Tomorrow

THERE will be something ironic and remarkably apt about an acquittal tomorrow for George Pell, if that’s what the High Court has decided. A man held in solitary confinement will be released into an imprisoned country. In light of the persecution and malice he has endured for years at the hands of a corrupt state, corrupt police and a corrupt media, he will not merely be free; he will be the freest Australian alive. Or not.

You  could lay on Easter and coronavirus  allusions pretty thick about tomorrow’s historic judgement.  To do so in relation to the former would be blasphemous as well as trite. It suffices to say this of the latter: a country that yawned through the calumnies, defamation and incitement-to-hatred visited upon the Cardinal deserves all the excess the state now unleashes upon it. First they came for him. Then they came for you, your job, your liberty and your future. You asked for it.

Whether the Pell appeal is upheld or the court invents new – dare I say, novel – rules of evidence to protect the Victorian justice system from total moral collapse, this grateful citizen wishes to acknowledge – above all – our own Sinclair, Andrew Bolt of the Herald Sun and Roger Franklin, Keith Windschuttle (and others) at Quadrant for their unwavering commitment to the truth. Thank you.

A final summary by Peter Westmore: Time and timing crucial to Cardinal Pell appeal.

This entry was posted in Australian Story, History. Bookmark the permalink.

87 Responses to Tomorrow

  1. stackja

    Next Friday we remember a man who was killed by jealous scribes and legal and religious scholars of the time.

  2. Fresh Pat

    This awful saga has already split families looking in from the outside. My sister and I have opposing views.
    She even believes their abc, which has toild tirelessly against Pell; conversely, Roger, Keith and others have toiled tirelessly in support of Pell.

    Victoria’s legal system should be rebuilt from scratch IMHO

  3. NoFixedAddress

    Well said currencylad and endorse your thanks also.

  4. mem

    I’ll go with: Hear, hear. Both for the sentiment and the excellent prose.

  5. John A

    mem #3395734, posted on April 6, 2020 at 12:01 pm

    I’ll go with: Hear, hear. Both for the sentiment and the excellent prose.

    Umm, dare I say: #METOO

  6. Rob MW

    Whether the Pell appeal is upheld or the court invents new – dare I say, novel – rules of evidence to protect the Victorian justice system from total moral collapse, this grateful citizen wishes to acknowledge – above all – our own Sinclair, Andrew Bolt of the Herald Sun and Roger Franklin, Keith Windschuttle (and others) at Quadrant for their unwavering commitment to the truth. Thank you.

    The most deplorable jury verdict and subsequent appeal ever handed down. The HCA should (hopefully) get on top of, quite urgently, the rules of evidence that governed the Pell case. They not only severely violated criminal jurisdiction rules (beyond reasonable doubt) but also civil jurisdiction rules (on the balance of probabilities). What has happened to Pell is unacceptable, on any measure, and quite shameful.

  7. areff

    Blushing, Lad.

    Here’s something new to stoke the fires of outrage:

    https://quadrant.org.au/sarah-ferguson-pleasecheck-your-archives/

    Quite amazing. A senior reporter never quite gets around to doing the most elementary check of her own news organisation’s clipping library.

    Give that woman another Walkley!

  8. Megan

    It’s been encouraging to me to be able read dissenting opinions on this case, especially those who labour long and hard in the interest of justice and fairness at Quadrant. I’m hopeful, but not certain, that the HC can make this utter travesty right.

    If they do I won’t be totally satisfied unless they expose and censure the legal nincompoops and incompetents of Victoriastan. They have behaved like graduates of a 29th tier law school in their disregard for evidence and the law.

  9. cuckoo

    Yes, my thanks to CL, Areff and all who have helped me through the thickets of this complex story. Though I think Bolta’s being a bit too optimistic:

    If the High Court tomorrow agrees, this will be a devastating indictment of the ABC

    If Pell is acquitted, the ABC will suffer the same ‘indictment’ that the London Metropolitan Police suffered for their gross malpractice in the Nick Beech/Operation Midland case, i.e., none at all. And Sarah Ferguson will be speed-dialling the ‘swimming pool’ complainants.

