Pell Discussion Forum: August 21, 2019

Update I: Appeal Rejected.

Update II: The actual judgement.

FERGUSON CJ, MAXWELL P

352 We would refuse leave to appeal in respect of grounds 2 and 3. We would grant leave to appeal in respect of ground 1 (the unreasonableness ground) but, for the reasons we have given, would dismiss the appeal.

WEINBERG JA:

1179 I would grant leave to appeal against conviction on Ground 1. I would order that the appeal be treated as having been heard instanter, and that it be allowed. I would set aside each of the convictions sustained below, and the sentences passed thereon. I would further order that there be entered judgment and verdicts of acquittal on each charge.

1180 I would refuse leave to appeal on both Grounds 2 and 3.

Update III: PvO has this tweet.

I do have some sympathy for PvO’s  position. We have a process for establishing “facts” and that process has established that George Pell is guilty of a crime. To be sure Pell can still appeal to the High Court – and I think he should. But here is the thing – we keep hearing that trust in social institutions is eroding. The legal system itself is such a social institution. We are being asked to believe a very big claim – that George Pell is a heinous criminal on evidence that strikes me (and I’m sure many others) as being somewhat implausible. True – as PvO points out – I wasn’t in the church in 1996 and so I don’t know what happened. Mind you none of the juries or judges was there either. If they had been there would be eye-witness accounts to the alleged crimes.  Anyway, not only are we being asked to believe a very big claim, we are asked to believe that claim after Pell was not tried in open court. Now to be sure, apologists will make their excuses – perhaps there are good reasons why that had to happen, blah, blah, blah.

To be clear, PvO’s position is the “responsible” position, the “appropriate” position, the  “bourgeois” position, the “moderate” position, and dare I say it, the “conservative” position.  Yet I do not consider myself to be unintellectual or pig-headedly ignorant.

Update IV: From the comments.

I probably don’t belong in this “centre right” blog, but I do believe in open and logical, fact based discussion, so please accept my somewhat dissenting comment in the constructive manner in which it is intended.

There are only 3 individuals that know what happened on that day in that church, and god depending on your beliefs.

One committed suicide and his evidence was not available to this trial.
One gave his evidence in the trial under the rules of our legal system.
One gave his evidence in the trial under the rules of our legal system.

Under the laws of Australia the judges enable both sides to present their evidence and arguments to the jury. The jury, made up of the peers of the accused, then decide which side they believe is presenting the truth.

That is the same arrangement that any of us would face in a similar situation.

C. Pell may be innocent, but the rules under which we agree to live by, find him guilty and that decision has been made by a majority? of the jury and the judges after listening and reviewing days and days of evidence.

Why is it that people on this blog believe that their opinion is more correct than those people of the jury and the judges, whom as a society we delegated the decision to.

What we as individuals desire or believe in our hearts or minds is utterly irrelevant.

If we believe that our emotional and unfounded beliefs are more valid than those of our legal system, then our society has some big problems.

No individual is above the law, even the Pope.

 

This entry was posted in Open Forum. Bookmark the permalink.

863 Responses to Pell Discussion Forum: August 21, 2019

  1. Cassie of Sydney

    “The Sheriff
    #3137111, posted on August 21, 2019 at 1:17 pm
    To all the anti-Catholic bigots posting bile on this thread: stop for a moment and ask yourself if you would ever use the same scathing words in relation to any other religion (especially one that starts with the letter I). If the answer is no, retract and apologise.”

    Sheriff……there are only one or two anti-Catholic bigots here….interestingly one of those anti-Catholic bigots here actually pretends to be a Catholic. I am neither a Catholic nor a Christian yet even I recognise the gross injustice done to George Pell.

    Oh and I don’t hesitate to criticise any religion when I think it is warranted…including my own…which is Jooooodaism. And there are many critics who regularly and rightly get stuck into that ideology (I don’t call it a religion) that starts with the letter I.

  2. max

    max (the other), you left out the bit about the church as the pillar and foundation of the truth.

  3. max

    I really appreciate the support of the non-Catholics posting here.

  4. Delcon

    Hi Cats
    Someone above in this thread provided a link to the verdict.
    At the bottom of the verdict it says as follows:

    Orders

    1179 I would grant leave to appeal against conviction on Ground 1. I would order that the appeal be treated as having been heard instanter, and that it be allowed. I would set aside each of the convictions sustained below, and the sentences passed thereon. I would further order that there be entered judgment and verdicts of acquittal on each charge.

    1180 I would refuse leave to appeal on both Grounds 2 and 3

    Does that not mean that one of the three grounds for appeal was successful?

  5. Whalehunt fun

    He has to live with his conscience, as does Bongiorno.

    Are you implying that Bongers has a conscience? I am interested to know what brought you to that belief. Could you share your reasoning? Is a conscience a prerequisite for sentience?

  6. Percy Popinjay

    I am ashamed to be an Australian today

    I’m bloody well ashamed that Victoriastan and Mosquebourne exist. The entire stinking cesspit is an irredeemable blight on humanity.

  7. Infidel Tiger

    Weinberg’s dissent has some very powerful paragraphs. (1112)

    Farcical trial.

  8. Gab

    1180 I would refuse leave to appeal on both Grounds 2 and 3.

    From Weinberg. Excuse my ignorance but what does that sentence mean?

  9. Infidel Tiger

    1111 I find myself in a position quite similar to that which confronted Deane J. To borrow his Honour’s language, there is, to my mind, a ‘significant possibility’ that the applicant in this case may not have committed these offences. That means that, in my respectful opinion, these convictions cannot be permitted to stand. The only order that can properly be made is that the applicant be acquitted on each charge.

    1112 Mine is, of course, a minority view in relation to Ground 1. I am troubled by the fact that I find myself constrained to differ from two of my colleagues whose opinions I always respect greatly. That has caused me to reflect even more carefully upon the proper outcome of this application. Having done so, however, I cannot, in good conscience, do other than to maintain my dissent.

  10. faceache

    Monty, Jesus loves you and me too. Just have to put up with it.

  11. vr

    I saw that too, IT.

    1112 Mine is, of course, a minority view in relation to Ground 1. I am troubled by the fact that I find myself constrained to differ from two of my colleagues whose opinions I always respect greatly. That has caused me to reflect even more carefully upon the proper outcome of this application. Having done so, however, I cannot, in good conscience, do other than to maintain my dissent.

  12. Elderly White Man From Skipton

    “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.”
    = from the decision summary

  13. notafan

    Delcon

    Weinberg was a minority of one

    the other two said no

  14. Mark A

    Cassie of Sydney
    #3137118, posted on August 21, 2019 at 1:29 pm

    Sheriff……there are only one or two anti-Catholic bigots here….interestingly one of those anti-Catholic bigots here actually pretends to be a Catholic.

    Not only anti catholic bigots but people full of hatred.

    I’m not exactly the ‘turn the other cheek ‘ guy, but I cannot understand the pure, unadulterated, putrid hatred displayed by some.
    They must be sick in the soul.
    Specially surprised by Monty, the others, well, you’d almost expect it.

  15. Infidel Tiger

    I am not a Catholic, nor am I religious, I sat next to Pell once in an airport lounge and didn’t warm to the man, but I do not believe he was guilty

    There is not a situation or event on earth you can’t inject yourself into.

    You are a vainglorious narcissist.

  16. Roger

    Overall, you were more likely to be assaulted in a NSW Government-ran institution than the Catholic Church.

    Slightly tangential…I was listening to Conversations yesterday on ABC radio which was devoted to the Fine Cotton race horse substitution conspiracy (have they made a movie about that? it’s a great story). The subject of George Freeman and the other big men of organised crime in Sydney like Lenny McPherson came up. Turns out they all spent time in juvenile detention in NSW, often at the same centres, where they were all physically and sexually abused by both other inmates and staff. This experience, speculated “Jack the Insider”, is what turned these men from petty juvenile criminals into murderous sociopaths intent never to be victims again.

  17. Delcon

    Hi Cats
    Someone above in this thread provided a link to the verdict.
    At the bottom of the verdict it says as follows:

    Orders

    1179 I would grant leave to appeal against conviction on Ground 1. I would order that the appeal be treated as having been heard instanter, and that it be allowed. I would set aside each of the convictions sustained below, and the sentences passed thereon. I would further order that there be entered judgment and verdicts of acquittal on each charge.

    1180 I would refuse leave to appeal on both Grounds 2 and 3

    Does that not mean that one of the three grounds for appeal was successful?

    Oops, sorry, got ahead of myself. That was the minority opinion by Weinberg!.. 🙁

  18. notafan

    There were three grounds for the appeal

    Weinberg would allow on ground one but not on grounds two and three

    one was the one that really mattered

    the other two iirc would have required another trial

    the first wound be a matter of being innocent and no new trial could be held

    I am hoping with Wienberg’s dissent the high court will find it easier to do their thing

    just have to say well we agree with Justice Weinberg

  19. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha

    George Pell stripped of Order of Australia
    Daniel McCullochAAP
    August 21, 2019 9:22AM
    Topics
    Religion and Belief

    Catholic Cardinal George Pell will be stripped of his Order of Australia after losing an appeal against his child sex abuse conviction.

    Prime Minister Scott Morrison told reporters in Canberra on Wednesday his sympathies lay with the victims of child sexual abuse, not just today but “on every single day”.

    “My understanding is that this (appeal loss) would result in the stripping of the honours that are decided externally to the government,” Mr Morrison said.

    “That is a process that is done independently, and that course will now follow.”

    He urged all Australians who find themselves reliving their abuse as a result of the public attention given to the Pell case to “reach out to those around them, to reach out to the services that are there for them”.

    “The courts have done their job. They’ve rendered their verdict,” he said.

    “That’s the system of justice in this country and that must be respected.”

  20. dragnet

    Interestingly Weinberg JA’s dissenting judgment is twice as long as that of the majority.
    As such would be a superior road-map to an appeal to the HCA

  21. Robert Mc

    The Majority Judgement is meticulously well researched and reasoned. The Dissenting Minority Opinion is not.

    Whether the High Court would entertain an appeal is moot. The importance of the case might sway it to do so, perhaps before the Full Bench. But on the face of it there seems little, if any, likelihood of a different finding.

  22. calli

    Little do they know what the good Cardinal’s suffering is going to do for the Church.

    Yes, Gab.

    This goes across the denominations. One of the Pressbutton elders popped into our little meeting and told us. Normally a bright and bubbly man, was ashen faced. One of the ladies was in tears.

    And why wouldn’t we be? The Holy Spirit grieves and so do we all.

  23. Percy Popinjay

    Mother Lode
    #3137025, posted on August 21, 2019 at 11:59 am

    Great work, Squire. If m0ntgomery was hauled before a jury of his fellow victoriastanian imbeciles, declared guilty and subsequently gaoled on charges that were effectively uncorroborated unsubstantiated accusations, I “would be with champagne”.

    “Revolutionaries” inevitably eat their own and quite often the most ardent are first to be chewed up and spat out.

  24. pete m

    IT we can only view life through our own prisms though some seem fixated on relating everything this way.

    Para 455 of weinberg says it all really
    The prosecution relied entirely on the evidence of A.
    His story changed, was inconsistent and in places impossible.

    How the majority ignored this I can’t be bothered with.

  25. John Comnenus

    I don’t understand the law. Please help me here? The issue at hand is whether there was reasonable doubt about whether Cardinal Pell committed the offence. So if one judge out of three has reasonable doubt, then how can it be questioned that there was it is beyond reasonable doubt that Pell offended. Are they calling Justice Weinberg irrational or unreasonable? If not, then how can the appeal not succeed?

  26. I have come late to this thread – & have only heard the summary of the decision (as delivered in the Court of Appeal) on the radio in the car earlier in the day.

    It seems to me that if a priest can be convicted on the uncorroborated evidence of one complainant, then every priest in the land (and a good many others similarly accused) is in a very perilous position.

    I am astonished that the extreme impracticality of the circumstances of the offence did not seem to carry any weight at all with two of the Appellant judges.

  27. Sinclair Davidson

    2 out of 3 judges said that the jury could reasonably come to a guilty verdict. The appeal was not a new trial but an evaluation of the original (actually second) trial.

  28. dopey

    At least Jake the Peg had three legs.

  29. Mother Lode

    George Pell stripped of Order of Australia

    Good.

