We've just read the news that Cardinal Pell's appeal
has failed and that he is to serve the full time
of his sentence in jail.

Has justice been served?

Why? or Why not?

I am very sad.

This means that it can happen to any of us.

I don't like Pell, such a smug and sanctimonious bastard, and as a non-believer, I have no regrets about the decline of the Catholic Church (or any church). But I do have misgivings about a verdict which is based only on assertions rather than evidence.

I would love for some film director to try to film this as accurately as possible, and realise that there are difficulties with the timing of when Pell was supposed to zip around the back of the cathedral, catch those two boys (or even know that they would be there), whip off his robes, have his way with them, get dressed and get back to the front steps as if nothing had happened.

So this will now go to the High Court ?

Joe

«So this will now go to the High Court ?»

If I were the Queen, then I would stop this circus right now!

Guilty and that being the verdict we all should be happy our system works
Not being a believer it is good to see power and influence did not over rule justice

Belly,

Did you not post the following?

"Here we go opinion based on private bias not truth
Pell will in all probability walk free
Power and influence buys justice in this country..."
Posted by Belly, Saturday, 17 August 2019 12:05:29 PM

Changed your mind rather quickly.

I wonder will the rape allegation against Shorten come up again?

Joe,
I have no feelings one way or another about Pell and am not religious in any manner shape or form, but I am concerned about the implications of this case.

I may be wrong but this is the first case I have seen where a person has been convicted purely on allegations alone. The complaintant gave the only evidence for the prosecution and it was verbal, there was no other evidence of any sort. I understand that laws were altered to allow convictions on allegations alone, at least in Victoria.

This sets a precedent that any man, woman or child can be convicted in Victoria of any crime on the basis of some accusations, without supporting evidence. I say again, there was no supporting evidence given at the Pell trial.

I was of the opinion that the prosecution had to prove guilt, but now the shoe is on the other foot and the accused has to prove his innocence. I think Victoria will regret the law changes which frighten me for the citizens.

This case will probably continue
to bring out various emotions in many people.
The victims and their families, the strong
believers in the infallability of Church leaders,and
those who do not have much confidence in our legal
system, and the list goes on.

The Age newspaper tells us that Cardinal George Pell
will consider his case to the High Court, after Victoria's
Court of Appeal upheld his child-sex convictions in a
majority ruling. Meaning the Cardinal will serve out his
six year prison term. The Cardinal must serve 3 years and
eight months before he is eligible for parole.

Pell's lawyers are now considering whether to continue his
legal fight. He has 28 days to seek special leave to
appeal in the High Court.

If Pell applied to the High Court it would decide whether
or not to hear the case.

In 2017-18 the High Court refused special leave for 430 cases
and granted it for only 65.

I have very little time for catholic church despite being raised in it. The decision in my mind shows that one does not have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt if you belong in a despised group. A very sad day that destroys anyone with any neutrality having faith in the court system.

We were not in the Court when Pell's case was
being heard. We do not know what the evidence
was that was presented. All we have to go on is
that a jury of 12 unanimously found the man guilty.

Now Chief Justice Ferguson has said that Pell's
surviving victim was a "compelling witness,"
"Clearly not a liar," "Not a fantasist" and a
"witness of trust."

That throughout his evidence the complainant came
across as someone who was telling the truth.

The majority of two judges decided that there was nothing
about the complainant's evidence or the opportunity
evidence, which meant that the jury must have had a
doubt about the truth of the complainant's account.

The two judges ruled they did not experience a doubt.

Our Prime Minister said, "The decision of the three
Court of Appeal Judges must be respected."

Foxy,

"...believers in the infallability* of Church leaders..."

Who thinks that Church leaders are infallible?

*You do need a bit of help sometimes.[infallibility]

Foxy,
I take it that you are now happy that Victorians can now be convicted by accusations alone. It used to be that accusations were not enough and prosecutors were required to present factual or supporting evidence..

Who said "Justice must not only be done, but seen to be done".

Is Miserable, nothing I say will appease you but yes I did write that
And FULLY expected he would get off
See I do not trust our justice system
I see youths thieving a car get more time behind bars than white collar criminals
Worth mentioning you, by your constant and blind defense of all things Catholic, are part of the problem, not the needed reform that Church desperately needs
I am not about to enter another fruitless debate with you as I have had more intelligent conversations with my two mini Foxys

Foxy, have you not been following this case closely?
There was no evidence presented! All the jury had access to was the victims testimony. And we know this because the press were given access to all witnesses and evidence, except the videotape of the alleged victim.
And he has been convicted of abusing a second boy who denied it!
As much as I hate pedophiles, this case sets a horrific precedent where a person can be convicted of a crime on the say say of a citizen, without any supporting evidence

http://www.smh.com.au/national/victoria/george-pell-appeal-fails-cardinal-to-serve-out-full-jail-term-20190820-p52it1.html
George is to appeal, or is he?
Story is worth the read
Big Nana with honest respect maybe you should rethink your post?
Evidence heard by jury mentioned in today's judgment, was found to be believable
Mums and dads all over the world, to their eternal shame did not believe their children
Victims suffer when loyalty to this Church comes before justice

Big Nana,

I have been following the case closely.

You need to do more research on the suppression
orders that were in place - and the journalists
who sat in court for months and were not allowed
to report on what was going on.

The facts remain that the courts have done their
job they've rendered their verdict and that as
our PM has stated is the system of justice in
this country and must be respected.

Cardinal Pell was a too convenient victim to pass up for post-Christian, socialist Australia, with its activist judges, : high profile, conservative - a person who refused to alter Christianity to suit a slack society, as the non-conformists have. The elites were out to get him. He didn't stand a chance after courageously returning from Rome when police had nothing at all on him

I hope you are wrong ttbn but suspect you are right.

Dear Yuyutsu,

You said: 'I am very sad. This means that it can happen to any of us.'

Well not exactly, unless of course one has a guilt complex about being a paedophile. So it's definitely not something that I think will ever happen to me. But given your statement I definitely won't be looking at you the same way anymore.

The Cardinal defenders will of course cry foul again.
But this time it is the judges and not a jury who
had to decide whether the facts stacked up against
the Cardinal. In this case, after looking at all the
evidence again - they watched the videos, toured the
Cathedral, examined the robes, the judges of the
Court of Appeal by two to one upheld Cardinal Pell's
conviction.

David Marr points out in his article in The Guardian
that the key to their decision was clearly the accuser -
whose name can never be published and whose evidence
can only be read in summary. Marr confirms that ever
since the complainant's allegations emerged a couple
of years ago, those who have met him speak of an
extraordinarily convincing young man.

Two of the 3 judges agreed. They did not doubt his
evidence.

Pell's failure is set out in hundreds of judicial prose
but as Marr says it's really as simple as this - most
of the judges believed his accuser. I agree with Marr
in hoping that this man will now find some sort of peace
while Rome decides what to do with the most senior man
in its ranks ever yo be imprisoned for crimes that have
stained the reputation of the Church around the world.

But on a more positive note Australia can meanwhile claim
a more than modest victory for the law.
I agree that we don't often see power take
such a tumble in this country. It will
take some time to sink in. In the meantime the Cardinal will
probably be sent to a country jail where he will no doubt
recognise quite a few of his fellow clergy serving their sentences.

Belly,

"I am not about to enter another fruitless debate with you as I have had more intelligent conversations with my two mini Foxys"

Good for you, maybe they have more chance than others of understanding you.

Loudmouth: “But I do have misgivings about a verdict which is based only on assertions rather than evidence.”

HenryL: “I may be wrong but this is the first case I have seen where a person has been convicted purely on allegations alone.”

BigNana: “There was no evidence presented! All the jury had access to was the victims testimony.”

Come on people a sworn testimony is evidence and always has been. The issue is that is was uncorroborated which is not unusual in child sex abuse cases but made more so by the fact that the other youngster eventually committed suicide. It was that death which prompted the witness to come forward to make a police report.

In the past it has been difficult to get a conviction based on the evidence from a single person's testimony however the courts, rightly in my mind, are giving room for this to accommodate child sexual abuse victims because of the nature of the crime.

The jury was unanimous in believing him to be a credible witness. The majority of the appeal judges did as well.

That is certainly enough for me.

“In the law, testimony is a form of evidence that is obtained from a witness who makes a solemn statement or declaration of fact. Testimony may be oral or written, and it is usually made by oath or affirmation under penalty of perjury.”
Wikipedia

So all three of you are incorrect in claiming no evidence was presented.

Foxy, once again you seem to have misunderstood what happened. The suppression orders were lifted once the case was over. The only evidence not seen or heard by the press was that given by the victim.
Not one person has come forward with any evidence that supports the victims statements. Even the other boy denied it happened.
In today’s release, the judges said they believed the victim. Not one word about supporting evidence, it was all about believing the victim.
This sets a horrific precedent in our courts, where someone can be convicted of a serious crime without any type of visual or physical evidence.
I know quite a few women who were not allow to lay charges on men who abused them as children because there was no supporting evidence. It seems to me that Pell was tried for the crimes of the Catholic Church, not himself. It was trial by social media and hence a serious miscarriage of justice

a too convenient victim to pass up for post-Christian, socialist Australia, with its activist judges,
ttbn,
I think you hit the nail there !

Big Nana,

Your claims about lack of evidence is wrong
as Steele Redux points out in this
discussion.

The following link explains:

http://theconversation.com/george-pell-has-lost-his-appeal-what-did-the-court-decide-and-what-happens-now-118054

Perhaps now more victims will have the courage to come forward.

Dear Foxy,

What do you reckon his chances are of getting into heaven?

SR,

To paraphrase Foxy, we all

"... need to do more research on the suppression orders that were in place - and the journalists who sat in court for months and were not allowed to report on what was going on."

So we're to be kept in the dark ? Well, justice is blind, I suppose. But it certainly shouldn't be. He who asserts, must demonstrate: 'asseritur gratis, negatur gratis'.

Yes, as you point out, a testimony can count as 'evidence'. So, when they come for you, on the basis of someone's 'testimony', what do your reckon we should do ? Do you think that's impossible ?

Joe

Dear Mr Opinion,

I imagine he's had his "heaven" on earth all
these decades.

Joe,

The courts have done their job. They've rendered
their verdict and that's the system of justice
in this country and as the OM stated - that must be
respected.

There's more at the following link:

http://theconversation.com/george-pell-has-lost-his-appeal-what-did-the-court-decide-and-what-happens-now-118054

Obviously the evidence of the witness is considered to be very credible, but we in the peanut gallery have to take that on faith. I would prefer a more transparent process, especially when the outcome is to stick people in the clink for a few years.

Dear Foxy,

«The courts have done their job.»

And their job is?

Judges are public servants. Their job-description is to interpret the laws that were set by politicians.

When laws conflict with justice, their job is to follow the former.
When laws conflict with morality, their job is to follow the former.
When laws conflict with common-sense, their job is to follow the former.

What I cannot understand is, how can one human be so cruel to another?

Justice will be served, no doubt, but not here on earth.

One day people will look back at history with amazement:
"Is it true that people once used to take revenge and punish each other deliberately? How barbaric could they be and this even happened all the way to the 21st century?"

Foxy, why did you put up that link? It didn’t show any evidence apart from what the victim said and some of the things he said were wrong as well.
The most senior judge on the panel supported the appeal and said there was a strong possibility that Pell didn’t commit the crime.
This is not about Pell personally, it’s about our legal system. As Joe says, you had better hope no one comes for you based on nothing more than someone’s 30 year old memory.

Dear Loudmouth,

You ask;

“Yes, as you point out, a testimony can count as 'evidence'. So, when they come for you, on the basis of someone's 'testimony', what do your reckon we should do ? Do you think that's impossible ?”

So what you want is the evidence from two people rather than one with at least one corroborating the other which is how it has traditionally worked.

So when they come for me on the basis of the testimony of two people who were prepared to lie to see me put way unjustly you will say all is good with the world? Case proven?

The laws changed in 2015 in response to issues with getting convictions against child molesters.

Therefore I'm going to ask the question a sightly different way.

So when they came for the next little Loudmouth, a child, trusting of authority, and they repeatedly raped him, leave him physically and emotionally scarred, with a future of spending his days battling mental demons, often turning drink and drugs to cope, often then to fail and to suicide in despair. Will you say to him “I'm sorry, I could have stopped this man, he had done this before to so many little children, but done it in such a way that there were no witnesses, no one to collaborate their evidence, so we had to let him go without censure so the Church could move him to your parish, to ingratiate himself with your parents, and to use you for his sexual gratification with no regard to what it would do to you, because you see the law can not be changed, can not be fully used to give broken children justice and to protect future victims.”?

Is that really going to be your message to that child?

SR,
Come off it, Sworn testimony as evidence is given every day in our courts. Some are believed and some are not. It is usual for the prosecution to present supporting evidence. You say you accept that the accuser was credible, yet is it not the hallmark of a con man to be a convincing liar.

You also say that it was the death of the other 'victim' that prompted the accuser to come forward. It was stated in a press article here that he is to sue Pell and the church. Could it be that the accuser came forward when he knew the other 'victim' could not contradict him, as he had already denied what the accuser said.

Dear HenryL,

This is the witness's statement in full to combat the likely distortions from people like you.

Quote

I am relieved by the decision of the court of appeal. It is four years since I reported to the police. The criminal process has been stressful. The journey has taken me to places that in my darkest moments I feared I would not return from.

The justice machine rolls on with all of its processes and punditry almost forgetting about the people at the heart of the matter.

Despite this, I appreciate that the criminal process has afforded Pell every opportunity to challenge the charges and every opportunity to be heard. I am glad he has had the best legal representation that money can buy.

There are a lot of checks and balances in the criminal justice process and the appeals process is just one of them. I just hope that it is all over now.

Some commentators have suggested that I reported to the police somehow for my own personal gain. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have risked my privacy, my health, my wellbeing and my family.

I have not instructed any solicitor in relation to a claim for compensation. This is not about money and it never has been
Some commentators have suggested that I am somehow out to cause damage to the Catholic church. I am not on a mission to do anybody any harm. Although my faith has taken a battering, it is still part of my life and part of the lives of my loved ones. I am not an advocate.

You wouldn’t know my name. I am not a champion for the cause of sexual abuse survivors, although I am glad that those advocates are out there. But that is not my path.

After attending the funeral of my childhood friend, the other choir boy, I felt a responsibility to come forward. I knew that he had been in a dark place, I have been in a dark place.

I gave a statement to the police because
Cont..

Cont..

I was thinking of him and his family. I felt I should say what I saw and what had happened to me. I had experienced something terrible as a child and I wanted some good to come of it. I would like to acknowledge my friend who passed away, the other choir boy.

I would like to acknowledge the courage of those people who reported to the police. For one reason or another, those matters did not proceed.

My heart goes out to you. I would like to acknowledge the Victoria Police and Office of Public Prosecutions. I am grateful for the steady hand of your honour Justice [Peter] Kidd in guiding the trial and his compassionate, balanced and fair sentencing.

In February, due to other cases not going ahead, I ended up in the spotlight alone. The suppression order was to be lifted and I suddenly found myself in the centre of worldwide media interest.

I asked Viv Waller to help me manage the considerable media interest in the case and to protect my identity and to protect my family. I could not afford legal representation but that did not matter to her. I will be forever grateful that Viv agreed to help me and to do so for free.

She has liaised with the media on my behalf. She has allowed the storms of public opinion to buffet her so that my young family could find safe harbour.

My journey has not been an easy one. It has been all the more stressful because it involved a high profile figure.

I thank the media for respecting my privacy and for continuing to protect my identity. I need to be able to define myself away from all of this.

Recently I have started a new chapter in my life as a father. The experiences I have been through have helped me understand what is truly important.