  10. Rob MW

    Sir William Blackstone:- Vol. 1, Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765) and Vol. 2, Commentaries on the Laws of England (1766).

    (Volume 1 – ‘Introduction’ – section 1 – “On the Study of The Law” – P8)

    Should a judge in the most subordinate jurisdiction be deficient in the knowledge of the law, it would reflect infinite contempt upon himself, and disgrace upon those who employ him. And yet the consequence of his ignorance is comparatively very trifling and small: his judgement may be examined, and his errors rectified, by other courts. But how much more serious and affecting is the case of a superior judge, if without any skill in the laws he will boldly venture to decide a question, upon which the welfare and subsistence of whole families may depend! Where the chance of his judging right, or wrong, is barely equal; if he chances to judge wrong, he does an injury of the most alarming nature, an injury without possibility of redress!”

  11. Delta A

    Yes, my thanks to CL, Areff and all

    Definitely.

  12. Hamish Marshall

    Well said Currency, and theirs have been valiant efforts on behalf of not just George, but us all. It must be confirmed, but if it is true that Allan Myers has funded the appeals, then we owe him a massive debt.

  13. candy

    Thank you.

    Remember too Tony Abbott visited the cardinal in prison. Not just writing an article, but went to see him as a friend.

  14. Iampeter

    I’m not sure any of what you’ve written qualifies as “ironic.”
    Also, if it does get overturned it should hopefully lead to rule changes for all similar cases. Otherwise it could be argued that it is another example of corrupt police protecting the Catholic church, providing exemptions that no one else would enjoy.

    Whether the Pell appeal is upheld or the court invents new – dare I say, novel – rules of evidence to protect the Victorian justice system from total moral collapse…

    Disagreeing with a courts ruling is not grounds for concluding a justice system is in moral collapse. This is a non-sequitur.
    Also, leftist identity politics and uncritical tribal support for Pell means rejecting a moral justice system anyway.

  15. iggie

    If Pell is not acquitted, then the HC has ruled that one person’s word against another is sufficient to go to court when there are no witnesses -ie may the best story win the jury’s verdict.
    This leaves a certain woman’s word against a certain politician open for a court hearing.
    Could be interesting.

  16. candy

    Could go either way.

    But it’s not about there being no evidence – not a skerrick of evidence. It would take 10 minutes to acquit if it was actually based on “evidence”.

    It is really ABC/Milligan vs. High Court.

  17. The most deplorable jury verdict and subsequent appeal ever handed down. The HCA should (hopefully) get on top of, quite urgently, the rules of evidence that governed the Pell case. They not only severely violated criminal jurisdiction rules (beyond reasonable doubt) but also civil jurisdiction rules (on the balance of probabilities). What has happened to Pell is unacceptable, on any measure, and quite shameful.

    + eleventy eleven thousand million.

  18. FelixKruell

    above all – our own Sinclair, Andrew Bolt of the Herald Sun and Roger Franklin, Keith Windschuttle (and others) at Quadrant for their unwavering commitment to the truth. Thank you.

    Unwavering commitment to Pell more like it. I doubt any of them (Sinc aside) seriously allowed themselves to consider whether the truth might have been that Pell did it.

  19. Robber Baron

    Pell, if released, should immediately lead a revolution against the criminal state of Victoria and call upon all Christians to defy the illegitimate Andrews Junta.

    I feel like Argentinian all of a sudden.

  20. Up The Workers!

    At a guess, I’d reckon that somebody who had $50 Million cash in defamation-compensation in his possession, could work an awful lot of charitable good works for the community. Shouldn’t be a problem in raising the cash – the H.S.U. (entirely innocent in this matter) is always good for a $20 million donation (there is a precedent, as I recall).

    Isn’t it about time that the “Royal Commission into Institutional Child Abuse” that Juliar Gillard exempted her own political party and one favoured ‘religious’ group from, should be reconvened to complete the job by inquiring specifically into those two groups which were deliberately excluded?

