C.L. : No country for old Catholics

It was a combination of unwavering viciousness and happenstance that allowed evil to win in the Coen brothers’ celebrated neo-noir neo-Western. Hopes for a just denouement were dashed on the rocks of brutal reality – though it must be acknowledged, with due respect, that evil was playing a long game and conscientiously. The enemies of Cardinal George Pell had that sort of resolve and that sort of luck. A DPP who kept indulging preposterous briefs of “evidence,” a Pell-hating police force now regarded as the most corrupt in the country, a public broadcaster with a years-simmering hatred of the Cardinal, a second jury of dupable vigilantes eager to convict the self-same but, by then, notorious George Pell and an appeals court which this morning raised preposterous hearsay to the level of DNA and CCTV. For make no mistake: the liberty of any Victorian accused by a single person of an unverifiable crime (even one allegedly committed decades ago) is now in jeopardy. That is, until such time as similar accusations are made against a beloved leftist whereupon “growing calls” will be heard to reform the law. If ever there was a case in need of High Court correction, this is it. The future of the Commonwealth depends on it.

Whenever I’ve encountered scorners’ schadenfreude, I’ve always told them I’m a happy warrior. Scorn all you like; the fight continues. In that spirit, I wanted to review a little-noticed and bizarre feature story about George Pell’s supposed “fall” written by Louise Milligan in March. She has made herself the face of the anti-Pell movement, after all. It is instructive to parse the entire article to remind ourselves what a witch-hunt looks like. In brief: George Pell is in prison because conjoined twins – enfants terribles indeed – assassinated his character. There was absolutely no chance of him ever receiving a fair trial. No person with a triple digit IQ can deny that. The degree of joint enterprise by Victoria Police and the ABC is not known at this time. Suffice to say – and nothing more is here argued – that these two notoriously anti-Catholic, anti-Pell institutions were always sailing in the same direction. Perhaps the scandal is not that they colluded en route but that signal flags were never needed.

Choked Up In the Booth

Already love-bombed with accolades by euphoric Pell haters, earlier this year the ABC’s Louise Milligan published her version of the George Pell prosecution for the Women’s Weekly. Yes, really. In the April number she muscled into a contents page that included “Best ever hot-cross buns” and “Oprah’s secret to true happiness.” Without wanting to insult that revered magazine’s readership, it is nevertheless true to say it’s extremely unlikely many of them would be aware of the convoluted matrix of factoids, incredible accusations, deranged personalities, dirty tricks and vendettas that led to the conviction and imprisonment of the nation’s most senior Catholic. Not only is Milligan the national broadcaster’s Pell roundsman, she has also become a kind of Miss Marple of sacristy and surrounds – albeit one with a Cliff’s Notes grasp on Catholicism – whose ‘investigations’ have made her a one woman anti-Pell cottage industry. With customary airs, she recently announced the publication of a spoken word version of her book, Cardinal: The Rise and Fall of George Pell.

Many have asked, I’m pleased to announce: My #Pell book #Cardinal is now an @Audible_AU audiobook. Voiced by me. I’ll admit there were times, as I narrated this terrible history, I choked up in the booth. But it’s a history that must be told. Get it here.

Her description of the book as “terrible history” is uncharacteristically accurate.

Mother of Mercy

Milligan begins as all lapsed Catholic journalists do, especially if they want a long-term future at the ABC: by setting out to prove what a pious Catholic she used to be. This is now a tradition in the Western media, akin to an ambassador presenting credentials to an embassy. The ritual says, ‘I’m about to write about Catholics and I want Catholics especially to believe that I’m not doing a vinegary, prejudiced hit piece (which of course I am).’

I was raised a devoted Catholic. Mass every Sunday, confession, giving up sweets for Lent. At school we recited Hail Holy Queen, Mother of Mercy.

Golf clap.

The prayer is called the Hail Holy Queen (or the Salve Regina). Nobody – and I mean nobody – calls it the “Hail Holy Queen, Mother of Mercy.” Anyway, after the boilerplate bona fides, she gets down to business. Her business being guilt by association and the misrepresentation of Cardinal Pell’s words at the Victorian Parliamentary Inquiry into child abuse. Before we get to that, it is necessary to concentrate on another witness who gave testimony to that same Inquiry because, like Carl Williams, his indiscretions provoked a gut-shot that, arguably, became motive for war.

“Blatant untruths”

The most noteworthy alleged whoppers in testimony at the Victorian Parliamentary Inquiry in late 2012 were related – possibly inadvertently (we don’t know) –  by then Victoria Police Deputy Commissioner Graham Ashton.

A VICTORIAN police deputy commissioner and the force have been accused of false and misleading evidence to the state’s child sex abuse inquiry in a withering takedown of their allegations.

An eminent lawyer has accused police and Deputy Commissioner Graham Ashton of “blatant untruths”, a “travesty” of justice, “utterly false” claims and of “malicious nonsense” in evidence obtained by The Australian.

Peter O’Callaghan, QC, independent commissioner in charge of the Catholic Church’s Melbourne-based complaints system, has exposed weaknesses in the police submission and provided evidence that contradicts the most damaging claim by Mr Ashton and the force that the church failed to report a single case of abuse to police.

In other words, Ashton was humiliated by O’Callaghan. He also made claims regarded by the Church’s lawyers as even more egregiously incorrect (again, perhaps unknowingly):

Victoria Police has been exposed vastly overstating the number of suicides related to child-sex abuse by Catholic clergy …

The assertion that 43 suicide deaths were related to Catholic abuse was a central reason for the formation of the Victorian inquiry, which in turn was a key reason the national sex abuse royal commission was formed …

Mr Ashton told the Victorian inquiry in late 2012 that the force was examining for the coroner 43 suicide deaths allegedly related to church abuse… But at the same time a police Sexual Crimes Squad investigation was wound up, detailing how the original claims of up to 43 deaths could not be substantiated…

Operation Plangere could substantiate only one firm case…. Despite knowing for more than two years that the figure was grossly wrong, the force has never publicly corrected it, regardless of the enormous damage it caused the church.

The concocted deaths cited in Ashton’s testimony (for which he has never been reprimanded; he was, indeed, promoted) sound a lot like the inventions that brought into being Operation Midland, the Metropolitan Police inquiry into Carl “Nick” Beech’s counterfeit Westminster VIP paedophile ring allegations.

The Searson Set-up

Louise Milligan didn’t notice any of this. In her non-telling, VicPol’s shameless dishonesty before the Victorian Parliamentary Inquiry never happened. Her alarm bell was set off by somebody else’s testimony. Guess whose:

Julie had all of that hope and innocence dashed when she was abused in the confessional by a thoroughly horrible human called Father Peter Searson, a Brylcreemed paedophile priest who carried a gun around the parish school at Doveton, in Melbourne’s south-east, where he terrorised the children.

Many years later, when he was giving evidence to the Victorian Parliamentary Inquiry into child abuse, Cardinal George Pell denied knowing about sexual abuse at Doveton, saying only “there might be victims”. But as we discovered for our program, in 1998 Pell, then Archbishop of Melbourne, had sent Julie a letter apologising for the abuse and paying her a confidential settlement through his Melbourne Response scheme. It made me think two things: First, I should investigate this man more because I had serious questions about whether he was a truth-teller.

The full transcript of the exchange Milligan here conveniently reduces to a four word abridgment (and of the entire Victorian Parliamentary Inquiry) may be read here. I urge readers to find the questions asked and answered by Inquiry deputy chairman Frank Maguire and Cardinal Pell respectively. The Cardinal does not “deny knowing about sexual abuse at Doveton.” He points out that Searson was never charged or prosecuted for a sexual crime, despite two Victoria Police investigations and a third investigation conducted by Minter Ellison lawyers at the private behest of the Melbourne Catholic Education Office.

Ergo: despite Victoria Police taking no action against Searson, Julie received compensation and a letter of apology from the then Archbishop of Melbourne. This was no doubt based on Searson’s bad general reputation; Pell told the Victorian inquiry that Searson was “not a pleasant man” and that he was eventually convicted for an act of cruelty. It was Pell who sacked Searson and then manfully defied a ludicrous order from the Vatican that he be reinstated. The payment to Julie, then, brought great credit upon Cardinal Pell. By airbrushing away the annoying facts – assured that readers of the Women’s Weekly are no more likely to check them than they are to make those hot-cross buns – Milligan re-badges the episode as a black mark against the Cardinal’s name. What did Justice Peter Kidd have to say about such criminally negligent conduct? This:

… you [are not] being sentenced for any failure to prevent or report child sexual abuse by other clergy within the Catholic Church. You have not been charged with or convicted of any such failings.

This was just one of the slap-downs administered by Justice Kidd to the ABC (by logical implication if not by name). By the way (for non-Victorians), Frank Maguire was and is a Labor MP and a former ABC journalist. As with Operation Midland, the witch-hunting by police, Labor politicians and state journalists has been starkly symbiotic throughout the Pell saga.

The Men She Began To Meet

And so Milligan proceeds to the allegations that led, albeit haltingly, to an infamous prosecution. Needless to say, she leaves out the corrupt “trawling” operation conducted by a vengeful Victoria Police to find somebody – anybody – who wanted to make accusations against one George Pell. Again, this mirrored what British police did at the behest of Carl Beech, the paedophile recently convicted of 12 counts of perverting the course of justice (inter alia).

I by no means thought Pell himself was an abuser until early 2016. From February that year, I began to meet men who made extremely concerning allegations about the Cardinal, going back decades.

She “began to meet men” who made accusations about the Cardinal? How? Where? Who facilitated this exordium of her enlightenment? If a third party made the introductions, what interest might they have had in cultivating an ABC journalist? She won’t say.

And again:

There was nothing in the men whom I began to meet (and whose stories I told in my book, Cardinal, The Rise and Fall of George Pell) that made me think that any of them were not telling the truth.

Let’s emphasise her key assertion: that every single one of them was telling the truth.

In fact, the claims of two of the men Milligan began to meet were blocked by Justice Peter Kidd and abandoned by the Victorian Office of Public Prosecutions. For the latter, Fran Dalziel SC had sought to have three swimming-related accusations heard together in order to use “pattern” trickery to push-poll a jury. Justice Kidd ruled this package deal of wild, no-witness charges could never be safely tried. In other words, it was cowboy posturing and legal trash.

Additionally, we know that the two principal swimmer “victims” had serious criminal records, one being a former drug-peddler jailed for assaulting his girlfriend. Also, he had a lengthy history of psychiatric illness. The two mates (for mates they were) also made accusations of far worse abuse against other people – teachers – which Taskforce SANO, mysteriously, didn’t bother to either publicise or prosecute. Why? Because they concluded the allegations were utter nonsense, that’s why.

Milligan leaves out these latter details because they are damning. Instead she asserts that nothing about these men she began to meet made her think they were anything other than admirable truth-tellers. She even worried about the “strain” it was causing them. (Not as big a strain as being bashed by a drug dealer). Prosecutors had already given up on other fanciful charges before the committal. Magistrate Belinda Wallington herself threw out others as warped, fantastical claptrap. In truth, only a solitary accuser (the former choirboy) survived the cull and his claims were not accepted by a majority of jurors in Cardinal Pell’s first, abandoned trial. They were accepted by a second jury for whom George Pell, by then, was obviously synonymous with child molestation – not least because of the dedicated propaganda of Milligan’s employer, the ABC, which devoted an entire episode of the7.30 Report to the now deep-sixed accusations of the aforementioned “swimmers.”

So much for the men she began to meet.

Florid Mental Illness

Having demonstrated her ineptitide at gauging the legal credibility of chancers, oddballs and ex-cons, Milligan then touts her skills as a psychiatrist while dismissing suggestions Pell’s accusers are fabulists or storytellers. For the record, Louise Milligan is not a psychiatrist.

I think you would have to have a florid mental illness to endure that if it hadn’t happened. And while these men have suffered from post-traumatic stress, they do not have florid mental illnesses.

Clinically, the word “florid” is used almost exclusively in relation to schizophrenic psychosis. Saying Pell’s accusers must be believed because they are not psychotics is a weirdly low bar for establishing their soundness. There are countless examples of outwardly steady people who are known to have made false accusations and maintained the charade up to and beyond verdict day. Carl Beech is their newest exemplar. Left-wing journalists (that’s most of them) were so giddy on Trump hatred that they believed every claim uttered by US Supreme Court then-nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s accusers. All of whom, it turns out, were certifiable. Just last month, actor John Jarrett was acquitted of raping a woman 40 years ago. The jury deliberated for 15 minutes – which was just enough time for “yeah-nah” to be said twelve times. His accuser found her way to a police station after local #MeToo wrangler Tracey Spicer asked the public to email her any claims against big names in the entertainment industry. This was very similar to VicPol’s “Operation Tethering” – used to round up some Pell “victims” when miffed detectives realised there were no accusations against the Cardinal. Other Spicer-promoted trials are now unlikely to go forward. This will be a huge relief to Big Ted and Mr Squiggle.

An Imaginary Vatican Doctor

To illustrate how somebody who isn’t suffering from a “florid mental illness” might nevertheless paint the lily, malice aforethought, we need only read Milligan’s next casual slur.

Like everyone else in Australia, I did wonder about Pell’s decision not to fly to Australia in late 2015 because of a heart condition. One of the fascinating things I discovered when researching my book was that Pell’s sick note had been written by a Vatican doctor who is responsible for declaring medical miracles, which mean that a person gets the tick of approval for being a saint. I thought that was a telling choice of person to make the decision that Pell was too ill to fly.