I am grateful for a legal system that everyone can believe in, where everyone is equal before the law and no one is above the law.

End quote.

so sad when our 'top' judges have no idea of reasonable doubt. Happens I suppose when activist judges are chosen. Doctors ignore biology when murdering the unborn so its an easy leap for judges to ignore the obvious.

Dear runner,

I know it must be distressing for you to have one of the chief god botherers locked up.

Every pedophile priest getting sent down must have had you renting you garments and gnashing your teeth is great distress at the complete injustice of it all.

And let's not get started on that terrible royal commission which had the temerity to highlight just how utterly pervasive the participation or condoning of child abuse was by your faith's leadership.

I mean what do people expect you to do? To just be quiet for once and think about all the victims who will never get their day in court?

Of course that would be entirely unthinkable wouldn't it. Much better to deflect with abortions yet again.

Anyone remember when we used to be horrified at things that happened in the old USSR?

Things like people being found guilty of crimes on the word of an informant.

When neighbour feared neighbour because of denunciation without proof?

Much the same as Nazi Germany or the terror regime of Pol Pot among others.

SR,
That does not mean the bloke is not a liar and con artist, who came forward after the death of the other 'victim' knowing he now could not be contradicted.

We all should be concerned when our courts convict a citizen merely on the accusations of one person, and nothing more.

Yeah Steelie I know you leftist are happy to see a man locked up whether innocent or guilty. You are happy to demonstrate your hatred and hide behind your fake concern for true abuse victims. I doubt whether I could find someone with sicker ideology.

No evidence. All hearsay. We all now need to make sure that we never have to face the 'justice' that George Pell has.

Dear HenryL,

Despite having been told from his own words that he doesn't intend to sue the Church, which was completely at odds to your assertion that he was, you are still claiming him to be a con man?

To what ends?

As to his truthfulness the justices specifically said;

“Throughout his evidence, [the complainant] came across as someone who was telling the truth. He did not seek to embellish his evidence or tailor it in a manner favourable to the prosecution. As might have been expected, there were some things which he could remember and many things which he could not. And his explanations of why that was so had the ring of truth.”

It would take a high degree of skill to make it past not just every single juror in the original case but also highly skilled Justices.

The Justices did however give an opinion of the truthfulness of two of the witnesses though.

“The defence relied on categorical statements by Monsignor Portelli (the prefect of ceremonies to Cardinal Pell) and by Mr Potter (the sacristan) that it was not possible to pull the Cardinal’s robes to the side. The robes were an exhibit at the trial and had been available to the jury in the jury room during their deliberation. Having taken advantage of the opportunity to feel the weight of the robes and assess their manoeuvrability as garments, the Chief Justice and Justice Maxwell decided that it was well open to the jury to reject the contention of physical impossibility. The robes were not so heavy nor so immoveable as the evidence of Monsignor Portelli and Mr Potter had suggested. The Chief Justice and Justice Maxwell found that the robes were capable of being manoeuvred in a way that might be described as being moved or pulled to one side or pulled apart.”

Lying to cover one of their own? It would seem they were rather practiced at it. I wonder why the need has arisen in the past?

Leave it mate. Justice has been served.

.

Dear Foxy,

.

Having read the “Supreme Court of Victoria, Court of Appeal written reasons for judgement in Pell v The Queen”, I am satisfied that our justice system has rendered the best possible decision in this case, given the circumstances.

Here is the transcript :

http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2019/08/supreme-court-of-victoria-court-of-appeal-written-reasons-for-judgement-in-pell-v-the-queen.html?cid=6a0177444b0c2e970d0240a47900bb200c
.

My only regret (which is not specific to this particular case but applies to all trials relating to sex crimes) is that the three Court of Appeal judges emphasised that Cardinal Pell did not have to prove anything in the trial. Rather that, at all stages of the trial the burden of proof rested with the prosecution.

Court decisions are tantamount to imposing a double punishment on victims. It is a cross they have to bear psychologically and socially for the rest of their lives. It is not surprising that the large majority deliberately turn their back on justice considering that it is not only useless but does more harm than good.

As a result, in the US, 97% of rapists never spend a single day in jail. In Italy, a 2006 survey found that 91.6% of rapes were not reported to the police. In Australia, in 2005, it was found that 81.1% of sexual assaults, including rape, were not reported to the police.

The sacrosanct principle of presumption of innocence is an effective means of guaranteeing legal immunity to sex offenders and denying justice to the millions of victims it was designed to protect. In its present form justice is counterproductive. It achieves exactly the opposite result to that for which it was intended. Instead of preventing and punishing crime, it encourages and facilitates it. It is headed in the wrong direction.

The perverse effect of the presumption of innocence in sex-related crimes is usually due to the lack of material evidence and/or of a credible eyewitness and the impossibility of proving that the victim was not the instigator or had given her (or his) consent. Any doubt is to the benefit of the offender. The victim is presumed to be lying.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

In Shakespeare’s tragedy, King Lear, Gloucester’s bastard son, Edmund, quotes Edgar, Gloucester’s legitimate son as having replied when he (Edmund) threatened to expose him (act 2, scene 1): “You penniless bastard! Do you really think that if it came down to my word against yours, anyone would believe you? No. I’d deny whatever evidence you had against me - even if it were in my own handwriting - and turn it all into evidence against you and your plans for treachery”.

My word against yours has always been and continues to be the nemesis of justice.

Nothing has changed since Shakespeare wrote that dialogue over four centuries ago, in 1606.

In my humble opinion, in the case of sex crimes, there should be no presumptions of any sort whatsoever. Plaintiff and accused should be placed on an equal footing and each case judged solely on its merits.

Commenting on the presumption of innocence, the English philosopher and jurist, Jeremy Bentham, noted in “A Treatise on Judicial Evidence” which he published in 1825 :

« At first it was said to be better to save several guilty men, than to condemn a single innocent man; others, to make the maxim more striking, fixed on the number ten, a third made this ten a hundred, and a fourth made it a thousand. All these candidates for the prize of humanity have been outstripped by I know not how many writers, who hold, that, in no case, ought an accused to be condemned, unless the evidence amount to mathematical or absolute certainty. According to this maxim, nobody ought to be punished, lest an innocent man be punished »

.

Justice will be served, no doubt, but not here on earth.
Yuyutsu,
If Justice were served on Earth, there'd be a lot less crime & cruelty !

12 Jurors had no doubt about the mans guilt
Our Prime Minister said these words to victims, I, we, your country believes you
In this thread some, clearly, undermine our whole system of justice
Because their bias over rules [in their mind] justice

As one of the forums long term critics of the Catholic Church and the horrendous behaviour of its operatives towards children, both the physical acts of depravity towards those in their care, and the mental anguish the Church hierarchy caused by their denials and cover ups, I am pleased that our court system has succeeded, at long last, and against the odds, in convicting without question a putrid piece of filth.

BTW, the forums bush lawyers, paedophile apologists and right wing know all's, certainly have egg on their faces after this outcome.

While the two judges who sent George Pell back to jail claimed that they had magic powers that made them certain Pell's supposed victim was not a liar, the dissenting judge dealt with the evidence to say that he would have acquitted.

Justice Weinberg wrote that the possibility that Pell did not commit the crime could not be ruled out - that much of the evidence was concocted - and that it was impossible to accept the 'victim's' account.

If a 78 year old man can be brought down as Cardinal George Pell has, because a couple of mere mortal judges think that they are lie detectors, Australian courts are very unsafe places for all of us.

Did I hear correctly that the dissenting judge Mark Weinberg was willing to acquit Pell basically because he thought Pell could not have had sex with the victim because Pell WAS NOT DRESSED FOR THE OCCASION.

Dear Mr Opinion,

Until I am convinced otherwise I have no issue with the Justice taking a contrary view. His main concern was around the second incident but on the first;

“Justice Weinberg stated that in relation to the first incident, if the complainant’s evidence was the only evidence, he might well have found it difficult to say that the jury, acting reasonably, were ‘bound’ to have a reasonable doubt about the Cardinal’s guilt.”

As to his stance on uncorroborated evidence he has been on the record in the past flagging concerns particularly in relation to granting immunity to witnesses;

Quote

Mr Weinberg said he was not comfortable with the level at which immunities were granted in Australia.
"I don't think you're ever comfortable handing out an immunity to any witness." he said.

"It's a course that 1 find distasteful and it's a matter of last resort. We try very hard to avoid complete immunity... We're very conscious of the dangers of relying on the uncorroborated testimony of indemnified witnesses or accomplices.”

"I've taken a pretty strong stance against using that kind of testimony unless I'm satisfied its corroborated or confirmed strongly by independent evidence."

End quote.

Of course this was a different kind of testimony.

Those with an appreciation of the legal system will know how much it benefits from dissenting views being aired. One thing his dissension also addresses is the absurd notion that the 'establishment' was out to get Pell. It is pretty hard to get more establishment than Justice Weinberg.

Dear SteeleRedux,

I appreciate the legalistic underpinnings you are proffering but is it true that Weinberg said he thought that Pell was inappropriately dressed to have committed the offense?

Oen thing is for certain if you want to get somebody in the future, such as a political rival, then an unsubstantiated allegation of sexual assault is the way to go.

I have just ordered the book -
"New Revelations
Cardinal: The Rise and
Fall of George Pell" by Louise Milligan.
The updated version with a foreword by
Thomas Keneally.

The author is the only Australian author who's
had access to all the victims involving Pell
over decades. It should give a greater insight.

This entire Pell case should show us that we should
as former Labor leader has stated that -

"We can never underestimate the courage and
resilience it takes for a survivor of child abuse to
seek justice. One of the cold hard truths revealed by
Prime Minister Gillard's royal commission into
institutional responses to child sexual abuse was that
survivors and victims who sought help were seldom believed."

"Instead against the weight and power of both church and
state they were marginalised, shamed, and re-abused.
For decades institutions chose to cover for offenders and
conceal their crimes because they valued their reputations
more that the lives of children in their care."

"Last year as a parliament and a nation we apologised for the
abuse, the neglect, the wilful blindness, the cries for help
that were heard and ignored. But saying sorry wasn't the
end of the road. The test is action not words. That is why
we need faster programs on national redress for survivors
and why every institution needs to sign up immediately."

Do the doubters also doubt every claim of sexual assault made against this Churches servants over the past one hundred plus years
Are all judgments handed down subject to review
In the end my childhood of hearing, but not believing this Church is the anti Christ may need another look

Foxy

just out of interest, will you be tearing up your membership of the Catholic church?

runner,

You asked me - will I be tearing up my membership
of the Catholic Church?

No I won't. The Vatican has revealed it will wait
until Pell has exhausted every avenue for appeal.
It is Pell's right to appeal to the High Court.
The Church said that it will accept the Court's
final decision and turn its attention to the victims
and the poor.

Should pope what's his name, cark it today Paedophile Pell has the right to vote for a new Big P.

We need to make a note that our criminal process
has afforded Pell every opportunity to challenge
the charges and every opportunity to be heard.

Pell has had the best legal representation that
money can buy. There are lots of checks and
balances in the criminal justice system and
Pell has used and is using them all.

This is the ultimate David and Goliath tale of a
young man who never sought fame or compensation.
He just wanted justice against a well-resourced
defendant who has for years cultivated and been
supported by a powerful image.

Taking on Cardinal Pell, the 3rd most senior person
in the worldwide Catholic Church is a very brave act.
The young man only did it after his friend committed
suicide.

Here we have a powerful cardinal - a man supported by
two former PMs who did not spend a minute in court,
did not hear or read a word of the evidence and yet
nonetheless by implication they branded the young
man a liar.

The trauma and anxiety for all involved, for the young
man, for the family of his dead friend, for the entire
community of people who have survived industiral-scale
abuse by the Catholic clergy in this country - cannot be
underestimated.

This Church has been up to its neck in politics always
EG Diplomatic Labor Party, Abbott's love of it started there
And it is now, based on world wide reports, the property of the far right here and in America at least
Pell taints the Church, his supporters should ask the most important question
What would Christ make of him

No more prosecution of the Catholic mafia, they are working on a 20 year plan to rid their organisation of paedophiles, well so it would seem. The fact is most sections of the Catholic Church still turns a blind eye to paedophilia within. How many of those old blokes who sit around the table in Rome, just like Pell have a skeleton or two in the cupboard?

Belly,
You ask, 'What would Christ make of him" (Pell)

It is long ago, but I did attend Sunday School (Anglican) when a child and learnt about Jesus and his teachings.

I think that Christ would be appalled that Pell was convicted on mere accusations alone, as he was, before the crucifixion. No supporting evidence of any kind was presented. People that call themselves Christians should take note.

I keep getting told we need to respect the decision. But ya know what, we really don't.

We need to accept it. We need to recognise that all the judicial procedures were followed. We need to accept that Pell was allowed to have his say. But we don't need to respect the outcome. We don't need to accept that true justice was done.

In the end, unless new information comes forth, I'll never accept that the outcome was just. It simply wasn't.

If the so-called victim was telling the truth (and all and sundry are anxious to believe he was) then there were three people in the Sacristy that morning.

One of them is dead, the 'other choir boy'. Before his death, he was asked directly by his mother if he'd been ‘interfered with or touched up’. He said no, never.

One of them, Pell, said nothing happened as described by the prosecution.

And one, the claimed victim, said he'd been assaulted.

Now there's no need to make up stories about the victim creating the thing out of whole cloth. It’s not an issue about whether we believe he believes his tale.

The simple fact is that two of the three people in that room, if indeed they were in that room, said nothing happened. In a just system, that's the end of it. Not guilty because he wasn't proven guilty.

/cont

/cont

There used to be a presumption of innocence. But, in our new style justice system, people belonging to certain disapproved groups are never innocent. It just becomes as case of finding enough evidence to allow a jury to give vent to the community’s hatred of that group. Not conclusive evidence mind you. Just enough to salve the conscious.

So this new just system becomes a contest of whose word to accept. Everyone seems to accept that the so-called victim was believable. And of course the alleged perpetrator had been vilified for the better part of a decade and was thereby unbelievable.

But justice never was and can't be a contest between two versions of an event. The theory used to be that you were innocent until proven guilty. But Pell was never proven guilty. He was believed to be guilty and that's not the same thing. The theory was that it was better that ten guilty men go free than one innocent man be gaoled. That rule has also departed the new judicial system.

So I won't respect the decision. Of course the outcome of all this was a close run thing. The original jury was 10-2 for acquittal. IF one of the two had voted the other way, then Pell walks. Had the trial been held anywhere other than Victoria, Pell walks. And in those circumstances, those currently piously demanding respect for the judicial system would be screaming for its overhaul.

'There used to be a presumption of innocence. But, in our new style justice system, people belonging to certain disapproved groups are never innocent.'

so true Mhaze, just look at the lying liberal women who made up claims against Kavanaugh's appointment in the US. The haters claimed that no women could lie unless of course a conservative woman.

The crazy right are beside themselves! Yep, the ones who are down on refugees, gays, aboriginals, women, workers etc etc, are upset that one of their own, a dirty supposedly conservative far right Catholic paedophile is behind bars. Oh! how they hate justice!

Now its a conspiracy of the far left Commie judiciary. Another yokel in the form of mhaze, has joined the fray.

runner, when are you going to answer that question I've asked you so many times before. How many paedophiles have been uncovered in YOUR church?

Dear Paul,

The Court of Appeal judges looked at all of
the evidence again. They watched the videos
of all of the witnesses, they went to the
places the jury was taken to and they even
examined the robes. They did it all again.
They were a third jury - and the majority found
for the complainant against the Cardinal. His
conviction by a unanimous jury was upheld by
the judges.

Pell is a guilty child abuser.

Runner, when are you going to answer that question I've asked you so many times before. How many paedophiles have been uncovered in YOUR church?
Posted by Paul1405, Thursday, 22 A

I would be confident in saying far less than the Greens Paul.