    The disgraceful legal crucifixion of Cardinal Pell was likely a concocted distraction from the historic alleged act of non-consensual sex with a minor at certain Geelong political event, by a major player at Australia’s most recent Federal Election.

    Also, would it be possible to acquaint the numbskull Chiefs of ‘Farce Command’ at Dodgy Dan’s “Ashton’s Circus”, with the fact that the specialised forensic technique known as “Carl Beeching of the Innocent”, is no longer highly in favour at Scotland Yard?

    It might just save them from being the subject of guffaws all around the civilised world the next time their comical partisan attempts at police-work make global headlines.

  21. jupes

    On the one hand, I can’t see how they could possibly not acquit him. There is precisely zero evidence of Pell’s guilt.

    On the other hand, I can’t imagine that such an activist court would acquit him. After all, they have deprived Pell of his liberty until this point and there is no way they are still making up their minds.

  22. One police commissioner, one magistrate and two judges positions become untenable, if the HC rules in favour of Pell.
    The ABC are also open to accusations of attempting to influence the lower courts.

    I doubt that the HC will favour Pell.

    So, get someone to pack a new toothbrush George.

  23. Rob MW

    Unwavering commitment to Pell more like it. I doubt any of them (Sinc aside) seriously allowed themselves to consider whether the truth might have been that Pell did it.

    So if they were on the jury then they would have found him not guilty, right ? – Reasonable doubt mate !

    Reasonable doubt depends on the reasonableness of the jury pool as instructed on admissibility in jury deliberations by the judge. Reasonable doubt cannot be set aside solely based on hearsay.

  24. Bronson

    yam and felix missing the point as usual – regardless of who is banged up in Barwon the prosecution case hinged on one persons word against another there was no corroborating evidence. Good luck next time you have to go to court if this becomes common law – may the best story teller win!

  25. Lee

    yam and felix missing the point as usual …

    I would hate to be on trial for my life (or liberty at least) with either of those two on the jury.

  26. jupes

    I doubt any of them (Sinc aside) seriously allowed themselves to consider whether the truth might have been that Pell did it.

    How did he do it, Felix? Do tell …

  27. Lee

    Unwavering commitment to Pell more like it. I doubt any of them (Sinc aside) seriously allowed themselves to consider whether the truth might have been that Pell did it.

    On the other hand, Felix, have you ever seriously considered the truth might be that Pell didn’t do it?

  28. Dr Faustus

    prosecution case hinged on one persons word against another there was no corroborating evidence.

    And there was a volume of exculpatory evidence.
    As you say, a challenge to the concept of ‘reasonable doubt’.

  29. George has to be odds/on to win this one surely .. The leftards have the form on the board for being losers ……. they haven’t picked a winner in years !

  30. Colonel Bunty Golightly

    Everyone seems to miss the point here! Pell has never been on trial. It’s always been the Catholic Church they are out to get. Even if Pell is acquitted the exercise has been a complete success as the Catholic Church and all who sail in her have been totally besmirched. The grubs at the ABC will ramp up their taxpayer funded anti Catholic agenda regardless of the outcome of this and bit by bit the public will be swayed. Repeat something often enough and it becomes fact! No-one in politics or the media is interested in (or game enough) to offer any contradiction!

  31. Mak Siccar

    Well said CL and heartily endorsed. Many thanks to all those who have sought shine a light on this disgraceful travesty of ‘justice’.

  32. Paridell

    Tomorrow’s judgement cannot yet be historical, because it is still in the future.

    The word you are looking for is “historic”.

    [I could have sworn I wrote ‘historic.’ Thanks. Correction made. – C.L.].

  33. Iampeter

    yam and felix missing the point as usual – regardless of who is banged up in Barwon the prosecution case hinged on one persons word against another there was no corroborating evidence. Good luck next time you have to go to court if this becomes common law – may the best story teller win!

    No one’s missed this point. What’s actually missed by tribal Pell supporters, who don’t care about the truth, is that his is already how these cases work.
    Personally that’s why I think it should be overturned. I don’t agree that a single persons testimony should be able to put anyone behind bars on it’s own, even if that means some guilty people will get away with it.