Like everyone else? Note this infantile tendency to exaggerate. We’ll return to it shortly. Milligan’s claim, of course, is risible balderdash. There is not – nor has there ever been – “a Vatican doctor” who declares medical miracles. Rather

To even be considered, a potentially miraculous cure must be instantaneous or sudden, complete and permanent, and without apparent scientific explanation. When reviewing such cures, the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, the Vatican office that oversees sainthood applications, first turns potential miracles over to the Consulta Medica. This board, established by the Vatican in the mid-1900s, is made up of about 100 renowned Italian (and Catholic) physicians. Traditionally, a panel of five Consulta Medica doctors will review the putative miracle, examining any available CT scans, X-rays, and medical reports. At least three of the five must agree that the hand of God has prevailed where science faltered.

Her mockery of some of the finest medical minds in the world tells you what a sour lightweight Milligan is. Raised a “devoted Catholic” remember, she is saying that any doctor involved in investigating miracles must, ipso facto, be a dishonest quack. She finds that easier to believe than that a conveniently anonymous “victim” who claims to have been raped by George Pell – in an open room amidst dozens of passers-by (not one of whom noticed) – might be less than credible. There is no evidence whatsoever that Cardinal Pell ever considered hiding out in the Vatican. Implying otherwise is brazenly dishonest. Besides all that, as even nominal and lapsed Catholics know, only the Supreme Pontiff may “declare” something to be a miracle. A Petrine judgement closer to home was delivered by Justice Kidd (yet again): “You [George Pell] have a significant history of cardiac problems and currently suffer from hypertension and congestive heart failure. You have a dual chamber pacemaker.”

Milligan was wrong again and for the same reason: summit fever on Mount Get Pell.

99.9 Percent

We have already seen how Milligan tends to angrily exaggerate as a lazy way of mimicking rebuttal. There is also her triumphant love of mobs. Everyone in Australia wondered about Cardinal Pell delaying a return to Australia on medical grounds, for example, when a more accurate claim would be that some commentators (who hate George Pell) wondered about it. This they did in columns (or, in one case, song) to viciously calumniate the man in the public’s eyes. Her majoritarian hubris continues …

… the response has been 99.9 per cent positive. I have had dozens and dozens of messages from people around the country and internationally, many of them ordinary lay Catholics or religious like nuns and priests, who are pleased that a light has been shone on this very dark place.

Dozens and dozens is not a lot of emails. And only “many” of those were from admiring lay Catholics and “religious like nuns and priests.” I guess all the others were from David Marr. I strongly doubt that many “nuns” emailed Milligan about her book. The chances of nuns having a copy, reading it and then emailing her about it are close to zero. Elderly women religious from moribund congregations – in between workshops on puppetry in the liturgy – maybe. And most priests are secular, not religious. I doubt many priests religious contacted her either. These are the sloppy phrases of somebody with an amateurish, recently assembled understanding of Catholicism. She doesn’t know what she doesn’t know. But she does know how to exaggerate and fulminate on behalf of a mob.

Loud and Shouty

A loud and shouty minority has insisted Pell is innocent. The fact that the defenders of a now-convicted paedophile include two former Prime Ministers floors me. I understand that people have friendships and political alliances with Pell. They have gone in to battle with him in the culture wars. But their comments have shown, in my view, an extraordinary lack of empathy for victims and their families who are hurting.

Two other former prime ministers, Gough Whitlam and Paul Keating, defended Pol Pot and General Suharto respectively. I doubt Milligan would be floored to learn this. History (and hours of videotape) prove that the only “loud and shouty” people in the larger Pell circus were the ones outside various court houses in Melbourne during the accused’s committal and trial. In the judgement of Victoria Police – which dispatched tens of armed officers to protect the Cardinal – he was in very real danger of being assaulted or worse. In sentencing, Justice Kidd accepted the truth and appropriateness of the character references provided to the court. Pointedly, he also noted that “these references were not challenged or contradicted by the prosecution.” Notice also Milligan’s plural trickery: “victims.” There was, of course, only one (supposed) “victim.” The second choirboy told his mother he was never sexually abused. Moreover, George Pell also has a family but that didn’t concern the ABC when it was slandering him using testimony from men whose claims have now been flushed down the Victorian legal system’s toilet. And a busy old dunny it is, already clogged with the Lawyer X scandal whose leitmotif is – get this – rigged prosecutions.

As for the “loud and shouty,” they were dealt with by Justice Kidd in an extraordinary aside:

… we have witnessed, outside of this court and within our community, examples of a ‘witch-hunt’ or ‘lynch mob’ mentality in relation to Cardinal Pell. I utterly condemn such behaviour. That has nothing to do with justice or a civilized society. The Courts stand as a bulwark against such irresponsible behaviour.

You can always pick the ring-leaders of a lynch mob. They invariably claim to speak for “everyone else in Australia” and “99.9 percent” of people.

I’m Guessing It Was Also a Dark and Stormy Night

Actual passages from the Milligan piece:

“… that evening is etched in my brain because releasing my book was a leap of faith into shark-infested waters.”

“… a dawn of change is sweeping through parishes and schools.”

Geez, Louise. For this, Australia’s arts apparatchiks awarded her several prizes for ‘literature.’

“We used my son and my neighbour’s boy …”

Here’s something that’s etched in my brain after reading Milligan’s essay: her strange obsession.

I remember when we started shooting a reenactment of a game being played by George Pell and some eight-year old boys at a swimming pool for our ABC story. We used my son and my neighbour’s boy for that scene. They enjoyed playing the game. It brought home to myself and my friend the horrible loss of trust that children who are victims of sexual abuse by clergy suffer.

I wouldn’t be surprised if this passage horrified Women’s Weekly readers more than any other. It certainly should have. What sort of person ‘uses’ two little boys in a filmed child molestation “reenactment”? Milligan could just as readily have used her aunt to dramatise the testimony about these particular charges given by the pool owner’s wife. That lady told police she never once saw – and was never apprised of – anything remotely suspicious involving George Pell. Milligan thinks she is clever in decorating the bereft case against the Cardinal with multiple “victims,” bogus patterns of behaviour and predictable third parties to hate: John Howard, Tony Abbott, the evil Vatican Doctor. She even gives left-wing Jesuit Frank Brennan a drive-by spray with the mud Uzi. It must have been particularly irksome to Milligan that Brennan – a distinguished lawyer and intellectual with a long record of theological animosity to Pell – questioned the propriety of the major partners in the Pell prosecution: Victoria Police and the media.

Time To Spike Milligan

One final mistake Milligan makes is general; as sweeping as the dawn, so to speak. Having appended to George Pell’s name culpability for multiple non-existent crimes – all the better to leave the phony impression of habituated sexual monstrosity – she concludes her Women’s Weekly feature by extrapolating for the Catholic Church a wider, revolutionary significance in the Cardinal’s conviction, as also an emphatic vindication for abuse victims. This hackneyed left-wing idea of justice – where the healing of a class of “victims” trumps even the safety of the prosecution that magically enables it – was forcefully and explicitly repudiated by Justice Kidd:

This leads me to say something to other victims of clerical or institutional sexual abuse who may be present in court today or watching or listening elsewhere. This sentence is not and cannot be a vindication of your trauma. Cardinal Pell has not been convicted of any wrongs committed against you. Cardinal Pell does not fall to be punished for any such wrongs. I recognise that you seek justice, but it can only be justice if it is done in accordance with the rule of law. For me to punish Cardinal Pell for the wrongs committed against you would be contrary to the rule of law and it would not be justice at all.

This too may be seen as a demolition of the Milligan/ABC exegesis. It is no excuse for either prosecutorial or journalistic chicanery to argue the unjustly spiked head will at least straighten out the recusants.

And yet …

So her work is marbled with harebrained suppositions, egregious cherry-picking, factual blunders, suspicious omissions, queer mysteries, adolescent prose and now discredited assertions; no doubt. But somehow Milligan – or, more to the point – a revoltingly ugly mentality walked away triumphant this morning from a car crash. We can only hope a second appellate sequel is in the making to right the wrong.

This entry was posted in Guest Post, Hypocrisy of progressives, Taking out the trash. Bookmark the permalink.

522 Responses to C.L. : No country for old Catholics

1 2 3
  1. Karabar

    In the aftermath of this sham, nobody should now doubt the existence of the Deep State in Australia.
    Pell’s real crime was apparently to oppose the Establishment on taboo subjects such as the myth of ‘climate change’.

  2. Old School Conservative

    Thank you C.L.

  3. Tombell

    I only ask because I’m still not 100% sure. Have seen various comments. Is it the case that the first jury voted 10-2 to acquit?

  4. Tel

    For me to punish Cardinal Pell for the wrongs committed against you would be contrary to the rule of law and it would not be justice at all.

    It would be Social Justice.

  5. Elderly White Man From Skipton

    Milligan gave no evidence in the Pell trial or appeal. What the jury and appeal judges found was the choice between Pell and his accuser and they elected to believe the accuser.

  6. Entropy

    Yes! Convicted for Social Justice reasons!

  7. C.L.

    No, a jury elected to get Pell – having been primed to do so (illegally) by the media.

  8. Rafiki redux

    CL states that the Vic Court of Appeal raised “preposterous hearsay to the level if DNA”. An example would help to follow. Pell’s denials were entirely hearsay. They were made out if court (to the police at the Vatican) and relied on in court as evidence of the truth of what Pell asserted. A major reason why at common law hearsay is rejected is because the statement maker cannot be cross-examined. And this is what happened here. Far from being dupable, the jury may have spotted this and given greater weight to the complaint’s evidence, which was subject to cross-examination. (I have elaborated this point on earlier threads, and should add that I think that Pell should not have been tried due to police and media pre-trial antics.)

  9. Entropy

    Milligan gave no evidence in the Pell trial or appeal. What the jury and appeal judges found was the choice between Pell and his accuser and they elected to believe the accuser

    I am tempted to claim that you, Elderly White Male from Skipton, fiddled me when a kid. I am sure I can be more convincing than you when I serve up my video evidence.
    And you won’t be able to prove otherwise as I am a victim and thus have no need of any witnesses or physical evidence, I must simply be believed. You may call me Elizabeth Hubbard.
    Also, as you are an elderly white male and white males, especially elderly ones, are responsible for the sins of all mankind, you are clearly guilty for social justice reasons.

    Lucky for you I possess honour.

  10. Rafiki redux

    Should be ‘out of court to the police’.

  11. Mak Siccar

    Many thanks for this comprehensive analysis, C.L.

    I sincerely hope that there is an appeal to the High Court and that a GoFundMe page is set up for that very cause.

  12. Dave in Marybrook

    Bravo, C.L.
    Clear a few months and get onto Connor Court publishing for a stipend- a good potboiler written with tight facts and a bit of passion needs to hit the shelves in time for Christmas, and push Marr and Milligan into the remainder bins.

  13. C.L.

    CL states that the Vic Court of Appeal raised “preposterous hearsay to the level if DNA”. An example would help to follow.

    Um, the example is the entire accusation.
    A defendant is not required to prove his denial so to call such denials hearsay is ridiculous.

  14. Entropy

    Pell’s denials were entirely hearsay.

    I am struggling to understand how the defendant must a) prove innocence against a single accusation; and b) why his denial is hearsay yet the accusation is not.

  15. herodotus

    Thanks C.L. – this case is far from over, and those who have bayed for Pell to be punished are without honour, and possibly much worse than merely that.

  16. Rafiki redux

    CL and Entropy. The complainant’s evidence about what Pell did is not hearsay because it was given in court. Pell’s statements out of court, tendered as evidence of what did not happen, are hearsay. CL, you have some good points to make about the pre-trial prejudice to Pell. But are fundamentally wrong about the law. You have pointed to the mistake Pell made in not giving evidence on oath. I have tried to indicate why that was a mistake.

  17. Percy Popinjay

    This will be a huge relief to Big Ted and Mr Squiggle.

    Not to mention Ozwaldo Ostrich.

    that evening is etched in my brain because releasing my book was a leap of faith into shark-infested waters

    Louise, Rocks Messup called – he wants his mangled metaphors back.

    On to more serious matters, given the Get Pell agenda pursued so vigorously by disreputable dishonest dunderheads such as Marr, Milligan and the Victoriastanian Keystones, why was there no hue and cry about him not being able to receive a fair (second) trial?

    Short of finding 12 jurors who’d been existing under a rock for many years, anyone empanelled would have come into the court room informed by a motley assemblage of prejudices and blatant lies blasted into their thick skulls via the screeching megaphone wielded by our illustrious and beloved braindead lamestream media.

    BTW, great piece of writing, C.L.

  18. bollux

    Not a Catholic, or a lover of small boys either, but the way this reads is that in Australia, anyone can be accused by anybody of anything without any proof whatsoever, and be found guilty. If that doesn’t scare the tripe out of you, nothing will. Having your trial in The Democratic Peoples Republic of Victoria isn’t going to help you either.

  19. Rafiki redux

    CL. An accused is not obliged to give any evidence in rebuttal of the Crown case. But where that case is plausible, the accused runs the risk that it will be accepted by the jury. Thus, as courts say, the accused has a practical onus to rebut.

  20. Percy Popinjay

    in Australia, anyone can be accused by anybody of anything without any proof whatsoever, and be found guilty

    Yep. “Three hands” Pell this time, who’s next?

    Feeling contemptuous of our beloved legal system, yet, anyone?

  21. Billy Boy

    The jury has spoken and the appeal judges have made their decision. I accept that.

  22. pete m

    Radiki, they did only have one onus, to show the prosecution had not proved beyond reasonable doubt the charge.

    Thus was completely done, as Justice Weinberg elaborated.