Dear Foxy,

I am of the opinion that Justice Weinberg wanted to get Pell off the hook. Apparently he made a comment that Pell wasn't dressed for the occasion viz the sexual assault of a minor, which to me is a very strange comment to make under the circumstances. it's not the sort of comment I would expect to hear from someone in his position. I think Weinberg needs to explain this comment.

If indeed what is alleged happened and if indeed it was Cardinal Pell who abused those two boys (which was practically impossible), then the wishes of the other boy were disrespected: he was betrayed and abused a second time. If indeed that happened, then the other boy chose wisely to forgive and stop the propagation of violence and suffering. Those who delight in revenge and seeing others suffer, will surely experience that suffering themselves.

---

The question was raised, "What would Christ make of him?"

Jesus would have upheld the Jewish Torah law:

"On the testimony of two or three witnesses a person is to be put to death, but no one is to be put to death on the testimony of only one witness." [Deuteronomy 17:6]

"One witness is not enough to convict anyone accused of any crime or offense they may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses." [Deuteronomy 19:15]

Also, the following verse, [Deuteronomy 17:7] says:
"The hands of the witnesses must be the first in putting that person to death, and then the hands of all the people. You must purge the evil from among you."

What has been done to Cardinal Pell is worse than death, yet the witness, the so-called "victim", has chickened out and is nowhere to be seen, he is not even available to face Pell in person and answer questions. Surely that evil cold-hearted man who inflicted such cruel suffering on his fellow, will receive his justice when he rots in hell.

---

Dear Foxy,

The court of appeal was not a jury because they were not asked whether or not there is any reasonable doubt that Cardinal Pell did what was alleged. Rather, it was asked whether or not the jury (some or all, that was a hair-splitting question) could be without doubt, which is a very different question altogether.

Foxy,

Beyond reasonable doubt?

One boy says he did and the other said that it was all a lie, before he died.

So one boy is a liar.

Which one?

Few if any people recant the truth when facing death especially someone who, presumably, still believed in life after death.

Dear HenryL,

You write;

“I think that Christ would be appalled that Pell was convicted on mere accusations alone, as he was, before the crucifixion. No supporting evidence of any kind was presented. People that call themselves Christians should take note.”

For f's sake. Really? Don't you think he would have instead been utterly dark with rage that those who claim his name raped, buggered and abused their way though thousands upon thousands of Aussie kids, year after year, generation after generation while Pell not only participated as proved by this judgement, but condoned and connived to protect all those offenders who held office within the Christian church in which he held leadership?

Do you really think Pell would occupy Christ's mind ahead of all those who were abused at his hands and on his watch? Ahead of those poor terrified children who suffered dreadfully but were not believed? Ahead of all those who cut their own lives short because of the pain and trauma inflicted upon them?

Pell might well be at the head of your list because I have heard virtually nothing from you about the victims of the Church's abuses and inaction. But I wager he would be near the very back of Christ's list.

“But whoever shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.” Matthew 18:6

You risk becoming runner level evil. Don't go there.

Dear mhaze,

Risdale molested whole class rooms of kids at the Mortlake primary school and none of them spoke out at the time. It was only the royal commission that many found the strength to come forward.

Here is the judgement in full. Have a read with an open mind and see if you still think the same way.
http://www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-08/pell_v_the_queen_2019_vsca_186_-_web_updated_22082019.pd

The ultimate question is Did Pell sexually abuse a young boy?

I never realised this forum has so many paedophile apologists, and they are all the 'Usual Suspects' who bang on about others in the community.

runner you are a hypocritical crack up, the man of moral virtue one minute, and then looking for excuses for a convicted paedophile the next. Is he from your church or something? Must be.

The Catholic Church is a waste of space and should be put out of its misery asap! My opinion, tax the B's out of business.

Paul,

The question for me is "What is sufficient evidence for a conviction?". I work with someone who was a victim in a paedophile ring. Has no view of the case because does not have enough information to form an opinion of it. Does not believe in profiling of paedophiles from direct experience. People form opinions from what they see. I have concern with a legal process that obscures so much and gives such weight to one voice. If Pell is guilty (not the legal sense of the word) then he can burn in Hell for eternity as far as I am concerned.

Cheers

Sadly I have found people I know, are pedophiles
Remembering past conversations makes me shiver
Even a close relative, and it hurts
Some time ago,a very long time ago,on another forum, we debated the humanity, or lack of it, of such offenders
In time it turned out, that [nothing to do with this site] the thread starter was more than just an offender
He was part of a group promoting sex with children
We know Pell,s Conservative views bring some to defend him, no matter what
Others lost in the right of reality seem intent on challenging our legal system, even inferring a bias, not law see,s him in prison
I fear the ability of the very right to chant mindlessly fake news'
In my view they house and promote fake news and views, and it hurts us all as truth is damaged

Apparently, two priests gave evidence under oath that they were with Cardinal Pell at the time he was accused of molesting the boys; if the law is to be applied fairly then these two should be charged with perjury.

We can't have people getting away with a blatant crime.

What should be of great concern to the community is not that one paedophile priest has got his comeuppance, but rather that it is a fact that the Catholic Church in Australia still allows their "holy men" to frequent school playgrounds, where there are children as young as five, giving so called pastoral care, whatever that means. Can one of the religious explain that one.

BTW, with Pell this is only the tip of the iceberg. His full history is yet to be exposed!

I think the appeal hearing has raised more questions than it has answered.

Why would the victim lie about being sexually abused? To me it doesn't make sense that he would lie about something like that.

Why would Pell lie about sexually abusing a young boy when he knew that God was watching him in everything he did? Lying about something like that would only demean him as well as the institution he represents. Maybe that's a question for the Vatican can answer - I'm sure they could look through their records to come up with an answer.

Why did Justice Weinberg infer that Pell was not dressed for the occasion when he committed the crime? I reckon Pell would have been able to undo his clothing to urinate into a urinal in a standing position so I assume he would have been just as capable of doing something else - if the occasion (to use Justice Weinberg's definition) arose.

Geoffrey Luck, ex-ABC employee and contributor to Quadrant, thinks that the judgement of the appeal court was constructed to "... to render the certainty of a review by the High Court, which can only find the original conviction wholly unreasonable according to the evidence".

Luck says "nothing prepared me for the shoddy, facile, simplistic argumentation of the judgement of the two majority judges – Chief Justice Anne Ferguson and President Chris Maxwell". And, that, with Ferguson's claim that she and her colleague had special superhuman powers to tell that a witness was not a liar, should give the High Court a quick start to overturning the shoddy, shameful original judgement and even shoddier and more shameful appeal judgement. It does, of course, depend on High Court judges being of higher calibre than the buffoons of the Victorian courts. But, there is hope!

Luck concludes that, "Passing the buck has ensured that a higher court will have to decide George Pell’s fate", which he believes is not such a bad thing, given the importance of 'reasonable doubt' in our justice system.

Paul writes of my post..” Now its a conspiracy of the far left Commie judiciary.”

Well I never mentioned a conspiracy or anything like it.
I never mentioned the far left or anything like it.
I never mentioned the ‘commies’ or anything like it.
I never mentioned the judiciary or anything like it.

But apart from that Paul’s spot on. (that’s sarcasm for those slow on the uptake).
But Paul and a few others are really only making my point when they raise things like Risdale and gays’ and aboriginals and all the other supposed conservative crimes. They implicitly agree that this wasn’t about one unprovable and unproven crime but about punishment for all the supposed crimes of the right and the church. Pell was essentially found guilty of leading a objectionable organisation. It was vengeance wrought by those who’ve been after the church and Christianity in general.

Its interesting to ponder how two juries can see the same evidence but reach wildly different outcomes. (10-2 for acquittal, 12-0 for gaol). What happened between the two trials? I’d offer two possibilities. (1) an unrelenting media scapegoating of Pell such that it would have been impossible to find an unbiased jury – imagine 12 Pauls standing judgement. (2) plenty of time to ‘educate’ the only witness for the prosecution such that he became more believable.

Foxy asserts (or just hopes) that “They [the appeals court] were a third jury - and the majority found
for the complainant against the Cardinal.” Both those statements are factually incorrect as in not even close to true. Foxy should read or try to understand what the appeals court was doing. They found the jury verdict was not unreasonable, not that it was correct. Those are two very different things

Paul,

Given the number of men who have been found to be paedophiles, how can the State Governments allow male teachers to be in charge of children?

We know, of course, that all male teachers are not a menace to children; how do you know that all priests are?

Would a paedophile do anything to a child in a school playground?

What about the teachers on playground duty, do you think that they would turn a blind eye?

What's your take on prosecuting the priest witnesses for Pell who perjured themselves?

I'm not sure whether Cardinal Pell is innocent or guilty? What I do know and appreciate, the Law as it stands is (occasionally), an ass! Though my old detective's nose tells me there's a lot more to this matter, then we'll ever know.

The Royal Commission never even touched the real issues of this awful crime against children. Moreover, the police usually know much more about a crime, than can be proven in a Court of Law? Knowing & proving are two entirely different things. The Scottish version of criminal jurisprudence would suit us remarkably well I would've thought, avoiding altogether 'double jeopardy'

Guilty; Not Guilty; & Not Proven - thus allowing police the opportunity of re-visiting a crime if and when, more evidence comes to light.

Dear o sung wu,

A complaint was brought against Pell, who is a member of the elite in society, and the people determined that he was guilty. Now it is being taken out of the hands of the people and placed into the hands of the elite for a decision void of public participation. So hasn't this become a dispute between the two broad classes of society. I think the High Court will acquit Pell. He's a liability but a liability that has to be kept out of the public domain in order to protect the power and privilege of an upper class.

What I would like to see happen is that a law
is passed to make it mandatory for child sexual
abuse confessed in a Confessional to be reported
to the police. This may help.

The Church can not justify putting the Confessional
ahead of children's welfare or above the law of the
country.

Maybe in this way we might get to the truth in
future cases.

cont'd ...

In Pell's case - his reputation has been trashed
and no matter what the High Court decides to do
the man's name is beyond repair.

The Church will need to seriously examine their
own actions in future cases and policies.
They can't keep doing what they've been doing
to date.

Dear Foxy,

Have a look at the use and abuse of the Catholic Church throughout history. Do you really think that a Pell is any worse than some of his clerical predecessors over the ages? Pell is a saint compared to most of the characters that have filled the ranks of the Roman Catholic Church.

Dear Mr Opinion,

Tell that to the victims and their families and see
how that goes.

I've occasionally referred to a matter where someone much higher than Cardinal PELL, has committed crimes of a similar nature? And police have been reluctant to proceed because the chief witness, refused to furnish the necessary evidence (out of fear of recriminations) to convict this individual.

FOXY if you cast your mind back, I've mentioned this person several times, but we've been unable to get him, due to his lofty position within our community. I will say one thing - 'Damn this bastards soul to hell,' should he die before he's brought before a Court of his peers.

Dear O Sung Wu,

I don't remember the case you're speaking about

however -

It must take enormous courage for anyone to be
willing to testify against a person in a high position
especially in this case with religion thrown into
the mix. Not sure if I could do it.

Kudos to those that do.

Foxy,

"What I would like to see happen is that a law
is passed to make it mandatory for child sexual
abuse confessed in a Confessional to be reported
to the police. This may help."

What?

A priests word against that of an ordinary person?

Who to believe and what's more putting enormous power into the hands of clergymen to hit someone that they don't like.

We need less of conviction without evidence, or do you envision recording of private confession by a third party?

Dear Foxy,

«What I would like to see happen is that a law
is passed to make it mandatory for child sexual
abuse confessed in a Confessional to be reported
to the police. This may help.»

The only ones it could help are those who hate religion.
I propose that this has been their aim all along, to oppress the religious, that it never had anything to do with child-abuse to begin with.

A priest will never speak of what they heard in confession, even to the point of death and under torture.
What will happen instead is that confessions will cease and/or go underground or overseas.

Some people are going to rejoice at the resulting diminishing of religion, but no paedophile would ever be discovered that way, also because child-molesters never confess it.

There could however be cases of criminals who wish to settle-accounts with someone, paying a priest to falsely testify that such-and-such confessed to them of molesting children.

The biggest losers are victims, molested children, most of whom (and rightly so) do not want the information to reach anyone, especially not their families. They ALREADY cannot inform their teachers, doctors, psychologists or other therapists because they know that these are legally obliged to report the abuse to the police, so in whom can they confide? So far they could still confide with a priest, in confession, and be assured that their secret will go with the priest to their grave. This gives them some release, including from their own [misplaced] guilt, then if this option is to be denied as well, what are they left with? Increased child suicide rates!

Thanks, Foxy, it was some time back now. One of the great regrets & curses of my service, unfortunately.

Yuyutsu,

There is provision within the Catholic Church for the priest to give General Absolution, that is to a group of people (as large as you like) who make a silent confession.
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=33707

Like to see someone pass a law forbidding that.

Foxy,

Suggest that you study your alleged Catholicism a bit deeper.

Dear Is Mise,

Confession to a living person has a great spiritual and therapeutic value, far beyond the absolution aspect: assuming people would attend it anyway, it could be as beneficial even without the sweetener of absolution.

«Like to see someone pass a law forbidding that.»

Give them a finger and they will want to bite off your whole hand.
The anti-religious movement gets bolder and bolder, so if you let them get their way, one day it will indeed become a criminal act to mention God's name.

Issy,

School teachers and Catholic priests, caulk and cheese. One group, with the vast majority, well adjusted normal citizens, living normal lives, the other mob consists of a high number of perverted religious zealots. The Catholic church with its gross under estimation, puts the figure of paedophiles in the ranks at 7%. I would say more like 30% to 50%. From my schools day, my observation of priests and brothers, one third appeared "normal", one third complete religious nutters, the rest could have fallen any way.

Question; What concrete steps has the Catholic Church in Australia taken to reduce the number of paedophiles in its ranks?

Paul,

"Question; What concrete steps has the Catholic Church in Australia taken to reduce the number of paedophiles in its ranks?"

Much closer attention to vetting candidates for the priesthood, particularly as regards homosexuality.

It is homosexual paedophiles that are its main problem at the moment.

Care to comment on prosecuting those perjuring priests who vouched for Pell?

Well Paul you seem to be the target now, nothing new for you but it is highlighting some thing
The usual suspects love to hate
And too support some very real filth if they are considered from the lost right
NO ONE can put a case the proves the Catholic Church has changed or intends to
Show me one thing they have done to end this shameful crime on Children
At the hands of those who would have us believe they serve God
Any researcher looking at the the basic reason so many covered their ears and ignored these crimes should first read the post history of Is Miserable

My, my, Belly, did you discuss that with the wee foxies?

I'm sure it's not their considered opinion.

In 2012 George Pell stated by way of explanation -

"Back in those days, they were entitled to think of
paedophilia as simply a sin you could repent of."

I thought at that time that this was Pell's defence
of the notorious paedophile Ridsdale, a room-mate
and friend of his.

However now, after Pell's conviction, Pell's words
suddenly have a new meaning. Had he been speaking
about himself?

So how to avoid situations allowing child abuse in the future ? Surely allowing priests to marry, even homosexual priests, would be a step forward ? Stupid rules.

Nothing is fool-proof, or pervert-proof, but ensuring that anybody working with children - social workers, teachers, priests, etc. - is overseen by others, that no adult is allowed to be alone in a closed room with a child, that doors are kept open, that the worker does not get between the door and the child, that at least two workers must accompany children on buses or trips, CCTV, and so on - these measures might contribute towards safer environments for children ?

Joe

Foxy and Belly,

What do you think about letting those priests who perjured themselves for Pell, being let off?