    But that’s not the reason that CL, Bolt, Blair and many others here want the verdict overturned. They want it overturned for nothing more than your run of the mill, tribal leftist identity politics reasons.

  34. FelixKruell

    Rob:

    Reasonable doubt depends on the reasonableness of the jury pool as instructed on admissibility in jury deliberations by the judge. Reasonable doubt cannot be set aside solely based on hearsay.

    No idea what that has to do with what I said…

  35. FelixKruell

    Bronson:

    regardless of who is banged up in Barwon the prosecution case hinged on one persons word against another there was no corroborating evidence. Good luck next time you have to go to court if this becomes common law – may the best story teller win!

    That has been the law for quite some time now. And isn’t what the high court is deciding one way or another.

  36. FelixKruell

    Lee:

    On the other hand, Felix, have you ever seriously considered the truth might be that Pell didn’t do it?

    Yep. As I’ve said here repeatedly. None of us had access to the key evidence in this case. I certainly didn’t. So I don’t know whether Pell did it or not.

  37. custard

    I’m a lapsed Catholic. This is because of a deep mistrust I developed of priests whilst being an altar boy when I was between 10 and 13 years old. 2 of these priests were later convicted of historical child sexual abuse.

    However if it were not for the fine writing of Roger, Keith, CL and many others at both the Cat and Quadrant I may well have followed the pack in the hatchet job of Cardinal Pell.

    I sincerely hope he is successful in his appeal tomorrow.

  38. thefrollickingmole

    1/8th of a penis sets alight to another straw man…

    Otherwise it could be argued that it is another example of corrupt police protecting the Catholic church, providing exemptions that no one else would enjoy.


    Mmmmyeeesss Cops advertising for complainants before a case is opened is extremely “protecting the Catholic church”.

    Also, leftist identity politics and uncritical tribal support for Pell means rejecting a moral justice system anyway.
    Anyone want to guess what the gibbering mouther is on about here? Its made up of words but its composition is a grab bag of cliches put together by dogwelder.

  39. the sting

    Regardless of the result tomorrow the Victorian court system should be locked down and start anew . Well written currencylad .

  40. Rex Mango

    Very well written and great work over past months, but sadly can’t see them acquitting, as they would’ve done so by now. They will do some legal tap dancing and send back to Vic Court of Appeal for more legal finessing, thus allowing Ferguson/Maxwell/Kidd/DPP/Vicpol/ABC et al to save face somewhat. If he does eventually get out, then everyone will just say he got off on a legal technicality, when in reality it’s a simple decision based purely on facts.

  41. Struth

    Well, If he is freed tomorrow there won’t be any protests allowed to gather.
    Suck shit lefties.
    Stay home stay safe.

  42. hzhousewife

    Well, If he is freed tomorrow there won’t be any protests allowed to gather.

    I was just thinking the same thing – will he be shoved out the door at Barwon and expected to order an uber?

  43. Mother Lode

    There you have it, CL. Two of possibly the greatest prizes and badges of honour you can get at the Cat: The irritated disdain of Poida and Felicity.

  44. Mother Lode

    If the appeal is upheld tomorrow all those people who have insisted that a court decision is beyond cavil and all who disagree with the court should shut up and believe as they are told will suddenly declare the appeal to be the last word in truth.

    And in a more general sense how do they reconcile the fact that appeals do succeed – so we have courts saying opposite things that can’t both be true?

    And when a person’s appeal us upheld or their conviction overturned does their actual moral guilt, their mind, and their very historical acts change on the say of the courts?

    It would be interesting to see Ray Hadley’s take.

  45. Boambee John

    It would be interesting to see Ray Hadley’s take.

    For certain very limited meanings of the word “interesting”.

  46. Cynic of Ayr

    this grateful citizen wishes to acknowledge – above all – our own Sinclair, Andrew Bolt of the Herald Sun and Roger Franklin, Keith Windschuttle (and others) at Quadrant for their unwavering commitment to the truth. Thank you.
    Indeed!

  47. FelixKruell

    Mother:

    And in a more general sense how do they reconcile the fact that appeals do succeed – so we have courts saying opposite things that can’t both be true?