    I have seen the people they hand those wretched baubles to. In my opinion the grimy token was an insult to the man.

    They really are just the Logies on a national scale.

  30. Cactus

    Why do we have an honours system? Do away with it.

  31. Bar Beach Swimmer

    stackja
    #3136884, posted on August 21, 2019 at 10:11 am

    To me his reputation is above reproach.
    I believe one day he will be vindicated.
    I believe he knows his Lord knows.
    Mere mortals are forgettable.

    +1000

  32. stackja

    Bar Beach Swimmer
    #3137165, posted on August 21, 2019 at 2:27 pm

    Thank you.

  33. Infidel Tiger

    George Pell stripped of Order of Australia

    The Church should decree that all secular trappings are haram.

  34. stackja

    Luke 22:42
    “Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me.
    Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done.”

  35. Roger

    It seems to me that if a priest can be convicted on the uncorroborated evidence of one complainant, then every priest in the land (and a good many others similarly accused) is in a very perilous position.

    This was already the case.

    I don’t know about the Catholic Church but some other denominations have developed protocols their clergy are to follow to ensure they are never entirely alone with with a parishioner or member of the public when acting in their in their official capacity. Office doors left open during counselling with a secretary in the other room, home visits accompanied by a wife or a lay assistant and other measures like that.

  36. Infidel Tiger

    2 out of 3 judges said that the jury could reasonably come to a guilty verdict.

    Let us dispense with this notion that juries, judges and courts are infallible.

    Instead let’s see what OJ Simpson is currently saying on Twitter:

    https://twitter.com/TheRealOJ32

  37. There are many accused who are innocent, but have been convicted and imprisoned. For them, this must be truly a terrible sentence.

    In Pell’s case, I believe his faith will sustain him. Isolation and privation are not unknown to the Catholic clergy. Indeed, this supreme test of faith must surely bring him closer to God. He is God’s servant and, to the end, obedient to his service.

  38. Luke 22:42
    “Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me.
    Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done.”

    Ah yes, Stackja! At the end of the day that is what we all struggle with!

  39. stackja

    vicki
    #3137172, posted on August 21, 2019 at 2:35 pm

    Yes! The communists don’t understand faith.

  40. None

    You have to remember that under Victorian law it is the jury that establishes the facts of the case. So you can show all the evidence you like that the cat was black and even put up a photograph and eyewitnesses that the cat was Black but if the jury decides that the cat was white that is the fact of the case and they don’t even have to justify their lunatic decision. I’m from then on everyone is bound to the Lunatic facts of the case. The fact that one jury couldn’t convict is very telling. And as I pointed out here before one of the judges has got quite a bit of form on anti-catholic activism. I heard of this news late. It is something that I feared and something of which I am so ashamed. The newspapers are screaming that the demolition of Pell is complete but really what it means is the demolition of our own Society is complete. Yes. I wasn’t there, I wasn’t there for the trial but heard the evidence has the jury did at the appeal. I say bring on the case against Bill Shorten. In the meantime I have no qualms unequivocally saying that Pell is innocent.

  41. I say bring on the case against Bill Shorten. In the meantime I have no qualms unequivocally saying that Pell is innocent.

    +1

  42. Stimpson J. Cat

    I really appreciate the support of the non-Catholics posting here.

    No worries Godless Heathen Samaritan Bro.
    I’m here to help.
    For everyone.
    😁

  43. stackja

    None
    #3137178, posted on August 21, 2019 at 2:47 pm

    No need for shame for anyone but the Victorian ‘justice’ system.

  44. Entropy

    Victorian “justice”

  45. Cactus

    This is really hard to take when you read the evidence, are a catholic and know that given the rituals and alleged time of offending you know it to be an impossibility. If the facts of the case were different, I would easily join the baying mob and denounce the man. Its just when you know based on the alleged evidence it is an impossibility – it is tough to take.

  46. Zatara

    PvO’s position is the “responsible” position, the “appropriate” position, the “bourgeois” position, the “moderate” position, and dare I say it, the “conservative” position.

    PvO’s position is that we should abandon all common sense and judgement, ignore an incredibly obvious kangaroo court, and just have faith in ‘the system’ which not only allowed it to happen but forced it to happen in order to please the public whim.

    The same sort of position which led to burning witches.

  47. vr

    Gray Connolly
    ‏ @GrayConnolly
    Replying to @jamesmiller62 @Vermeullarmine

    Well….Weinberg’s opus was clearly written for an audience of 7 and published in a form that can be adopted and adapted with some ease ….
    9:14 pm – 20 Aug 2019

  48. Bar Beach Swimmer

    True – as PvO points out – I wasn’t in the church in 1996 and so I don’t know what happened.

    Having attended church for decades I had never experienced a Mass or Service (RC or Anglican) in which the bishop/priest/assistant priests/deacons etc/choir had not participated in the procession afterwards. Nor, following the service, had the bishop/priest not been at the church doors to wish me goodbye. In fact, normally, the parishioners either seek to hog the attention of the chief clergy (bishop/priest) or are trying to get out of the church as quickly as possible and, despite being delayed at the door, cannot really pass by without that overt attention. In the case of cathedrals there are usually many parishioners so the time taken to perform this function adds many minutes on to the service.

    It is so unbelievable as to be incredible that officiating clergy would not be at the door. And were this to have happened then the parishioners would have remembered the occasion, whether in respect to a bishop or a priest and, particularly in the case of the Cardinal because it was very early in his tenure as the newly enthroned Archbishop of Melbourne. Consequently I don’t need to have been there to have known what happened following that particular Mass.

    So, as the other half often says – (PvO) doesn’t know shit from clay!

  49. stackja

    Gray Connolly
    @GrayConnolly
    The Victorian Court of Appeal’s judgment in Pell v The Queen [2019] VSCA 186 (21 August 2019) has been uploaded to
    @austlii

    linky

  50. notafan

    because it was very early in his tenure as the newly enthroned Archbishop of Melbourne

    his very first mass at the cathedral as newly installed Archbishop iirc

  51. Cactus

    Beach Bar Swimmer has said what I 100% concur with. I did Church about 40 times a year from 1988 to 2000. Not once did the Priest or the handful of times a Bishop was there did they ever leave the procession. They led it out and then stayed by the door. My family and I usually left reasonably quickly. But there was always 20 or so people waiting to chat to the Priest.

    If this was a grooming, private encounter away from Sunday mass, I would think it is possible. But the facts I have seen make it impossible in my mind that Pell is guilty.

  52. Pyrmonter

    Worth reading the judgment before commenting too extensively. I skipped to the dissent, which I thought persuasive, but will be looking at the majority as well. Weinberg was rightly alert to a range of topical issues, such as the ‘Nick’ allegations in the UK, but equally to the difficulties of disproving assertions 20 years after the events are now found by the majority to have occurred.

    https://jade.io/article/658669?at.hl

  53. DaveR

    In reading the judgments of the 3 appeal judges, there still appears to be disagreement on the facts.

    What I read was that Weinberg J said that there were certain facts around the incident that were inconsistent with the testimony of the victims, and therefore there were grounds to grant the appeal.

    Ferguson J and Maxwell J said that the facts presented by the defence were inconsistent with the testimony of the victims, and they judged those victims to be of good character and truthful in their allegations (ie a value judgement of the victims). They therefore dismissed the appeal.

    Interesting basis to judge the merits of an appeal.

  54. stackja

    Reading download: Portelli memory questioned but not A?

  55. stackja

    When Mr Richter again put to the complainant that the two incidents must, even
    on the complainant’s own account, have occurred on 15 and 22 December 1996, as
    they were the only two times that the applicant had said Mass at the Cathedral in
    that year, he replied that he was not
    too sure if [the applicant] was saying Mass that day [of the first incident]. He
    could’ve been involved … he was at the … Cathedral for a period of time …
    not necessarily just saying Masses.

  56. Stimpson J. Cat

    Look, as an incredibly humble and sane individual who used to actually serve for priests AND Bishops 😎,
    might I suggest that the biggest hurdles in making this case against Hell’s P®ll are the actual real life logistics of vestments and the lack of witnesses.

  57. stackja

    Stimpson J. Cat
    #3137204, posted on August 21, 2019 at 3:41 pm

    We are lead to believe the one and half witnesses. And ignore anything else.

  58. Candy

    I don’t mind being called pig headed and ignorant. You have to stick to what you believe in your heart to be right and that is Cardinal Pell is innocent.

  59. stackja

    When shown one of the Archbishop’s vestments, the alb, which plainly went all
    the way down to the ground, and clearly could not be ‘parted’ in any sense, the
    complainant proffered the suggestion that perhaps ‘you can pull it [the alb] up first.’
    When confronted with the discrepancy between that suggestion, and the evidence
    that he had previously given regarding this matter, the complainant explained that
    the applicant had ‘pulled [the robes] to reveal his pen1s, however way that was: up,
    across, down, right, left. He pulled it aside to reveal his pen1s.’
    439 Not surprisingly, this was one of a number of matters associated with the
    complainant’s evidence that Mr Richter relied upon when he invited the jury to reject his account, in his closing address.
    440 When the complainant was shown the chasuble worn by the applicant, he agreed
    that it did not have any openings, and that it could not be pulled to the side.
    441 The complainant said that the actual offending involving the other boy occurred
    over ‘… a small amount of time … barely a minute or two.’ He said that the
    applicant’s act of pushing his pen1s into the complainant’s mouth occupied ‘a short
    period of time’ that lasted ‘only a couple of minutes max.’
    442 According to the complainant, after this, the applicant instructed him to ‘… undo
    my pants, and take off my pants … ’ At this point, the applicant ‘started touching my
    genitalia … masturbating … or trying to do something with my genitalia.’ While
    this was occurring, the applicant was ‘touching himself … on the pen1s … with his
    other hand.’ This particular offending took place over the course of a ‘minute or
    two.’ Then it stopped, and the complainant put his clothes back on. He said ‘… we
    got up and we left the room’, and that he and the other boy returned to the ‘choral
    change area.’
    443 The complainant said that during the course of the offending, both boys had
    called out and ‘made some … objections.’ He claimed, however, that they did not
    yell. He said that the route they had followed to go back to the choir change room
    was ‘by walking out at the south entrance and around.’ He subsequently added that
    they had left the sacristy in the same way that they had come in.
    444 The complainant, shortly thereafter, adjusted his evidence, saying only that ‘there
    was obviously a way that we re-joined the choir … I’m not one hundred per cent
    sure of how it happened.’
    445 When asked why the boys had not re-joined the choir by simply turning right
    when exiting the Priests’ Sacristy, and therefore only needing to pass through a
    single door, the complainant said that he had not wanted to ‘… go through a door in
    an area that [they] weren’t supposed to be in at the time … ’ He said that he and the
    Pell v The Queen 142 WEINBERG JA
    other boy had ‘… got back there very, very quickly after what had happened’ and
    that ‘there was still people around.’
    446

  60. Stimpson J. Cat

    We are lead to believe the one and half witnesses. And ignore anything else.

    The very idea that a man as pompous and self righteous as George would be wearing velcro vestments rather than the traditional to the absolute letter of the law is f$cking ludicrous.
    And the idea that he wouldn’t have an adult lackey, be it priest or senior altar server there to help him out of it is equally f$cking ludicrous.

  61. stackja

    Candy
    #3137207, posted on August 21, 2019 at 3:50 pm

    Yes!

  62. Cold-Hands

    1051 Having had regard to the whole of the evidence led at trial, and having deliberated long and hard over this matter, I find myself in the position of having a genuine doubt as to the applicant’s guilt.

    1052 In accordance with the principles laid down by the High Court in M, my doubt is a doubt which the jury ought also to have had. That is not because I am necessarily to be regarded as being better able to evaluate factual issues of the kind raised in this trial. It is rather because the High Court has said definitively that ordinarily, my doubt is a doubt that the jury ought to have had.

    Given this opinion by the most respected jurist on the Appeal panel, this must be appealed before the High Court of Australia

  63. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha

    Look, as an incredibly humble and sane individual who used to actually serve for priests AND Bishops 😎,
    might I suggest that the biggest hurdles in making this case against Hell’s P®ll are the actual real life logistics of vestments and the lack of witnesses.

    Don’t confuse the legal system with facts, Stimpy.