Don't you think that they should be prosecuted, after all, they may well have perverted the course of justice if they'd been believed.

Dear Is Mise,

The justice system is a joke! The Courts are an expression of State-society relationships, not about what is right and wrong.

A 'Guest Author' in Catallaxy Files of 22/8/19 concurs with my belief that we all need to be in fear of the courts after their dastardly treatment of George Pell.

In a piece entitled "No country for old Catholics", the author refers to a "DPP who kept indulging preposterous briefs of “evidence,” a Pell-hating police force now regarded as the most corrupt in the country… ". He also lambasts the 'Cardinal hating ABC', but that's a given. He also says that any Victorian accused by a single person of an "unverifiable crime" (as Pell was) is now in jeopardy. He also claims that the future of the Commonwealth depends on a correction of the Pell case by the High Court.

Dear ttbn,

How does the Pell incident fit in with your creation science perspective?

I don't quite understand people criticising our
legal system in the Pell case.

The criminal process has afforded Pell every
opportunity to challenge the charges and every
opportunity to be heard. Pell has had the best
legal representation that money can buy. And
its not over yet - he can lodge an appeal to
the High Court.

Yet on the other side of the coin - we can never
underestimate the courage and resilience it takes
for a survivor of child abuse to seek justice.

One of the cold hard truths revealed by former PM
Gillard's royal commission into institutional
responses to child sexual abuse was that survivors and
victims who sought help were seldom believed.

Instead against the weight and power of both church and
state they were marginalised, shamed, and re-abused.
For decades institutions chose to cover for offenders and
covered their crimes because they valued their reputations
more than the lives of children in their care.

As a parliament and a nation we apologised for the abuse,
the neglect, the wilful blindness, the cries for help
that were heard and ignored.

But saying sorry wasn't the end of the road. The test is
action not words.

We need faster progress on national re-dress for survivors
and why every institution needs to sign up immediately.

Dear Foxy,

I concur with what you are saying but we need to face the realities of State-society relations. People like Pell belong to the elite who protect their own kind and unfortunately a lot of people in the community hold them in esteem whether they do right or wrong.

I think the High Court will acquit Pell simply because it is in the interests of their own class and cultural values.

Foxy,
Obviously what you do not understand is that a few years ago the goal posts were altered, taking away protection for those accused without substantive evidence to back up the accusations.

Until then, where it was only ones word against another a judge had to dismiss the case or ruled a not guilty verdict.

Now ,Victoria at least, has introduces a system where a conviction can be made on accusations alone without supporting evidence. The Pell case is the first case, to my knowledge, where this new system has been used and it is deemed unfair for the accused.

You now live in a state where a citizen can be convicted of a crime merely on allegations alone without other evidence. This is similar to communist Russia or the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia.

Hi there Mr. OPINION...

I'd be surprised if the H.C. doesn't overturn PELL'S Conviction despite the two to one against, at the Court of Criminal Appeal. My experience (which is none) of the Full Bench of the H.C, they tend to adhere to the full letter of the law, & if there's even a fraction of doubt, they'll usually come down on the side of the Appellant. As I said, I know nothing of the vagaries or machinations of the processes of the H.C. Nevertheless, I think you're right Cardinal PELL might just walk?

Dear o sung wu,

I have degrees in several of the humanities but I made a choice to select sociology as my field because I seem to have an intuitive knack of seeing things differently to other people and I have a pretty good history of getting it right. My intuition as a sociologist tells me that the decision of the High Court will be determined along lines of social class and consequently Pell will walk. I might turn out to be wrong but it's my gut feeling as a sociologist.

PS Are you watching Netflix's 'Mindhunter' series?

http://www.smh.com.au/national/suffer-the-perpetrator-pell-and-the-twisted-inversion-of-victimhood-20190823-p52k1e.html
The link, rightly, questions Conservatives are they confronting justice
o sung wo while it is my view he is guilty, and that his Church is too he may well get off
Our justice system can be bought by the rich and powerful

Hi Belly,

A very good article, the conservatives of society are outraged and shocked that their high priest has been carted off to jail for a crime that society views as vile and disgusting. The Bolts and Devines, just like this conservative bunch on OLO, are pontificating in their ignorance as if they are some sort of legal experts on the matter. Should Pell's lawyers pull a rabbit out of the hat and get him off in the High Court, so be it.

As things stand at the moment; Pell's heading for Hell!

.

To all and sundry,

.

I think we can agree that nobody can affirm beyond all reasonable doubt who is right and who is wrong.

A first popular jury in September 2018 was unable to reach a verdict. A second popular jury in December found Pell guilty. Then the Victorian Supreme Court dismissed his appeal by a two to one majority.

Not one of these three courts found him innocent – despite the combined efforts of the very best (and highly expensive) specialist lawyers in the land in respect of each type of court.

At this stage of what has been a laborious and exhaustive judicial process, the scales of justice have clearly tipped in favour of Pell’s guilt.

Of course, nothing is perfect. Justice is not a hard science. Democratic justice by popular juries whose decisions are scrutinised and confirmed by competent, experienced, professional Supreme Court judges is the best we can do.

I should be very surprised if the High Court of Australia thought otherwise.

.

Keith Windschuttle gives a possible source of inspiration for the witness.

http://thesestonewalls.com/gordon-macrae/will-fr-charles-engelhardts-prosecutor-take-a-plea-deal/

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2019/04/the-fanciful-testimony-that-convicted-george-pell/

Anyone at all like to air their views on the two perjuring priests?

Should they get away with it?

Hi Is Mise,

Clearly, it is maintained, the testimony of one person was enough to convict Pell. The countervailing testimony of a couple of witnesses in Pell's favour not only didn't matter, but, as you point out, those false testimonies should mean that the 'witnesses' for Pell should now be charged with trying to pervert the course of justice. Being priests or whatever, any other charges by anybody of sexual offences against those liars should be taken into account and believed. Those cronies of Pell should also be jailed.

Anybody who disbelieves the testimony of someone against a member of the priesthood should be charged and also jailed. Nobody would bring charges of sexual assault against a member of the priesthood without honestly believing them. Special courts should be set up forthwith to summarily jail any members of the priesthood if they are accused, to save the court's time. All accusations against them should be believed and any doubters should be fined, if not more severely punished.

That would serve the bastards right.

So ..... what was the definition of a 'kangaroo court' again ?

Joe

Dissenting Judge Weinberg's support for the overturning of Pell's judgement has reportedly given the Cardinal's defence team reason for hope for the High Court appeal. Weinberg is so highly regarded that " a decision not to test his views would be a surprise". Weinberg's "genuine doubt" should be regarded as very significant by the High Court. There are huge questions as to the credibility of the witness.

There are many, many reasons why a High Court appeal should be successful, not the least being the future credibility of our judiciary. Genuine Christians should be praying hard; the rest of us should be doing what we usually do in the face of such dreadful injustice. What has happened to Pell is not about religion or what we think about religion; it is about humanity, justice in general, and whether or not we can still respect the country we live in and its institutions and laws.

Dear mhaze,

You write;

“Its interesting to ponder how two juries can see the same evidence but reach wildly different outcomes. (10-2 for acquittal, 12-0 for gaol)”.

You keep banging on with the completely unsubstantiated figure on 10-2 for acquittal. It is a figure pushed in rightwing pundit circles but has absolutely no validity.

However given your reaction to the 12-0 guilty verdict of the next trial it would not have mattered if the first were 10-2 to convict because you still wouldn't have had a bar of it.

Dear o sung wu,

You write;

“ Though my old detective's nose tells me there's a lot more to this matter, then we'll ever know.”

I'm wondering if this experience related by this Victoria police officer rings true with you?

Quote;

Doug Smith was the sergeant overseeing Taskforce SANO's investigation into Pell.

He told Four Corners that, over the years, the police tasked with investigating child sex abuse cases in the Catholic Church found the church "difficult" to deal with.
"They were openly saying that they would cooperate, but I think you could almost say that the way that they classed their cooperation would be similar to a protester lying on the ground in the middle of the street not resisting the police, but the police would have to pick that person up and drag them off the street," he said.
"I think that that's the level of cooperation that the Catholic Church gave us."

End Quote.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-04/george-pell-abuse-victims-family-police-speak-to-4-corners/10856998

Dear HenryL,

You write;

“Now ,Victoria at least, has introduces a system where a conviction can be made on accusations alone without supporting evidence.”

Still nary a word from you about the victims of sexual abuse but be that as it may a witness's sworn testimony is evidence, what you should be saying is it is uncorroborated.

Dear Fester,

Inspiration? Hardly. The American case had the motivation of a $5 million dollar windfall. This was not a factor in Pell's case at all.

What is essential is that the law be allowed
to do its work.

We need to wait and see how it plays out.

Foxy,

"What is essential is that the law be allowed
to do its work. "

Admirable, now would you like to comment, as you were asked, on the perjury by the two priests?

Do you think that people who lie in Court should be prosecuted?

Is Mise,

I'm not a lawyer.

Just at a guess I imagine
because a guilty verdict has been delivered in
the Pell case - the testimonies of the priests
will not be re-visited.

Is Mise,

Perjury is a crime, so people can be prosecuted, and are prosecuted, for lying in court. Opinions on it don't matter.

Oh yeah, STEELEREDUX...

I couldn't agree with you more, I reckon trying to pry the truth out of an organization as influential and powerful as the Catholic, Anglican, or other Protestant Churches would require a skill far beyond that of a police detective.

Whether by design, cultural even for ecclesiastical reasons, I would've thought many of these Priest's would do everything in their power to obfuscate or dodge any attempts at getting to the real truth. Not necessarily they're wrong or bad, perhaps they might think these crimes should be better handled in house (Rome), rather than the police? I wouldn't know, it's another consideration, though? Besides, you should never discount the 'power of conscience' of a good man or woman?

In my years of penance, spent in the police academy (devoid of any meaningful O/T) I taught a couple of law subjects (as applied to police) & I recall telling the various classes as they came through a couple of old legal dictums:

'The eminent 18th-century jurist Blackstone said inter alia - '...A hundred guilty men should go free than a single innocent man be convicted.

And finally my friend Steele, I recall an old 14th-century Latin phrase that kinda ties it all up I reckon? 'cave cave dominus Videt' meaning; ' Beware beware God sees.' Accordingly, Cardinal PEEL MUST be acquited, if the matter goes before the seven wise men, who comprise the Full Bench of the H.C.

Dear Is Mise,

Completely agree. The Justices clearly stated that the evidence from the two officials about the robse being incapable of being pulled aside was concocted rubbish, although they put it a little more kindly that that.

“The defence relied on categorical statements by Monsignor Portelli (the prefect of ceremonies to Cardinal Pell) and by Mr Potter (the sacristan) that it was not possible to pull the Cardinal’s robes to the side. The robes were an exhibit at the trial and had been available to the jury in the jury room during their deliberation. Having taken advantage of the opportunity to feel the weight of the robes and assess their manoeuvrability as garments, the Chief Justice and Justice Maxwell decided that it was well open to the jury to reject the contention of physical impossibility. The robes were not so heavy nor so immoveable as the evidence of Monsignor Portelli and Mr Potter had suggested. The Chief Justice and Justice Maxwell found that the robes were capable of being manoeuvred in a way that might be described as being moved or pulled to one side or pulled apart.”

Giving false testimony in the form of categorical statements should indeed have a penalty.

Foxy,

I'm not asking for a legal opinion, I merely ask if you think that people who lie in Court, that is commit perjury, should be prosecuted for their crimes.

Paul,

You discount the opinions of Bolt and Devine, as this is a discussion forum, would you care to tell us why you disagree with their opinions?

Perhaps you might tell us what you think of the priests who seem to have lied to the Court and if they ought to be prosecuted?

Hi Is Mise,

Of course witnesses who perjure themselves should be charged and fined - and if they are priests, jailed as well. Anybody who accuses them of lying should be believed, as an honest witness, and they should get the maximum possible sentence in solitary.

But as an atheist, with communist parents, and with childhood memories of the McCarthy era (I was about the same age as the Rosenberg kids when their parents were executed), I'm very mindful of the possible miscarriage of justice. It may well be that Pell has been abusing boys (Phillip Island and Ballarat perhaps), but justice still has to be done in this particular instance, and seen to be done. Other courts can deal with those other matters.

Seriously, we have to confront the impropriety of the principle, that someone can be found guilty on the basis of one person's testimony alone. If it can happen to some Catholic hot-shot like Pell, it can happen to anybody.

Joe

Is Mise,

Proving that people lied is not always an easy
thing to do. And, in a court of law it has to
be proven that they lied. That is why I cannot
make a definite statement in this case because
the two witnesses regarding the Cardinal's robes
may have in all honesty believed that the robes
were immovable. And in court it was proven that
they weren't. That does not constitute deliberate
lying. And, as I stated earlier - because the
verdict in Pell's case was a guilty one - I doubt
if their testimonies will be re-visited.

As to what I think - should people who lie in
court be prosecuted?

It depends on the case in question and the individual
circumstances involved.

That's the best I can do for you.

Dear o sung wu,

Thank you for your reply.

If you would be so kind I would also like your opinion of the witness for the defendant a Mr Potter who had been the sacristan at the church for 38 years.

Keep in mind that the man who had been abused by Pell recalled it occurring in the priest's sacristy.

When first questioned Mr Potter was adamant that the Archbishop would never have used the priest's sacristy but only the one set side for the Archbishop.

From the judgement;

Quote

Q: In your time with Archbishop Pell did he, that is the Archbishop, always use the Archbishop’s Sacristy, or were there occasions when he used the Priests’ Sacristy?

A: No, that sacristy was set aside for the person – for the Archbishop’s use only. He never used the Priests’ Sacristy. Even if we had visiting bishops or cardinals would come in on a rare occasion don’t always dress in the Archbishop’s Sacristy.

Q: Was there ever an occasion because the Archbishop’s Sacristy wasn’t able to be used that he used a room such as the Priests’ Sacristy to your recollection?

A: No, not on my — no.

Q: Thank you. I take it from that answer that you never had occasions to, for the purpose of assisting Archbishop Pell robe or derobe, or disrobe, you never had occasion to do that in the Priests’ Sacristy?

A: No. No.

It was, of course, common ground that at the time of the alleged offending the Archbishop’s Sacristy was not in use and that Cardinal Pell was using the Priests’ Sacristy for robing purposes.

End Quote.

Of course later this the evidence seems to change.

Cont..

Hi there TTBN you're right my friend. To (knowingly) lie whilst under oath, is indeed perjury, that used to be punishable by a period of up to seven years penal servitude. Nowadays they give you a good talking to, and tell you to 'p.ss off'!

Cont..

Quote

At one point, defence counsel asked Potter about the preparation for Mass. Potter said that he would unlock the door to the sacristy early in the morning, to lay out the vestments, and would then close the doors.

This exchange took place:

Q: And the situation would be that there would be the vesting process:

A: Yes, yes.

Q: Which I suggest took place in the Priests’ Sacristy? If you’re not sure or don’t recall just say so. This is for the first Sunday solemn Mass?

A: That would probably be the priest ‘cause this other room was being – being (indistinct). We used our Priests’ Sacristy for most – most of his times.

Q: Yes, but you’re talking over a period of some years?

A: Yes.

Q: Rather than the precise time?

A? Yes.

As noted above, Potter had already stated, categorically, that the Archbishop had never robed in the Priests’ Sacristy.

End quote.

My question to you is given your vast experience in our legal system would you deem Mr Potter a reliable witness given the seemingly obvious contradictions above?

Joe,
Even more important, have other states implemented the same laws that allow conviction on accusations alone? It seems to have been done very quietly.

Will the High Court rescue Australia from this unjust law?

Where are the politicians when we need them?