    That’s why we have a hierarchy of courts. And also why appeals courts aren’t meant to simply re-decide the original case. Something Weinberg seemed to sail perilously close to doing.

  48. Rex Mango

    FelixKrudd, you legal bottom feeder, High Court can do what it wants, including re-decide the original case.

  49. kaysee

    If the HC decision is to dismiss the appeal, or if they are passing the buck back to CoA, they could have waited till next month to hand down their verdict. This month, next month, makes no difference if Pell has to stay in prison.
     
    They will be delivering their verdict tomorrow – the Tuesday of Holy Week.
    Pell will be acquitted. Hopefully, 7-0.

  50. Hay Stockard

    I sincerely hope that the cardinal gets off. A stitch up by the nastiest of leftards all the way through.

  51. Delphi

    Unfortunately I believe that even if he is rightfully released from solitary confinement, he will have to remain in some sort of protective custody. I can’t see the chattering classes taking it lying down.

  52. Lee

    “Freethinker” on the now heavily left wing troll-infested Bolt blog claims:

    The lawyer for the victim in this case advised that there are currently 8 different civil suits being prepared against George Pell. If successful in his High Court Appeal I would hope that these would proceed before he is able to return to Rome.

    I don’t know if this true or not – I have not heard or read this elsewhere – however it is irrelevant to this case.

    There is also this very presumptive nonsense from Nicholas/Uncle Quentin:

    No corroboration? Why do you think that defence counsel insist on separate trials for multiple offences? So that a pattern of behavior is hidden and their clients get off on a lack of corroboration.

  53. FelixKruell

    Rex:

    High Court can do what it wants, including re-decide the original case.

    Of course. But it usually does so as a last resort, or when circumstances demand it. It prefers to actually rule on the grounds of appeal.

  54. JC

    Yep. As I’ve said here repeatedly. None of us had access to the key evidence in this case. I certainly didn’t. So I don’t know whether Pell did it or not.

    The “key” evidence your describing was that of the accused. Why was Weiberg wrong in basically called him a liar.

  55. JC

    Yep. As I’ve said here repeatedly. None of us had access to the key evidence in this case. I certainly didn’t. So I don’t know whether Pell did it or not.

    The “key” evidence your describing was the testimony of the accused. Why was Weinberg wrong in basically called him a liar?

  56. Rex Mango

    FelixKrudd, below is your collected ramblings on this blog. You don’t say anything much at all, besides pointing out a jury found him guilty. Profound insight that:

    Unwavering commitment to Pell more like it. I doubt any of them (Sinc aside) seriously allowed themselves to consider whether the truth might have been that Pell did it.

    RoB:
    No idea what that has to do with what I said…

    Bronson:
    That has been the law for quite some time now. And isn’t what the high court is deciding one way or another.

    Lee:
    Yep. As I’ve said here repeatedly. None of us had access to the key evidence in this case. I certainly didn’t. So I don’t know whether Pell did it or not.

    Mother:
    That’s why we have a hierarchy of courts. And also why appeals courts aren’t meant to simply re-decide the original case. Something Weinberg seemed to sail perilously close to doing.

    Rex:
    Of course. But it usually does so as a last resort, or when circumstances demand it. It prefers to actually rule on the grounds of appeal.

  57. Unwavering commitment to Pell more like it. I doubt any of them (Sinc aside) seriously allowed themselves to consider whether the truth might have been that Pell did it.

    GFYS.
    I’ve no commitment to the Roman Catholic (or any other) Church whatsoever, & certainly none to any particular cleric, especially those I’ve never met and never likely to.

    I’d hang a Roman Catholic Priest, even a Cardinal, as readily as I’d hang my Bank Manager, or as readily as I’d hang you.

    However… in the case of the Priest/Cardinal I’d first require some…. y’know… actual fucking evidence.

    AFAIK in this case there isn’t actually any evidence.
    I know only what was reported in the news (something I’ve in common with everybody else except the jury & the lawyers – er.. & also hizzoner)

    The trial itself was a sick goddmaned joke.
    Those whose knowledge of the court system comes from fictional TV show & movies and thus have a belief there’s procedural fairness & an interest in the “truth”, would faint if they saw for themselves how this particular trial was conducted.