  64. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    I do have some sympathy for PvO’s position.

    I don’t. He wasn’t there either. He is damning with faint praise.

    He knows precisely what he is doing.

    Important points:

    # Accuser perjured during committal.
    # Police cut and edited an out of context phone tap*
    # Dead former accuser denied ever being abused, by any perpetrator

    There may be appeals on some out there grounds, such as the Victorian Charter and the ICCPR.

    *Why isn’t this considered perjury or perverting the course of justice?

  65. Bar Beach Swimmer

    Iampeter
    #3136989, posted on August 21, 2019 at 11:33 am
    Yea unless everyone is missing something it seems you can now put someone in jail by merely accusing them.
    Corroboration and evidence not required.
    But it is rich listening to defenders of one of the most corrupt and evil organizations in the world cry about corruption.
    Please, if you can support the ongoing existence of an organization that is alleged to have engaged in abuse of children the world over, on a scale that rivals actual sex trafficking organisations, then helped most of the perpetrators to escape justice by covering it up so successfully and for so long that the statute of limitation lapsed, you can’t really whine about this.

    Pleased to see that you accept that the rules of evidence have been thrown out in this case…but then you f*uk it up with wanting the Cardinal to, like J3sus, hang for the sins of the whole world. This is the same as the many journalists interviewing the “survivors of clerical sexual abuse”. If this was a murder case, no one would be interested in interviewing the family of another murder victim about a murder wholly unrelated to their family’s case. Consequently, the Cardinal’s case is not about other “survivors” or even about the crimes of other clergy, either Roman Catholic, Protestant or Callathumpian. These “survivors” are being used, just as the Cardinal is being used, to advance an anti-christ14n diatribe.

  66. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    When Mr Richter again put to the complainant that the two incidents must, even
    on the complainant’s own account, have occurred on 15 and 22 December 1996, as
    they were the only two times that the applicant had said Mass at the Cathedral in
    that year, he replied that he was not
    too sure if [the applicant] was saying Mass that day [of the first incident]. He
    could’ve been involved … he was at the … Cathedral for a period of time …
    not necessarily just saying Masses.

    This crap in sex assault trials MUST stop.

    Judges routinely admit to evidence testimony which ought to invalidate the whole case.

    If you make an accusation which is not physically possible due to chronology, you don’t get a pass because you claim to be a victim.

  67. The same sort of position which led to burning witches.

    Now there’s an idea worth investigating.

  68. Cold-Hands

    Not once did the Priest or the handful of times a Bishop was there did they ever leave the procession.

    Had the Archbishop left the recessional procession in one of his first two Masses at the Cathedral, it would have caused great consternation & interest. I’ve never even heard of it happening; had it occurred, it would have been a nine-day wonder, possibly even being discussed in the Catholic press. There’s no way that the congregation wouldn’t have remarked upon it. It’s safe to conclude (particularly in view of the other witnesses’ testimonies) that it didn’t happen.

  69. Bill

    Two of the Appeal judges have vivid imaginations:

    As to the first incident, we can readily picture two choirboys deciding on the spur of the moment to break away from the procession once the pressure of public performance at Mass was released, and venturing into an area which was strictly out of bounds. The ‘swigging’ of the altar wine seems to us to be just the kind of thing which might occur in an adolescent escapade.

    As discussed more fully below, a fleeting physical encounter of the kind described by A can be readily imagined. Jurors would know from common experience that confined spaces facilitate furtive sexual touching, even when others are in the same space.

  70. Stimpson J. Cat

    Don’t confuse the legal system with facts, Stimpy.

    I know I’m not the only single parent in here stripping to pay for my uni fees until I become a lawyer, am I right?
    Very common occurrence indeed.
    Where’s Dot?

  71. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    Two things:

    1. Churches ought to invest in security cameras and archiving. This would have blown this crap out of the water.

    2. The justice system is now in the common law, a hunting field for fantasists who cannot even lie competently. Being unable to maintain a straight story during a committal and having an ever-changing story you are not even certain of during the trial – the court system is now designed to not only enable but reinforce this.

  72. Stimpson J. Cat

    The ‘swigging’ of the altar wine seems to us to be just the kind of thing which might occur in an adolescent escapade.

    What do they think happens with any leftover wine?
    It gets poured out on the carpet or on the tiles?
    It’s shared amongst the backstage crew.
    Stupid f$cking heathens Jesus Christ.

  73. Elizabeth (Lizzie) Beare

    There is not a situation or event on earth you can’t inject yourself into.

    I’ve actually seen the man, sat next to him, tried a smile at him without response in a fairly normal situation and retrieved my handbag from under his feet. That’s a lot more than many of the people opining here have done. He struck me as reserved, aloof and not particularly helpful. That said, I believe, as do Sinclair and many others here, that he has not received any sort of fair trial. I don’t let my personal perceptions get in the way of my proper analysis. That is my point.

    Is it that I am not a Catholic that makes you such an unpleasant person towards me?
    Try to live your religion a little more. You might become happier and better adjusted.
    I have a lot of time for Christianity; perhaps you should examine your own prejudices.

  74. IT:

    Australia is in a dark spiral. Gripped by worship of Moloch and all of liberalisms evil lustings.

    Welcome to Justice – Socialist Bugman Justice.

  75. Anita

    Top Ender
    #3136876, posted on August 21, 2019 at 10:02 am
    Be interesting to see how they dismiss the “three handed” Pell account; and how he managed to abuse two boys in six minutes in a room open to scores of others.

    My point is the same.
    Sad day for truth and justice.

  76. Leo G

    The certainty that those Pell supporters who believe “he didn’t do it” are unintellectual and pig headed ignorant is just so …

  77. Elizabeth (Lizzie) Beare

    You are a vainglorious narcissist.

    IT, you once used to be a very amusing and good commenter on Catallaxy.

    I have a suspicion that you are now turning into a querulous old woman.
    Old age catching up on you, is it?

  78. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    I’ve actually seen the man, sat next to him, tried a smile at him without response in a fairly normal situation and retrieved my handbag from under his feet. That’s a lot more than many of the people opining here have done. He struck me as reserved, aloof and not particularly helpful.

    You’re an adult though. Go clean your room bucko, right?

  79. stuth

    But it is rich listening to defenders of one of the most corrupt and evil organizations in the world cry about corruption.
    Please, if you can support the ongoing existence of an organization that is alleged to have engaged in abuse of children the world over, on a scale that rivals actual sex trafficking organisations, then helped most of the perpetrators to escape justice by covering it up so successfully and for so long that the statute of limitation lapsed, you can’t really whine about this.

    The warped mind of a true collectivist on display.
    An aboriginal killed my friend’s father.
    Are all aboriginals murderers to you Iampoyda?

    Besides the fact that you have condemned a church based on SFA evidence, and the fabricated stories of those many years later that have a financial gain to be made in accusing, and a socialist (collectivist) judicial swamp with an insane hatred of Christianity supplying those funds, you have shown yourself again to be an utter fuckstick of collectivist stupidity and knee jerk emotion.
    Fuck off, the adults are talking here.

  80. Stimpson J. Cat

    I’ve actually seen the man, sat next to him, tried a smile at him without response in a fairly normal situation and retrieved my handbag from under his feet.

    The hallmark of intelligence and an incredibly high IQ, is the ability to change one’s opinion on any given topic when presented with rocksolid logical, factual evidence.

    Ergo, if George didn’t like Lizzie’s t®ts, he MUST be gay.

    Case Closed!
    😎

  81. Iampeter

    From the ruling:

    In any event, there is nothing particularly unusual in a jury convicting an accused on the strength of a so-called ‘uncorroborated’ complainant. A finding of guilt in such circumstances does not give rise, in and of itself, to a conviction being unsafe or unsatisfactory.

    There you have it in black and white.
    Evidence is not required to send someone to jail. Just an “uncorroborated” testimony is sufficient.

    Good to know, I guess…

  82. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    Peter – evil because accused? Rather strange considering you agree an unverifiable (or worse) claim to damn someone is an injustice.

  83. Elizabeth (Lizzie) Beare

    Really the comments about sitting next to Cardinal Pell or not knowing him at all but being able to judge the character of a private man are so shallow

    Notafan, that is your view and you are perfectly entitled to air it here. At least it is not full of personal abuse, which I thought the main threads of Catallaxy were in general fairly free from.

    I offered my perception from one occasion, and from no other personal knowledge. That was plain enough. Nevertheless, the point being made was that I did not let that cloud my view of the Cardinal’s overall character not allow it to deem him guilty in my eyes. Sticking to the facts of the case, I was appalled by the judgement and would have thought that I made this very clear indeed, with my first comment on this thread and from the comment to which you object.

    Sometimes there are better places to be than amongst the judgemental on Catallaxy.

  84. JC

    Peter

    Fuck off. You have nothing to add.

  85. Roger:

    It’s much worse than that. The Chamberlain conviction rested on incompetence.
    This is conspiratorial. The best parallel is the Dreyfus Affair.

    You have a point, Roger.
    In terms of the legal issues, Australia – especially Victoria – has had the curtains of justice flung open and the works of socialism which have quietly gnawed away at the underpinnings of of society, exposed to all who care to see.
    This is a very sad day for Australian society.
    The harvest will be a grim one.

  86. Elizabeth (Lizzie) Beare

    Ergo, if George didn’t like Lizzie’s t®ts, he MUST be gay.

    Now that is amusing, Stimpy.
    Nothing to do with anything serious though.

  87. Elizabeth (Lizzie) Beare

    It’s much worse than that. The Chamberlain conviction rested on incompetence.
    This is conspiratorial. The best parallel is the Dreyfus Affair.

    +1

  88. Elizabeth (Lizzie) Beare

    Nothing to do with anything serious though.

    A little bit like Winston’s Gravitar. 🙂

  89. A Lurker

    I am Christian but not Catholic, and it seems to me that Cardinal Pell must have accumulated a good number of enemies during his life to suffer so now. Also, he must have been a great inconvenience not only to the Vatican with his inquiries into their finances, but also must have been deemed a threat to the actual rock-arachnids that almost certainly inhabit that place. As a high ranking and highly visible Conservative and a Traditionalist, Cardinal Pell would have been quickly identified as an inconvenience and an enemy by the Communists and Marxists and the other Termites and arachnids that comprise so many of Australia’s elite.

    With such enemies Pell really had no chance of a fair and honest trial; however, that being said, all injustices will be made right when Pell and his tormentors meet their maker.

  90. JC:

    As I said, Pell should never have come back. Coming back is the same thing as expecting someone to go back to the Eastern bloc during the period of the Soviet Union’s existence. No one in their right mind would have done that or expected to.

    I’ll disagree with that, JC.
    Sometimes a man has to do what a man has to do.
    Lech Walesa.

  91. Iampeter

    but then you f*uk it up with wanting the Cardinal to, like J3sus, hang for the sins of the whole world.

    That’s not what I’m saying. I’m pointing out the hypocrisy of corrupt Christians complaining about corruption.
    Now that you’ve brought it up though, any “good” Christian should be celebrating Pell’s willingness to hang for the sins of others. Human sacrifice is the basis of your entire ideology after all.

    If this was a murder case, no one would be interested in interviewing the family of another murder victim about a murder wholly unrelated to their family’s case.

    But they would be interested if the murders were part of an allegedly institutionalized and long-covered up practice of murdering people at a particular institution, by the thousands. Stop pretending like there’s nothing to see here.

    You can’t play this dumb while at the same time being a super genius who has figured out the conspiracy to get Pell.

    I also wouldn’t be putting “survivors” in scare quotes. It’s pretty likely that one of the reasons the staggering numbers of alleged victims aren’t higher still is because of the large number of abuse victims that commit suicide.

  92. vr

    Imagine being a lawyer who has to defend an accused in the court of this “ring of truth” judge. They don’t seem too fussed about evidence.