Dear HenryL,

Our politicians stepped up when the difficulties of getting justice for child abuse survivors was identified. The nature of the crime and the length of time before the victims came forward meant hundreds if not thousands of perpetrators were able to continue with their crimes.

The Royal Commission showed the vast extent of the abuse and how little confidence victims had in their cases ever being heard much less securing a conviction.

Thousands were ultimately turned away by police and prosecutors because the pain and trauma of giving evidence was not commensurate with the likelihood of a successful outcome.

Now these thousands of victims do not appear to exercise your thinking at all but thankfully enough of our politicians were prepared to step up for them and I am grateful they did so.

It is actions not words that matter.
And as stated earlier that is why we
need faster programs on national re-dress
for survivors of abuse and why every
institution needs to sign up immediately.

For decades institutions chose to cover for
offenders and concealed their crimes because
they valued their reputations more than the
lives of children in their care.

One of the cold hard truths revealed by the
royal commission into institutional responses
to child sexual abuse was that survivors and
victims who sought help were seldom believed.
Instead against the weight and power of both
church and state they were marginalised, shamed,
and re-abused.

Last year as a parliament and a nation we apologised
for the abuse, the neglect, the wilful blindness, the
cries for help that were heard and ignored.

It's time now to act.

SR,

Yes, indeed, there must be thousands of cases of child abuse that have gone unpunished.

But, with respect, this is not the issue: is one person's testimony sufficient to find someone guilty without any other back-up evidence ? How can one tell the difference between a lie and the truth without some sort of corroborating evidence, no matter how evil the offence is supposed to be ?

This 'principle' could have far-reaching consequences, especially in much less favourable political times.

Joe

Hi (again) STEELEREDUX...

Recollection can be a curious thing when one 'jumps the box.' It matters little how experienced you are in Court, whether under examination or cross-examination, sometimes that recollection evaporates entirely. That's why police have this little prepared ritual that goes like this '...your Honour my memory is exhausted in this instances, may I refer to my notes/statement to refresh my memory...'?
This is allowed due to the complex nature of some criminal investigations.

We're all fallible everyone of us, none more so than in Court, with many eyes glued to us, and people listening to our responses, hoping for a few sparks to fly.

However, to respond to your inquiry, POTTER is obviously conflicted in his earlier evidence, by saying that PELL never robed in the priest's sacristy? But later he recanted by saying, they (he) used the Priest's sacristy because the archbishop's sacristy was 'unavailable.' His reliability is questionable, due in part, to the importance of the precise place the alleged offending took place, the priest's sacristy. I'd agree (as a pure layman) POTTER is not a reliable witness in my view. Nonetheless, it will be interesting, if PELL'S appeal to the H.C. is allowed - they MUST acquit as the conviction is manifestly unsafe.

Joe,

The Court of Appeal judges looked at all of the
evidence again. They watched all the videos of all
the witnesses, they went to the places the jury was taken to
and they examined the robes. They did it all again.
They were in fact like a third jury.

The majority found for the complainant against the
Cardinal. His conviction by a unanimous jury was upheld.

He is a guilty child abuser.

In 2012 - George Pell stated:

"Back in those days they were entitled to think of
paedophilia as simply a sin you could repent of."

At that time it was thought that Pell was speaking in
defence of the notorious paedophile and his room mate -
Ridsdale. Now, after Pell's conviction his words
suddenly have a new meaning. Had he been speaking about
himself?

Dear Foxy,

Yes, of course, Pell made light of the crime of pedophilia in 2012, but perhaps we're unintentionally sliding away from the issue I was trying to highlight: no matter how vile the crime, corroborating evidence - not just a single testimony, nor 'what could have happened and therefore did happen' arguments - is surely needed, to distinguish an assertion from solid evidence ?

I certainly don't mean 'beyond the slightest doubt', but 'beyond reasonable doubt', if we can distinguish those two.

Cheers,

Joe

Issy,

Why are you asking me, should a couple of clowns be prosecuted for perjury? A matter for the court, an institution I have complete faith in. Unlike the forums bush lawyers and Rumpole want-a-be's, who incidentally are clueless to the evidence, and have the legal mind of a naet.

The forums 'Usual Suspects' are only jabbering on about Paedophile Pell, and the wrongfulness of his conviction, because he is one of their pin up boys! There is much more to the Pell story than his sodomising of two innocent children over 20 years ago, much it yet to be revealed. Just how friendly was Pell with Ridsdale and other notorious Catholic paedophile priests?

BTW; To the ill informed who asked about my concern with priests in school playgrounds, what harm could they do? Ridsdale and his mate dragged children screaming from the school playground to where they could then bugger them without other seeing.

Waiting for the Catholic Mafia to reform its oversight on paedophilia within, is like waiting for the American Mafia to give up crime, it ain't going to happen!

Joe,

We do not know the entirety of the evidence that
was presented both to the jury or the judges. It has
not been fully disclosed. The facts however are that
a jury unanimously found Pell guilty and as did the
majority of judges based on the evidence presented.
They made it quite clear that there was no element of
doubt in the jury's decision and the judges upheld
that decision.

If the Law can be stretched to allow conviction based on an allegation for one type of crime then it will not be long before the principle (or lack thereof) will be extended to other crimes.

Much has been made of the jury and the Judges examining the religious dress, but did they put them on?

I once wore the whole outfit on four occasions when playing the part of a priest in an amateur play (three evening performances as well as a matinee), and they are hard to move,
Anyone wearing them for any length of time would be well advised to limit the intake of moisture beforehand and to urinate a couple of times, if possible, before appearing in public.

Dear o sung wu,

“In assessing whether a verdict is unsafe or unreasonable, the court recognises that the jury had the benefit of seeing the witnesses and is primarily responsible for determining guilt or innocence. This ground of appeal does not allow a party to substitute trial by a court of appeal for trial by jury (M v R (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63; Jones v R (1997) 191 CLR 439).”

Further one must of course give due regard to the difference between an appeal court and a jury.

Form Dawson in Whitehorn (29 [1983] HCA 42; (1983)

"In particular, a court of appeal does not usually have the
opportunity to assess the worth of a witness's evidence by seeing and hearing that evidence given. Moreover, the jury performs its function within the atmosphere of the particular trial which it may not be possible to reproduce upon appeal. These considerations point to important differences between the functions of a jury and those of a court of appeal. A jury is able, and is required, to evaluate the evidence in a manner in which a court of appeal cannot."

This was from a High Court case in 1994 and is current precedent as I understand it. It involved a man charged with sexual penetration of his 13 yo daughter.

“Given the nature of the case, the verdicts can only be held to
be unsafe and unsatisfactory if the complainant's evidence is brought into doubt. Her evidence is uncorroborated. This, of itself, is of no importance, but where evidence is wholly uncorroborated, discrepancies and inconsistencies may assume greater significance than would otherwise be the case. Even so, corroboration or lack thereof is only one of many considerations which bear on the evaluation of evidence. And in this case the fact that the complainant's evidence was coherent and concise is a consideration which weighs in favour of its acceptance.”

Another case of uncorroborated evidence.

So I am interesting in hearing your grounds for thinking the Pell case will be dismissed at the High Court.

Hi STEELEREDUX...

I don't know. Somehow, I believe they will uphold his appeal should they accede to his request. Personally, I've never held too much stock in our highest Court in the land. Preferring instead that we regress and return to the wisdom of the Privy Council. They're so far removed from our own Court system, justice is seen to be done, due to their total impartiality.

After all, our whole system of jurisprudence is based on British Law, and if we wish to have a final bite at the cherry, as it were, why not allow a contentious matter determined by the P.C, without a scintilla of partiality? Steele, my friend, this topic has completely worn me out. I'm sorry you wasted your time, on my opinion. You deserve better than what I've provided you.

Dear o sung wu,

Not at all mate, I always appreciate being prompted to delve into an issue further, and to find myself looking up High Court cases to get a better handle on how an appeal of this nature might fare has been a great antidote to some of the more insipid offerings on this thread.

In a very real sense this is yet another exploration of individual rights intersecting with communal ones. How much should we protect the rights of the rights of people charged with child abuse vs the rights of their apparent victims. I would submit we haven't got the balance right in the past and I would defy anyone with a clear conscience to make the case that we have.

Perhaps we still haven't got it right, but at least we are trying to make a better fist of it. For some it will mean adjusting their thinking a little.

The unfortunate thing for me is how much people's politics have once again been allowed to dictate their positions on the Pell case. It takes work to separate out the two, for me as much as anyone else.

Thanks for the conversation.

Dear Steele,

You're spot on. This case has very much been
politicised.

As I said earlier - it is the ultimate David and
Goliath tale of a young man who never sought fame
or compensation, just wanted justice against a
well-resourced defendant who has for years cultivated
and been supported by his powerful image - while
rumours of his private behaviour gathered momentum
in Ballarat and elsewhere.

Taking on Cardinal Pell the 3rd most senior person in
the worldwide Catholic Church. A man supported by
two former PMs who did not spend one minute in court,
did not hear or read a word of the evidence and yet
nonetheless by implication branded the young man a liar.

The trauma and anxiety for all involved, for the young
man, for the family of his dead friend, for the entire
community of people who have survived industrial-scale abuse
by Catholic clergy in this country cannot be underestimated.

SR,

No, I don't think there is any 'communal rights' involved at all - no group or community or whatever has some sort of special rights for any of its 'members' to commit any crimes. This is purely an individual vs. individual matter, of Pell vs. his accuser. I would be appalled at any suggestion that any 'member' of the Catholic Church has any privilege over anybody else in deliberations of any court.

I'm sure you would ultimately agree :)

Cheers,

Joe

Dear Foxy,

Forgive me I'm not sure couching it in those terms is entirely without political bias either.

There is an equally valid perspective which says the accuser, who is able to enjoy the anonymity which is not afforded the accused to the same degree, is in a powerful position, possibly more powerful than even an elevated person like Pell.

I fully support anonymity in child sexual abuse cases but it does allow for reputations to be severely impacted without the accuser being known to the public at large and this must be manged in a way that affords some protection to the accused as well.

Also I do think there needs to be a decent discussion about the implications of giving greater weight to uncorroborated evidence. Perhaps it needs to be stipulated that it is more directly targeted toward child abuse cases, recognising the special nature of the offence. The need to be measured in our approach is self evident and the concerns that many have put on this thread, though enhanced by concocted political outrage, are not without merit.

However where uncorroborated evidence has caused miscarriages of justice have primarily been around cases of mistaken identity.

There have been cases where women have mistakenly identified their attacker in lineups. The Robert Cotton case is an example;

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/18/opinion/i-was-certain-but-i-was-wrong.html

However in the Pell case the identity question was rightly never raised. That the accused was present in the building was not at issue either. In the end it came down to the witnesses for Pell against the victim. The jury believed the victim over them.

I would have been more comfortable with the decision if Pell had chosen to give evidence, but I support it none the less.

Foxy,

"You're spot on. This case has very much been
politicised.

...The trauma and anxiety for all involved, for the young
man, for the family of his dead friend, for the entire
community of people who have survived industrial-scale abuse
by Catholic clergy in this country cannot be underestimated."

That sounds a wee bit politicized!!

Nice to see that you feel for the family of his dead friend, a dead friend or his family that you obviously consider to be liars.

“An unusual feature of this case was that it depended entirely upon the complainant being accepted, beyond reasonable doubt, as a credible and reliable witness. Yet the jury were invited to accept his evidence without there being any independent support for it.”
— Justice Mark Weinberg in his dissent.

Exactly, ttbn. You cannot reliably profile a "witness of truth" just as you cannot reliably profile a liar. Much is made of the complainant not seeking financial gain, but there were many other motivations for him to tell a story. I hope the High Court considers the matter important enough to grant leave for a hearing, but I believe it to be unlikely that it will do so.

ttbn,

The fact Justice Weinberg had a different legal opinion to the other two judges, what should we do with that? Release Pell, put him back in his sacristy with a fresh batch of choir boys.
You haven't had a good year have you. Firstly your great white hope Corny Banana self imploded, now your spiritual leader Archy Pell finds himself in the slammer for kiddy fiddling. What next? Margie Thatcher was actually a man, dressed in drag, Ronnie Reagan had a sex change and secretly married Margie. What else can go wrong for you conservatives.

Issy, you dressed up as Friar Tuck, you do say. Nothing wrong with that. Its those who dress up as Friar Whack we have a problem with.

Well Paul, good luck with Anthony Albanobody.

Paul,

"Issy, you dressed up as Friar Tuck, you do say. Nothing wrong with that. It's those who dress up as Friar Whack we have a problem with."

You're letting your penchant for attempts at humour exceed your knowledge.

The controversy over this case will continue.
Pell will have his defendera and his accusers.

Most of us have already made up our minds.

To anyone still interested in learning more about
this case I strongly recommend the book by
Louise Milligan - (the updated version) - "New Revelations:
Cardinal: The Rise and Fall of George Pell."

It is a real eye-opener.

Fester,

I can't say that I have a lot of faith in the High Court either. Too many activist judges who suddenly 'find' things that have never been written in the Constitution, for instance, and who actually think that they have super-human gifts of understanding, which have nothing to do with the fact that they managed to get through a law course many years ago.

It's time we started voting for judges, and giving them the flick when they don't perform, just like the politicians they seem to think they are.

Louise Milligan. That would be the ABC hack who thinks that she knows what "most Australians" think. Read the article on her in Catallaxy Files, free, before you spend any money to read her bigoted nonsense.

Louise Milligan - an investigative reporter for
the Four Corners program. She covered the Royal
Commission into Institutional Responses to Child
Abuse. Her exclusive stories for the 7.30 program
on the allegations against George Pell won her
two Quill Awards from the Melbourne Press Club,
including the Gold Quill for Best Story of the
Year - the highest honour in Victorian journalism.

For her book "The Cardinal: The Rise and Fall of
George Pell," in 2017 she was awarded the Walkley
Book Award and the Sir Owen Dixon Chambers Law
Reporter of the Year Award.

In 2018 Milligan was short-listed for the Australian
Book Industry Award, Small Publisher's Adult Book
of the Year. Highly commended for the Non-Fiction
category for the Davitt Awards and won the Civic
Choice Award for the Melbourne Prize for Literature.

Milligan is Irish born and was raised a devoted Catholic.

Foxy,

Milligan may well be an eye opener but could you open our eyes and tell us why you think that the other boy's parents would lie about him?

Their testimony alone, if you don't brand them as liars, shews reasonable doubt.

Dear Foxy,

There are usually many sides to an issue, so I disagree that this particular case is simply a matter of "Pell will have his defenders and his accusers."

I wouldn't be surprised if Pell if as guilty as hell of innumerable offences against young boys, but I am very concerned about the flimsiness of the evidence in this case - one person's uncorroborated testimony, and to my mind, a very unlikely scenario at a busy cathedral.

I would love for stronger evidence such as CCTV or other eye-witnesses - or conversely, witnesses (apart from the clergy) who (for some special reason) remember chatting to Pell for some time on the steps on that day.

I'm also puzzled about how Pell would have known that there were young boys in the priest's sacristy, and how he would have calculated how long he had to whip around to the sacristy, undress enough to abuse those boys, re-dress himself, and get back to the steps again, without being missed.

So maybe I'm a defender of due process, versus others who have an 'anything will do to get the bastard' approach ?

Cheers,

Joe

We should also remember that the result of the appeal hinges on one person's opinion.

Hi there STEELEREDUX...

I'm sorry about yesterday, I tire very easily these days & by early evening, my mind becomes further scrambled, and I seem to peter out. I make no excuses, my problem!

A question if I may Steele - Under the Scottish legal system, they have (or did) have a system where a jury may find three perfectly acceptable verdicts, in their criminal procedure.

Guilty; Not Guilty, or Not proven. Do you think their system would work here, especially when you consider the machinations associated with Cardinal PELL'S case?