    Even if the Cardinal’s limo ran over my dog & made me really sad & apt to dislike him, I’d still be prepared to die in a ditch declaring he’s totally completely newborn-babe grade innocent of that for which he was convicted & imprisoned.

    Change my mind…………..

  58. Iampeter

    1/8th of a penis sets alight to another straw man…

    I’m sure someone like JC will be here shortly to hold you accountable for abusing other posters. He was a making a big deal about this just the other day.

    Mmmmyeeesss Cops advertising for complainants before a case is opened is extremely “protecting the Catholic church”.

    Yea, the Catholic Church getting away with, according to the RC, thousands of cases of child abuse in Australia, along with thousands of perpetrators, the overwhelming majority of which escaped justice, then was allowed to setup their own “response unit” with the blessing of law enforcement, is clearly being targeted unfairly by police. Right.

    Also, leftist identity politics and uncritical tribal support for Pell means rejecting a moral justice system anyway.
    Anyone want to guess what the gibbering mouther is on about here? Its made up of words but its composition is a grab bag of cliches put together by dogwelder.

    It’s always a sign of high intelligence to be belligerent when you’re also conceding you don’t understand what’s being said.

  59. Tim Neilson

    was allowed to setup their own “response unit”

    How many times does this have to be explained to you?

    The “response unit” was just a “complaints department”, same as any organisation is allowed to set up.

    It had no power to stop anyone going to the police or the Courts. Just like any other complaints department.

    It had no power to compel anyone to participate in its procedures. Just like any other complaints department.

    If a complainant wanted to give it a go, they did so according to the procedures – same as if you complain to your bank you follow their process to make a complaint (and if you don’t like what’s going on you pull out and pursue other avenues). Just like any other complaints department.
    It had no power to compel anyone to accept its recommendations for compensation or otherwise – the complainant was totally at liberty at all times to say “no deal” and go to the police. Just like any other complaints department.

    But, like every single other organisation in the whole world, when it did make a settlement offer, that was to be “full and final”. Organisations aren’t in the habit of saying “here’s a large chunk of money – now go ahead and sue us anyway”.
    The complainant could say “no thanks” if they didn’t regard the offer as satisfactory. Then they’d decide whether to go to the police or seek redress some other way. Just like any other complaints department.

    Iamashiteater, I know that having been unemployable your whole life you have no experience of how an organisation deals with such matters, but haven’t you ever been on the other side of some complaints process, or at least know someone who has?

  60. dover_beach

    the Catholic Church getting away with

    The Church wasn’t being treated diferently as compared to any other institution, whether it was the scouts, the public school system, what have you.

    then was allowed to setup their own “response unit” with the blessing of law enforcement

    The alternative at the time was denying any problem existed and not cooperating with the police.

  61. FelixKruell

    JC:

    The “key” evidence your describing was that of the accused. Why was Weiberg wrong in basically called him a liar.

    No, Pell didn’t give evidence. I’m assuming you mean the evidence of the accuser?

    Weinberg may or may not have been wrong. I don’t think he called the accuser a liar. Even Pell’s legal team has said he wasn’t a liar. And others who heard it preferred the accusers version of events to those of the other witnesses.

  62. FelixKruell

    Rex:

    FelixKrudd, below is your collected ramblings on this blog. You don’t say anything much at all, besides pointing out a jury found him guilty. Profound insight that:

    Thanks for that lovely summary.

  63. FelixKruell

    Salvatore:

    AFAIK in this case there isn’t actually any evidence.
    I know only what was reported in the news (something I’ve in common with everybody else except the jury & the lawyers – er.. & also hizzoner)

    There is evidence – the accusers testimony. You haven’t seen it. Yet feel informed enough to conclude the trial was a joke. Maybe stick to commenting on Judge Judy decisions from here on in?

  64. dover_beach

    The accuser’s testimony is only counted as ‘evidence’ because the Crown is bringing the charge. Beyond the accusation, there is nothing.