  93. I_am_not_a_robot

    Like a lot of people I’m uncomfortable with the Pell pre-trial-by-media, trial, conviction and appeal process and it wouldn’t matter whether he was an archbishop or a prominent Left politician.
    Although the appeal was considered on strictly legal niceties one of the judges commented that
    “Pell’s accuser was believable and it was not unreasonable for the jury to convict the Cardinal” that seems to imply that Pell’s denials were not believable and that gets to the core problem in these cases.
    No-one knows what went on in that sacristy except Pell and the accuser.
    It was found in UK that in 2000 there was a ‘90% conviction rate for alleged child sex abusers as compared to just 9% for cases of adult rape’ (Wiki); in other words juries overwhelmingly believe the alleged victim in these cases which I believe is a dangerous assumption.
    The media exacerbate the problem by constantly describing accusers in these cases as ‘victims’ even before a trial, also I think the ‘Melbourne Response’ ironically initiated by Pell did more harm that good, accusers should have been told to go to the police.
    Ruling on Jayant Patel (“Dr Death”) appeal High Court Justice Dyson Heydon observed:

    It is difficult to imagine there could be many speakers of English living in Australia, even parts of Australia outside Queensland, in the years before the trial who had not been exposed to the massively unfavourable publicity that [Patel] received during these events. It was inflammatory, derisive and bitter.

    I’m not sure if trial by judge alone in criminal cases is available in Victoria or if so Pell was offered that alternative.
    Under Scottish law juries have three available verdicts in criminal trials: conviction (“guilty”) and two of acquittal (“not proven” and “not guilty”) — eminently sensible.

  94. Iampeter

    Peter

    Fuck off. You have nothing to add.

    JC, please stop projecting.

    Also, take your meds and get back to your padded cell. It’s getting late and recreation time is almost over at your facility..

  95. JC

    Lurker

    Conspiracies are always a fun read, just to get a laugh at how fucked up someone is mentally. You’re actually suggesting dark elements in the Vatican had a hand in Pell’s case. As they say, “get the fuck out of here with this shit”.

  96. JC

    Peter.. I’m not projecting in the least. I’m observing you have zero to add. Zilch.

  97. Tekweni

    I was an altar boy and the cassocks we wore for mass would have been difficult to push aside for anything. The priests robed in the area we did and there is absolutely no way that with all those layers any funny business could have occurred. The sanctuary always teemed with people before and after mass anyway. There is no doubt in my mind that Pell is innocent.

  98. calli

    Human sacrifice is the basis of your entire ideology after all.

    You have said this before.

    You are mistaken.

  99. Aynsley Kellow

    I do not know that Pell is innocent, but he should have been found not guilty.

    I can commend to readers a piece on Quadrant back in June by John Goodman
    where he reviews a book by Julia Shaw, who ‘lectures in the jurisprudence of brain science and psychology at University College, London, consults and advises British police on the implications of brain science for police evidence, and has been called as an expert witness in British, German and American courts.’

    The book is The Memory Illusion: Remembering, Forgetting, and the Science of False Memory
    by Julia Shaw
    Random House, 2017, 304 pages, $22.99

    Shaw sets out what science knows about memory and how unreliable it is. We make and remake memories and make and remake images. I have not read the book, but Goodman’s review sets out compelling arguments why recollections from 20 years ago might be false, but sincerely believed by the holder go them – who has, in fact, constructed them.

    The majority of the judges holding that the complainant was credible and genuine is therefore irrelevant because ALL memories are inescapably inaccurate.

    The question is not whether he was credible, but whether it was sound for the jury to convict on the basis of his testimony alone, without ANY corroboration from other witnesses or from forensic evidence. Indeed, WITH exculpatory evidence, both physical and in the denial by the deceased complainant.

    This is clearly an important issue, and the judge in the minority is right to point to the discrepancies in the complainant’s testimony. This has wider importance than Pell, and the High Court will almost certainly take an interest in the case – at least, one would hope it would.

  100. Delcon

    Dear PVO
    I say that Pell is innocent even though I haven’t been to the trial.
    I also haven’t witnessed what happened between Pell and the “victims” in the Church the day the alleged rape happened.
    None of all the other people who claim Pell is innocent have witnessed what happened, either.
    Considering that, in fact, NO ONE saw or heard anything about any rape supposedly in a middle of a busy Church in an open relationship the day the rape allegedly happened, I would say the rape story is practically an impossibility. Complete BS.
    Now GFY PVO.

  101. calli

    There are dark forces everywhere, J.C. The Vatican isn’t exempt. Pell may well have poked the bear in his examination of Vatican finances.

    I don’t expect the Vatican to rush to his defence.

  102. C.L.

    Lizzie, here’s my experience: for every airport lounge and every woman encountering a priest – and finding him reserved, aloof and distant – there is another airport lounge and another woman encountering a demonstrative, solicitous and warm priest and then regaling friends and family later on about what a dirty old flirt he was.

  103. A Lurker

    Conspiracies are always a fun read, just to get a laugh at how fucked up someone is mentally. You’re actually suggesting dark elements in the Vatican had a hand in Pell’s case. As they say, “get the fuck out of here with this shit”.

    Well it seems to me that the Vatican haven’t been particularly helpful or supportive towards Cardinal Pell.
    Also, there is this and this (scroll down to December 2014 and April 2016) on the second link.

    But it’s fine JC, you just go back to sleep.

  104. JC

    Calli

    How eggsactly would these dark forces have intervened in the case? You may say they may have tried to hold back any assistance that could have been offered to Pell, however in a case like this any assistance would have been looked on with suspicion.

  105. John Comenenus:

    This decision is a disgrace. The fact that Weinberg dissented is demonstrable reasonable doubt. Unfortunately the legal system is now a PC enforcement authority. Just remember every person sent to the Gulag was sent by a judge. The court is now in contempt of a large swag of the people.

    A very good point – just a little amendment, if I may:
    “Just remember every person sent to the Gulag or the Concentration/Extermination Camps was sent there by a judge.”

  106. Dr Faustus

    But it’s the certainty of some of Pell’s supporters that he didn’t do it that gets me. They weren’t there, they didn’t see the whole trial or appeal process.

    Weinberg J was pretty certain he didn’t do it. He would have acquitted and made the point of noting that he was anguished that his fellow judges got it so wrong.

    The other two judges found ‘A’ to be totally convincing largely on the basis of his ‘deeply moving’ account of why it took him 20 years to come forward with the accusation. That much transparent, painful honesty was too much to ignore. And on that basis they agreed with the prosecution and jurors that it was safe to accept his testimony in toto and reject Pell’s denial.

    Weinberg on the other hand noted that the second alleged assault – the sudden grope in the cloisters – was so vanishingly improbable, supposedly taking place in a procession with dozens of other participants who witnessed nothing, that ‘A’s testimony was fatally tainted. He also noted the minuscule cumulative probability of a dozen, or so, individually highly unlikely occurrences that led to two choristers being in the sacristy with the Archbishop.

  107. Pyrmonter

    @ Iampeter

    ‘Testimony’ is evidence.

    The requirement for corroboration was an instrument of injustice – it allowed guilty men (overwhelmingly) to go free, and created perverse incentives for a criminal to destroy evidence. The balance has changed, and juries judge for themselves. Pell has not raised any argument about the instructions to them.

  108. JC

    Lurker

    Thanks for explaining Pell’s Vatican job description as the Vatican’s CFO, and also the latter link that he uncovered bad financial practices. We already know that.

    However, I notice you’re moving the posts here. You suggested there were dark forces working to have Pell pinned to the wall. I’m betting you must have got this idea out of some second rate Netflix series and I bet it was Suburra with subtitles. Don’t believe everything you watch on Netflix or what your pastor at the Children of God Congregation says about Catholicism

  109. Leo G

    Now that you’ve brought it up though, any “good” Christian should be celebrating Pell’s willingness to hang for the sins of others.

    A “good” Christian would understand that Pell is not Christ.

  110. Elizabeth (Lizzie) Beare

    You’re an adult though. Go clean your room bucko, right?

    Yes. I am. My room is pretty tidy. Who is bucko?
    And come to think of it, who the hell are you?

  111. JC

    Leo G
    #3137289, posted on August 21, 2019 at 5:00 pm

    Now that you’ve brought it up though, any “good” Christian should be celebrating Pell’s willingness to hang for the sins of others.

    A “good” Christian would understand that Pell is not Christ.

    Yea, I don’t buy that turn the other cheek bullshit either. Let the fuckers you sinned hang for their sins. Jesus tried that shit and look where it got him. On cross!

  112. Iampeter

    Peter.. I’m not projecting in the least. I’m observing you have zero to add. Zilch.

    Which is projecting. You are the clueless leftist spending his time sperging on what is meant to be a right wing blog after all. You have literally no clue.
    I know you don’t understand this but that’s a consequence seeing how many crayons you could cram into your ears when you were younger.

  113. Elizabeth (Lizzie) Beare

    Lizzie, here’s my experience: for every airport lounge and every woman encountering a priest – and finding him reserved, aloof and distant – there is another airport lounge and another woman encountering a demonstrative, solicitous and warm priest and then regaling friends and family later on about what a dirty old flirt he was.

    True enough, CL. You are the voice of reason here, as ever.

  114. struth

    Iampoda knows nothing of the religion his society and law was built upon.

    Explains a lot.
    Ahistorical hysterics.

  115. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    I also wouldn’t be putting “survivors” in scare quotes. It’s pretty likely that one of the reasons the staggering numbers of alleged victims aren’t higher still is because of the large number of abuse victims that commit suicide.

    I won’t either, they are false accusers, the living one ought to be tried for a justice offence,

    The living one lied in court and otherwise kept on changing his story because the facts found by investigation countermanded them. The dead one recanted all of his accusations before he died.

  116. Iampeter

    Thanks Pyrmonter, that was basically the clarification I was looking for.

  117. calli

    J.C., I take Saint Paul’s warning in Ephesians 6:12 very seriously.

    And no, he didn’t get his ideas from Netflix. 🙂

    On the concrete, human, practical ways to discredit an enemy, it’s really quite easy. A couple of phone calls, a few behind the hand whispers, maybe a bit of scandal leverage, all it takes is the right trigger and the right listeners and spreaders.

    Society was ripened over many years for accusing and punishing a big name, and they have.

  118. JC

    Peter

    You are the very definition of insanity.

  119. A Lurker

    However, I notice you’re moving the posts here. You suggested there were dark forces working to have Pell pinned to the wall. I’m betting you must have got this idea out of some second rate Netflix series and I bet it was Suburra with subtitles. Don’t believe everything you watch on Netflix or what your pastor at the Children of God Congregation says about Catholicism

    My words: “he must have been a great inconvenience not only to the Vatican with his inquiries into their finances, but also must have been deemed a threat to the actual rock-arachnids that almost certainly inhabit that place”

    Your words: “You’re actually suggesting dark elements in the Vatican had a hand in Pell’s case”

    Calli’s words: “There are dark forces everywhere, J.C.”

    The rest of your assumptions were wrong J.C.. I’ve never watched Netflix. Never heard of Suburra. Furthermore, I am an Anglican and our Victor rarely mentions the Catholics and never in relation to any bad behaviour that may or may not go on in the Vatican.

    p.s. Are you usually this woeful at betting?

  120. Iampeter

    JC and struth, two clueless sperging leftists eager to derail threads as per usual.
    Life must be hard for perpetually triggered teenagers like you two..

  121. The question is not whether he was credible, but whether it was sound for the jury to convict on the basis of his testimony alone

    I think this post of Aynsley Kellow’s is right on the money. I am familiar with Julia Shaw’s important work on the imperfection of human memory. It should be compulsive reading for anyone working in the legal profession. It certainly supports the necessity for corroborating evidence from other witnesses for a conviction. This is especially important in cases of significant lapse in time between offence and prosecution.

  122. Stimpson J. Cat

    Don’t believe everything you watch on Netflix or what your pastor at the Children of God Congregation says about Catholicism

    Too be honest if you aren’t at least part Irish, Italian, or Palestinian you should probably shut the f$ck up about Catholicism as you literally have no idea or basis on which to enter any discussion on said subject.
    In fact if you aren’t one of those three you probably aren’t a real Catholic.
    – Stimpson J. Cat,
    world renowned authority on Catholicism.
    😎

  123. bespoke

    I simply don’t no what say to help you guys get though this. I’m agnostic as most of you no so I can only hope justice has or will eventually be done.

  124. Iampeter

    Peter

    You are the very definition of insanity.

    He says as he rocks back and forth foaming at the mouth.
    You stable genius you.

  125. A Lurker

    Sorry, that should be Vicar – it’s been a long and tiring day.