Or would you share my own view, (the third option) 'Not proven' is patently unfair, particularly if the person is innocent, and every knock on his door, for the rest of his life, might herald a visit from police? The individual must then live, in a perpetual climate of official suspicion.

I genuinely believe BLACKSTONE got it right in the 18th century - 'A hundred guilty me should go free than a single innocent man is convicted'? Please don't consider me some limp-wristed former copper gone soft on crime. Nevertheless, I do believe, however, that fairness and impartiality are an essential component of our legal system. 'There but through the grace of God go I.'

o sung wu,

"A hundred guilty men should go free than a single innocent man is convicted"

You got it right, that principle is one of the reasons that the death penalty was abolished.
http://www.cato.org/policing-in-america/chapter-4/blackstones-ratio

Is Mise,

Yes, I remember the killing of Ronald Ryan in 1967 on the grounds that he had shot a warder, Hodson, while trying to escape from Pentridge: long after his murder by the Bolte government, a warder up in a control tower (I think named Lange ?) admitted shooting Hodson.

But it was a bit late by then.

Joe

Joe,

It was Lange that Ryan took the carbine off, it was never proved that another warder shot the victim, although one claimed that he had fired a shot that might have hit the other warder.

Is Mise,

I don't know where you got the impression that I
thought the claimant's dead friend's family were
liars. I did not saying or imply anything of the sort.
I stated that I felt for their trauma and anguish, not only
for the claimant, the family of his dead friend, and the
entire community of people who have survived industrial-scale
abuse by Catholic clergy in this country. That this cannot be
underestimated.

I did point out that Pell was a man supported by two
former PMs who didn't spend a minute in court, didn't
hear or read a word of the evidence and yet
nonetheless by implication branded the young man a liar.

However this had nothing to do with the family of his
dead friend. It appears you got things mixed up.

Joe,

We don't know the full extent of the evidence that
was presented in court against Pell.
Only bits and pieces have been released. And the fact
that Pell was found guilty unanimously by a jury,
and the judges upheld this verdict - is enough for me.

Foxy,
You said yesterday, page 24 "We do not know the entirety of the evidence that was presented both to the jury or the judges. It has
not been fully disclosed". That is patently wrong as Big Nana pointed out to you early on this thread.

I, and many others, waited for the media suppression to be lifted, expecting some news of further evidence that would prove Pell's guilt and there was none. The prosecution only had the accusations of the complainant.

Seeing this was the case I formed the view that the accused was being treated unfairly and that no person should be convicted on accusations alone. I still hold that view.

I am still to find out if other states changed laws, along with Victoria, to enable this miscarriage of justice.

Hi, there IS MISE & LOUDMOUTH...

Correct my friends. That's why I've always been implacably against the death penalty. There's much evidence around the Western World suggesting the State has (occasionally) executed an innocent man. I'm sorry for digressing from the topic at hand.

I can't wait until the movie comes out. They managed to turn the Chamberlains' story into a movie so just image what they will be able to do with George Pell. They would have to present it as a conspiracy theory, probably starring Mel Gibson as Pell and Tony Abbott as the Pope. Who would they get to play Mark Weinberg? probably Donald Trump: 'It's fake news I tell you; he wasn't even dressed for the occasion!'

ttbn

I have more faith in the courts, but there are strict rules to be followed. I hope that Pell's case is seen as a matter of public importance. As is evident in this discussion the issue of a person being convicted on the uncorroborated testimony of a single complainant has an ambit well beyond that of the Catholic clergy.

JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 35A
Criteria for granting special leave to appeal

In considering whether to grant an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court under this Act or under any other Act, the High Court may have regard to any matters that it considers relevant but shall have regard to:

(a) whether the proceedings in which the judgment to which the application relates was pronounced involve a question of law:

(i) that is of public importance, whether because of its general application or otherwise; or

(ii) in respect of which a decision of the High Court, as the final appellate court, is required to resolve differences of opinion between different courts, or within the one court, as to the state of the law; and

(b) whether the interests of the administration of justice, either generally or in the particular case, require consideration by the High Court of the judgment to which the application relates.

Dear Fester,

You left out (c) whether he was dressed for the occasion.

Catholic Church will suffer until they tell us they are truly sorry and truly intend to bring in changes
Pell has been convicted and it is not our job to challenge that ruling

Dear HenryL.,

It's not true that we have heard all the evidence.
The key to both the unanimous decision of the jury
and the judges decision to uphold that decision
was the fact that they were able to look at all
the evidence not only ones that we have heard in
summary. The judges watched the videos, toured the
Cathedral, examined the robes, and made their verdict.

We, like our two former PMs, did not spend a minute
in court. did not hear a word or read a word of all
the evidence being presented and therefore have
to accept the verdict of those who did.

A majority found for the complainant against the
Cardinal. His conviction by a unanimous jury was
upheld. He is a guilty child abuser.

The key to their decision was clearly the accuser.
And those who have met him speak of an extraordinarily
convincing young man.

There's more at the following link:

http://theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/aug/23/cardinal-george-pells-failed-appeal-and-why-his-chances-in-the-high-court-are-slim

I have to tell you folks that I'll be out of
commission for a while. I'm having some surgery
on Tuesday 27th August 2019.

I don't want you to get the wrong impression if I don't
respond for a while.

The last time it happened - it appears some of you were
concerned about me. So this time I thought I'd get in
early and let you know what's going on ahead of time.

Foxy,

"However this had nothing to do with the family of his
dead friend. It appears you got things mixed up."

You obviously think that Pell is guilty, so you must also think that the other young man and/or his parents were lying.
If the young man who died said to his parents that the incidents with Pell didn't happen and he was telling the truth then Pell is innocent.

You, quite obviously, don't believe them therefore, you think them to be liars.

Of course, I may be wrong and you think that Pell is innocent.

Hi Belly,

I think we are just nattering away in the peanut gallery trying to make sense of things. I have been told that the High Court is unlikely to grant an appeal, so the whole business should be done and dusted in a few weeks.

Foxy,

Best wishes for a short stay and a quick recovery.

Cheers

Hi Foxy,

All the best with the hospital trip, hope all goes well, and we'll "see" you back here soon. Good luck.

Well, the only thing that hasn't been suggested yet to get Pell of the hook is Trial by Ordeal, can someone start boiling the oil?

Is Mise,

No. I don't think that the young man who died -
that his family are liars. Nor was the young man himself.
He simply did not tell the truth because as we all
know victims of sexual abuse often don't as they are
seldom believed and are marginalised, shamed, and re-abused.
He also did not want to
lose the scholarship he had at the Private School.

As to what I think of Cardinal Pell? A jury unanimously
found him guilty as did the majority of judges.
I respect their decision.

I'm not really inclined to continue this conversation.
We're at opposite poles in our thinking
and I don't want to continue to explain things to you

Hello there FOXY...

All the very best for your upcoming stay in Hospital.
I truly hope all goes well for you.
Take care always...O sung wu.

Foxy,

"No. I don't think that the young man who died -
that his family are liars. Nor was the young man himself.
He simply did not tell the truth "

"...He simply did not tell the truth..."

How do you know?

Funnily enough, I have always thought that people who do not tell the truth are liars; apparently, you think differently; I guess it takes all kinds...

I think a lot of the problems with the Courts and the legal system in general is that the people who are in charge viz., barristers, judges, etc., are only lawyers who have been trained in the arts of rhetoric and sophism. We need legal officers who not only know how the legal system functions and how to administer the law but also to be highly knowledgeable in other areas particularly logic, epistemology, psychology, etc.

Maybe then we wouldn't get stupid remarks like Pell not being dressed for the occasion. I really wonder how some people can live with themselves. Absolutely discussing!

Dear Fester, Paul, and O Sung Wu,

Thank You for your kind words and good wishes.

They're deeply appreciated.

Mr Op,

I think that Victorians are very well served by skilled jurists like Justice Weinberg. You might sling off at one frivolous remark, but there was a great deal of skill and effort that went into his judgement. It seems quite a feat to commit such offences in full vestments after mass.

Hi Foxy,

//As to what I think of Cardinal Pell? A jury unanimously
found him guilty as did the majority of judges.
I respect their decision.//

Totally agree, as I said on a previous post, if Pell's lawyers pull a rabbit out of the hat and get him off in the High Court, so be it. I find some on here laughable, giving legal opinions on such a complicated legal matter, all without the slightest insight what so ever. The same folks who will pan a book without having read it.

Foxy,

I intended to wish you well with your visit to the hospital at the end of my last post but forgot; I remembered, but got the dreaded "You may post in 1 hour".

Anyway, all the very best.

Dear Fester,

What I am saying is that we need better people: people who have skills and knowledge other than vocational legal training and expertise. Being skilled in rhetoric and sophism might be held in high esteem within the group but a lack of knowledge is held in contempt by the hoi polloi unconcerned about the fine detail of the law and wanting unambiguous social justice. We simply need much better people than we have!

Dear Fester,

PS. Contrary to what you reckon, I think the High Court will convene an appeal hearing and subsequently acquit Pell of the charges. It won't be to save Pell's neck but to maintain the position of the Catholic Church. There is now more at stake than the soul of one man. If it happens the way I think it will go we can revisit it and discuss the reasons and machinations of how and why.

Dear Mr Op,

I am currently reading through the judgement. It looks to me more like a great deal of hard work and reasoning than conspiracy.

Cheers

https://www.scribd.com/document/422583148/Pell-v-the-Queen-2019-Vsca-186-Web#from_embed

Dear Is Mise,

«that principle is one of the reasons that the death penalty was abolished.»

I wish is wasn't, because now prison is the only remaining option.

For real hardened criminals who are indeed guilty, prison may not be a big deal, but for good and innocent people who live a wholesome life and always keep away from evil, nothing is more terrible than prison, including death. I for one am much more afraid of prison than of death.

Why should good people then have to live in such constant fear, even previously but especially now when any adversary or competitor (political, financial, romantic, etc.) can rid of them by reporting them as child-abusers and be believed?

Why not allow the innocent who are wrongly convicted the death option so at least they can appeal to the Highest court that is never wrong?

Dear Fester,

Let's wait to see how things pan out. If things happen the way I predict then I will be having a whole lot of things to say.

Dear Fester,

I never said there was a conspiracy. I assume that's your interpretation of what I said. You aren't by any chance a lawyer?

Dear Yuyutsu,

I'm really starting to wonder about you. You show all the signs of someone with a guilt complex. Maybe a couple of hours in the confession box with Cardinal Pell will fix you. Just make sure you dress for the occasion.

Is Mise,

Thank You for your kind words and well wishes.

They are appreciated. My surgery is tomorrow
at twelve Noon, so say a little prayer for
me. At the moment I'm as nervous as anything.

Anyway, you asked the question about knowing
what was the truth in this case.

Well, just like the unanimous decision made by
the jury, and by the majority of Judges -
It was because throughout his evidence the
complainant known only to the court as "J" came
across as someone who was telling the truth.

Chief Justice Anne Ferguson and Justice Chris
Maxwell found in their majority judgement that -

"He did not seek to embellish his evidence or tailor it
in a manner favourable to the prosecution."

Nobody found any reason to believe that J was not telling
the truth.

Indeed as many have stated - they would defy anyone who
had met him to find any reason why this young man would
invent this story and to go through what has been a
4 year ordeal through police investigation and a court
case.

"They [the Appeals Court] were in fact like a third jury."

From the Appeals Court itself..." the task for the appeal court is to decide whether, on the whole of the evidence, it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was guilty"

Who to believe? Foxy or the court. A tough call.

Milligan claims to be a "devoted" (devout is the word normally used) Catholic, but her ignorance of the names of Catholic prayers and devotions suggests otherwise. Her potted history means nothing, and awards in the media industry are on a par with those that real estate agents hand out to each other. Even people attempting to enter the country illegally are awarded 'honours', quite against the rules, for writing grotty little books nobody will read. And, it is a complete mystery as to how being born in Ireland has any bearing on the woman's truthfulness or ability.

Its almost immaterial what the High Court's decision is in regards to Pell. In Australia, the world has changed.

The so-called progressives have now found a mechanism to wreak revenge on or utterly destroy their political opponents as well as cower organised opposition by targeting their leadership.

A loose alliance of left-wing government legislators, determined prejudiced constabulary and state controlled media have achieved a decade long goal of bringing the church to heel by relentlessly pursuing its leadership. No other church group will dare put up a fight as the anti-Christian agenda is advanced.

It would be totally naive to assume that these loose alliances, (government, police, state media) will not again use their newly discovered powers when next a societal pillar stands in the way of achieving their false utopia. The USA has avoided (for now) this new path through the twin efforts of Trump and Kavanagh but Australia is now embarked on a very different journey.

We will rue the day. Indeed those currently celebrating their victory will come to rue the day because in the end the revolution usually eats its own.

So mhaze, the great conspiracy of the left has seen the conservatives high priest of perversion carted off to the slammer. Is that what you think. I took the time this morning to read the judgement of the Court of Appeal, a meticulous document. Wallah! I could find nothing that I could perceive in my mind as conspiratorial, no "Lets get Pell" or "Death to the conservatives". None of that stuff, just a reasoned and detail explanation as to why the court seen fit to dismiss Pell's appeal.

For those of you who might be interested in the rights or wrongs published in book form, Adolf Hitler wrote a bestseller, long before there were Mickey Mouse awards of the sort a mere reporter like Louise Milligan is reputed to have won to supposedly make her words gospel.

Mein Kampf enjoyed a 10 million copies run during Hitler's lifetime, and it earned him the equivalent of $12 million in royalties. I wonder how the 'loud and shouty' Milligans own words) measure up to that

For those of you who might be interested in the rights or wrongs published in book form, Adolf Hitler wrote a bestseller, long before there were Mickey Mouse awards of the sort a mere reporter like Louise Milligan is reputed to have won to supposedly make her words gospel.

Mein Kampf enjoyed a 10 million copies run during Hitler's lifetime, and it earned him the equivalent of $12 million in royalties. I wonder how the 'loud and shouty' (Milligans own words) measure up to that

Foxy,

"...complainant known only to the court as "J" came
across as someone who was telling the truth".

Therefore his dead mate was a liar if his parents were telling the truth or the parents were lying for some reason or another.

If it is taken as truth that the dead boy told the truth then that constitutes reasonable doubt.

Is Mise,

The jury unanimously did not find any reasonable doubt.
Neither did the majority of judges. They believed
the evidence presented.

We can argue this ad infinitem - the verdict stands.
Pell has been found to be a guilty child abuser.

We have to respect our legal system.

Foxy,

That being the case then those who lied under oath should be charged with perjury, is there any reason to let them get away with a criminal offence?

Dear mhaze,

You wrote;

“A loose alliance of left-wing government legislators, determined prejudiced constabulary and state controlled media have achieved a decade long goal of bringing the church to heel by relentlessly pursuing its leadership. No other church group will dare put up a fight as the anti-Christian agenda is advanced.”

What an absolute crock.

A church hierarchy that was complicit in and often participated in the widespread buggering and raping of thousands upon thousands of Aussie children was finally exposed and brought to heel by a long overdue Royal Commission and now you want to call them the victims?

My God man have a good look at yourself and the toxic position you are now adopting.

It seems very evident that you would prefer the RC never happened since it gave victims the strength to come forward and tell of their abuse.

You appear to want things to go back to the way they were. Well mate that ain't happening. This discredited lot are getting their just reward and I for one am happy to see the victims receiving some justice at last.

I can't drum up any 'respect' for our legal system after what it has done to Pell. Nor would I want my future in the hands of 12 numpties selected from the electoral roll.

Of course, it could be just Victoria, home of numpties and judges to match. Where the ABC is know as Radio Karachi.