  23. Pyrmonter

    @ Rafiki redux
    #3137852, posted on August 22, 2019 at 8:30 am

    What purpose was served by introducing the video evidence I’ve wondered at. But the starting point is, and remains, as all the judges accepted, that the onus is on the crown to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and Pell has both a right to silence and protection against self-incrimination. He was perfectly entitled not to give evidence and the jury and court must not reason from his failure to do so.

  24. Roger

    Sworn testimony at trial carries greater weight than a record of interview, C.L..

    Having said that, Richter reportedly did more than enough to discredit the witness’s testimony.

    But, as you say, this was no ordinary trial. On to the High Court.

  25. dan

    No, a jury elected to get Pell – having been primed to do so (illegally) by the media.

    A jury only assesses their finding of what the facts are. They don’t decide the law. This appeal centred again on whether it was open to the jury to find the facts as assessed. Nothing to do with the Women’s Weekly.

  26. Up The Workers!

    Isn’t it odd that the monocular Milligan’s virulent campaign does not make mention of Kathy Sherriff, an alleged victim of a devious pervert and grub who used alcohol and drugs to procure an under-aged girl for purposes of child molestation and violent, non-consensual sex?

    Kathy has been trying for years to get her case into Court – any Court – but is emphatically blocked for some unknown reason by notorious A.L.P.-linked shady figures and their vastly corrupt low friends in high places in Dodgy Dan’s largely lawless Mogadishu-by-the-Yarra.

    Could it be that Milligan, like so many of the selectively blind, deaf, dumb and bent “Me Too” movement, believes that violent non-consensual sex and kiddie fiddling is perfectly acceptable if the accused perpetrator just happens to be a senior member of the rank and vile Left?

  27. Woolfe

    And you’ll accept that when you are accused tried and convicted in heresay.

  28. Percy Popinjay

    A jury only assesses their finding of what the facts are.

    Which they manifestly failed to do in the second trial.

  29. C.L.

    I wasn’t writing about the trial, Dan.
    I was writing about the Get Pell movement.

    Sworn testimony at trial carries greater weight than a record of interview, C.L..

    Yes … and?
    I didn’t mention the subject.
    ??

  30. Gab

    Excellent analysis of the facts, CL.

  31. dan

    Which they manifestly failed to do in the second trial

    Well that’s my point, two out of three senior judges (rather than random Women’s Weekly readers) disagreed with this assertion.

  32. min

    Firstly I am not a Catholic, originally a Methodist but now a Humanist. I am also a retired Counselling Psychologist with training in areas related to this, in PTSD, Personality Disorder and also with Professor Joseph Lo Piccolo, a world expert on Paedophilia
    During my professional life I counselled many sexual abuse victims , mainly women and girls but also men and boys , none of whom had been abused by clergy and only one who had been in an institution. Three of them who went to police had their abusers jailed so I am well aware what they had to go through and details they had to remember after they went to the police. One victim a fifteen year old who had been raped, had her case rejected by the DPP at the committal hearing because there were no witnesses and it was a “he said she said” situation and it was too costly when a result could not be guaranteed. I was with her at that meeting .
    I also have a connection with the author and her family .
    With all my experience and training , even though I only have second hand observations and reportings of events , I agree with with your summation of what has happened that George Pell has been made the scapegoat.
    Ask Sinclair for my name if you would like to get in touch with me . The other case with similar ramifications is the rape allegations against a certain politician when the police did not bother to interview witnesses.

  33. Cynic of Ayr

    My take on the verdict by the two upholders on the Supreme court is that by saying that they (the two) thought – thought (no evidence) – that the accuser was telling the truth.
    Therefor, they have implicitly said that they thought – thought – (no eveidence) that the accused was a liar.
    What happened to the age old legal excuse, “It’s just one’s word against the other.”
    Looks like the Victorian corruption extends past the Police, to the Judiciary.
    I recall some years ago, DeJersey of Queensland stated (more or less),” We must pay Judges a very, very high salary, so that they are less inclined to take bribes.”
    So, we must bribe Judges not to take bribes.
    Note that bribes do not have to be limited to cash. Position and perks are in the mix.
    i.e. One word – Murphy.

  34. max

    War is being waged on, Humanist faith vs Christian faith.

    There are 2 standards in judgements.

example:

    THE GRAND ILLUSION:
    There is a phrase that I have heard in conservative circles, especially far Right circles, for well over half a century. It is this: “If the American people only knew, they would revolt.” No, they wouldn’t.

    I contend that the public does not want to know the truth whenever it raises the possibility that the government really is corrupt, and that it really cannot be reformed. The public doesn’t want reform. The public has used the government to steal wealth on a systematic basis ever since the New Deal. (Before then, the looting was less systematic.) The public doesn’t want reform. The public wants access to more of the confiscated funds. The public, in short, is the source of the corruption.

    The public wants things to roll along smoothly. Any thought that somebody could get away with what Epstein got away with, and get the sweetheart deal from the Department of Justice that he got in 2008, would indicate that we are living in a corrupt society in which justice is not available to victims. People don’t want to believe this. They don’t want to believe that somebody like Epstein could get away with this, and do so because of his connections, because that would indicate that everything they had been told since high school American history courses is fraudulent. They were not told the truth. They would have to rethink everything around them, and people don’t want to do this. The price is too high. The investment is too high. It is easier to let things slide, and so, things slide.
    The Department of Justice lawyer who gave Epstein his sweetheart deal was the Secretary of Labor until he judiciously resigned a month ago. No one who screened him for Trump to appoint remembered his role in the deal. They knew nothing. They saw nothing.
    If you are high enough up the chain of political command, your head will not roll. You do not labor under the threat of major negative sanctions for either incompetence or corruption. People inside the system are aware of this. Their careers can be disrupted, but not destroyed. The woman who was in charge of the prison at Abu Ghraib prison was a one-star general. She got demoted to bird colonel.
    Her defense: “I knew nothing. I saw nothing.”
    That’s what they all know. That’s what they all see.

    https://www.garynorth.com/public/19856.cfm

  35. Ooh Honey Honey

    I try to alert people to the underlying motives of the ABC, academia and the ALP which are – as I see it, and I am inviting correction here – they are populated with people whose role models in the 60s were still burning with furious indignation because of The Split, Bob Santmaria, the Shoppies etc and how their political fortunes had been crushed for so long, and that this was simply fuel to the long burning anti-Catholic sentiment in Australia. So every single opportunity that side of politics gets to kick the Micks, they take. And Pell was their Great White Whale.
    Am I warm?

  36. Robbo

    If you live in Victoria and you want a police force that will protect you from criminals and a judicial system that will operate with total honesty and fairness then move to another State. Victoria is a State where corruption exists and thrives.

  37. Rafiki redux

    Pyrmonter. If I may say so, you have stated the law correctly, and on earlier threads I have too. On those threads, I argued that the law defies common sense, and as you probably know, on a civil trial inferences can be drawn against a party from their failure to call a witness. It is reasonable to think that this may have happened (wrongly) here. The jury may only have reasoned that since they had only one sworn statement to go on, and that its maker had been cros-examined, that statement should be accepted. Nothing wrong in that.

  38. Rafiki redux

    I mean wrongly as a matter of law, but not as a matter of common sense. We will never know how the jury reasoned if course.

  39. Cassie of Sydney

    “min
    #3137932, posted on August 22, 2019 at 9:33 am”

    Great post Min…thanks

  40. Ivan Denisovich

    The other case with similar ramifications is the rape allegations against a certain politician when the police did not bother to interview witnesses.

    Curious.

    She claims the MP raped her in a bathroom in the early hours after a group came back to the camp after going out for a drive.

    She said she gave the police three main witnesses, including the phone number of one and her maiden and married name, when she reported the crime. She alleges police failed to find the witnesses.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2777161/amp/Police-defend-investigation-Bill-Shorten-woman-accused-rape-claims-officers-didn-t-properly-investigate-case-profile.html

  41. I_am_not_a_robot

    In the English criminal law tradition Blackstone’s ratio used to apply: ‘It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer’ or there ought to be an asymmetry in favour of the defendant in criminal justice procedures particularly in cases where it is one credible person’s word against another’s credible word.
    That principle is criticised nowadays where the death penalty has been abolished on the basis that the ‘social cost’ of allowing a guilty person to be acquitted is equivalent to the ‘social cost’ of an innocent person being punished, or the risk of an acquitted guilty person reoffending balances the risk of an innocent person losing their liberty and reputation.
    I don’t think that applies in the Pell case.

  42. Roger

    She said she gave the police three main witnesses, including the phone number of one and her maiden and married name, when she reported the crime. She alleges police failed to find the witnesses.

    That police investigation was very thorough.

    Tanya Plibersek told us so.

  43. Pyrmonter

    @ Rafiki

    As I wrote on the other thread, my superficial reading of the reasons has me preferring Weinberg’s decision. As Gray Connolloy has tweeted, his judgment has a ring of one written for an audience of 7. That said, while there have been smears of them here (and especially in Weigel’s piece), neither Maxwell nor Ferguson is incompetent, and Pell hasn’t challenged their impartiality. They’ve seen the video of the complainant’s evidence; we haven’t.

  44. Farmer Gez

    Billy Boy
    #3137889, posted on August 22, 2019 at 9:00 am
    The jury has spoken and the appeal judges have made their decision. I accept that.

    The law has now been changed by this decision Billy Boy.
    The weighting of uncorroborated testimony spectacularly so.
    If you’re happy with that good for you.
    Remember Pell is convicted of sexually assaulting two boys at the same time with the dead victim never filing a complaint.

  45. Tim

    As someone that has been an alter boy I would say to those that think Cardinal Pell is guilty, is that the sacristy is like grand central station after a mass and when the bishop is in town the Bishop and the clergy go to the front of the church after a service and meet parishioners. They are like rock stars, they are never left alone and in many cases so are the priests.

    The claims made against Pell are just not consistent with the facts of what happens after mass. From my experience the longest period of time the alter boys would have been in the sacristy without some other adult would likley have been 30 seconds to a minute. To top that off I never saw a choir boy any where near a sacristy, they had no reason to be there and the ladies that did the alter cloths and prepared the vestments amongst other things would have hunted them. There is simply not enough room for by standers. What most are forgetting is that the first trial couldn’t reach a verdict. So much for no reasonable doubt.

    The other issue is that the judgement was made on the word of one claimant with no supporting evidence. From my point of view that is the stuff kangaroo courts are made of . Given my experience as an alter boy this was nothing more than a stitch up pure and simple.

    I spent 7 years in boarding schools with many priests and brothers. They are fantastic people that gave up their lives to teach and support children. In those 7 years there was only ever one trainee priest that had issues with the students and is was not child abuse but rather a lack of patience. You must remember having to deal with 80 little buggers who want to try you out is not a job for the feint harted. Most families struggle with single digit numbers. To repeat the priests and brothers and nuns I had were fantastic people. They tought us to look out for others, do unto others as you would have them do to you and provided us with sporting and educational opportunities that we would not have had without their dedication. I remember speaking to one such priest years after I left school and had children and I asked him did he miss not having a family. His reply is he did have a family. He said he got more enjoyment out of seeing his family winning at football cricket and the other sports he transported them all over the place to. Priests are a different breed to the rest of us, they are caring selfless people. While I acknowledge that some are not what I have described and are in fact evil bastards they are very few. As such we need to make sure we dont crucify the many for the actions of the few.

  46. mh

    max
    #3137977, posted on August 22, 2019 at 10:24 am
    read and weep

    https://www.binary.org.au/transgender_book_describes_oral_sex_by_a_6_year_old

    The ABC will love that book, and will no doubt promote it on one of their book shows.

  47. dan

    On to the High Court

    On what basis? The whole point is that the majority found the evidence of the complainants compelling. The last thing the HCA will do is rerun the facts established let alone second-guess first-hand testimony given at trial. I doubt they’ll get leave to appeal.

  48. Rafiki redux

    Pyrmonter. A ground of appeal may be that there is necessarily an error of law inherent in a conclusion (by the majority) is beyond the bounds of reason (House v The Queen I think) . As you say, Weinberg has shown how this argument can be made out. If it is, Ferguson and Maxwell should cinsider retiring.

  49. C.L.

    The evidence of the complainants?
    There was more than one?

  50. Dan – our posts crossed. I didn’t ignore you.

  51. Robert Mc

    Ferguson and Maxwell should cinsider retiring.

    Weinberg is already retired.

  52. PB

    The whole Country was primed to find Pell guilty on the basis mostly of a wish to do so rather than guilt being demonstrated by an in-depth analysis of evidence. A fair trial was never possible in this Country, thank-you mass media. We do indeed have a Deep State operating at full steam inside this Nation, who are determined to BE the Nation. They will succeed too, as the volume of virtue-signalling useful idiots in the cities has hit critical mass.

  53. Rusty of Qld

    Ivan D, absolutely correct on Bill Shorten. On the evidence of what now is needed to have the Police launch a Rape case against an accused, Shorten should be in court next week at the latest but we all know why that won’t happen don’t we.

  54. Andre Lewis

    Not having any religious affiliations I have followed this case and the appeal with an open mind based on reading detailed published accounts of the trial. Unless many notable journalists have fabricated their reporting of the trial transcripts and evidence presented by the prosecution and defence it seems that justice has not been done. The sheer improbability of the acts occurring in a busy church by the cardinal enrobed for the service stands out. No matter how convincing the accuser apparently was the proof that it happened as described should have been rejected by any reasonable jury and indeed it was by one appeal judge. How on earth the other two jurists thought it was true is staggering.

  55. min

    Cathy’s statement to police is on the internet where all that happened is described not just what a reporter wrote out of context in his article.
    police in this case did not advertise for witnesses.

  56. Farmer Gez

    On to the High Court

    On what basis? The whole point is that the majority found the evidence of the complainants compelling. The last thing the HCA will do is rerun the facts established let alone second-guess first-hand testimony given at trial. I doubt they’ll get leave to appeal.