  126. JC

    Calli

    Who would these people call? The bald headed beta, Tubby Ashton? He needed no encouragement. The prosecution team? They needed no encouragement either. How would this have been achieved. I have no doubt Pell had a few well chosen enemies in the Vat. However, there was very little they could do.

  127. Gab

    justice has or will eventually be done

    You can bet your soul on it. Justice will be served.

  128. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    Iampeter
    #3137308, posted on August 21, 2019 at 5:09 pm

    JC and struth, two clueless sperging leftists eager to derail threads as per usual.

    Yeah right they’re leftists. You’re the only conservative or libertarian in Australia as well. Good luck winning an election from a motorbike, you vault of political knowledge.

    You care more about laying the boot into other commenters than how shit the justice system is now, and how piss-weak an accusation can be supported from plod, CIB, the OPP and the bench.

    What fucking planet are you on clown?

  129. struth

    Iamputty, if I wanna hear from shit, I’ll fart.
    Fuck off and get your braces loosened .

  130. Stimpson J. Cat

    Life must be hard for perpetually triggered teenagers like you two..

    Can we have a round of applause for Iampeter, this is literally the first thread on Catallaxy where he hasn’t mentioned he is this site(and the world’s) one True Libertarian Conservative.
    Great Work Kid!!!!
    Keep it up!

  131. JC

    I am an Anglican

    Lol.. Don’t make me laugh. There’s no such thing. That entity closed for business about 20 years ago.

    and our Victor

    Let me guess, the vicar is now a woman but had as sex change a few years ago .

  132. Bruce in WA

    I haven’t trusted myself to post until now. Gutted at the decision. A travesty. FMD, what is this place turning into? (Australia, not Catallaxy Files.)

  133. JC

    He says as he rocks back and forth foaming at the mouth.
    You stable genius you.

    Peter, you’re mentally unwell.

  134. struth

    Please, just show me some evidence.
    Show me any evidence beyond a “story” by one person, no witnesses.
    The actual witnesses here, actually dispute the story.
    A story that seems absolutely impossible to have occurred, …………………………………………. so just show me some evidence and I’d pull the trap door on Pell myself.

  135. dover_beach

    Weinberg’s dissent is must reading. The decision will, must, now go to the High Court. The other two justices have completely bungled what is required by ground 1.

  136. bespoke

    It wouldn’t be worth much ,Gab.

  137. Stimpson J. Cat

    Peter, you’re mentally unwell.

    JC, can we leave this sort of online diagnosis to the experts please?
    Thanks.

    Iampeter, you’re mentally unwell.
    – Dr Stimpson J. Cat,
    world renowned Mental Mindfulness Wellness Expert.

  138. Zatara

    I have no doubt Pell had a few well chosen enemies in the Vat. However, there was very little they could do.

    What the Vatican potentially could have done, had they so desired, was raise international unholy hell in the press about the kangaroo court one of their Cardinals was being subjected to and the fact that he was convicted of being Catholic.

    Had the factual details of this incredible miscarriage of justice gotten out to the rest of the world rather than the well laundered version provided by the Oz press corps things might have ended much differently.

  139. Lee

    I don’t know about the Catholic Church but some other denominations have developed protocols their clergy are to follow to ensure they are never entirely alone with with a parishioner or member of the public when acting in their in their official capacity. Office doors left open during counselling with a secretary in the other room, home visits accompanied by a wife or a lay assistant and other measures like that.

    If Pell is innocent, and he was “never entirely alone with a parishioner or member of the public when acting in his official capacity,” then such a policy obviously did him no good at all.

    I may be mistaken, but didn’t somebody – presumably a witness – say that Pell was never alone during the period in question?

  140. JC

    Zat

    It’s very difficult to do that in this environment because the Vat has been cowered by all the homosexual stuff that’s gone on before and the large number of those claims are verifiably correct. Hard to do really.

  141. Roger

    If Pell is innocent, and he was “never entirely alone with a parishioner or member of the public when acting in his official capacity,” then such a policy obviously did him no good at all.

    Which is what makes the original verdict and the rejection of the appeal so extraordinary.

  142. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    Gays?

    The witch hunt is because of a left-wing, elitist and feminist demand to unfettered, subsidised abortion, up to and after birth.

  143. JC

    I may be mistaken, but didn’t somebody – presumably a witness – say that Pell was never alone during the period in question?

    Yep, according to the Weinberg discourse, a dude named Portelli says he never left Pell alone and it was custom for hundreds of years in the church for a person of Pell’s level to be never left alone and to be helped.

  144. feelthebern

    Breaking news.
    Victorian court cases will be decided by twitter polls.

  145. Lee

    Had the factual details of this incredible miscarriage of justice gotten out to the rest of the world rather than the well laundered version provided by the Oz press corps things might have ended much differently.

    Apparently after Pell’s conviction there was considerable dismay and disbelief around the world that he was convicted on the case or evidence as put forward.

    But then, outside of Australia there was, and is not, a concerted “get Pell” campaign.

  146. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    Yep, according to the Weinberg discourse, a dude named Portelli says he never left Pell alone and it was custom for hundreds of years in the church for a person of Pell’s level to be never left alone and to be helped.

    Well. You don’t see this in Austalia’s gutter press.

  147. Zatara

    JC

    Yep, they made a calculation and Pell didn’t make the cut. What factors went into that calculation and what weight they were given we will never know. Certainly the ones you mentioned played a role, but Franky may have also decided to rid himself of this damned priest (so to speak) and pick up some credibility/popularity points. What we do know is that the Vatican went radio silent on the whole thing.

    So perhaps a “Get out there and take one for the team Pell” sort of thing.

  148. Stimpson J. Cat

    I am an Anglican

    There are a lot of people that say that the Anglican Church is proof that Women ruin everything.
    I however, am not one of them.
    In fact I would go so far as to say that every Cardinal and high-ranking official of the Catholic Church on the Vatican should be fired and replaced with God-fearing and pious African Nuns.
    It’s the only way to be sure, and to cleanse the Church of all sin.

  149. JC

    Lord he’s despicable. It’s why I like Twitter at times. Just to clear the air.

    @GrahamAshtonCCP You bald headed, insignificant, little twerp. You got what you wanted – an innocent man going to jail. Calling for stress leave again 🙂

  150. iampeter now claiming that the entire Catholic Church is a child sex cabal

    In your defence, nota, the percentage of Catholic priests who were actual rock spiders is not 100%. I forget the actual stats, very patchy of course, IIRC it was as high as 30% in some areas. Should all Catholic office holders be tainted by the actions of the few? Well, when senior leadership aided and abetted rock spider behaviour over decades, spreading the evil to new areas whenever they were rumbled, that is where the most monstrous horror was propagated. So the higher in the hierarchy you were at the time, the more guilty you are.

  151. Stimpson J. Cat

    Monty, I am astonished you managed to tear yourself away from your vidya games long enough to gloat here.
    How is that No Man’s Sky update?

  152. Nick

    I am not a Catholic, nor am I religious, I sat next to Pell once in an airport lounge and didn’t warm to the man, but I do not believe he was guilty

    There is not a situation or event on earth you can’t inject yourself into.

    You are a vainglorious narcissist.

    +1. I’m gobsmacked.

  153. JC

    Fatboy

    Lets be very accurate here. The rock spiders you refer to were homosexuals prying on boys. Let’s call a spade a Catepillar excavator because that’s what it is The stats that came out suggest the rate of offense was no higher than the general population at large. However a very interesting study that came out from an academic at one of the big Texas universities suggests the offense rate in this “community” is far much more elevated.

  154. I may be mistaken, but didn’t somebody – presumably a witness – say that Pell was never alone during the period in question?

    My recollection is that Portelli, when pressed, said (with honesty) that he could not categorically swear that was the case. Most witnesses, swearing on oath, would probably answer likewise when asked to recollect an occasion some 2 decades ago. Portelli did, however, insist that it was completely unlikely, since it was simply neither the practice – nor was likely because of the requirements of the sacristy.

    The two Appellant judges who dismissed the Appeal were not persuaded by his evidence, and appear to have relied upon Portelli’s unwillingness to swear something that he could not, in good faith.

  155. JC

    Tubby Ashton offends me to my atoms. Just get a look at this creature. Leftwingers are such non-entities to almost 100%. Get a load of this thing. You’re offended just looking at his image.

  156. Interesting that the Vatican seems unwilling to strip Pell of his status/honours until the matter “has run its course”.

    High Court next?

  157. Dr Fred Lenin

    The Hunchback of Spring street is taking a risk keeping Pell in jail, he could cause an outbreak of Christianity in that confined community ,the SJW comrades would be upset with this heresy against Gaia ,

  158. Empire 5:5

    If we had a clean police force, an honest media and a functional justice system, this would be the end of the matter.

    We don’t have any of these institutional graces and so the truth about Pell, VicPol, ABC/News and most of all the Bishop of Rome, remains to be told.

    Be strong George, we need you alive and healthy when the shit goes down. Transparency will ultimately prevail.

  159. Gab

    People like monty who have no idea of history will not understand this. The rest of you will:

    Edward Peters

    @canonlaw
    8h8 hours ago
    More
    The testimony used to convict Thomas More was more plausible than that used to convict Cdl. Pell.

  160. calli

    The bloated gloating from Aunty just doesn’t let up.

    Get a load of this.

  161. dover_beach

    Weinberg summed up the prosecution’s case as simply ‘it’s possible’. How the other two justices thought that you can get from ‘it’s possible’ to ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ was what deeply saddened Weinberg. As he says:

    663 Accordingly, the task of this Court in dealing with Ground 1 is to carry out an independent assessment, but of the whole of the evidence. Having done so, each member of the Court must consider whether there is, in the mind of that particular judge,[189] a ‘doubt’ as to guilt. If such a doubt exists, it will ordinarily be a doubt that the jury ought to have had. In that event, a second question must be asked, namely, whether that ‘doubt’ persists notwithstanding the advantages over the appellate court that are normally ascribed to the jury.

    The defence presented 17 ‘solid obstacles to conviction’ at trial, 13 in appeal, and the response of the prosecution was never that the testimony of Portelli, Potter, Mallinson, R Dearing, D Dearing, Finnigan, Cox, McGlone, et al erred or should not be believed, but rather that what they said was impossible, the wine left out, the sacristy left open, Pell left alone immediately following Mass, Pell not at the entrance greeting parishioners, and the like, was at least ‘possible’. What a taudry, supine, and disgraceful decision by the majority.

  162. Rex Mango

    Salient features of the Pell Affair:

    1. Biggest indictment, is that this case has so neatly polarised society according to progressive verses conservative lines and more so than the Azaria Chamberlain case. After more than thirty years of colonising every institution right through to the army, Pell personifies every thing so called progressives detest, hence their solidarity in supporting a patently ludicrous verdict that is beyond parody.

    2. As per point 1 this was a combined arms assault using every weapon at the progressive’s disposal including a twenty year carpet bombing campaign by the ABC after Pell failed to give rainbow flag wearing people communion at St Mary’s Cathedral.

    3. As per point 1, the criminal justice system has been debased by progressives to the point where such a result is possible, ie being convicted of historical crimes via one secret witness on video, whose character can’t be attacked.

    4. Judges should be able to take judicial notice of the fact that it would be impossible to find an individual amongst twelve randomly selected Australians, who wouldn’t convict a Catholic priest, let alone George Pell of any crime.

    5. An academic study of cases involving priests over the last twenty years could easily prove Point 4, however finding funding for it would be the problem.

    6. If Pell committed the crimes he’s been found guilty of, there are literally hundreds of other victims who haven’t come forward, who would’ve been abused far worse than what was described happen during broad daylight in Australia’s biggest church.

    7. Australia’s tall poppy syndrome is alive and well.

  163. Gab

    The bloated gloating from Aunty just doesn’t let up.

    Get a load of this.

    No thanks. Not interested in whatever that sewer of hell snakes and liars has to say.

  164. JC

    Here’s Weinberg on Portelli

    In my view, Portelli was a credible and reliable witness. He appeared, to me, to be doing his very best to recall the events of many years ago, and he seemed, to me, to be making a very good fist of doing so. His evidence alone may well have been sufficient to have created a reasonable doubt as to the applicant’s guilt because, if it were even ‘reasonably possible’ to be both truthful and accurate, the complainant’s account had to be ‘impossible’, even in the fullest sense of that word.