  65. Tim Neilson

    FelixKruell
    #3396373, posted on April 6, 2020 at 7:03 pm

    This case didn’t start with a complaint.

    It started with Ashton’s Circus announcing its desire to get Pell and asking for help.

    Under the Sussex Justices’ principle it should have been thrown out for that alone.

    It was well known that the second alleged “victim” had said that no such incident ever occurred – but proceedings were brought anyway without Pell having that evidence (because the second “victim” was dead) and the only evidence was the surviving alleged “victim”.

    Under the Sussex Justices’ principle it should have been thrown out for that alone.

    Then after one jury had failed to convict, the case was brought again, against a man in his 80’s in ill health (i.e.highly unlikely to be a danger to the public irrespective of allegations about past events) without there being any new evidence – i.e. pure jury-shopping.

    Under the Sussex Justices’ principle it should have been thrown out for that alone.

  66. FelixKruell

    Dover:

    The accuser’s testimony is only counted as ‘evidence’ because the Crown is bringing the charge. Beyond the accusation, there is nothing.

    Yep. And yep. As is the case with many sexual abuse cases.

  67. FelixKruell

    Tim:

    And all that was apropos of what exactly?

  68. candy

    Yep. And yep. As is the case with many sexual abuse cases.

    Which ones?

  69. Tim Neilson

    FelixKruell
    #3396462, posted on April 6, 2020 at 7:56 pm

    Glad you don’t disagree with me.

    Hope the High Court agrees as well.

  70. FelixKruell

    Tim:

    Glad you don’t disagree with me.

    Not sure I agree or disagree. Trying to figure out which of my comments you’re responding to first…

  71. FelixKruell

    Candy:

    Which ones?

    Most accusations against priests have relied solely on testimony by victims. Ridsdale for example. More recently David Perrett. Then looking beyond priests to teachers – the trinity college case. Darrel Harington. Scott Volkers.

  72. Tim Neilson

    Trying to figure out which of my comments you’re responding to first…

    None in particular.

    Just thought you’d like a fresh perspective on why the case should never have gone to the jury in the first place, let alone be upheld on appeal.

  73. JC

    Felicity

    You make it sound as though we know little about the testimony of the accuser. But we do, you bullshit artist. We know from the judges in each of the cases what they considered in their decisions. There are no big secrets. It’s a case of “he claims this”, “I refute that”.

    You just want to see a big wig in the Catholic Church go down. That’s all.

  74. JC

    Most accusations against priests have relied solely on testimony by victims. Ridsdale for example. More recently David Perrett. Then looking beyond priests to teachers – the trinity college case. Darrel Harington. Scott Volkers.

    Candy, Felicity is lying again through omission. Risdale had numerous accusers, which made the accusations credible. In this case there is one. Just one!

  75. JC

    In every single case before there were multiple accusers – not one. Not one who kept on changing his story.

  76. rafiki

    If the transcript of the appeal is a guide – as it should be – the High Court will only decide whether, notwithstanding that the jury found the complainant to be a believable witness, it should have had a reasonable doubt as to whether Pell was guilty. That’s all: they will not decide that he was or was not innocent. I noted in a recent post that if they decide in his favour, they might acquit on the basis that for one reason or another he should not face a retrial. I think they could do so on the basis of heavily prejudicial pre-trial publicity which, on a retrial, would now include the disgraceful Revelation program.

    I argued in a post some time ago that in the light of Pell’s refusal to give evidence (and consequently to give his account on the critical issue of what his habit/tendency was in relation to matters such standing on the cathedral steps, and to be cross-examined), in the court of public opinion there will be many who will continue to claim that he is not innocent. I am puzzled that he did not foresee this outcome. He showed no difficulty in coping with police questioning in Rome, and the examination in the Royal Commission.

    Finally, there are many such cases over the years which resulted in a male, and often a young man, spending years in jail on trumped up and false evidence of sexual misconduct. This is more likely today because (1) the law has been changed to facilitate the prosecution by protecting the complainant, permitting the manufacture of false evidence, and preventing the accused from adducing relevant evidence, and (2) the more ready acceptance by trial judges of weak evidence.
    Whether or not Pell succeeds, it would be nice to see a movement of some kind to redress this situation, including review of past verdicts.