    A 200 page dissenting opinion ought to do it.
    Weinberg’s objections to the guilty verdict cannot be ignored, considering his standing in the judiciary.

  57. C.L.

    We’ve all made references to the Shorten matter – there are troubling contrasts, to be sure – but I would no more like to see him dragged into court on the say-so of a long ago alleged ‘victim’ (without evidence) than I have liked seeing Pell so dragged. I said that at the time it was first reported and I haven’t changed my opinion about it.

  58. notafan

    The Men She Began To Meet

    Bravo CL

    it is .

    It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma;

    how Milligan, dux of Emmaus college began to meet those men. And of course a women whose Catholicism ended with high school and is now near 50 would stumble and stutter her alleged piety, which was no more that doing what her parents expected, rather than personal faith.

    Will anyone ever spill the beans on the

    The Men She Began To Meet

  59. notafan

    Isn’t it funny how people brush aside the verdict of Justice Weinberg; and forget that the legal process is not yet over?

  60. PhillipW

    Tim – I was an alter server at a cathedral as well, for 10 years, and I agree that there is absolutely no chance that a bishop would be in the sacristy by himself.

  61. dan

    A 200 page dissenting opinion ought to do it.
    Weinberg’s objections to the guilty verdict cannot be ignored,

    A minority judgement is never ignored and some dissenting judgements have indeedcreated entirely new areas of law, but I still don’t see what the grounds of appeal are. It’s a fact-dependent case, heavily reliant of cross-examination of witnesses at trial and I don’t think leave will be granted. Still, we’ll know soon enough.

  62. Leigh Lowe

    I think the assessment of VikPol and ABC being on a similar course and communicating via ESP is a little generous.
    I believe Milligan was probably receiving background briefings from VikPol.
    “Information sharing” I think it might be called.

  63. Leigh Lowe

    C.L.

    #3137997, posted on August 22, 2019 at 10:41 am

    The evidence of the complainants?
    There was more than one?

    Ah yes.
    “Multiple offences and multiple victims”.
    The oft-repeated mantra of VikPol in the early stages to create an impression in the public’s mind of “where there is smoke there is fire.”

  64. Farmer Gez

    Sorry Dan but the case is very short on facts.
    It’s a testimony driven verdict.
    If you don’t believe J’s version of events then no physical or witness supports the conviction.
    I would love to see facts. I’m open to the thought that Pell could be guilty but not on the scenario put to court.

  65. iain russell

    Weinberg is right!

  66. dan

    Sorry Dan but the case is very short on facts.
    It’s a testimony driven verdict.

    You may well believe that the facts established in the jury and majority verdicts were wrongly arrived at, and you may even be right, but that doesn’t make it a law-based appeal to the HCA rather than a fact-dependent appeal. The verdicts are based on testimony, cross-examination, exhibits and circumstantial evidence all of which generally are not reopened at an HCA appeal.

  67. C.L.

    Dan, how is leave granted re the HC?
    What’s the process?

  68. Infidel Tiger

    Great piece of writing CL. The back story and the plotting to get it to this stage is intriguing – and should be terrifying for all.

    What purpose was served by introducing the video evidence I’ve wondered at. But the starting point is, and remains, as all the judges accepted, that the onus is on the crown to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and Pell has both a right to silence and protection against self-incrimination. He was perfectly entitled not to give evidence and the jury and court must not reason from his failure to do so.

    It does appear however that not letting Pell testify was seen as an admission of guilt by tbe jury. No doubt our civics illiteracy has played against him.

  69. pete m

    Dan, the high court can accept appeals where justice needs to be done. It is not solely on questions of,law or national importance.

    Further, how the jury dealt with reasonable doubt, and the court of appeal dealt with their obligations, are questions of law of national significance given the number of dated sex abuse trials running now.

  70. dan

    Dan, how is leave granted re the HC?
    What’s the process?

    It’s all here. Basically there is a hearing before HC justices to assess whether leave is granted. The issue needs to be re:

    (a) whether the proceedings in which the judgment to which the
    application relates was pronounced involve a question of law:
    (i) that is of public importance, whether because of its general
    application or otherwise; or
    (ii) in respect of which a decision of the High Court, as the final
    appellate court, is required to resolve differences of opinion
    between different courts, or within the one court, as to the state of
    the law; and
    (b) whether the interests of the administration of justice, either generally or
    in the particular case, require consideration by the High Court of the
    judgment to which the application relates.”

    (Judiciary Act)

  71. mh

    Victoria – One Belt One Road One Justice System.

    Beijing approves.

  72. Pedro the Ignorant

    Bravo, CL. Very impressive post.

    A Tour de Force indeed.

  73. DaveR

    Saying Pell’s accusers must be believed because they are not psychotics is a weirdly low bar for establishing their soundness.

    But that’s exactly what the majority Apellate judges did. And they used that belief as a basis to reject Pell’s alternative explanation, and consequently his appeal.

  74. J.H.

    “… But somehow Milligan – or, more to the point – a revoltingly ugly mentality walked away triumphant this morning from a car crash. We can only hope a second appellate sequel is in the making to right the wrong.”

    We can only but hope, but I wouldn’t count on it. The hatred for Catholics in this country has been well cultivated.

    …. and then there is the corruption within the Victorian Police. Situations like Lawyer X don’t just happen within a healthy Jurisprudence and its law enforcement. That sort of corruption can only happen in a system that is sick to its very foundations. The persecution of Cardinal Pell is just another disgrace of a disgraced system.

  75. DB

    I’m a lapsed Catholic and no fan of Cardinal Pell of the Church, but based on what I have read of the evidence, it seems to me that a gross injustice has been done to Pell.

  76. calli

    Thank you C.L. Excellent work.

    I will need to read it several times to get the full impact. Bookmarked.

  77. Dan – I don’t have access to a law library now, but I expect that in deciding an appeal under the Judiciary Act the High Court can uphold an appeal on the basis that the decision of the lower court was unreasonable on the basis that the lower court could not, acting reasonably, have arrived at the decision . The High Court can, if it wants, easily justify taking on the appeal. Note in particular that the court can focus on the particular case, and the wide discretionary judgements it is required to make.

  78. Amadeus

    Victoria might be better known in future as “The People’s Republic of Crap”.
    Even people without a three digit IQ could easily conclude that on the basis of factual evidence, there was no case for GP to answer. My reasoning is based on the following:
    (a) the supposed “other” victim, who has passed away, had admitted to his mother that nothing happened – allegation/claim should have been thrown out;
    (b) the vagueness in recollection by the surviving “victim”, upon which the prosecutors case against GP was mounted, that the allegation of sexual assault was unsubstantiated – the ubiquitous “ordinary person in the street” would reasonably conclude that nothing happened – allegation/claim should have been thrown out;
    (c) the selective manner in which the Victorian Police appear to have fabricated their evidence plus the mountain of orchestrated abuse from the anti-Pell brigade in all forms of media/commentariat in the lead up to the conviction simply meant that GP was set to become a scapegoat, bugger the truth, bugger the normal rules of evidence, bugger justice.

    Evidently, Ferguson and Maxwell considered blatantly flawed claptrap from the only supposed victim was sufficient for them “to feel he was a truthful person” vis-a-vis GP. Clearly, these two judges need re-education on “Rules of Evidence: 101”.

    The hysterical #MeToo rabble have made a mockery of justice in relation to GP. One can only hope that this case becomes another turning point where emotive, irrational victimhood hysteria is seen for the fakery that it is.

    I feel sorry for actual victims of abuse whose path to justice has been frustrated and sidelined by vacuous twits and liars, including Milligan and her coterie at the ABC.

  79. Viva

    Ah yes.
    “Multiple offences and multiple victims”.
    The oft-repeated mantra of VikPol in the early stages to create an impression in the public’s mind of “where there is smoke there is fire.”

    This strategy was used against Rolf Harris with a line-up of highly publicised accusers making uncorroborated claims

    Quote from
    https://misesuk.org/2014/07/05/rolf-harris-beyond-reasonable-doubt-2-attachments/

    Some will doubtless say that even if individually these are not compelling, when taken as a whole they paint a picture of an abuser. This is a very dangerous conclusion, lots of nonsense is still nonsense:

  80. DaveR

    Apart from the further steps in this case to come, the proceedings have the capacity to shine further light on the actions of Victoria Police and Louise Milligan in bringing it to court.

    With everything that has happened since this case commenced, the now deeply discredited Victoria Police may face some further investigation into its actions and possible association with Milligan. FOI application anyone?

    And with the significant changes in social attitudes to sexual offences and corruption, perhaps the curious shelving of the allegations against Shorten and the apparent lack of Police action may be looked at.

    “This is the best police force in our nation and that’s not by accident its because of leadership over many years,” Mr Andrews said. (December 2014)

    How wrong he was.

  81. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    So wait.

    On this thread today, it was posited that VIKPOL did not volunteer exculpatory evidence.

    The Victorian criminal justice system scandal just gets worse and worse.

  82. Dr Fred Lenin

    The Vicorian DPP has been brought into disrepute by prosecuting these unsubstantiated charges on such flimsy innuendo ,certainly not evidence ,guilt by allegtion is not admissable evidence .
    Now they are deep in the mire of the lawyer x fiasco again the fault of the Vicpol cretins . Vicpol was formerly the Victorian Police Force a good goup , untill the left imposed nixon on it ,then overend a Canberra lefty . I. Remember a NSW senior detective telling a group of us that the cops in Sydney had a send off for nixon and she wasnt invited .. Typical of the left ,stuff everything they touch . Wonder if they will fast track the HC appeal ? Usually a long wait for appearances there ,and GP is no a young man .

  83. JC

    Bio.
    I don’t think Milligan went to uni, otherwise this and other bios I skulked through would have said, but don’t despair, she has the regulation Walkley. I was half expecting either UTS or Deakin.

    Louise Milligan

    Louise Milligan is an investigative reporter for the ABC TV Four Corners program. She covered the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Abuse. Her exclusive stories for the ABC TV 7.30 program on the allegations against George Pell won her two Quill Awards from the Melbourne Press Club, including the Gold Quill for best story of the year, the highest honour in Victorian journalism. For this book, in 2017 she was awarded the Walkley Book Award and the Sir Owen Dixon Chambers Law Reporter of the Year Award. In 2018 Milligan was shortlisted for the Australian Book Industry Awards Small Publishers’ Adult Book of the Year, Highly Commended in the Non-Fiction category for the Davitt Awards and won the Civic Choice Award for the Melbourne Prize for Literature. Milligan is Irish-born and was raised a devoted Catholic.

    This is really disturbing. The troll (and Milligan is a form of Catholic troll) is using her own kid and her neighbor’s son in a peedo re-enactment. That’s really, really fucked up.

    As an aside, she’s really put of the pounds of late.

    Great carving, CL. I wanted to make sure she was aware of the post, but the troll blocked me form her twitter account a long time ago.

  84. Lee

    Paul Collits makes some very pungent comments about Victoria police, mainly under Ashton:

    https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2019/08/ashtons-circus-victorias-blue-clowns/

    Including their part in the Pell affair.

  85. JC

    C.L.
    #3138021, posted on August 22, 2019 at 11:03 am

    We’ve all made references to the Shorten matter – there are troubling contrasts, to be sure – but I would no more like to see him dragged into court on the say-so of a long ago alleged ‘victim’ (without evidence) than I have liked seeing Pell so dragged. I said that at the time it was first reported and I haven’t changed my opinion about it.

    Naaa fairness these days is for schmucks. Just go with the flow and on that basis tits should fry.

  86. Leigh Lowe

    The next two fields of battle.
    Firstly there is the “confessional seal” debate. The Church needs to manage this very carefully. I have no doubt various Milligan types will confess to child abuse and tape it on their mobile phones, and then provide it to Plod. You may ask why they would expose themselves to the possibility of conviction for child abuse. Well, they won’t. The law will be framed so that the offence of “failing to report” will not be dependent upon whether the subject-matter of the confession results in a conviction or not. In fact, the one setting the trap will be hailed as “a brave campaigner against child abuse”.
    The Church is in a no win here.
    If there are reports, the legislation is vindicated.
    If there are no reports, what are they hiding?
    The second specific issue is the inquest into the murder of Maria James in 1980, which has been the subject of a very jaundiced podcast, “Trace”.
    One of the suspects named by the podcast is the local priest, one Father Bongiorno (since deceased, and not Bung-Journo).
    The podcaster popped up on telly over the weekend and started spouting about “the involvement of the Catholic Church”. Not even she has suggested so far that the broader church hierarchy had any involvement, but the seeds of that angle have been planted.

  87. notafan

    Monash Law degree and a journalism diploma from rmit jc

    you can still tweet it with #louisemilligan or get someone to put it on her facebook page or on Instagram

  88. JC

    Fan

    Can you link it as I looked through several bios and there was no mention of any uni. Maybe once you score a Walkley past bio lines are no longer important. 🙂

  89. Googoomuck

    Rafiki Redux, I thought hearsay is statements that are made about subjects that person has no direct knowlege or experience, or relating the statements of another person. Cardinal Pell’s answers were not sworn evidence in court but nevertheless they were his response to accusations against him. I can’t understand why you call this hearsay. Equally, the statements of the complainant are not hearsay simply because he swore to them; he was making an allegation of an assault on himself. I don’t understand the status of the second complainant who died before the trial. His mother stated he denied any sexual assault. I would have thought his complaint died with him since he couldn’t be cross-examined.