    And

    The jury were entitled to come to the view, based on the totality of the evidence, that not only was it possible that Cardinal Pell was alone and robed (in seeming contravention of centuries-old church law) but the evidence did not raise a reasonable doubt in their minds about his guilt.

    Moreover the accuser was given much leaway in terms of the dates these events occurred as he too wasn’t able to swear to them.

    Weinberg saw the con a mile off.

  165. Ivan Denisovich

    The testimony used to convict Thomas More was more plausible than that used to convict Cdl. Pell.

    Lots of liars wanting to cash in, apparently:

    The media will never tell you this, and the professional victims’ groups will outright lie. But facts are facts.

    Bogus abuse accusations against Catholic priests are rampant. The fraud being perpetrated against the Church is now off the charts. But don’t take our word for it. Here are the numbers:

    ● In 2011, a declaration submitted to the Los Angeles County Superior Court asserted that a former FBI investigator examining abuse claims against priests in Los Angeles had determined that “ONE-HALF of the claims were either entirely false or so greatly exaggerated that the truth would not have supported a prosecutable claim for childhood sexual abuse.” (The capital letters are in the original document.)

    ● In 2016, in a church of 70 million people in the United States, 25 current minors came forward alleging that a current priest had recently abused them. Some of the cases still remained under investigation a year later, but of the 13 allegations in which a determination was made, only two were found to be “substantiated,” while the remaining 11 (or 85%) were found to be completely bogus.

    ● According to independent annual audit reports, as little as 15% of all accusations against Catholic priests in any given year are even deemed “substantiated” by the very lenient standards of diocesan review boards, with the majority of accusations deemed either “unsubstantiated” (indeed false*), “unable to be proven,” or still under review.

    ● The Archdiocese of Boston – arguably the most publicly transparent with regards to accused priests – has published the names of 68 priests who have been determined guilty of abuse by either canonical of civil proceedings. Yet it has also concluded that 35 priests have been falsely accused. In other words, more than one in three accused priests in Boston are determined innocent after a complete investigation. Let that sink in.

    And then there’s the money

    In an article only a few weeks ago in The New Yorker, the Archdiocese of New York openly admitted that it has “lenient standards of evidence” when it comes to doling out some $61+million to accusers and that it has paid on many “weak claims.” The archdiocese pays out on flimsy cases “in order to lead to a collective sense of resolution,” according to the article, whatever that means.
    That the Church regularly pays out on rickety claims should not surprise any longtime reader of this site. We reported a while back how the Diocese of Houma-Thibodaux, a small diocese in Louisiana, openly acknowledged that even though “there has not been a case that we deemed to be true,” it had paid out at least one financial settlement for a claim alleging abuse decades earlier.

    Simply put: Fraudsters, flimflammers, and mental cases now score big cash settlements for themselves by making claims of past abuse. And the more the Church pays out on these bogus claims, the more claims it gets. Why not file suit? You have nothing to lose!

    RTWT

    http://www.themediareport.com/2019/05/13/false-accsuations-against-catholic-priests-facts/

  166. Roger

    Edward Peters

    Must be one of those pig headed, “unintellectual” people Prof PvO was going on about.

  167. Des Deskperson

    ‘Recapping the main stories’ , Ten News’ Anchor drooless Sandra Sully told us that Cardinal Pell’s appeal had been rejected by ‘three judges’.

    Can any media-savvy Cat tell me whether someone like Sully actually writes the stuff she reads or whether it is all packaged up for the teleprompter by someone else?

  168. Roger

    Bogus abuse accusations against Catholic priests are rampant.

    It’s not only Catholic priests; see my comment above about protocols for those engaged in ministry adopted by many denominations to provide at least some protection against what were once deemed vexatious complaints.

  169. Empire 5:5

    Teleprompter, Des. They are actors and you are watching a movie.

    Turn it off.

  170. JC

    That’s unreal, Ivan. Just incredible. The coarseness of these non-victims is breathtaking.

  171. Roger

    Can any media-savvy Cat tell me whether someone like Sully actually writes the stuff she reads or whether it is all packaged up for the teleprompter by someone else?

    Not media savvy but as a consumer I note ABC state news presenters often repeat word for word what has been written for the national news broadcasts earlier in the day. They’re either lazy or this is the standard practice.

  172. Bar Beach Swimmer

    (Apologies for posting like this, if in fact it is posted. But I can’t seem to post anything so this is a breakdown of what I wanted to post.)

    That’s not what I’m saying. I’m pointing out the hypocrisy of c0rrupt Chr1st1ans complaining about c0rrupt10n.

    We got rid of c4pit4l pun1shm3nt because ‘…it was better for 10 gu1lty men to go free than for one innocent man to h4ng’.

    Now that you’ve brought it up though, any “good” Chr1st1an should be celebrating P311’s willingness to h4ng for the sins of others. Hum4n s4cr1fic3 is the basis of your entire ideology after all.

    Having noted with seeming concern that anyone can be convicted on the say-so of one person with no collaborating evidence, its pretty d1sgust1ng to revel in the s4crific3 of an innocent person. Second, the Cardinal is not freely giving his life for others as you’re arguing, he is fighting to clear his own name. While he more than likely may see his suff3r1ng in reference to Chr1st suff3ring for us, he is suff3ring despite his innocence, not because he is guilty.

  173. Bar Beach Swimmer

    But they would be interested if the murd3rs were part of an 3ll3g3dly 1nstitut1onalized and long-covered up practice of murd3r1ng people at a particular institution, by the thousands. Stop pretending like there’s nothing to see here.

    First, by the thousands??? Second, while they maybe interested, that does not mean that their individual case has any bearing on the case in question so the discussion with them is tangential in respect of these matters currently before the court. But by continuing to ask these people their view journalists are magnifying the claims against this individual. The legal tradition of this country, which is built on the Chr1stian faith, is based on individual responsibility not on a collectivist accountability. You’re saying that every member of the church has to suff3r for the s1ns of others. The Catholic Church, or any other church, was not on trial here, as you would seem to want.

  174. Ivan Denisovich

    That’s unreal, Ivan. Just incredible. The coarseness of these non-victims is breathtaking.

    A slight variation on the straight-forward cash grab:

    https://www.lepantoin.com/parishioners-rally-to-arlington-priests-defense-accuse-parish-employee-of-seeking-false-allegations/

  175. stackja

    Bar Beach Swimmer
    #3137412, posted on August 21, 2019 at 6:36 pm

    Petering out always mixed up.

  176. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha

    Judge casts doubt on victim’s credibility

    Tessa Akerman
    Reporter
    @TessaAkerman
    2 minutes ago August 21, 2019

    One of the three judges hearing George Pell’s appeal would have ordered he be acquitted, given what he described as a “significant body of cogent evidence” casting serious doubt on the victim’s accoun­t.

    In his dissenting ruling, judge Mark Weinberg said the case was unusual, depending entirely upon the victim 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,” he wrote.

    Justice Weinberg said the victim at times embellished aspects of his account. “On occasion, he seemed almost to ‘clutch at straws’ in an attempt to minimise, or overcome, the obvious inconsistencies between what he had said on ear­lier occasions, and what the object­ive evidence clearly showed.”

    He said while there was nothing inherently improbable about child sex abuse by senior clergy, the victim’s evidence needed to be examined within the surrounding circumstances.

    “In the present case, there was a significant body of cogent evidence casting serious doubt upon the complainant’s accoun­t, both as to credibility and reliability,” the judge said.

    Justice Weinberg said the prose­cution’s case was challenged by accepted testimony of a signif­icant number of witnesses, “all of whom were of good character and reputable”.

    He said the possibility of the abuse occurring in the priests’ sacristy­ was reliant on several factors, including whether Pell was always accompanied by parish priest Monsignor Charles Portelli. It also rested on evidence that the area was a “hive of activity” shortly after Sunday Solemn Mass.

    “Even the ‘reasonable possibility’ that what the witnesses who testified to these matters may have been true must inevitably have led to an acquittal,” Justice Weinberg said. “That was because the complainan­t’s account could not be reconciled at all with any such finding.”

    Justice Weinberg said a jury couldn’t put mistakes in the victim­’s evidence aside as “nothing more than matters at the periphery”.

    “Sometimes an approach of that kind may be justified. It does not, however, absolve this court from its duty of carrying out a full and proper assessment of the whole of the evidence, including matters of detail,” he said.

    Justice Weinberg said it was always­ going to be a “problematic case”. “The complainant’s alleg­ations against the applicant were, to one degree or another, implausible. In the case of the second incid­ent, even that is an understatement,” he said.

    The second incident involved Pell pushing the victim against the wall of a public hallway and squeezing his genitals.

    “The complainant’s account of the second incident seems to me to take brazenness to new heights, the like of which I have not seen,” Justice Weinberg. He said Pell’s denials that he was an abuser in the record of interview were “forceful and persuasive”.

    Justice Weinberg said the findings­ of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse represented a “shocking indictment of clerical abuse” in Australia.

    He noted he was troubled by the fact that he differed from his colleagues, chief judge Anne Ferguson and judge Chris Maxwell.

    “That has caused me to reflect even more carefully upon the proper outcome of this applic­ation,” he said. “Having done so, however, I cannot, in good conscience­, do other than to ­maintain my dissent.”

  177. Leo G

    Must be one of those pig headed, “unintellectual” people Prof PvO was going on about.

    PvO is a seller in a market that trades influence. The pig-headed person, like the obstinate porcine counterpart, resists being driven to the marketplace.
    PvO naturally resents the people he can’t deliver to his clients. He calls them bigots (bei Gott).

  178. Old Lefty

    Here in all its glory is the ‘logic’ of three-handedness espoused by the majority judges, Justice Kidd, the OPP and the jury, from the majority decision today (redacted to avoid the spaminator, and with my emphasis in bold italics):

    ‘Cardinal Pell started touching A’s **** and **** with his hands (Charge 3). As he did this, Cardinal Pell was using his other hand to touch his own 8888 (Charge 4).’

    I know they work for a pack of Stalinist p3rv3rt thugs in Spring St who are obsessed with rearranging children’s anatomy, but it seems the state of Victoria can now rearrange anyone’s anatomy to suit.

    This is like something out of North Korea or Gaddafffi’s Libya.

    The only person who comes out of this grubby affair with any credit is Justice Weinberg. How long before the vilification campaign starts?

  179. Geriatric Mayfly

    Has the ABC built the dung heap high enough yet on which to elevate that odious oik Marr to perform a strutting gloat?

  180. Iampeter

    That’s unreal, Ivan. Just incredible. The coarseness of these non-victims is breathtaking.

    Yep. You’re totally not insane.

    Iampeter, you’re mentally unwell.
    – Dr Stimpson J. Cat,
    world renowned Mental Mindfulness Wellness Expert.

    I bet they even let you wear a doctors coat over the straight jacket.

    Nothing like the parade of mental patients that post at the cat sperging out to the max.

  181. Old Lefty

    Meanwhile see at the link below how the Gillard-McClellan leftist political sham of a Royal Commission and Yarragrad’s corrupt and politically prostituted Office Of Public Prosecutions (Persecutions?) conspired to dud victims in a Victorian state institution.

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-12-10/ballarat-abuse-victim-devastated-by-decision-not-to-lay-charges/9240048

    Amazingly, this went our on the ABC, but when the senior members of the politburo were on their seven-week Well Earned Break. I’m sure the naive local reporter was severely chastised: she had never returned to the subject.

  182. JC

    Peter:

    You’re mentally unwell. Go away.

  183. Old Lefty

    On the Italian connecti9on, a lawyer I know with good Labor connections (not Victorian Stalinist left) says other lawyers take seriously the theory that the Italian Mafia, who stood to lose a lot from a clean-up of Vatican finances, agitated their Australian connections, who needless to say have a lot of IOUs from Victoria’s corrupt swill of a police force. I’m in no position to validate this, but he’s not the raving right-wing reactionary of Milligan fantasy.

  184. Roger

    PvO is a seller in a market that trades influence.

    And no shortage of customers content to rent their opinions from journalists.

  185. candy

    Must be one of those pig headed, “unintellectual” people Prof PvO was going on about.

    PvO’s comment is kind of like Mrs Clinton’s comments about the “deplorables”, which in effect consolidated conservative support behind Trump and lost her the election.