Issy, get out of your red robes, they are not you, and don the Friar Whuck outfit. Your legal jurisprudence is worse than Rumpole's after a long session in Pomeroy's Wine Bar knocking back a bottle or two of 'Chateau Thames Embankment'.

Well said Steele!

Where is you know who, on the previous thread on Pell the good chap seen paedophilia as a form of character building.

Dear Mhaze,

I don't think that Pell's conviction, as much as they now rejoice, was a deliberate conspiracy by the Left/Progressives. Far more likely, it was initiated by the Italian Mafia, which groomed and trained the "victim"/witness, then activated their plan the moment his friend died and could no longer contradict his evidence (or was this overdose-death really an accident?...).

[
Senior Calabrian Mafia investigator Nicola Gratteri, whose investigative zeal has forced him to live with police protection since 1989, has said the pope’s plans to reform Vatican structures, including the Vatican bank, the IOR, could prove a problem for the ’Ndrangheta, Italy’s most powerful Mafia.

He said that while Pope John Paul II called on the “military” mafiosi to “repent” in 1993, Pope Francis has gone further, perhaps hitting the ’Ndrangheta where it hurts.

“He has named his G8 [council of cardinals] to overhaul the entire structure of the Vatican, including a review of the Vatican’s economic affairs and in particular, the IOR,” Gratteri says.

“For those with real economic power it is obvious this could be a huge disadvantage . . . Given that in the past we’ve had collusion at the highest level between church and Mafia, this exposes the pope.”

Months after this report, Cardinal George Pell was named by Francis to reform the IOR. In 2014, Pell said his team found nearly two billion euros hidden away in various Vatican accounts, off the balance sheets. In November 2015, with the Pope’s approval, Pell issued new guidelines for running all Vatican offices, to bring them up to international standards for financial transparency.

In April 2016, without consulting Pell, the Vatican Secretary of State suspends an external audit of Vatican finances. The National Catholic Register quotes an unnamed source as saying that officials are afraid of what the audit will find, and want to get rid of Pell. A year later, Pell was charged in Melbourne with sexual abuse. And that was the end of the Pell threat to the Vatican Bank insiders.
]

- http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/cardinal-pell-the-mafia/

Of course, let's believe the witness - i.e if we are emotional Catholic-haters and drongos. Someone who should know a thing or two: Justice Michael McHugh, High Court, 1994.

"It is the everyday experience of the courts that honest witnesses are frequently in error about the details of events. The more accounts that they are asked to give the greater is the chance that there will be discrepancies about details and even inconsistencies in the various accounts … If a jury thinks that the demeanour of the witness or the probability of occurrence of the witness’s general account is persuasive, they may reasonably think that discrepancies or even inconsistencies concerning details are of little moment."

So, it seems that courts don't see a witness as unreliable if their statements and answers are sometimes out of tune. However, the Victorian numpty judges used this 'understandable' failing as proof that the witness in Pell's case had to be credible!

I'm not going to waste my time elaborating further to a group of people who have kept saying the same thing during this drawn out thread leading nowhere; but, for the few of you who are capable of understanding, see Keith Windschuttle's column in Quadrant Online today.

Is Mise,

Monsignor Portelli and Mr Potter's evidence was
rejected by both the unanimous jury and the majority
judges in their verdict of finding Pell guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt.

As far as I'm aware Portelli and Potter
were never accused of perjury

Keith Windschuttle - the man who imagines conspiracy
where there is none. Coming from the hard left and
having switched to the hard right when it was
opportune to do so, Windschuttle's paranoid style is
understandable. He's had to earn his stripes since
swapping sides and, like all apostates, his ideological
arguments are more extreme than his more established
counterparts.

Windshuttle's attemps continue to whip up irrational
fear. His objections always fails to address the
middle-ground, and therefore is out of touch.
Still he does have an appeal to a certain group.
Who can't think for themselves.

So quite a few are again accusing me of believing in a conspiracy. Projection much? I've never used the word in regards to this issue.

But I do see various groups with similar aims (ie knee-cap the churches) who worked toward the same objective.

Poor old Paul, who always seems to get over-wrought whenever his fondest fables are challenged, advised that the appellate court wasn't part of the conspiracy. Since I didn't suggest it was, his hysteria seemed a little...ahem..hysterical.

And we even see poor SR get a bit on edge at my point. Again I wasn't suggesting that the convictions, rightful and correctly adjudicated, of many of those priests convicted were anything but valid and desirable. I was talking about the urge to GET Pell by various portions of the governing class. Despite repeated failures to find valid or any evidence they continued the endeavour whilst slowly destroying any chance that he find a jury that wasn't already spectacularly tainted against him personally.

That will happen again and more often.

Again I'd point out how many here, when confronted with the relative lack of evidence against Pell, go running back to the notion that the whole church was guilty and therefore he was as well eg SR's cry of vindication "This discredited lot are getting their just reward". That is, in the eyes of those like SR, Pell being guilty or not of this particular crime, his punishment is justified and celebrated because he was a member, a leader no less, of an ostracised group.

This type of thinking won't end well. The people who think that its OK to get the opposition by any means, fair or foul, are always surprised when the same rules are, eventually, applied to them.

//Mein Kampf enjoyed a 10 million copies run during Hitler's lifetime// you don't say ttbn. If I was living in Nazi Germany between 1933 and 1945 I to would have a copy of Mein Kampf displayed prominently on the coffee table for all to see, in the same period about 10% of Germans joined the Nazi Party, they knew which side their bread was buttered.

Now if I was living in Stalinist Russia during those years and beyond I would have had a picture of Comrade Stalin displayed prominently on the lounge room wall. Like the Germans, the Russians also knew what was good for them.

Pul,

Wouldn't have done you much good if you were associated with particular groups, since the notion of the 'collective guilt' of those out-groups was so prevalent in such totalitarian societies.

Thankfully, there are not many people advocating collective guilt here in Australia.

Oh, wait a minute ......

Joe

Dear mhaze,

Bollocks!

This is what you first put;

“A loose alliance of left-wing government legislators, determined prejudiced constabulary and state controlled media have achieved a decade long goal of bringing the church to heel by relentlessly pursuing its leadership. No other church group will dare put up a fight as the anti-Christian agenda is advanced.”

It was that I addressed, not once mentioning Pell.

Why are you now claiming it is all about him saying “I was talking about the urge to GET Pell by various portions of the governing class.”?

That is not what you put in your original post at all. You are being entirely disingenuous.

And why are you saying there isn't any evidence when we all now there is the sworn evidence given by the young scholarship lad he forced himself on in the first instance. That evidence on its own was accepted by the jury then by all the justices as compelling.

Anyway how about you stop with the bad faith arguing, it doesn't help your cause one iota

sad to say but I suspect if Pell wore a rainbow badge to court I doubt very much he would of been found guilty. Such is the sad state of affairs.

That termn *left wing*
It warns all the user is not quite all there
That he/she has fallen for the Trump right
A faction in world politics that feeds its follower of the same thing that grows vegetable mushrooms
And too that they,sadly put the chains around their own feet and deliberately fight to keep them there

Before I leave this discussion I would like you to take
the time and read the following link written by Prof.
Jeremy Gans - Professor in the Faculty of Law, at
Melbourne University.

It's worth a read:

http://smh.com.au/national/was-he-guilty-read-the-pell-document-and-make-up-your-mind-20190822-p52jqm.html

runner, you have never given any details about paedophiles in your church, sad to say but I suspect they are rife, probably hundreds of them.

Dear o sung wu,

You asked;

“A question if I may Steele - Under the Scottish legal system, they have (or did) have a system where a jury may find three perfectly acceptable verdicts, in their criminal procedure.

Guilty; Not Guilty, or Not proven. Do you think their system would work here, especially when you consider the machinations associated with Cardinal PELL'S case?”

It is funny you should ask.

“Australia's Catholic Church hierarchy received a complaint in 2002 that a trainee priest (George Pell) had sexually abused a twelve-year-old altar boy (named Phil) in 1961-1962 at a holiday camp for boys on Phillip Island, south-east of Melbourne.

According to a church document, Phil has alleged that, on several occasions, the trainee priest George Pell (then aged about 20) thrust his hand down the inside of Phil's pants and got "a good handful" of the boy's penis and testicles; and, on other occasions, George Pell allegedly tried to guide the boy's hand into the front of Pell's pants.

By the year 2000, when Phil was aged 50, he realised that the trainee priest George Pell had risen to become an Archbishop. Phil was shocked — "he did not think it right that someone who had behaved indecently towards children should lead the church," the church document says. So, beginning in 2000, Phil tried to alert the church authorities.

Phil emphasised that he was not seeking compensation. And he was not reporting this matter to the police (therefore there is no police investigation into Phil's complaint). Rather, Phil was concerned about the safety of children in the church's care; and he merely wanted the church authorities to be aware of the offences that were allegedly committed upon him (Phil) at the altar boys' camp.

In 2002, the hierarchy paid a senior barrister, Mr Alec Southwell QC, to examine (and report on) Phil's complaint. Archbishop George Pell (who was indeed at the altar boys' camp) denied committing any abuse. Mr Southwell's report concluded that the former altar boy "appeared to speak honestly from an actual recollection".

Cont...

Cont...

Mr Southwell said he was not persuaded that the former altar boy was a liar as alleged by Pell. [The incident in 1960-1961 is not included in the criminal charges that Pell faced in court in 2018 because the former altar boy Phil has not reported this matter to the police — and Phil says he does not want to re-open his 1960-1961 matter now because he is still feeling hurt by the manner in which he says Pell's defence team brutalised him when he tried to report it to the church authorities in 2002.]”

http://www.brokenrites.org.au/drupal/node/36

As you will see in the link a conclusion from Stephen Crittenden of the Religion Report.

Quote

Reader: Mr Southwell’s conclusion is exquisitely balanced. He accepts “that the complainant, when giving evidence of molesting, gave the impression that he was speaking honestly from an actual recollection”. However, he says Dr Pell “also gave me the impression he was speaking the truth”. A significant part of Mr Southwell’s report concerns the standard of proof; because he considered what was alleged against Dr Pell as serious, he was inclined to apply a strict burden, akin to the “beyond reasonable doubt” of criminal proceedings. That helped Dr Pell. It also made Mr Southwell’s careful conclusion – that he could not be “satisfied that the complaint has been established” – rather less than a complete exoneration.

Stephen Crittenden: In other words, Mr Southwell’s verdict seems to have an affinity with the Scottish verdict of “case not proven”

End quote.

To me the term 'manifestly unfair' should probably cut both ways. Give a verdict of guilty or not guilty by all means, but if evidence come to light that renders the either verdict manifestly unsafe then the decision should be able to be revisited. I know this would impinge on the notion of double jeopardy but so be it.

Dear Foxy,

All the best with the upcoming dance with the healing fraternity. I'm sure they will have you back to us fighting the good fight in no time.

No, Mr Op. I just think it an interesting case with potentially significant implications, so I wanted some more understanding of the machinations of the justice system. Reading the dissenting judgement I get the impression that Justice Weinberg saw it as a verdict of high improbability rather than a verdict beyond reasonable doubt. At least Pell's defence was motivated enough by the appeal judgement to take things further. See what happens.

Cheers

Dear Steelie,

I read your response to O Sung Wu's question
about the Scottish Legal System with great interest.
And the Phil case with dismay.

Who knows where Cardinal Pell's case will end.
He's lost his appeal. We have to wait and see what
happens next.

Thank You for your well wishes regarding my surgery
tomorrow. They are greatly appreciated.

My husband was an altar boy - and he not only attended
private Catholic Schools, but he also did an architectural
study on St Patrick's Cathedral in Melbourne - for historical
record.

He has spoken about one experience at a Christian Brothers
School where he was called into the Principal's office
to pick up a school uniform that had been ordered by his
father.

When my husband came out of the Principal's office he
was met by four extremely excited fellow pupils who
persistently questioned "Did he lock the door?"
"What did he do to you?" "Did he put his hand down
your pants?".

Fortunately, because my husband's father frequently
went to talk to that Principal about his son's performance,
my husband did not have any negative experience
that the young kids suggested.

Later, a fellow student in my husband's class who the
Principal had always referred to as "my favourite"
committed suicide.

Strangely, the junior classes were moved to a new school
site thereafter, where the same Principal was transferred
as Principal of that school.

There would be few, if any, Catholic men who attended all boys Catholic High Schools in the 1960's who did not directly experience the "kiddy fiddlers", or know of others who did. The practice of paedophilia behaviour by priests and brothers was most common, it was a systemic part of school life. What angers me is not just the physical behaviour towards children by those in a position of trust, but the total disregard church authority takes towards those that were abused.

Some will say that paedophiles in the Australian Catholic Church were in the past, the church has changed, things have been corrected. I do not believe that is true, the organisation has done little on both counts. Children are still vulnerable to predictors within, and there are few safeguards to protect children, and when exposed the Church still looks to ways of protecting itself first and foremost.

Steele brings up the case of a boy in the 1960's on a alter boy camp allegedly molested by a young priest (George Pell), there is a high degree of probability that this is true. In 2019 if there was another alter boy camp, with a young priest involved, there still is a high probability that a child would be molested. Not much has changed, expect the perpetrators and church authorities have become more cunning at covering up.

Hope things go well for you Foxy
I read every post, and for me at least this is more than a battle based on faith or [lets face it]politics
I am confronted by all pedophilia, and understand many faiths are involved
Too that the Catholic Church[ based may be in part on its world wide spread] is highlighted for that crime
And we must not ignore, by its policy's on sex, that Church may attract some for the wrong reasons
IF we leave our personal biases at the door, can anyone say with honestly, the Church has taken action to end this crime
Pell, forget his conviction,has been less than kind to victims
He has a chance[powerful men can twist judgment] in the high court but if that fails some, for what ever reason, will still defend him

Paul,
I read with interest your comments re 'kiddy fiddling' in the 1960s at Catholic schools.

I never attended a private school but The catholic kids and others used to play together after school and at weekends at sports. The catholic kids used to talk openly about Brother X and Father Y and the little ones spoke about the cruel nuns. The older girls that went to colleges also spoke about the cruel nuns. Some kids said their fathers remembered the same when they went to school. The older teenage girls never spoke openly about school sex abuse but hinted that things went on from time to time. There was little parental sex education for teens and no school sex classes.

So it appears it has been going on for generations, maybe since the beginning of christianity. I can recall reading about kids abuse in Indian history and the Chinese viewed it as good if their little boy was selected to serve the monks. I shudder to think about the abuse of boys sent to serve in the military or navy, and the little girls serving in stately homes, etc.

What really gets me is that the parents in each generation continued to send their kids to the same schools, where they knew abuse took place, in fact some of the same clergy and teachers were still at the same schools.

The question must be asked. Why would the parents deliberately put their kids at risk by sending them to the same schools? Do they not now feel some shame and remorse, and share some of the responsibility for the kids that were abused.

Hi HenryL,

You pose an extremely good question, "Why would the parents deliberately put their kids at risk by sending them to the same schools?" I can only say, parents/people knew of things, but never spoke openly about hem, certainly never discussed in the home. Maybe they didn't want to believe such things took place, and in many instances children would not tell parents anyway.

I only know of one instance in about 1967, where a parent actually confronted the head Brother at my school about their son being molested, by a bloke who was a regular offender, and he would do it to a child at the back of the classroom of 30 boys. He would do that at virtually every lesson. The outcome was the head convinced the parents that brother was suffering from "overwork" and he would be given help. The truth is he was moved to another similar Catholic school, which seemed to be standard procedure.

An award winning Aussie fictional dramatisation from the 1970's which reflects Australian Catholic schools in the 50', 'The Devils Playground'. When I first watched this film in the 70's I could see the reality contained in it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZTejo-CsW0

While most people are obsessing about Catholic 'kiddy fiddling', they are giving a free kick to all the other non-Catholic schools and institutions in the secular world.