  90. notafan

    Maria James

    one might suggest that the allegedly abused son could be very suggestible

    what a mess

  91. notafan

    at linkedin JC

    Education
    Image for RMIT University
    RMIT University
    Graduate Diploma, Journalism

    1999 – 1999
    Image for Monash University
    Monash University
    Bachelor of Laws (LL.B.), Law/Arts (Hons)

    1992 – 1998

  92. JC

    Oh thanks Fan.

    If you’re on Twitter, can you let the tubby troll know there’s this thread talking about her crack investigative style.. like sticking kids in a pool of water and then playing acting peedo games. She’ll get a real kick out of that.

  93. Leigh Lowe

    notafan
    #3138201, posted on August 22, 2019 at 2:12 pm
    Maria James
    one might suggest that the allegedly abused son could be very suggestible
    what a mess

    I started to write about it yesterday but my comment got lost in the ether.
    It would be a good one for C.L. or someone with that level of passion to articulate this shit to follow.
    I will try to write a summary on the ridiculous bias in that one sometime soon.

  94. notafan

    I don’t have a pseudonym on twitter JC so I shall have to pass

    no doubt LM has watchers watching

  95. Dr Fred Lenin #3138172, posted on August 22, 2019 at 1:47 pm
    The Vicorian DPP has been brought into disrepute by prosecuting these unsubstantiated charges on such flimsy innuendo ,certainly not evidence ,guilt by allegtion is not admissable evidence .

    Correct me where I’m wrong, it was my understanding that the prosecution was in fact brought by VicPlod, as the DPP had refused to prosecute – twice in fact.

  96. Tintarella di Luna

    Currently in the country in which sits the Holy See what has happened to Cardinal Pell breaks my heart. Not only because he has been made a scapegoat but because it is so clearly shows how compromised are the institutions upon which our civil society rests, and in which we the public are expected to trust.

    Someone called Mark in the comments on The Pell Discussion Forum concluded their comment with this:

    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.

    Well that explains why the good burghers of Belsen and Oświęcim went about their daily lives without concern because the legal system was valid, that all was fine and dandy with the people-murdering factories because the legal system was valid.

    The old saying is the law is an ass – and for good reason because we know those who ride, water, feed and lead that ass.

  97. JC

    I don’t have a pseudonym on twitter JC so I shall have to pass

    no doubt LM has watchers watching

    True, they’re all hyper watching what people say about them over there at the ABC. They love criticism – especially legitimate type.

    Just back to the peedo thing…

    Not only is the story disturbing when combined with the intention. It’s also moronic. Of course, if you stick young kids in a pool and start throwing them around and stuff like that, they’ll love it. You don’t need to play act a peedo game to prove it. However, the crack tubby investigator needed to. FMe.

  98. notafan

    the dpp may have twice refused the brief satp but nevertheless the dpp prosecuted the case

  99. old bloke

    Thank you CL.

    From February that year, I began to meet men who made extremely concerning allegations about the Cardinal, going back decades.

    This really needs to have a spotlight shone on it.

  100. Tintarella di Luna

    Firstly there is the “confessional seal” debate. The Church needs to manage this very carefully. I have no doubt various Milligan types will confess to child abuse and tape it on their mobile phones, and then provide it to Plod. You may ask why they would expose themselves to the possibility of conviction for child abuse. Well, they won’t. The law will be framed so that the offence of “failing to report” will not be dependent upon whether the subject-matter of the confession results in a conviction or not. In fact, the one setting the trap will be hailed as “a brave campaigner against child abuse”.

    More goats eh? First a scapegoat, the a Judas goat – righteous

  101. the dpp may have twice refused the brief satp but nevertheless the dpp prosecuted the case

    Thank you.
    Received & understood.
    As Fred Lenin said:
    Vic DPP = has been brought into disrepute by prosecuting these unsubstantiated charges on such flimsy innuendo ,certainly not evidence ,guilt by allegtion is not admissable evidence .

  102. Tintarella di Luna

    Congratulations C.L. great writing, very informative and scathing – must be very crowded up there atop Mount Get Pell.

  103. calli

    Yes, Tinta.

    But, like Everest, the dangerous bit is getting down.

    I hope they stay up there preening in the Death Zone just a little too long.

  104. Elizabeth (Lizzie) Beare

    I mean wrongly as a matter of law, but not as a matter of common sense. We will never know how the jury reasoned if course.

    Possibly as did the Women’s Weekly, for women jurors may have been readers and subject to its influence in all manner of things. This magazine in recent years has become woke central when it comes to adulation and promotion of Labor politicians and other icons of the political left. Recall Gillard knitting the kangaroo. The AWW is not unlike the rest of the MSM in that regard, but even more pernicious in that by tradition it lays claim to responding to and representing the average Australian woman. It does this in the same way that Qantas lays claim to being a uniquely Australian phenomenon, something more than a mere airline. Hence the AWW is regarded as an institution of moral probity and decency. It is not, of course. It is a Labor hack’s playground. But no-one tells the readers that and many are fairly apolitical so they accept what they read from this source as valid and useful information.

    Fair trial for Pell? Not bloody likely, to coin a phrase.

  105. Elizabeth (Lizzie) Beare

    Congratulations C.L. great writing, very informative and scathing – must be very crowded up there atop Mount Get Pell.

    Let’s hope that the Currency Lad pushes a few of them off and back to earth.

  106. Elizabeth (Lizzie) Beare

    I began to meet men

    Yep. Just accidentally stumbled journalistically across them hanging around the station.
    The police station.

  107. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    This is really disturbing. The troll (and Milligan is a form of Catholic troll) is using her own kid and her neighbor’s son in a peedo re-enactment. That’s really, really fucked up.

    Good god, what a bizarre lunatic.

  108. Leigh Lowe

    notafan
    #3138201, posted on August 22, 2019 at 2:12 pm
    Maria James
    one might suggest that the allegedly abused son could be very suggestible
    what a mess

    Grrr … the spaminator ate another one.
    Let me have another go later.

  109. Old Lefty

    Excellent piece – agree entirely. Two further observations, one serious and one for light relief.

    The serious one is the contrast between Weinberg’s rigorous and scrupulous attention to the evidence, and his colleagues’ appeal to supposition and flights of fancy (it is easy to imagine that) etc.

    The second is Cal’s comment ‘Jeez Louise’. That was inter alia one of the ABC programs produced by their in-house predator Jon Stephens over the course of his long career in youth TV and theatre. Needles to say’ the ABC has been silent as the tomb on his trial and conviction.

  110. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    The serious one is the contrast between Weinberg’s rigorous and scrupulous attention to the evidence, and his colleagues’ appeal to supposition and flights of fancy (it is easy to imagine that) etc.

    it is easy to imagine that should not be part of the common law.

  111. Iampeter

    So her work is marbled with harebrained suppositions, egregious cherry-picking, factual blunders, suspicious omissions, queer mysteries, adolescent prose and now discredited assertions; no doubt.

    And what you’ve posted in this wall of text is…what exactly?

  112. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    Three lines is hardly a “wall of text” you utterly pathetic and transparent leftist fake “Randian”.

  113. Robert Mc

    I began to meet men

    Deliberately attempting to draw this post to the attention of the person whom CL has targeted is imho quite unwise.

    Salacious innuendos about the above phrase would seem to be especially imprudent.

  114. Leigh Lowe

    From Notafan’s link at 2:12 on the murder of Maria James in Thornbury in 1980 (and apologies for the length of this)

    After obtaining the bloodied magazine, the ABC’s Trace Podcast had it tested at Adelaide’s Flinders University, along with a hair sample from Father O’Keeffe’s twin brother, to check if the priest can be linked to the crime scene.

    Oh?
    So we are about to have an inquest into an unsolved murder, but VikPlod releases evidentiary matter to the ABC? What if they get a red hot lead and the suspect matches what they have of the DNA, providing some sort of circumstantial evidence? A good barrister will then ask about chain of custody of evidence and find it was handed to a civilian to play with. What fucking bullshit.

    Read on dear reader :-

    There are 24 unique regions which can currently be tested.
    Of the five DNA regions that were found on the magazine, four matched those present in the hair sample.
    It’s only a partial profile, therefore not a conclusive link between Father O’Keeffe and the crime scene.
    But Professor Linacre said it also means the priest cannot be eliminated as a person of interest.

    Ah, let me rephrase that more correctly

    The evidentiary sample is of very low quality and incomplete, and could come from any one of potentially 250,000 people living in Melbourne at the time. Whilst it doesn’t eliminate Fr O’Keefe, it doesn’t eliminate 249,999 other people either.

    But Fr O’Keefe isn’t the prime suspect. He is from a neighbouring parish. The local parish priest Fr Bongiorno (not to be confused with the former Ten employee Bung-Journo) is in the ABC’s sights.
    (Wow! A 40 year old murder and the ABC’s only two suspects are both priests).
    Mrs James was (according to #1 son) going to confront Bongiorno about alleged abuse of #2 son who is somewhat retarded. It is also claimed that Fr O’Keefe is also an abuser.
    The intrepid Podcaster now discovers a tradie who was working at Fr Bongiorno’s church who saw him “covered in blood” on the day in question. Now, I can remember this murder. It was huge news. It was on the TV news every night for a week and pretty regularly for a few weeks after that, and on the front page of the three daily papers for several days, with numerous follow-ups over the years in the media. The church is only 200 metres from the murder scene and they are telling us that a guy saw someone a block from the scene and he didn’t make the connection amidst saturation media coverage, only ‘recalling it’ 25 years later?
    OK, here is another question.
    They are pointing the finger at both priests.
    So which one did it?
    Sort of can’t be both, because Plod said it was a frenzied attack done on the spur of the moment, using one of the knives in the shop/house. Unless the two priests went their in company intent on committing the crime, armed with nothing but rosary beads.
    Oh, and were there any other suspects, I hear you ask?
    Well, yes there were:-
    Suspect 1 : The bloke over the road who lives with mum and has a fetish about sexual bondage. He argued with Maria about her refusal to stock S&M bondage books in her shop. She was bound with garden twine which matched that found in this guy’s yard. Plod also discovered a Fletcher Jones dry-cleaning receipt in his room. FJ’s staff recall taking blood-stains or something similar out of his jacket. But he is dismissed as non-Catholic and therefore unlikely.
    Suspect 2 : A Real Estate agent who was in a relationship with Maria until she ‘discovered’ he was married. He had an alibi of doing a house inspection at the time. Well, we all lnow about single point alibis, but he is off the hook.
    Suspect 3 : A Telecom/PMG employee who had also had a relationship with Maria. He was hauled in for questioning but was unavailable for follow up, on account of him topping himself three days after being interviewed. Nothing to see here either apparently.
    There were other unrelated suspects in the area with a history of violence but they were dismissed because “crime of passion” and the victim and murderer must have known each other. That theory of “frenzied attack = known to each other” has been discounted in the US for about 20 years now. Thrill killers will attack with the same vigour even if they don’t know the victim.
    Who knows?
    The priest might be a legitimate suspect. But the ABC Trace Podcast is framing him as the only suspect.
    And, in an interview on one of the commercial channels over the weekend, they now they are running the story as “the involvement of the Catholic Church in the murder.”

  115. Damienski

    Inspirational piece of work C.L. If Cardinal Pell kicks this case upstairs tot he audience of 7 I will certainly send a few quid to a fund for his legal expenses.
    Having read Paul Collits’ brilliant Quadrant piece (see Lee’s link above at 2.04pm) I can’t help wondering whether there is anything worth saving in Viktoriastan. The place is going to hell in a handbasket.

  116. Cynic of Ayr:

    Looks like the Victorian corruption extends past the Police, to the Judiciary.

    Just the general vibe of the last three years has given me the hope that the Australian version of The Swamp is slowly coming to the attention of the people.
    There have been far too many sniffs of corruption to be random farts.
    In fact I cannot think of one sector of our senior governing class that has remained taint free.
    AEC redistribrutions.
    Defence procurement.
    The NBN.
    Embezzelment in the Health services.
    Major Building cost blowouts.
    The introduction of Pae*Of*** agenda into Schools.
    The Universities OS student scandal.
    ABC lies/distortions/fabrications.
    Union Lawlessness.
    The administration of Justice in Australia.
    Muslamic\african gang violence.
    Continued attempts to disarm the general populace, and in fact making it problematic of the legal and physical survival of the citizen if they are attacked in their home.
    What to do?

  117. notafan

    Thanks LL

    The abuse claim seems a convenient afterthought to me.

    Bf topped himself three days later? Definitely out of the frame.

  118. David Brewer

    I also wondered why Pell didn’t give evidence.

    Judging from his reaction at the police interview, my guess is he was so disgusted and outraged that he refused to dignify the charges by responding.

    His heart condition is another possibility – not easy to stand up to prolonged cross-examination at his age with a dicky ticker.

    It could also have been on his lawyers’ advice. The prosecution would have tried to trip him up on details of memory of events more than 20 years ago. They did a fairly good job of that with the supporting witnesses, who needless to say could only give general information about what used to happen – so much less “vivid” and “compelling” than a preposterous tale of debauchery in the sacristy.

  119. FelixKruell

    None of us can second guess the outcome in this case with any certainty – we haven’t seen the key evidence that the jury and the judges did.

    I take some comfort that another 3 independent judges have considered this evidence, and the majority of them have decided the jury’s verdict was not unreasonable. It makes me think it’s more likely he was in fact guilty. But of course still doesn’t rule out the possibility that he isn’t.

    As for all that led up to the trial – many things CL raises are concerning. But in many cases what goes around, comes around. For many years the Vic Pol (or at least some members) helped the church hide the abuse that was happening, and then later helped keep many complainants out of the legal system. It’s a little cheeky to complain when they eventually turn on you and help your opponents.

  120. JC

    Felix, you idiot. There wasn’t a concurrence by three judges.