  186. JC

    Old Lefty

    That seems plausible in the parallel universe three doors down from those closer to us. Area 51 is real folks.

  187. Mark

    I probably don’t belong in this “centre right” blog, but I do believe in open and logical, fact based discussion, so please accept my somewhat dissenting comment in the constructive manner in which it is intended.

    There are only 3 individuals that know what happened on that day in that church, and god depending on your beliefs.

    One committed suicide and his evidence was not available to this trial.
    One gave his evidence in the trial under the rules of our legal system.
    One gave his evidence in the trial under the rules of our legal system.

    Under the laws of Australia the judges enable both sides to present their evidence and arguments to the jury. The jury, made up of the peers of the accused, then decide which side they believe is presenting the truth.

    That is the same arrangement that any of us would face in a similar situation.

    C. Pell may be innocent, but the rules under which we agree to live by, find him guilty and that decision has been made by a majority? of the jury and the judges after listening and reviewing days and days of evidence.

    Why is it that people on this blog believe that their opinion is more correct than those people of the jury and the judges, whom as a society we delegated the decision to.

    What we as individuals desire or believe in our hearts or minds is utterly irrelevant.

    If we believe that our emotional and unfounded beliefs are more valid than those of our legal system, then our society has some big problems.

    No individual is above the law, even the pope.

  188. mh

    PvO’s comment is kind of like Mrs Clinton’s comments about the “deplorables”, which in effect consolidated conservative support behind Trump and lost her the election.

    Now that I like ✔️

    Nice, Candy.

  189. I am the Walras, Equilibrate, and Price-Take

    Bill
    #3137227, posted on August 21, 2019 at 4:08 pm
    Two of the Appeal judges have vivid imaginations:

    As to the first incident, we can readily picture two choirboys deciding on the spur of the moment to break away from the procession once the pressure of public performance at Mass was released, and venturing into an area which was strictly out of bounds. The ‘swigging’ of the altar wine seems to us to be just the kind of thing which might occur in an adolescent escapade.

    As discussed more fully below, a fleeting physical encounter of the kind described by A can be readily imagined. Jurors would know from common experience that confined spaces facilitate furtive sexual touching, even when others are in the same space.

    Welcome to Idiocracy.

  190. Bar Beach Swimmer

    (Part three)

    I also wouldn’t be putting “survivors” in scare quotes. It’s pretty likely that one of the reasons the staggering numbers of all3g3d v1ct1ms aren’t higher still is because of the large number of @bus3 v1ct1ms that comm1t su1c1d3.

    Only one case in Victoria could be proven to have been related to the Catholic Church despite the VP claiming 43 (unfortunately I have tried a number of times to post the full news report but for some reason I can’t do it – so you can google it if you want to check, it’s dated 27/7/2015)

  191. candy

    Now that I like ✔️
    Nice, Candy.

    🙂

  192. iain russell

    Greatest stitch up in my life time. Utter BS. The preening and crowing of Their ABC and their enablers is disgusting.

  193. I am the Walras, Equilibrate, and Price-Take

    dover_beach
    #3137386, posted on August 21, 2019 at 6:17 pm
    Weinberg summed up the prosecution’s case as simply ‘it’s possible’. How the other two justices thought that you can get from ‘it’s possible’ to ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ was what deeply saddened Weinberg. As he says:

    663 Accordingly, the task of this Court in dealing with Ground 1 is to carry out an independent assessment, but of the whole of the evidence. Having done so, each member of the Court must consider whether there is, in the mind of that particular judge,[189] a ‘doubt’ as to guilt. If such a doubt exists, it will ordinarily be a doubt that the jury ought to have had. In that event, a second question must be asked, namely, whether that ‘doubt’ persists notwithstanding the advantages over the appellate court that are normally ascribed to the jury.

    The defence presented 17 ‘solid obstacles to conviction’ at trial, 13 in appeal, and the response of the prosecution was never that the testimony of Portelli, Potter, Mallinson, R Dearing, D Dearing, Finnigan, Cox, McGlone, et al erred or should not be believed, but rather that what they said was impossible, the wine left out, the sacristy left open, Pell left alone immediately following Mass, Pell not at the entrance greeting parishioners, and the like, was at least ‘possible’. What a taudry, supine, and disgraceful decision by the majority.

    Yep.

    A thorough self-beclowning.

  194. Stimpson J. Cat

    I bet they even let you wear a doctors coat over the straight jacket.

    Just for the record, only one of us on this thread is linking to gifs of Sanity Certificates from an old Simpsons episode.

    I think it’s very clear to everyone which of us is the more credible expert on Mental Illness Iampeter!!!!

  195. notafan

    I assume Justice Weinberg is included in Monty’s ‘supporters of Cardinal Pell are evil personified’?

  196. Delcon

    Interesting that the Vatican seems unwilling to strip Pell of his status/honours until the matter “has run its course”.

    The Vatican sounded cautiously supportive of Pell (and considering the circumstances, that’s all they could possibly have been, so good on them for that).
    – Which further illustrates how all the morons in this thread throwing around innuendoes about the Vatican’s hidden hands in Pell’s conviction behind the scenes are at best only on notch less unhinged than those believing in Pell’s guilt.
    Do you have any evidence for the Vatican’s involvement, morons?!
    Maybe in this case there has been, if anything, too much reliance on merely people’s word without any evidence to back it up, even without your “contributions”, thank you very much.
    It was not the Vatican, idiots. It was Vic Police and the ABC. These have nothing to do with the Vatican (and probably a lot to do with Labor).

  197. Roger

    Welcome to Idiocracy.

    Brought to you by the Victorian ALP.

  198. Farmer Gez

    As to the first incident, we can readily picture two choirboys deciding on the spur of the moment to break away from the procession once the pressure of public performance at Mass was released, and venturing into an area which was strictly out of bounds. The ‘swigging’ of the altar wine seems to us to be just the kind of thing which might occur in an adolescent escapade.

    A big risk for a drink of crap fortified wine.
    They could have just gone up the street and get a bag of pot or hash from the numerous dealers in the city or at school, plenty of those there as well.

  199. I assume Justice Weinberg is included in Monty’s ‘supporters of Cardinal Pell are evil personified’?

    No. He was arguing a point of law in good faith. He just got outvoted.

    You lot have NFI what the entire case looked like. Neither do I. But supporting a convicted child toucher after his appeal against conviction has failed is not a good look. The probabilities are stacked against you.

  200. hzhousewife

    A big risk for a drink of crap fortified wine.
    They could have just gone up the street and get a bag of pot or hash from the numerous dealers in the city or at school, plenty of those there as well.

    Well, the two boys pretty soon headed down the heroin path. Just mentioned that the boy was certain the wine was red and sweet, despite the Cathedral wine being white. Ahh, the memories……

  201. Farmer Gez

    No. He was arguing a point of law in good faith. He just got outvoted.

    Stop taking the piss and grow up!
    Weinberg cast doubt on the credibility of the accusers evidence. That’s not a point of law and you know it.

  202. You lot have NFI what the entire case looked like. Neither do I

    Monty discovers, Ten months after the fact, that the trial was held in secret.

  203. Gab

    I’d be really worried if Mr Wrongology Monty thought Cdl Pell was innocent.

  204. classical_hero

    notafan, if you read the second verse that max put up you will see that the third word is must.

    Bill, that is amazing leap of logic that the judges had

  205. JC

    You lot have NFI what the entire case looked like. Neither do I. But supporting a convicted child toucher after his appeal against conviction has failed is not a good look. The probabilities are stacked against you.

    It’s now confirmed. Pell wins the High Court appeal.

  206. Remember how one of you chipped me once for not protecting the downside? That’s what you lot are doing, dying on a hill for a bloke who is highly likely to be a f1ddler on the roofie. The vast weight of probability is that he’s guilty. He’s from a culture of spiders, worked with them, enabled them, protected them and then covered for them. It’s not that long a stretch to imagine he was one of them.

    But it’s the Catallaxy way to believe in crazy conspiracy in the face of established fact.

  207. JC

    Monster

    I really thought you learned your lesson after your scrawling bullshit at the outset of Wussiagate and how it finally imploded to the point where NY Times imbeciles were warned at a big meeting to never mention it again.

    But onward you go. Zero humility. Zero self-awareness.

  208. Delcon

    m0nty

    You lot have NFI what the entire case looked like. Neither do I.

    Both you and the other idiot PVO stand on your soap box berating us for talking about the case without knowing the details.

    Except we do. We don’t have to be physically in the trial to know the details. By now, just about all the details of the case are known and are freely available in the public domain.

    In case you haven’t noticed, unlike you, PVO and your ilk, the rest of us actually keep referring to what was discussed in the trials. It’s not like a state secret. The details of it are free for anyone to learn.

    But supporting a convicted child toucher after his appeal against conviction has failed is not a good look. The probabilities are stacked against you.

    The probabilities, based on the facts which are widely available, that Pell was guilty of the crime are practically zero.
    Just curious, has there been ever in history a case of anyone convicted, or even accused, of raping two people at the same time and just letting them go, for each to confirm the version of the other? (Not talking even about this occuring in a middle of a busy church in an open room anymore.)
    Yet Pell was, but somehow one of the two “victims” denied it. I wonder why.
    If you ask me, the wrong one of these two is dead.

  209. JC

    Remember how one of you chipped me once for not protecting the downside? That’s what you lot are doing, dying on a hill for a bloke who is highly likely to be a f1ddler on the roofie. The vast weight of probability is that he’s guilty. He’s from a culture of spiders, worked with them, enabled them, protected them and then covered for them. It’s not that long a stretch to imagine he was one of them.

    But it’s the Catallaxy way to believe in crazy conspiracy in the face of established fact.

    Monst.. Wussiagate. No humility and zero self awareness.

  210. Wussiagate.

    Was all true. Trump is a Russian stooge, and his campaign aided and abetted the GRU in subverting American democratic process. It’s all there in the Mueller report.

  211. Romano DelBeato

    Regardless of whether Pell is actually guilty or not, I am deeply worried at this tendency to condemn without hard evidence, or even any evidence at all, but simply on the “credibility” of the plaintiff. Another example was the Justice Kavanaugh confirmation hearings in the USA. In that case the case for the accusers became so transparently weak that those condemning him were left with the specious argument that female accusers of sexual crimes “must be believed”. In the Pell case the Chief Justice of Vic said the accuser was completely honest and not a fantasist. But what if Pell had been cross examined (he never took the stand, why?) and was also judged to be “completely honest”? In other words, a credible plaintiff is now not only a necessary condition to condemn, but also a sufficient condition.

  212. Farmer Gez

    Remember how one of you chipped me once for not protecting the downside? That’s what you lot are doing, dying on a hill for a bloke who is highly likely to be a f1ddler on the roofie. The vast weight of probability is that he’s guilty. He’s from a culture of spiders, worked with them, enabled them, protected them and then covered for them. It’s not that long a stretch to imagine he was one of them.

    Sinc.
    Step in as Monty is posting libel.

  213. Delcon

    It’s all there in the Mueller report.

    The Mueller report that just about no one of the mainstream Left mentions anymore after the train-wreck of the Mueller testimony in the Senate?
    This guy just has to be a troll.
    Let’s not feed it.

  214. max

    #TheDrum won’t be airing on ABC 1 tonight due to legal reasons. We will be on air at 7pm AEST this evening on ABC News Channel. We apologise for the delay.

    The Pell discussion probably went too far and they had to get it legalled before going to air.

  215. C.L.

    Yep, according to the Weinberg discourse, a dude named Portelli says he never left Pell alone and it was custom for hundreds of years in the church for a person of Pell’s level to be never left alone and to be helped.

    A lot of this gets down to the un-churched ignorance of judges and juries, really. Do you think the bird on the bench with the lezzo-do or the ex-Labor bigwig get to church very often? Never mind the mouth breathers on that jury. If you’d been to as many Sunday Masses presided over by the archbishop as I and many others have been, the idea that he suddenly and weirdly bolted from the procession (LOL) to orally r-ape a couple of altar boys – where none of the milling throng, archbishop-stalking pious folk or hangers-on noticed – is hilariously implausible codswallop. It never happened.

  216. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha

    The vast weight of probability is that he’s guilty.

    Beyond reasonable doubt?

  217. vlad

    Knowing that Weinberg J has called “A” a brazen liar is some consolation.