  77. Rex Mango

    More you read about this case, more I start to think a lot of Catholic priests have been stitched up. Hi Felix Krudd.

  78. Leigh Lowe

    There is also this very presumptive nonsense from Nicholas/Uncle Quentin:

    No corroboration? Why do you think that defence counsel insist on separate trials for multiple offences? So that a pattern of behavior is hidden and their clients get off on a lack of corroboration.

    I read that too.
    Except there were no “separate trials for multiple offences” as only one complainant made it past committal.
    But the months of VikPol repeating “multiple allegations and multiple victims” has worked it’s magic.

  79. Leigh Lowe

    The thought of civil proceedings should fill Milligan with dread.
    Imagine what might surface about who was talking to who about all sorts of stuff.

  80. Iampeter

    It had no power to stop anyone going to the police or the Courts. Just like any other complaints department.
    It had no power to compel anyone to participate in its procedures. Just like any other complaints department.

    No one is saying they did. As is almost always the case, you haven’t understood what’s being said and are going on random tangents no one is arguing.

    The Church wasn’t being treated diferently as compared to any other institution, whether it was the scouts, the public school system, what have you.

    Ah yes, whataboutism. Also, even if this was true, no one’s disputing that there are other corrupt organizations that get away with things they shouldn’t have.
    Also, none of you would be defending anyone from other organizations facing charges like this, the way we’ve seen Pell defended, so there’s multiple layers of dishonesty here.

    The alternative at the time was denying any problem existed and not cooperating with the police.

    Thanks. I forgot to include this detail which further makes my argument.

  81. yarpos

    ” First they came for him. Then they came for you, your job, your liberty and your future. You asked for it.”
    what? rather a longish bow, but I guess you are feeling the Pell love and quite excited

  82. JC

    Plodes

    You’re clutching at straws and appear not to understand the gravity of this case and you are prejudiced against anyone with a religious background. This a very nasty case CDS. Catholic Derangement Syndrome.

  83. JC

    Ah yes, whataboutism.

    Whataboutism, is a central pillar of criminal law, you idiot. It’s about relativities in context to other, past cases.

    Also, even if this was true, no one’s disputing that there are other corrupt organizations that get away with things they shouldn’t have.

    Sure, but you’re pretty much focused on the Catholic church for the reason I outlined earlier. CDS.

    Also, none of you would be defending anyone from other organizations facing charges like this, the way we’ve seen Pell defended, so there’s multiple layers of dishonesty here.

    Which is both irrelevant and a case of mind reading.

    You’re terrible at this stuff. Just terrible. As bad as Felicity whose circle jerking around the oh so secret testimony… testimony the judges dealt with in great detail.

    Ask the Doc to see if he can help with the CDS.

  84. Iampeter

    Plodes

    You’re clutching at straws and appear not to understand the gravity of this case and you are prejudiced against anyone with a religious background.

    I’m one of like two people in this thread NOT doing that.

    Whataboutism, is a central pillar of criminal law, you idiot. It’s about relativities in context to other, past cases.

    HAHAHAHAAH

    Sure, but you’re pretty much focused on the Catholic church for the reason I outlined earlier. CDS.

    No. The Catholic Church is one of the most corrupt and evil organizations in human history and the single oldest enemy of Western Civilization, so for that reason I righteously hate it.
    But I’m not focused on the church at all. Again, you are describing the exact opposite of what is actually happening in this thread, with me advocating that it shouldn’t matter who Pell is as long as the law is applied equally, while Pell supporters don’t give two shits about the rule of law and want special treatment only because he is a Catholic. You’ve basically played the leftist, identity politics, victim playbook without missing a step.

    Which is both irrelevant and a case of mind reading.

    Except it’s relevant to pointing out your glaring hypocrisy as one of the many layers of dishonest from Pell supporters and leftists playing their identity politics on what is meant to be a right wing blog.

Comments are closed.