 posted on 12/17/2009 7:46:50 AM PST by ccruse456
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Owl_Eagle

Maybe she was trying to get the tickets as a Christmas present for her hubby.


19 posted on 12/17/2009 7:51:53 AM PST by sportutegrl (I was for Sarah Palin before being for Sarah was cool.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hodar
Here’s what I believe happened.

The cop was out on his own, if the woman was hot; he’d have screwed her and no one would be the wiser. When she asked for the tickets, he’s toss his badge on the table and threaten her. Quick, easy piece - some would call that a job perk.

For whatever reason, when he saw her; he wasn’t interested in sex. Maybe he got some at home, or he wasn’t in the mood, or she wasn’t as attractive in person.

What other POSSIBLE reason would a policeman have to go out on a private sting operation? Hmmm, no video, no audio, no witness, no one in the office knew he was there. I have a problem with that.

I think the cop is a liar, he took too many incompetent steps to be anything other than dirty. I’d fire him for imcompetence if nothing else. He placed himself in a position where he endangered his life, without alerting or involving the policeforce as to his private activities.

Why didn’t he just go off on his own and negotiate a drug deal? This case smells to high heavens.

Now knowing this aspect: three other police at the bar do you still think your scenario is likely? Even in your scenario, she was still guilty of promoting prostitution and probably prostitution.

20 posted on 12/17/2009 7:59:47 AM PST by South Hawthorne (In Memory of my Dear Friend Henry Lee II)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Owl_Eagle

So you meet a woman on Craig’s List, you take her out, you wine and dine her and she takes you to her bed.

You probably spent at least $100.00 but you think you got laid for free and the woman isnt a whore?


21 posted on 12/17/2009 8:01:02 AM PST by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Venturer
You probably spent at least $100.00 but you think you got laid for free and the woman isnt a whore?

You meet a woman on craigslist, take her out for a $100 dinner and she sleeps with you? Oh, she's a whore, that's for sure. She's just not a prostitute. She hasn't obligated herself to "service" you in the "Macaroni Grill" scenario.

If the ad on craigslist said she was selling her services in exchange for dinner, that'd be prostitution.

22 posted on 12/17/2009 8:09:56 AM PST by South Hawthorne (In Memory of my Dear Friend Henry Lee II)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Owl_Eagle
Shame on you, Owl_Eagle. You are implying something that does not exist. When you state that "three other police at the bar" that is deceptive. I'd expect better than that.

From the article:

After the hearing, Brennan wondered aloud why Bensalem police didn't record the conversation or why three other police at the bar weren't close enough to listen in on the conversation.

So, where were they? In the bathroom, on the dance floor? Ordering drinks? They were not witnesses, they had no idea what was discussed, no tapes, no video, no substanciating witnesses - nothing. Heck, they could have been in DisneyLand as far as this case is concerned. As I said earlier, my POS cell phone can record, and we are supposed to accept the word of ONE policeman as good enough to convict a woman?

Now, did she do it? Yeah, I think she did. But, do we KNOW that she did this? No. There is no excuse for this lapse in competence. We convict based upon what a 'reasonable' person would consider 'proof'.

All we have are 3 policemen in a bar that can truthfully testify that "We were there, and so was the arresting officer - and since he made an arrest we have reason to believe that the accused was there too". Nice.

23 posted on 12/17/2009 8:10:24 AM PST by Hodar (Who needs laws .... when this "feels" so right?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ErnBatavia

I’d hit it.


24 posted on 12/17/2009 8:12:06 AM PST by Lazamataz (DEFINITION: rac-ist (rA'sis't) 1. Anyone who disagrees with a liberal about any topic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Hodar
All we have are 3 policemen in a bar that can truthfully testify that "We were there, and so was the arresting officer - and since he made an arrest we have reason to believe that the accused was there too". Nice.

Which is all they need to testify.

It just disproves the possibility that this was some rogue cop acting alone.