  121. notafan

    Richter told him no. That we know.

  122. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    FelixKruell
    #3138434, posted on August 22, 2019 at 7:11 pm

    None of us can second guess the outcome in this case with any certainty – we haven’t seen the key evidence that the jury and the judges did.

    Yes, we can.

    Stop being an idiot.

    1. The accuser perjured himself in the committal.
    2. The Victorian police submitted as physical evidence, a doctored and out of context phone conversation that was tapped.
    3. The Victorian Police and VIC OPP excluded exculpatory evidence.
    4. The judges who did not uphold the appeal literally hypothesised about USING ONE’S IMAGINATION as a probanda to conclude that a guilty verdict ought to be supported.

    Would you be satisfied if you or your kith & kin were accused and tried in a similar manner?

  123. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    Oh, and were there any other suspects, I hear you ask?
    Well, yes there were:-
    Suspect 1 : The bloke over the road who lives with mum and has a fetish about sexual bondage. He argued with Maria about her refusal to stock S&M bondage books in her shop. She was bound with garden twine which matched that found in this guy’s yard. Plod also discovered a Fletcher Jones dry-cleaning receipt in his room. FJ’s staff recall taking blood-stains or something similar out of his jacket. But he is dismissed as non-Catholic and therefore unlikely.
    Suspect 2 : A Real Estate agent who was in a relationship with Maria until she ‘discovered’ he was married. He had an alibi of doing a house inspection at the time. Well, we all lnow about single point alibis, but he is off the hook.
    Suspect 3 : A Telecom/PMG employee who had also had a relationship with Maria. He was hauled in for questioning but was unavailable for follow up, on account of him topping himself three days after being interviewed. Nothing to see here either apparently.
    There were other unrelated suspects in the area with a history of violence but they were dismissed because “crime of passion” and the victim and murderer must have known each other. That theory of “frenzied attack = known to each other” has been discounted in the US for about 20 years now. Thrill killers will attack with the same vigour even if they don’t know the victim.
    Who knows?
    The priest might be a legitimate suspect. But the ABC Trace Podcast is framing him as the only suspect.
    And, in an interview on one of the commercial channels over the weekend, they now they are running the story as “the involvement of the Catholic Church in the murder.”

    Good find LL.

    What an epic crock of shit.

  124. FelixKruell

    JC:

    Felix, you idiot. There wasn’t a concurrence by three judges.

    I didn’t say there was.

    This is why it pays to read comments before calling people names.

  125. FelixKruell

    Frank:

    Would you be satisfied if you or your kith & kin were accused and tried in a similar manner?

    A whole lot more satisfied than letting you decide the case without having heard the accused’s testimony. You know, the key evidence that underpins the entire case.

  126. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    Okay. Felix would be satisfied if he was frog marched off the gaol and murdered for being a chomo after a Kangaroo drum head court and serious police and prosecutorial misconduct, as well as absurd directions given by the trial judge.

    What fucking planet are you on, pal?

  127. Elizabeth (Lizzie) Beare

    The old saying is the law is an ass – and for good reason because we know those who ride, water, feed and lead that ass.

    Perfectly put, Tinta. I was thinking along these lines myself about that saying, but nothing as pithy as you have made it.

  128. Googoomuck at 2.12. I will try to explain by examples. Suppose an issue of fact on a trial is whether X was at the MCG on Saturday 1 April. Evidence by a witness (W) that he saw X there is not hearsay. Another witness (W2) can give evidence that while she was not at the MCG, she heard X say “I was at the MCG on 1April”.This would be hearsay because W2’s evidence is of what was said out of court by W tendered by the party calling W2 to prove the fact asserted by X (ie, that X was at the MCG). On Pell’s trial, evidence of what Pell said in Rome to the police was tendered to prove facts asserted by him. That makes it hearsay. How the rule against hearsay was avoided is another issue.

  129. Leigh Lowe

    Good find LL.

    What an epic crock of shit.

    The thing I had to read three times, because I couldn’t believe it, was about the “blood stained magazine”.
    An unsolved murder and VikPlod have handed over evidence to a journo!!
    WTF!
    Chain of control over evidence, anyone?
    Unless the “evidence” is a dog’s breakfast in a beer carton and so hopelessly compromised it is worth jack-shit.
    But even so, it seems a tad reckless.
    Interesting that they did end up with a pillowslip in the evidence box which wasn’t from that crime scene.

    Bungled Evidence Used to Eliminate Priest From Investigation

    Well, no.
    Bongiorno is dead and hasn’t donated a DNA sample so has neither been matched or eliminated.
    How about … “Bungled Evidence means Everyone is Back in the Mix”?
    Standby.
    We will discover a devout Catholic ran the evidence room back in the 1990’s, so, you know …

  130. FelixKruell

    Frank:

    Felix would be satisfied if he was frog marched off the gaol and murdered for being a chomo after a Kangaroo drum head court and serious police and prosecutorial misconduct, as well as absurd directions given by the trial judge.

    And you’re asking what planet I’M on?

    All 4 judges involved are highly respected. I’ve read no credible argument that they are incompetent or biased. Pell still has the right to further appeal. This is how our legal system should work.

  131. Bugger. In my post above it should be ‘W2’s evidence is what was said by X’.

  132. old bloke

    FelixKruell
    #3138465, posted on August 22, 2019 at 7:41 pm

    A whole lot more satisfied than letting you decide the case without having heard the accused’s testimony. You know, the key evidence that underpins the entire case.

    Innocent until proven guilty is how we operate Felix. The accused doesn’t have to offer any evidence apart from rebutting the accuser’s case, which Pell’s counsel has done.

  133. David Brewer

    Richter told him no. That we know.

    Thanks, notafan. Do we know why Richter told Pell not to testify, and do you know if it was open to Pell to testify at the appeal, and if so why he did not?

  134. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    And you’re asking what planet I’M on?

    Yes of course. You said you’d be happy to be in Pell’s situation, give the four criticisms of the trials and appeal I listed at 7:17 blog time tonight.

    All 4 judges involved are highly respected.

    I don’t respect them. Kidd is clearly quite an imbecile. Facts don’t care about your feelings.

  135. FelixKruell

    Old bloke:

    Whoops, that should have read ‘accuser’s’ testimony.

  136. FelixKruell

    Frank:

    I said I’d rather be in Pell’s situation, judged by our legal system, than in your kangaroo court that doesn’t both with evidence.

    Your feelings about Kidd are noted. I look forward to seeing any facts you have regarding his competence.

  137. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    Your feelings about Kidd are noted. I look forward to seeing any facts you have regarding his competence.

    He directed Catholics to exclude themselves from the jury.

    Your wilful ignorance is noted, doofus.

  138. C.L.

    He directed Catholics to exclude themselves from the jury.

    Is there a linked article or source for this claim?

  139. notafan

    Richter advised not to iirc

    That is his general rule.

    I think there was some concern that Cardinal Pell would waffle.

    Besides which he is apparently a very reserved man and perhaps would not come across as warm and empathetic which apparently is really important it this feminized world

  140. C.L.

    Yes, I saw that,Dot. And elsewhere in our forums. But I haven’t seen it reported anywhere.

    The only vague possible reference I can find is from the Fin Review:

    Lawyers mounting the appeal against the Pell conviction will claim the jury reached an “unreasonable” verdict based on the evidence presented; that the jury selection process was flawed; and that it was wrong for the Victorian County Court to bar the jury from watching a video setting out the scene inside Melbourne’s St Patrick’s Cathedral when the alleged attack took place.

  141. Leigh Lowe

    Original quote …

    Old Lefty

    #3137530, posted on August 21, 2019 at 8:52 pm

    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?

    Yes, your average SJW would simply say, “I quite like ‘Father’ Bob Maguire, so count me in.”

  142. C.L.

    Well, I’d like to see transcript evidence. I would have thought it illegal to ban Catholics from a jury.

  143. Seco

    Well done C.L.

    It’s hard not to feel anger, I do. I honestly can’t believe and this is a hurt that will burn for a long time with Catholics who believe Cardinal Pell was the victim of a stitch up. For the Left, their job is done and they think they’ve slayed the dragon. However the church will survive and Pell will live on in the hearts of people like you and me.

  144. notafan

    Yes I think he told jurors if they are biased for or against the Catholic Church they should excuse themselves.

    Half the pool of 250 then took off. Pretty darn subjective but not a banning.

  145. Tel

    Half the pool of 250 then took off.

    The honest half.

    Everyone has some prejudice … some people also have self awareness.

  146. FelixKruell

    Frank:

    So your evidence that Catholics were excluded is a blog post?

    Yet you throw shade on the evidence considered by the courts against Pell? How ironic.

  147. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    You are cherry-picking Felix. Now go and criticise the other three points. Mind you the post was supported as actually happening, noted by Tel and notafan.

    Pell himself is not important in all of this. The importance is that his prosecution and trial were abysmal and not at all characteristic of the rule of law in a liberal democracy.

  148. dover_beach

    Great post, C.L. a tour de force.

  149. dover_beach

    Yet you throw shade on the evidence considered by the courts against Pell?

    Have you read Weinberg’s dissent? I’m hearing a lot of forelock tagging about the law, about 12 men good and true, and the like but very little of substance about the quality of the evidence for or against conviction in the case.

  150. Rex Mango

    One red herring, is we haven’t heard the ‘compelling’ evidence of the secret complainant. There is only one bit of compelling evidence he could have given and that is a detailed anatomical description, ie a distinctive mole, or birthmark, that is later confirmed by expert third party evidence. That didn’t happen, as it would’ve come out in submissions. So there is nothing compelling about the evidence at all, except the witness could dupe one out of two juries and two out of three judges.

  151. dover_beach

    If you consider the evidence presented against Pell, it was nothing more than the complainant’s testimony. There were over 20 exculpatory witnesses whose testimonies contradicted the complainant on this or that material fact. Weinberg pointed out that if you accepted Portelli’s, or Potter’s, or Mallinson’s, or McGlone’s testimony, leave alone the others, and they were never contradicted, they separately presented serious doubts about the complainant’s accusation being correct. And yet here we are.

  152. Pyrmonter

    @ Dover – yet a jury believed the complainant; as did 2 of 3 experienced judges. I find Weinberg’s reasons more cogent, but probably have a pre-disposition to do so. 12 ordinary people and 2 senior lawyers are persuaded: that testimony must be fairly persuasive. And if it’s persuasive enough, that justifies conviction.

  153. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    Why are you doing this to yourself Pyrmonter?

    Just accept the jury and 2/3 judges had/have poor judgment.

  154. dover_beach

    It was ‘persuasive’ even though it was contradicted by other several witnesses in multiple respects? What was persuasive about it?

  155. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    that testimony must be fairly persuasive.

    For the umpteenth time: the guy who gave that testimony contradicted himself in the committal. His testimony could not have happened as he first complained to the police, it would have been physically impossible due to the chronology of events.

    The matter should not have even gone to trial, let alone a formal charge.

  156. FelixKruell

    Frank:

    Pell himself is not important in all of this. The importance is that his prosecution and trial were abysmal and not at all characteristic of the rule of law in a liberal democracy.

    If his prosecution and trial were truly abysmal, he would have succeeded in his appeal. Or was the appeal abysmal as well?

  157. dover_beach

    The appeal has the advantage of an excellent and thorough dissenting opinion that will make it likely that this proceeds to the High Court. And it should.

  158. FelixKruell

    Dover:

    Have you read Weinberg’s dissent? I’m hearing a lot of forelock tagging about the law, about 12 men good and true, and the like but very little of substance about the quality of the evidence for or against conviction in the case.

    I have. But even so, we are reading a summary of his views on evidence we haven’t seen. Many of his views are contradicted by the majority. Again, without seeing the evidence ourselves, it’s hard to reconcile those views.

    All your points in the weakness of the case were part of Pell’s 13 reasons to grant the appeal. Each were considered by the majority and rejected. They tried the robes for themselves. They heard from witnesses that they don’t recall Pell being alone after mass etc. Yet the majority still preferred the testimony of the accuser. It must have been very compelling testimony.

  159. jupes

    @ Dover – yet a jury believed the complainant; as did 2 of 3 experienced judges. I find Weinberg’s reasons more cogent, but probably have a pre-disposition to do so. 12 ordinary people and 2 senior lawyers are persuaded: that testimony must be fairly persuasive. And if it’s persuasive enough, that justifies conviction.

    Are you saying that judges appointed by Labor hacks can not be biased?

    Wow.

  160. dover_beach

    If trials and state appeals were never abysmal, the High Court would only hear constitutional cases. Further, given the run of recent HC decisions overturning Court of Appeal decisions, your implication is juvenile.

  161. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    If his prosecution and trial were truly abysmal, he would have succeeded in his appeal. Or was the appeal abysmal as well?

    No, just two idiot judges.

    It must have been very compelling testimony.

    You keep on saying this. You have made up your mind because you are an anti-conservative cultural warrior. That oe you are being very sarcastic.

    I’m not a cultural warrior.

    I don’t want a “justice” system, with the following:

    1. Statements given to police that contradict testimony given in court (as the chronology was wrong to begin with).
    2. Perjury during a commital, then going to trial.
    3. A judge ordering jurors to excuse themselves on the basis on a religion they are more or less born into (think about the age of children at baptism).
    4. Police excluding exculpatory evidence.
    5. The judicial panel ignoring multiple witnesses supporting the defence argument.
    6. The police submitting as evidence, an out of context and heavily edited phone tap.

    I could go on and on. The investigation, committal, trials and appeal were a complete and utter farce.
    You have proudly boasted that you’d rather be in Pell’s shoes and trust the verdict and appeal outcome, because you think it is more reasonable than my position.

