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.