  218. libel

    It’s not libellious to say a person convicted of a crime is guilty of that crime.

  219. Geoff Pahoff

    This man is innocent. Or at least he is not guilty.

    There is a clinging stench over all of this. This happens from time to time.

  220. vlad

    Why exactly “A” feels the need to issue a press statement is – I was going to say beyond me, but it isn’t.

  221. JC

    Wussiagate.

    Was all true. Trump is a Russian stooge, and his campaign aided and abetted the GRU in subverting American democratic process. It’s all there in the Mueller report.

    Monst, for the first time. I’m left speechless. This is beyond the beyond.

  222. Geoff Pahoff

    I am so glad Weinberg dissented.

  223. Farmer Gez

    Monty, you added far more than the crime he was convicted of.
    Those are claims are unproven.
    Is it possible for you to discuss the case based on the evidence and not pour shit on every member of the Catholic Church?

  224. C.L.

    As I’ve said before, Pell’s accuser is hiding something he did to – or with – that deceased boy.
    He used his corpse as a narrative shield in a deranged bullshit story devoid of either forensics or witnesses. The dead boy’s father has said he has “seen some bad stuff in his time.” That struck me; only coppers and ex-cons say that. I’m wondering whether the motive for inventing the story – based on a long ago brush with fame at the cathedral – was self-preservation.

    He’s going to be exposed eventually.

  225. Stimpson J. Cat

    The vast weight of probability is that he’s guilty. He’s from a culture of spiders, worked with them, enabled them, protected them and then covered for them. It’s not that long a stretch to imagine he was one of them.

    Monty, the case against George,
    and the witness testimony,
    has more holes than a donut shop.
    As you well know.

  226. Monty, you added far more than the crime he was convicted of.
    Those are claims are unproven.

    Everything I said is true.

  227. Farmer Gez

    He’s from a culture of spiders, worked with them, enabled them, protected them and then covered for them.

    What court case or conviction do you cite for this?

  228. JC

    Monster

    Help me out here. The case goes to the High Court and they reverse it. As a confirmed, self described “institutionalist”, what will you say then? Will you go into hiding like you have after the Mueller report and not come here so we through donuts at you?

  229. Lee

    Just curious, has there been ever in history a case of anyone convicted, or even accused, of raping two people at the same time and just letting them go, for each to confirm the version of the other? (Not talking even about this occuring in a middle of a busy church in an open room anymore.)
    Yet Pell was, but somehow one of the two “victims” denied it. I wonder why.
    If you ask me, the wrong one of these two is dead.

    If I were convicted of a very serious offence where one “victim” said I did the crime, and the other was on record as denying it ever happened, and the latter had died before the trial, I would consider myself extremely unlucky.

    Especially if I was convicted solely on the living person’s uncorroborated word, and despite all the evidence to the contrary.

    One wonders if the case would have even gone ahead if he was still alive

  230. Some History

    A lot of this gets down to the un-churched ignorance of judges and juries, really. Do you think the bird on the bench with the lezzo-do or the ex-Labor bigwig get to church very often?

    Ferguson, Maxwell, Weinberg:

    https://imgur.com/kbStnCU

    Image from here
    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08-21/george-pell-appeal-judgment-summary-transcript/11434304

  231. vlad

    Some stories ring true, some don’t. This one didn’t to me – immediately – and it still doesn’t.

    I’m grateful to Weinberg J.

  232. Robert Mc

    The vast weight of probability is that he’s guilty.

    Beyond reasonable doubt?

    Yes, beyond reasonable doubt. That was the unanimous verdict of the trial jury. Now confirmed by the Supreme Court.

  233. Delcon

    One wonders if the case would have even gone ahead if he was still alive

    Probably not.
    Should never have gone ahead anyway.
    The only lesson from this whole bullshit is the need to abolish the jury system, I guess.
    With this, I am out of this thread.
    This case is awful.

  234. calli

    Which further illustrates how all the morons in this thread throwing around innuendoes about the Vatican’s hidden hands in Pell’s conviction behind the scenes are at best only on notch less unhinged than those believing in Pell’s guilt.
    Do you have any evidence for the Vatican’s involvement, morons?!

    Why, thank you Delcon. Very civil of you.

    The money angle interested me. There may or may not be a connection with Pell’s investigation into finances and what happened today.

    You state categorically that there was not. Okay.

  235. vlad

    I misread the brazenness quote out of context.

    Weinberg J wasn’t calling “A” a brazen liar. He was saying that the later attack allegation would be conduct more brazen than even brazen paedos commit.

  236. max

    SBS interviewed someone in the Vatican who may have been a journalist rather than an official. He said that ‘even though the Cardinal has many enemies here, not even his enemies believe he is guilty of the charges’.

    I’m guessing that Australians would be popular inside the Vatican and the Australian church respected. Before he returned, I’ll bet Pell told everyone not to worry because he had faith in the integrity of Australia’s judiciary. They would have believed that because we’re not some third world hole where the clergy and people are uneducated, impoverished and exploited.

    Now this must change. The most eminent Australian Catholic sentenced to years in gaol on the word of a former heroin user for offences committed 20 years ago. All other witnesses to the contrary dismissed. Media and cops go to great lengths to rig the trial.

    It’s a terrible look.

  237. a happy little debunker

    The majority decision makes some interesting points “when deciding whether a witness is telling the truth?”.

    1.The inherent consistency of the story: if the evidence of the witness contains internal contradictions, it cannot be accepted as a whole. The question may be which part to reject

    We know that the complainant varied his tale under examination. The Majority reasoned that this was acceptable – despite the inherent inconsistency observed.
    Not to mention that police statements were not introduced to either trial – can we assume these statements showed some further inconsistency?

    2.Consistency with other witnesses: this, of course, involves making an assessment also of the other witnesses, which in turn requires consideration of the factors here set out in relation to those witnesses also.

    We know that no other witnesses support the complainant’s claims including the other claimed victim. The Majority decision must have assessed these 20+ other witnesses & the other claimed victim were not consistent & thereby irrelevant.

    3.Consistency with undisputed facts: these include documentary evidence (if not subject to attack), facts admitted by the parties, or matters of common knowledge or experience.

    I have nothing to add.

    4.The ‘credit’ of the witness: in addition to the observation of his performance in the witness-box, this will include … evidence of bias against a party; or evidence of a general reputation for mendacity.

    Evidence of bias was dismissed as irrelevant by the Majority , despite the police commencing investigations years before any complainant came forward, despite the constant media speculation over the adequacy of Pell’s actions in other circumstance and the MSM smearing of many individuals and institutions (especially Pell) as a result of multiple Royal Commissions – despite Pell’s complete and lauded co-operation with the authorities over these alternate circumstances

    5.Observation of the witness: this includes physical manifestations of truthfulness or mendacity, or of uncertainty, and also characteristics observable in the witness-box or capable of being tested there (hearing and eyesight, capacity to judge distance or height) …

    Of course the 2nd Jury were denied the opportunity to directly observe & assess the witness, rather they were able to observe a video of witness – That the Majority describes as somewhat less than optimal to assess the Complainant’s truthfulness, whilst accepting the complainant as not just truthful, but compelling.

    6.The inherent probability or improbability of the story

    .
    Andrew Bolt’s comments tonight were spot on – the Majority considered and dispensed with each plausibility as individual events, rather the Minority that considered these in sequence.

    A bit like a gambler that contemplates the odds of winning lotto as a 6 in 45 chance rather than a more rational perspective that rates the first of 6 numbers being 1 in 45, the 2nd as 2 in 44 and so on.

    None of the above can overcome the fact that the Majority Decision was to deny Pell’s appeal, but I would merely suggest these as points of discussion.

  238. Sinclair Davidson

    He’s from a culture of spiders, worked with them, enabled them, protected them and then covered for them. It’s not that long a stretch to imagine he was one of them.

    m0nty – you might want to tone it down. The judges have been very specific as to Pell’s conviction. Enabling, protecting, and covering up crimes have not been included in that list.

  239. Tel

    The money angle interested me. There may or may not be a connection with Pell’s investigation into finances and what happened today.

    There’s been increasing calls for the Vatican to provide extensive details into their banking operations, especially handing over their customer lists to various authorities. This is pressure going to continue to grow with or without Pell and it’s mostly coming from outside the church.

    I should point out that the same people demanding transparency from the Vatican Bank, will also tell you that absolutely under no circumstances should the US Federal Reserve ever be audited in any way, because what they do is way too important for anyone to know what it is they really do. I’m sure you can imagine the various approaches to squaring up that circle.

  240. Mother Lode

    I’d be really worried if Mr Wrongology Monty thought Cdl Pell was innocent.

    I take heart at that.

    If Monatee says he reckons Pell’s next appeal will certainly fail I will nick straight out to score some champers to celebrate the Cardinal’s imminent release.

  241. Ubique

    I’m with Weinberg. And I’m not Catholic.

  242. Leigh Lowe

    JC

    #3137496, posted on August 21, 2019 at 8:14 pm

    Wussiagate.

    Was all true. Trump is a Russian stooge, and his campaign aided and abetted the GRU in subverting American democratic process. It’s all there in the Mueller report.

    Monst, for the first time. I’m left speechless. This is beyond the beyond.

    mUnter clearly didn’t get the memo.
    Since Bobby spent six hours asking Congress to repeat questions three times, and saying that everything awkward was “beyond my pervue”, the cheer squad have been quietly pushing Bob away with a barge-pole.
    Even the NY Times has folded it’s tent on Wussia, Wussia, Wussia.
    It is now Wacism, Wacism, Wacism.

  243. Old Lefty

    The jury had an excuse for unchurched ignorance, CL. Kidd told Catholics in the jury panel to excuse themselves if their name was picked out. He said, for the sake of ‘balance’, that anyone with an animus against the Catholic Church should exclude themselves. But how many PC SJWs would take any notice of that? Imagine a Vic judge saying Labor or Green voters to stay off a jury in the (extremely) unlikely event that a left or union hack was tried.

  244. m0nty – you might want to tone it down. The judges have been very specific as to Pell’s conviction. Enabling, protecting, and covering up crimes have not been included in that list.

    The second and third elements of that list are the Melbourne Response, of which he was the architect. The first… well yeah, I won’t pursue that further.

  245. David Brewer

    The question is not whether he was credible, but whether it was sound for the jury to convict on the basis of his testimony alone, without ANY corroboration from other witnesses or from forensic evidence.

    I agree with Aynsley. In fact, the complainant, A, may even believe his story – which would account for the majority’s positive impression of his demeanour when faced with contradictions of his story – but that still does not mean it is true. We are dealing with literally a childhood memory from decades ago – the complainant was still a soprano at the time of the alleged prime offence.

    The majority has also failed to answer Weinberg’s points that:

    – 22 years elapsed before the trial, making it virtually impossible for Pell’s witnesses to swear that on the particular day in question – which could never in any case be pinned down – Pell was accompanied at all times. This was a point that, in law, could only tell in Pell’s favour.

    – the defence established a series of improbabilities in the prosecution case, and Weinberg correctly states that these mulitply into a much greater improbability, and thus to unavoidable doubt. The majority don’t get this: for each improbability, they rehearse the prosecution’s proffered rebuttals, and then say that since they cannot disprove them, the jury verdict can stand.

    The appeal was heard by the two most senior judges, with Weinberg called in from retirement to help out. He seems to have spent more time going over the evidence, and has virtually rewatched the trial, since it was all on video. As he points out, this reduces to an extent the presumed advantage of the jury in assessing the evidence, especially since some of the evidence at the second trial was already video from the first.

    Hard to see the High Court refusing to hear an appeal if one is lodged, since it’s a split verdict after a second trial. Wonder if there are any churchgoers on the Court who could judge how preposterous the whole case is?

  246. notafan

    No no classical hero

    Don’t bother with your novel anti Catholic fake exegesis which is just yet another of the Protestant excuses because you abandoned the sacraments instituted by Christ.

    I linked the beautiful spiritual biblical explanation of these verses earlier.

    But as usual itching ears don’t want to hear.

    And fyi must be married to one wife does not mean must be married.

  247. mh

    Even the NY Times has folded it’s tent on Wussia, Wussia, Wussia.
    It is now Wacism, Wacism, Wacism.

    The troll didn’t know!

    What a fvcking tool!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.