    My concern is not with Pell per se – but rather, that the same thing can happen over and over again.

  162. dover_beach

    It must have been very compelling testimony.

    Yes, yes, it was so ‘compelling’.

  163. Infidel Tiger

    If Pell dies, can his case still be heard by the High Court?

  164. jupes

    They heard from witnesses that they don’t recall Pell being alone after mass etc. Yet the majority still preferred the testimony of the accuser.

    And that doesn’t ring alarm bells to you Felix? FMD

    It must have been very compelling testimony.

    Well it was either compelling testimony from a dero or bias on the case of the jurors and judges. Taking into account the litany of lies and manifest bias by so many that led to his court appearance, it doesn’t take Blind Freddy to work out which one.

  165. pbw

    Infidel,

    Well, he was convicted of a crime against a dead man who had himself not made a complaint, and had denied to his mother that he had been abused while a member of the choir, so, why not?

  166. Old Lefty

    The direction about Catholics and those with an animus against the Catholic Church standing aside was reported in one of the newspapers after the suppression order was lifted, and to my knowledge has never been denied.

  167. C.L.

    It must have been very compelling testimony.

    What the channel Nine voice-over man might call Event Testimony.

  168. egg_

    In the aftermath of this sham, nobody should now doubt the existence of the Deep State in Australia.
    Pell’s real crime was apparently to oppose the Establishment on taboo subjects such as the myth of ‘climate change’.

    Dodson is using similar language in relation to the “Aboriginal Voice” in Parliament, where it’s heretical to even question such a concept.

    Shut.down.debate
    /Leftism

  169. dover_beach

    It must have been very compelling testimony.

    Every successful con artist gives a compelling testimony.

  170. Rex Mango

    At risk of breaking rules of repetition, there is no such thing as ‘compelling evidence’ in a rape case via a single witness. Justices Ferguson & Maxwell had no means of imagining what it would be liked to be orally raped in a church by a Cardinal after mass. Compelling evidence would be someone who corroborates a story, DNA, or something very peculiar that the witness noticed and can later be verified, ie a mole etc.

  171. Pyrmonter

    @ jupes

    My observation of our judges is that they are not partisans of the sort one associates with American television dramas

    @ Dover

    The purpose of cross examination – and Pell was represented by someone reputed to be a good a good cross examiner – is to test the credit and relevance of witnesses. In my experience, few con men survive it. The defence had, in contrast to civil proceedings, the advantage that the crown called all the witnesses – they could cross examine at will.

  172. jupes

    My observation of our judges is that they are not partisans of the sort one associates with American television dramas

    Take off the rose coloured glasses. My observation is that many of them are partisan hacks. Why do you think Rob Hulls appointed them?

  173. Nob

    Seco
    #3138549, posted on August 22, 2019 at 9:08 pm
    Well done C.L.

    . For the Left, their job is done and they think they’ve slayed the dragon. However the church will survive and Pell will live on in the hearts of people like you and me.

    And real child sexual abuse, mostly by males against males, well continue in the places we’re not looking for PC reasons.

  174. calli

    It must have been very compelling testimony.

    Perhaps.

    And perhaps it was testimony that the hearers wanted to believe.

    The ground for this second trial (and indeed the first) has been well prepared. No one, not even a judge, can escape their prejudices and preconceived ideas. They are not slates wiped clean just prior to entering the court, no matter what they might pretend to themselves regarding impartiality.

  175. I dont think so

    Amazing, thankyou for this erudite analysis of the illogical case of George Pell. Its an embarrassment and makes the Australian (Victorian) legal system a laughing stock. Pell was never going to get a fair trial in Victoria, that is the unfortunate fact. I hate child abusers but this case was so obviously cooked up.

  176. calli

    What is this cross-examination of which you speak? My understanidng was that the complainant did not have to attend the second trial and his testimony was viewed via video.

  177. Crossie

    But somehow Milligan – or, more to the point – a revoltingly ugly mentality walked away triumphant this morning from a car crash. We can only hope a second appellate sequel is in the making to right the wrong.

    High Court is full of luvvies, I don’t expect any justice from them. This is not an attack just on Pell but Catholics in general.

    And yet there is ScoMo trying to organise a religious freedom bill while watching this travesty of justice completely unconcerned.

    You know something? Catholics vote too, well for now anyway.

  178. 2dogs

    They are not slates wiped clean just prior to entering the court, no matter what they might pretend to themselves regarding impartiality.

    It was, very much, the verdict of a Melbourne jury.

  179. calli

    Yes, 2dogs. A well cultivated one. Fertilised and watered by the media and boyed by a lifetime of prejudice. Even the most self-styled “impartial” juror could not avoid the poison of blanket coverage.

    I referred to judges because they are the ones we look to to apply the law. Not what they can imagine, but what is substantiated by evidence.

  180. dover_beach

    The purpose of cross examination – and Pell was represented by someone reputed to be a good a good cross examiner – is to test the credit and relevance of witnesses. In my experience, few con men survive it

    And Richter thought he had done just that to the extent that the conplainant was exposed on a number of points but the jury just put those embellishments and equivocations aside, and couldn’t entertain a reasonable doubt even where the exculpatory witnesses were never contradicted by the prosecution.

  181. Iampeter

    Three lines is hardly a “wall of text” you utterly pathetic and transparent leftist fake “Randian”.

    I was quoting just the concluding part of his wall of text. Obviously. All of your posts are either unhinged rants that would be banned on any other forum, or complete misunderstanding of the posts you’re responding too.
    Just try THINKING before you post so you can stop making a complete fool of yourself.

    As for all that led up to the trial – many things CL raises are concerning. But in many cases what goes around, comes around. For many years the Vic Pol (or at least some members) helped the church hide the abuse that was happening, and then later helped keep many complainants out of the legal system. It’s a little cheeky to complain when they eventually turn on you and help your opponents.

    Exactly. This is what none of them want to hear. Conservatives are all about institutions (because they don’t have any ideas) but when things don’t go their way, they’re aren’t about institutions either. It must be wondrously freeing to have absolutely no principles…

    Have you read Weinberg’s dissent?

    Have any of you read the other parts of the ruling? I agree with Weinberg, but the process followed for Pell is laid out in that document and is the same as that followed for anyone else. Disagreeing with the ruling does not equal corruption or miscarriage of justice, nor are any Catholic church supporters in a position to cry about it even if it was.

    You guys are rehashing points that are either addressed in the ruling itself or have been clarified by posters like Pyrmonter in the other thread on this topic.

  182. notafan

    You are correct Calli regarding the accuser being seen only on video at the second trial.

  183. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    Pyrmonter
    #3138694, posted on August 23, 2019 at 12:30 am

    @ jupes

    My observation of our judges is that they are not partisans of the sort one associates with American television dramas

    Do you realise how much patronage occurs in judicial appointments? If you want a legal career and are aiming for the bench, you’d have to be naive not to join either major party.

  184. Pyrmonter at 12.30. You say that the Crown called all the witnesses. Did they include those who gave evidence as to impossibility and the like? Richter was not likely to cross-examine them, but could ask leading questions. Is this what you meant?

  185. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    I was quoting just the concluding part of his wall of text. Obviously. All of your posts are either unhinged rants that would be banned on any other forum, or complete misunderstanding of the posts you’re responding too.

    Okay, so now I am putrid is channelling his in fascist.

    Exactly. This is what none of them want to hear. Conservatives are all about institutions (because they don’t have any ideas) but when things don’t go their way, they’re aren’t about institutions either. It must be wondrously freeing to have absolutely no principles…

    This is brain dead. Institutions have economic value. The conservatives here just brought up the very issue you say they don’t want to talk about.

    Disagreeing with the ruling does not equal corruption or miscarriage of justice

    No you deadshit, they disagree with the ruling because it is a miscarriage of justice.

    If you think your sleight of hand can work on adults, you’re a lot dumber than you seem.

  186. herodotus

    The takeover of the Wymenses Weekly is unsurprising given the generally marched through media here and in the USA and UK, probably most of the western world.
    The zombie left have even had a go at taking over the CWA.
    They never stop because conservatives either don’t know how to stop them or are asleep at the wheel most days.

  187. calli

    Found it.

    Members of the public could hear all the evidence except a recording of the complainant’s evidence from the first trial. The complainant, who cannot be identified, did not give evidence at the retrial; the recording from the first trial was admitted as the complainant’s evidence. The recording was available to the public only insofar as it was quoted by the barristers in their examination of other witnesses or in their final addresses to the jury, and by the judge in his charge to the jury. So, no member of the public has a complete picture of the evidence and no member of the public is able to make an assessment of the complainant’s demeanour.

    So the cross-examination was done at the first trial, not the second. The jurors saw a video of that.

    Might as well have been watching an episode of Perry Mason.

  188. Frank, joining a political party is not as effective (because it is a public act) as just letting the party know you would be on their side. While I respected Dyson Heydon as a legal scholar, his Quadrant piece looked like a job application. The left-inclined are under more pressure to join up. The problem with appeal court judges is that so few have criminal experience.

  189. Tim

    Just because 12 members of the jury agreed he was guilty doesnt make it so based on the evidence. I remember a cattle duffing case years ago where the jury was deadlocked at 10 aquital to 2 guilty. That lasted for 15 minutes, 1 of the 2 guilty verdicts wanted to go to the pub. (he told me so) and the other had other things he wanted to do. So the verdict was not guilty. The problem was that the 2 that thought to defendant was guilty were the only to that understood the evidence. The case was an open and shut case. There are other cases were you get jurors that can be over powering.

    The first jury could not reach a verdict. The appeal judges couldnt either. That is a fact

    Given my experience as an alter boy I will never be convinced that what is claimed to have happened did. It is just not possible. That said I respect others right to have a different view. My view is that they are making that view due to ignorance of the workings of the sacristy or some bias. But we live in a democracy at present and as such each is entitled to their view

  190. Crossie

    On the evidence of what now is needed to have the Police launch a Rape case against an accused, Shorten should be in court next week at the latest but we all know why that won’t happen don’t we.

    That might only happen once Shorten leaves parliament or falls out of favour or Chloe decides to shop him.

  191. notafan

    People are entitled to their own opinion.

    That doesn’t change what the truth is.

  192. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    The problem with appeal court judges is that so few have criminal experience.

    Commercial equity at the bar is King!

  193. Ivan Denisovich

    The problem with appeal court judges is that so few have criminal experience.

    Perhaps a consequence of prioritising allegiance over merit when deciding appointments to the bench.

  194. Cassie of Sydney

    “That might only happen once Shorten leaves parliament or falls out of favour or Chloe decides to shop him.”

    All of which will happen….actually one already has….he has already fallen out of favour….the other two are inevitable and not far off. I doubt very much if Chloe Bryce Parkin Shorten will hang around Moonie Ponds for another six years.

  195. stackja

    Regarding George Pell’s innocence, Victoria will unlikely see the light because of Daniel Andrews’ energy policies.

  196. Pyrmonter

    @ Rafiki – yes, the crown called all the witnesses. It’s set out in Weinberg somewhere.

    @ Frank – but that the commercial equity lawyers ruled – that’s an area involving evaluation of credit. It’s the industrial and family hacks of both sides whom I think weakest. This was not, perhaps, the best court that could be compiled, but not the worst, either. The constant harping about their supposed political allegiances also misses the point that there are capable and honest lawyers on both sides of politics. If they’re mistaken, I don’t think it’s because Maxwell and Ferguson (whom, I should add, attended a RC girls school) have some prejudice against catholicism, unless we’re going to go the full SJW ‘unconscious bias’ stuff.

  197. In his book Protecting the Innocent, Chester Porter observed that the most convincing witness he saw was a liar (or something to that effect). In general, it will take many years of experience conducting trials (and in particular those where a lot of witnesses lie) to gain insight into the behaviour of people to fit a lawyer for criminal appeal judicial work. The commercial bar is not such a place.

  198. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    If they’re mistaken, I don’t think it’s because Maxwell and Ferguson (whom, I should add, attended a RC girls school) have some prejudice against catholicism, unless we’re going to go the full SJW ‘unconscious bias’ stuff.

    Liberty Victoria is a left-wing shill organisation. They gave Triggs their “Voltaire Award”.

    I’m suggesting any “unconscious” bias at all.

  199. Pyrmonter. Thanks. On the face of it, that was a considerable advantage to Pell, in that his lawyers were not barred from asking leading questions of their own witnesses. I wonder (fruitlessly I suppose) how the trial judge handled this if this tactic was employed. Warning the jury about the weight to be given to answers would have been useless.

  200. C. Paul Barreira

    Just by the way: what is “a devoted Catholic”?

    I take it we have removed “devout” from our ever-shrinking lexicon.

  201. max

    and Ferguson (whom, I should add, attended a RC girls school)

    So she allows herself to sit on the bench but according to Kidd (allegedly) she should have excluded herself from the jury ?

  202. dover_beach

    I don’t think it’s because Maxwell and Ferguson (whom, I should add, attended a RC girls school)

    As did Milligan. How did that work out apart from her being ‘devoted’?

  203. Mr Johnson

    My gut feel is that many in the judiciary would just like Pell to go away. It would undoubtedly be fashionable dinner-set suicide for any judge to acquit him at this point.

  204. FelixKruell

    Frank:

    No, just two idiot judges.

    So the trial judge, plus two of the appeal judges, are all idiots? Will you say the same of the High Court if they don’t grant the appeal?

    You keep on saying this. You have made up your mind because you are an anti-conservative cultural warrior. That oe you are being very sarcastic.

    I keep saying this because the testimony is the key evidence all these judges relied upon. And I haven’t seen it. You haven’t seen it. As such, we can only have faith in the legal system, and that the checks and balances built in to it will deal with any miscarriages of justice. That makes me pretty conservative by any traditional definition of the term.

  205. FelixKruell

    Jupes:

    and that doesn’t ring alarm bells to you Felix? FMD

    When several independent, respected judges consider the issue and it doesn’t ring alarm bells to them, I’m inclined to believe them. I’d still love to consider all the evidence myself and form my own views, but that’s not possible here.

  206. FelixKruell

    Dover:

    Every successful con artist gives a compelling testimony.

    Sure. But what’s the con here? Where’s the benefit? He’s spent 4 years of his life being questioned in and our of court, with all the stress that entails. For what benefit?

  207. stackja

    FelixKruell
    #3138892, posted on August 23, 2019 at 10:05 am
    For what benefit?

    Lawyer X benefit?

  208. FelixKruell

    Tim:

    The first jury could not reach a verdict. The appeal judges couldnt either. That is a fact

    The appeal judges did reach a verdict. On Wednesday. Did you miss it?

  209. stackja

    FelixKruell
    #3138898, posted on August 23, 2019 at 10:12 am

    Two confused to one not.

  210. Infidel Tiger

    Yes 2-1.

    Surely the fact there was 1 dissenter is cause for alarm.

  211. Up The Workers!

    I’m surprised that Labor’s Fatty Ashton from the “Get Pell Squad”, didn’t at least have Carl Beech, the “Get Pell Squad’s” world-renowned British expert on precisely these sort of political cases; the mentor and Investigation Adviser, appear in Court as an Expert Witness for the Persecution, and acquaint the Jury at the second trial with modern forensic Leftard investigation, audition, rehearsal, press vilification and Persecution techniques.

    Showing up in Court would certainly have been more than what the so-called “victim” of this grossly improbable “crime” did.

    The one Appeal Judge who knew what he was doing, wouldn’t have been at all interested, but the two Labor-appointed amateurs certainly would have been impressed.

    Perhaps if the dissenting Judge had instead opined that any act of alleged “molestation” was not the doing of Cardinal Pell, but was actually caused by the dreaded “gerbil worming”, there might have been a unanimous verdict.

  212. C.L.

    This guy is good:

    George Pell’s downfall began with a funeral.

    A former choirboy, who had been in a dark place, had lost his life.

    A childhood friend who shared his secret was himself struggling to leave that same dark place.

    After the funeral, he suddenly found a sense of purpose and responsibility.

    “I gave a statement to police because I was thinking of him and his family,” the man — who was one of two [so-called] victims of Pell’s sexual abuse at St Patrick’s Cathedral — said yesterday.

    Also, the coast was clear. The other boy, after all, said he was never sexually abused by anybody.

  213. stackja

    Infidel Tiger
    #3138902, posted on August 23, 2019 at 10:14 am
    Yes 2-1.

    Surely the fact there was 1 dissenter is cause for alarm.

    To many yes. But to you-know-who not.

  214. FelixKruell

    Infidel:

    Surely the fact there was 1 dissenter is cause for alarm.

    No, it’s pretty common. Especially in a case like this, where it’s effectively relying entirely on the accuser’s testimony.

  215. notafan

    For what benefit?

    for power, for fawning over by all and sundry, to pay back the church for his loss of a valuable scholarship?

    you could ask the same of carl beech, that woman in Sydney who accused the good Samaritan that helped her with her car and quite a few others who have made seemingly inexplicable false claims of sexual assault

  216. Infidel Tiger

    No, it’s pretty common. Especially in a case like this, where it’s effectively relying entirely on the accuser’s testimony.

    I think your answer shows why most people who have followed this case properly think it a complete crock of shit.

  217. stackja

    Infidel Tiger
    #3138917, posted on August 23, 2019 at 10:32 am

    Yes!

  218. FelixKruell

    Notafan:

    for power, for fawning over by all and sundry, to pay back the church for his loss of a valuable scholarship?

    He’s remained anonymous, so I don’t get the power/fawning bit? Pay back the church, sure. But 4 years of your life is a big price to pay for some revenge – a highly irrational approach. I’m surprised that didn’t emerge from Richter’s cross-examination.

    The way I see it, he’s either telling the truth, is genuinely mistaken (wrong person etc, which seems unlikely) or both irrational enough to pursue this action, yet good enough a liar to convince the judges/juries who have found in his favour. The latter isn’t impossible, but it’s certainly improbable.

  219. stackja

    One day we may get the full story.
    Someone will discover it.
    In the meantime, I believe Pell is innocent.

  220. FelixKruell

    Infidel:

    I think your answer shows why most people who have followed this case properly think it a complete crock of shit.

    It’s not just this case – many abuse/assault cases rely heavily on he-said/she-said. It’s very hard for a legal system to find the right balance between giving accusers the right to pursue justice, yet giving the accused the benefit of any doubt.

    For many years, we made it too difficult for accusers, and they consequently didn’t report. And so many abusers got away with it and abused more children (in the church and beyond). The pendulum has now swung the other way. In particular, because of the actions of the appeals courts (mainly in granting appeals by the accuser, rather than the accused). Whether’s it’s swung too far is a valid question.

    Personally I think Pell was wrong not to testify in his defence. But I say that with the glory of hindsight.

  221. Up The Workers!

    On the other hand, it could all be yet another put-up job by the Australian LIARS Party like the non-stop lies, hatred and fraud against Tony Abbott.

    Also, remember the U.S. Dimocrats’ 3 impeccable self-proclaimed “victims”: Jizzy Smellitt, Stormy Daniels and Christine Blatant Fraud?

    Didn’t the Right Dishonourable Professor, Doctor, (with the receipts to prove it) Juliar Gillard O.A.; D.C.M. (Order of the Arse; Don’t Come Monday) fly over to the U.S. to teach Killary & Co how to gillard their way to a stunning electoral victory in the U.S. version of an “Unloseable Election” back in 2016?

    These are Leftards – Never assume an improbable outbreak of honesty!

  222. stackja

    Meanwhile Michael Smith reports on BS and Juliar facing questions.

  223. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    So the trial judge, plus two of the appeal judges, are all idiots?

    I’ve said that repeatedly.

    I keep saying this because the testimony is the key evidence all these judges relied upon. And I haven’t seen it. You haven’t seen it.

    Will you stop it with this faux concern for propriety? You refused to answer three of my questions. You either know how weak the prosecution was or will not admit it.

    Short summary of why the facts don’t care about the feelings of the idiotic jurors and judges:

    Perjury of accuser. Chronological impossibility of original complaint. Likely misconduct of trial judge. Other prosecutions falling apart re: lack of evidence {countermanded by other witnesses, that is to say the opther accusers have also committed justice offences}. Police submitting a doctored an out of context phone tap. Several witnesses countermanding the accuser. The other claimed victim, denying being abused by anyone. [The father of him going for money for something not done to him, “closure” hardly qualifies as psychological harm per Annetts]. The final straw really being that two of the appeal judges have thus far incorporated “using your imagination” into the common law of Victoria and as a persuasive authority elsewhere in Australia.

  224. Herodotus

    Felix and rafiki are doing a “numbers” or a oneamp peter here, cluttering and obfuscating.
    It’s clearly a miscarriage of justice, no need for long arguments. Weinberg is right and the labor luvvies are wrong.

  225. Ivan Denisovich

    Father Raymond J. de Souza:

    For two years the Victoria police were investigating — actually, desperately pleading for victims to come forward, including with newspaper ads — with no results. They were not investigating a crime and looking for the responsible man; they had their man and were looking to hang upon him a plausible crime.

    In the end, they failed at that and had only an implausible crime to hang around Cardinal Pell’s neck.

    What did they do in those two years before they finally produced the complainant in this case? Why did the other alleged victim not come forward to Operation Tethering in the year before died? Why did the complainant only come forward after his fellow alleged victim was dead and no longer able to contradict his story? What, if any, inducements or threats did the Victoria police employ with the complainant?

    http://m.ncregister.com/daily-news/ring-of-truth-enough-to-keep-cardinal-pell-in-prison

    Good questions.

  226. notafan

    But 4 years of your life is a big price to pay for some revenge

    How do you know it was ‘four years of his life’?

    I mean the guy is claiming an altruistic motive for the sake of his dead friends family

    and he was a heroin addict

    as for the fawning

    the police, Louise Milligan, victim support, the dpp and who knows who else hanging off every word for someone who has been a long time loser?

    victim status can be a very powerful thing when you get the kid glove treatment not to mention the power of taking down the third most senior member of the Catholic Church, we aren’t talking about destroying a nobody here. A man incidentally I have no doubt has lived 79 years of chaste celibacy, who has been chased relentlessly by a mob for well over a decade, what a feather in the accusers hat to send him to prison for a vile sexual assault?

    as for cross examination , AFAIK the examination of the accuser is very limited as to scope, I would be very very surprised if Richter were allowed to impugn a sinister motive.

  227. notafan

    and don’t forget Carl Beech was anonymous for years until he himself decided to enter the public sphere.

  228. notafan

    Making a dead person central to the story seems to be a feature of these belated accusations

    the accuser in Br Tyrrell’s case waited until both his paretns and brother were dead, he also involved a Christian brother as a witness in the mistaken belief he was also dead but that was a very bad error, the brother was very, very old but still alive.

  229. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    Chronological impossibility of original complaint.

    Let’s be honest. This alone should prove the innocence of Pell and should have sent A down to HMP Barwon.

  230. candy

    The way I see it, he’s either telling the truth, is genuinely mistaken (wrong person etc, which seems unlikely) or both irrational enough to pursue this action, yet good enough a liar to convince the judges/juries who have found in his favour. The latter isn’t impossible, but it’s certainly improbable.

    Way too complex, Felix.
    I think it’s just a case of someone who tells lies from very early age (in keeping with some personality disorder/drug user) keeps lying and it’s just who they are. An untruthful and untrustworthy person who lies as a matter of course. I think criminal judges are quite aware of that kind of pathology.

  231. FelixKruell

    Frank:

    Will you stop it with this faux concern for propriety?

    Making a decision based on the evidence is kinda important. But clearly you disagree.

    Perjury of accuser. Chronological impossibility of original complaint. Likely misconduct of trial judge.

    Did Weinberg find there was perjury by the accuser? Or chronological impossibility? Or misconduct by the trial judge? I must have missed that in his decision.

    The final straw really being that two of the appeal judges have thus far incorporated “using your imagination” into the common law of Victoria and as a persuasive authority elsewhere in Australia.

    No, they haven’t.

  232. Rex Mango

    One aspect that is puzzling is the appeal judges not wanting to go behind the jury decision, when they got to see the very same video that the jury convicted him on, ie the judges saw exactly the same ‘evidence’ as the jury.

  233. dover_beach

    So the trial judge, plus two of the appeal judges, are all idiots?

    The trial judge didn’t decide the first and second case, but even if we leave that aside, judges often err, which is why we ask them to provide their reasons, and have appeals courts.

    Sure. But what’s the con here? Where’s the benefit? He’s spent 4 years of his life being questioned in and our of court, with all the stress that entails. For what benefit?

    This is precisely the same line run in defence of Ford, of Beech, and every other accuser.

  234. FelixKruell

    Notafan:

    How do you know it was ‘four years of his life’?

    It was in his statement to the press after the appeal decision came out.

    victim status can be a very powerful thing

    Yep, to me this is the only real counter-explanation that makes sense. And I’m sure that was something considered by the jury and the judges in question. They may have gotten it right/wrong, we just don’t know.

    as for cross examination , AFAIK the examination of the accuser is very limited as to scope, I would be very very surprised if Richter were allowed to impugn a sinister motive.

    By all accounts, Richter went hard. And is very good at what he does.

  235. Penguinite

    Unable to locate your audio book #Pell book #Cardinal? Please advise I’m keen to listen!

  236. Cassie of Sydney

    “notafan
    #3139000, posted on August 23, 2019 at 12:16 pm
    and don’t forget Carl Beech was anonymous for years until he himself decided to enter the public sphere.”

    Which begs the question…how long do you think Pell’s anonymous accuser will be happy to stay anonymous? These people crave attention. I think that ultimately this will be Pell’s accuser’s undoing….over the last four to five years this man has been given a lot of attention..and protection…by the ABC, by Fatty Milligan, by Vic Police and so on…..but they will drift away….onto the next target…and Pell’s accuser will be left stranded…..craving attention. After all…he has brought down a cardinal……people crave attention like they crave heroin.

  237. FelixKruell

    Candy:

    I think it’s just a case of someone who tells lies from very early age (in keeping with some personality disorder/drug user) keeps lying and it’s just who they are. An untruthful and untrustworthy person who lies as a matter of course. I think criminal judges are quite aware of that kind of pathology.

    Except there is no evidence of recent drug abuse, lying, or untrustworthy by the accuser – most accounts say he leads a fairly ordinary life now.

    Specifically, the judges who heard his testimony said:

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

  238. FelixKruell

    Dover:

    The trial judge didn’t decide the first and second case, but even if we leave that aside, judges often err, which is why we ask them to provide their reasons, and have appeals courts.

    Yep, and now the first opportunity to ‘correct’ the earlier decision has instead confirmed it. The High Court may well do the same. Even then he may still be innocent, even if guilty under the law. None of which makes any of the judges involved ‘idiots’.

    This is precisely the same line run in defence of Ford, of Beech, and every other accuser.

    Similarly, Pell’s defence is the same line run in defence of every other abuser. Which doesn’t make the line right/wrong.

    There is always a risk that the accuser is lying. I tend to think it more likely when the accuser gets something of value for doing so (actual money, fame etc), but acknowledge it’s possible even without that (as is the case here). We rely on our imperfect legal system to figure it out.

1 2 3

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.