Most people are not interested in child abuse; they are interested in dragging down the Catholic Church.

"Australia's Catholic Church hierarchy received a complaint in 2002 that a trainee priest (George Pell) had sexually abused a twelve-year-old altar boy "

Let's show SR the courtesy that he'd never show others and assume that the parts of the story that he left out were because of his sh!t-house research skills and attempts by his sources to deceive the gullible, rather than SR just hiding the bits of his story that didn't suit his gumph.

What other bits? Well 'Phil' wasn't just your average kid. He'd already been gaoled on drug-trafficking charges as well as street and alcohol offences and association with Melbourne criminals.

In his finding, Southwell Q.C. referred to “some valid criticism of the complainant’s credibility” and the “lack of corroborative evidence”. He found that Phil’s complaint had not been established. Southwell Q.C. also found that George Pell gave him “the impression that he was speaking the truth”.

As to corroboration, Phil said another kid was involved but he died in 1985. Wow! Isn't it strange how all the 'other' witnesses die BEFORE the complaint is lodged. I'm sure Pell was responsible (/sarc).

Its this type of thing that I'm talking about in regards to the way all these levers of society were arranged so as to ultimately destroy any chance of Pell getting a fair trial in Victoria. The ABC tells half the story, the gullible buy it and/or internalise it and ultimately we get a jury that has heard so many half-truths that they just go with it and convict based upon another half -truth.

As I said, its a disaster for society and the process will be used against other 'undesirable' (to the left) people and later on the left itself.

Check out the Shorten rape allegations. The evidence is weak but if the name was Pell rather than Shorten they'd already be building the gallows :) .

HenryL,

"So it appears it has been going on for generations, maybe since the beginning of christianity. I can recall reading about kids abuse in Indian history and the Chinese viewed it as good if their little boy was selected to serve the monks."

Henry, you don't know the half of it. But you've certainly absorbed the part you're meant to ie where its Christianity's fault.

On the other hand, these things are only considered wrong because the Christian West determined that to be so.

You might find this informative....

http://theopolisinstitute.com/leithart_post/what-jeffrey-epstein-got-right/

Hi there HENRYL...

I agree with much of what you've said, apropos this disgusting behaviour, that has been occurring, since well before the beginning of Christianity?

All I wanted to add, as a retired detective, these types of crimes are considered among the worst to be committed against the person. Inevitably most police have trouble keeping their hands deeply set in their pockets; such is the rage most of us feel when confronting these types of perpetrators.

Some offenders even gloat about their lofty social & vocational positions, almost presuming they're beyond prosecution. Moreover, a few of them have claimed they possess some inalienable right to engage in such disgusting practices, because of their family relationship to the victim. Even going so far as berating police for their audacity to even question them about such matters? Many offenders I know, have never acknowledged, the seriousness & awfulness of their crime(s), which is a real worry.

The offence of Pedophilia is incurable. Save for the most dramatic efforts of chemical castration, as practiced in the USA. Which I understand, only removes the physical ability to engage in a sexual act, but their minds still possess those evil urges, irrespective of all the unique counselling they're mandated to undergo in Gaol. Unfortunately HENRYL, this ugly offence is here to stay, and there seems to be bugger all we can do about it, regrettably.

Dear mhaze,

So you come in here and highlight just how much the abuse can negatively impact lives and you think you are somehow making our case?

You can be so bloody thick some times.

Suicide or early death through drug and alcohol abuse later in life is a recognised result of lives going off the rails because of childhood sexual abuse. That it has been shown to have occurred in not one but two of the cases where Pell has got his rocks off using young bodies. One can only guess how many more there might have been.

Enough with the victim shaming and instead go find yourself at least one little dollop of empathy because right now it is evident you have none.

And I certainly wasn't hiding anything having posted a direct link to the full report, something you should keep in mind when you next run with scant evidence.

I have learnt a little more today.

Before 2015 there was presumption of innocence in Victoria and I understand that if accusations were made about a person, with no corroborating evidence, the case was dismissed or the judge instructed the jury to find the accused not guilty.

On the 29 th June 2015 the Jury Directions Act changed all that and a single complaint from an accuser forces the accused to prove his innocence. Also the new 2015 Act removed the need for a judge to direct a jury to be wary of uncorroborated evidence. This changed the value of victims written statements to a level that can now no longer be questioned.

So in Victoria now we have a system whereby upon accusations the accused exists under a presumption of guilt.

I never thought I would see such a system in Australia, but that is the system George Pell was convicted under.

Dear HenryL,

The same rules apply to get into Heaven as well. So do you think Pell will get in? And remember God is watching and God knows everything!

Oh SR so you knew all these extra details that made this chap seem less convincing but elected to keep schtum. Good idea. After all if we have all the facts we might reach the right conclusion which in your view is the wrong conclusion.

" find yourself at least one little dollop of empathy"

I have plenty of empathy for those who have been shown to have suffered at the hands of Catholics or other clergy, police, teachers or even ALP pollies. But I reserve my sympathy for those who I know suffered. I don't go tearing up every time I hear some sob story from someone whose story and motivations are suspect and who can't demonstrate their claims. I also have sympathy for those who have suffered at the hands of a vendetta.

_____________________________________________________________

Yes HenryL, this is what I was talking about earlier. This whole sorry tale is the result of a combination of factors. The legislation was changed so that those accused of sex offences were more likely to be gaoled. But they are more likely to be found guilty if the ground is laid, as it was in this case, by a decades long attack on the character of the target by the police and the state-run media. They all set out to get Pell and they did.

But as I said, these things have a habit on rebounding on the perpetrators. There will come a time when others will be on the wrong side of this equation and those who done this disservice to a centuries long judicial system will rue that day.

yep the thread just shows Pell is paying the penalty for the sins of the Catholic church. The haters of the church confirm that. Personally I went through the whole Catholic system. I left because of their totally unbiblical teachings. In saying that, I in all my years of nuns and priests knew of no abuse albeit there were some very quirky priests. No more than many of the teachers in all schools today.

And of course no one cares much about the epidemic levels of sexual abuse in the Indigeneous world today. Just does not fit the sick leftist narrative that it was mainly homosexual priests who commit these horrendeous acts.

Suffer the little children who come unto me
Not quite the right words
But in the eyes of far too many the right meaning as seen in the eyes of some Catholic Church defenders
Pell is at this point a convicted pedophile

Dear Runner,

«Pell is paying the penalty for the sins of the Catholic church.»

Pell is paying the penalty for attempting to reform the finances of the Catholic church, thus getting in the way of the Italian Mafia. The rest of them, Australian judges and jurors, are merely useful idiots. The "lesson" this teaches us is to remain small, quiet and fearful, never trying to actively oppose the Mafia or similar evil institutions.

'But in the eyes of far too many the right meaning as seen in the eyes of some Catholic Church defenders'

repeating the lie often enough Belly does not make it true. No one is defending Pell or the Catholic church. Some in the labour party/greens use to believe that someone needed to be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You and your leftie mates hate so much you have trashed that fundamental freedom.

Ah ha. There might be something in what Yuyutsu says. Pell has certainly been unpopular in the Vatican since he took over the books.

Hi HenryL,

//So in Victoria now we have a system whereby upon accusations the accused exists under a presumption of guilt.//

I'm no legal eagle, but I think that is manifestly untrue. The situation in Victoria now is, is the un-corroborated evidence of one person to be believed by the jury to a point where there is no reasonable doubt. In this case Pell's defence grilled the accuser to see if his evidence would become unstuck in the minds of the jurors, it did not. Two of the appeal judges believed there were no ground to suggest the jury should have had reasonable doubt about what the accuser said. The other point is the defence chose not to put Pell on the stand, maybe they should have, I don't know.

Some of those protesting the innocence of paedophile Pell, are also some who protested the innocence of that other notorious paedophile Ross Harris. That's the only trend I can see.

Dear HenryL,

Why did I know that when I went to check your 'facts' I would probably find that yet again you are full of it.

You failed to disappoint.

Here is the relevant summary of the change;

“Subclause (2) inserts new sections 164(4) to (6), which relate to
corroboration directions in criminal trials. New section 164(4)
provides that, subject to new subsection (5), the judge must not
warn the jury that it is dangerous to act on uncorroborated
evidence or give a warning to the same or similar effect, or direct
the jury regarding the absence of corroboration. Currently, such
warnings or directions are "not necessary" (see section 164(3)),
but there are good policy reasons for ensuring that such
directions are not given at all.”

So when you wrote;

“Before 2015 there was presumption of innocence in Victoria and I understand that if accusations were made about a person, with no corroborating evidence, the case was dismissed or the judge instructed the jury to find the accused not guilty. On the 29 th June 2015 the Jury Directions Act changed all that and a single complaint from an accuser forces the accused to prove his innocence. Also the new 2015 Act removed the need for a judge to direct a jury to be wary of uncorroborated evidence. This changed the value of victims written statements to a level that can now no longer be questioned.”

You were actually full of it.

Not a single contention you made in your post is factual. Name even just one you are prepared to stand by absolutely and give justification for it.

Tie me kangaroo down sport, I apologises to the legion of Rolf Harris fans on the forum, I inadvertently called your pin up boy Ross Harris, sorry!

HenryL I though you were on to it until you went of course with that nonsense about Pell had to prove himself innocent nonsense, I'd expect that from Andy Bolt and the air head Miranda Devine.

The conspiracy theists have gone into overdrive, now its the Italian Mafia bring Pell down.

ruuner, you do a fine job of avoiding any mention of your church and paedophiles. I can only assume you are reticent in discussing your church as it would be exposed just like the rest of them. Any some very quirky types down there?

This garbage has been going on for a week.

Bad news about your pin up boy Rolf. Seems they let the kiddy fiddler out of the slammer, and he headed straight for the children's playground. With Archy Pell in solitary confinement, maybe they could stick dear old Rolf in with him for company, and a play mate.

Gee, my idea of Trial by Ordeal is looking better all the time. All agree?

Having read the Appeal Judges' findings, it is now apparent that none of the witnesses lied they were merely mistaken in their recollections, except for the dead boy who is presumed to have lied to his mother to save her feelings (he's dead so he can't tell us).

One would assume that as no witnesses lied and all were mistaken at some point, including the accuser, then there exists reasonable doubt.

Convicted Pedophile in a Church that has great numbers under investigation or in prison end story

The increasingly deranged Paul now seems to want to drudge up any prominent paedophile he can find, label said person a conservative icon (with zero evidence) and mock his opponents for supporting someone who hasn't actually received any support on these pages.

Well here's a few more names for him to ponder:

Milton Orkopoulos
Keith Wright
Bill D'Arcy
Bernard Finnigan

All convict on child sex and/or child porn offences.
All politicians.
All from the ALP!!

Gee, I wonder why the terms of reference for the Royal Commission were so carefully set so as to ensure political parties weren't examined?

mhaze,

If all that mob you mention above are in the slammer (like Pell), after due process of law (like Pell), I don't have a problem. Do you? Pell didn't even use the Rolf defence; "I can play the wobble board while singing silly ditties", it didn't work all that well for Rolf, maybe George would have had a better result.

The increasingly deranged Paul
How dare you Paul!
Have a different opinion
Please leave your brain in the bucket art the door
Then mindlessly post only M Hazes opinions

Belly,

"Convicted Pedophile in a Church that has great numbers under investigation or in prison end story"

Don't end the story until you examine all the atheist paedophiles.

Hi there STEELEREDUX...

Apologies for not responding to your comprehensive answers, apropos Scottish Criminal Law verdicts. That are currently available to Juries in that jurisdiction. Like many, I grew up with the two verdict system, that we've inherited from Great Britain. A system that seemingly, has previously served us reasonably well. However, over the years, I and many of my former colleagues, have lamented the fact a third option was not available to Juries sitting on Criminal matters in NSW, in fact, all jurisdictions in Australia. That of 'Not proven,' as it is in Scotland.

Moreover, I was heartened to see, that you, 'seemed' to be of a similar mind, especially in some of the more complicated legal cases? I might cite the Victorian, Jadian (sic) LESKIE case, where the accused person was acquitted of Murder. And the Detective I/C of the investigation, as he was leaving the precincts of the Court, was asked by a journo., what further lines of inquiry they may now follow, having regard to that acquittal. He replied, no further inquiries will be made? Implying the investigation had concluded, therefore the matter would soon be filed, as an NFETO (No Further Evidence To Offer).

Howdy Issy,

Just knock up here, that list of all those atheist paedophiles, I don't doubt such a list exists, but I can't find it.

I'll get in early, how ya going with that list Issy.

BTW Issy,

Here is a link you previously put up from the The American Atheists which say it (American Atheists) recorded 32 accusations of sexual abuse. If you read down you find out it was an April Fools Joke, and the real story was about the Roman Catholic Diocese of Bridgeport, which recorded 32 accusations of sexual abuse by its clergy.

Facts you never mentioned.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/comments13.htm

Is Mise so you arm your self with a nothing statement about non believers who are pedophiles
In an attempt to hide world wide known information on CATHOLIC crimes
Sorry but it highlights only your inability to see truth
You by your every word are an enabler of the criminal acts within your faith

Belly,

"Is Mise ...
In an attempt to hide world wide known information on CATHOLIC crimes
Sorry but it highlights only your inability to see truth
You by your every word are an enabler of the criminal acts within your faith"

That must be why I previously posted that I believed paedophiles should be executed.

Paul,

"Here is a link you previously put up from The American Atheists..."

Don't be a spoilsport, Belly was supposed to find that.

I will agree Issy, you were rough on old Rolf. I recall you wanted to do a bit more than tie his Kangaroo down sport. Me thinks you were more in favour of tanning his hide and hanging it on the shed.
Just of interest, they let old Rolf out of the slammer,then he turns up in a school playground, where he ain't spose to be, not a good look.

Belly wrote (or actually whined) "How dare you Paul!
Have a different opinion"

I'm not suggesting Paul can't have a different opinion.

But when he writes rubbish like "Seems they let the kiddy fiddler [Rolf Harris] out of the slammer, and he headed straight for the children's playground."

or

"Pell didn't even use the Rolf defence; "I can play the wobble board while singing silly ditties"

and other bits of drivel then its only fair and right to call it deranged.

What is it with you Belly? You'll happily refer to Trump supporters as idiots and a range of other put-downs on all sorts of issues but as soon as there's any push-back you start whining about not being allowed to express opinions.

Paul wrote: "If all that mob you mention above are in the slammer (like Pell), after due process of law (like Pell), I don't have a problem. Do you?"

No. But that wasn't my point. It was that the ALP have had their fair share of paedophiles and that the royal commission's terms of reference were carefully written to ensure that wasn't looked into. It was all part of the concerted campaign by government, police and state media, to single out the churches in the pursuit of removing them as a bulwark against the leftist agenda.

Kiddy fiddler Pell is a convicted grub, until he is found not guilty

mhaze, agree a number of sex offenders are associated with the ALP, Belly may recall some years back when I would give him the razz and claim the biggest branch of NSW Labor was the Long Bay Branch, they had so many banged up.

The Royal Commission into institutionalised child abuse looked at those organisations, like the Catholic Church, which had a responsibility for children, and failed to meet that responsibility correctly. In the case of political parties, they do not have a "in charge of children" aspect that could be investigated, no more that say the dairy industry could be investigated for the same thing.

Speaking for the thousands, who knows maybe millions? from around the world, for hundreds of years victims of the Catholic Church
I regret your pain, your ruined lives, the betrayal of your trust
At the hands of those who you thought acted for your God
Sorry is not enough, but too I say sorry for those who overlooked your pain
But come out in numbers to support a man convicted of such a crime,against you and your God