Look, we'll agree to disagree. I tend to think there's a greater degree of lee way for folks to make an upstanding and moral society for them to live in. That's not saying those who have greater libertarian leanings are wrong, that's just not my opinion.

25 posted on 12/17/2009 8:15:10 AM PST by South Hawthorne (In Memory of my Dear Friend Henry Lee II)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Owl_Eagle
It just disproves the possibility that this was some rogue cop acting alone.

I'll agree, but just barely.

After seeing people convicted and serving time for rape, or child abuse, and in one case where a man is still in jail after serving 15 years, when he is clearly innocent. I demand absolute, indisputable proof. We have the technology, the police have the funding, training and skill to use these tools. This isn't rocket science. This is a wire, or a bug or a freakin' cell phone sitting on the bar. This is a cop sitting with his back turned, apparently engaged in a converstation. Heck, we have High School students doing more sophisticated work than this trying to figure out who the cute girl in class really likes.

As far as we know, the cop could have been discussing the weather with this woman. And that is what I object to. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. We don't, and are unable to ever find out what was discussed.

Because we have no idea what the conversation was, we are forced to ASSUME that the cop is telling the truth. Based upon nothing more than his word, a woman is going to be charged, humiliated and possibly carry a prostitution conviction with her for the rest of her life. Before I saddle ANYONE with a charge they will carry for the rest of their life, be it theft, DWI, drug possession, distribution or even shoplifting - there is something more substancial than one person's word.

26 posted on 12/17/2009 8:29:18 AM PST by Hodar (Who needs laws .... when this "feels" so right?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: SnakeDoctor
Fundamentally, I see your point on legalization. What business is it of mine (or the governments) if a couple wants to exchange sex for cash (or whatever)?

I'm old enough to remember the Vice Squad in the Norfolk Virginia area in the 1960's as a young sailor. This was before the huge influx of drugs, and the Vice Squad enforced morals laws as a means of providing income to the city. You could be arrested for taking off your shoes (that equated to beginning the process of disrobing) in the same house as a female who was anyone other than your wife.

I think we're basically on the same page. I don't approve of legalized prostitution, but it upsets me more to have a representative of our government sticking their nose into my affairs (pun intended).

They can continue to make it illegal, but decriminalize it as they do a lot of places now for small amounts of marijuana. If people are putting themselves in a position where it becomes noticable to the public.....give them a ticket like you would for running a stop sign. Having a police officer spend a lot of time undercover trying to bust people for following their human instincts seems like a huge waste of time.

27 posted on 12/17/2009 8:59:47 AM PST by Retired COB (Still mad about Campaign Finance Reform)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Hodar

Unsubstanciated evidence is not evidence, it is in this day and age. Police routinely prevail in traffic court on only the word (speeding tickets). This is just a step further. This is part of the reason that many no longer trust the police.


28 posted on 12/17/2009 9:18:06 AM PST by Ratman83
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Ratman83
Police routinely prevail in traffic court on only the word (speeding tickets).

Don't know about your state or area; but in my area the cops have video camera and the radar gun speed is displayed on the recording. This is evidence.

If there is no way for the Radar gun to imprint the read speed, then it comes into question. On the plus side, I have experienced several officers who have given me reduced tickets (87 went to 80mph) simply because I was polite and civil to the officer. Yeah, I was guilty, but having the policeman show a little mercy was appreciated.

So, I like the way things are done here; but in the article I have a lot of heartburn with the way things went down.

29 posted on 12/17/2009 9:24:45 AM PST by Hodar (Who needs laws .... when this "feels" so right?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Hodar

I do not know what they have here, but in the past it was the cops word against yours. Last ticket I got was my fault so that is not my real issue. Mine is like yours, his statement is not enough for me. To many instances of corruption withe the police now.


30 posted on 12/17/2009 9:39:08 AM PST by Ratman83
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Owl_Eagle

Who runs Barter Town?


31 posted on 12/17/2009 9:41:13 AM PST by MortMan (Stubbing one's toes is a valid (if painful) way of locating furniture in the dark.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson