Pell judgement day

UPDATE I: CRUSHING DEFEAT FOR THE LEFT, THE ABC, THE VICTORIAN POLICE, THE VICTORIAN CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM.

 

Update II: Summary Judgement here.

The Court held that, on the assumption that the jury had assessed the complainant’s evidence as thoroughly credible and reliable, the evidence of the opportunity witnesses nonetheless required the jury, acting rationally, to have entertained a reasonable doubt as to the applicant’s guilt in relation to the offences involved in both alleged incidents. With respect to each of the applicant’s convictions, there was, consistently with the words the Court used in Chidiac v The Queen (1991) 171 CLR 432 at 444 and M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487 at 494, “a significant possibility that an innocent person has been convicted because the evidence did not establish guilt to the requisite standard of proof“.

Emphasis added.

UPDATE III: Full judgement here.

As will appear, the Court of Appeal majority’s findings ought to have led to the appeal being allowed. It follows that the order of the Court of Appeal must be set aside and in its place the appeal to that Court allowed, the applicant’s convictions quashed and verdicts of acquittal entered.

On any view of the matter, acceptance of A’s account involves that the applicant was not acting in accord with his regular practice and that he was an opportunistic sexual predator. A’s account would be neither more nor less inherently credible if the archbishop’s sacristy had been available for the applicant’s use at the time.

There is no requirement that a complainant’s evidence be corroborated before a jury may return a verdict of guilty upon it. Nonetheless, it was not correct to assess the capacity of A’s evidence to support the verdicts on a view that there was independent support for its acceptance. And it was, with respect, beside the point to find that it was open to the jury to view A’s knowledge of the priests’ sacristy as independent confirmation of him having been inside it.

On the Court of Appeal majority’s findings, the applicant submitted, it was evident that the jury, acting rationally, ought to have entertained a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. The prosecution conceded that the offences alleged in the first incident could not have been committed if, following Mass, the applicant had stood on the Cathedral steps greeting congregants for ten minutes. Their Honours’ conclusion that it was reasonably possible that the applicant had not adhered to his practice on the date of the first incident necessarily carried with it acceptance that it was reasonably possible that he had.

Emphasis added.

The applicant adopted Weinberg JA’s analysis of his submission below with respect to the “compounding improbabilities”. His Honour distilled the applicant’s case to ten claimed compounding improbabilities.

  1. In this Court, the respondent correctly noted that a number of the claimed improbabilities raise the same point. It remains that acceptance of A’s account of the first incident requires finding that: (i) contrary to the applicant’s practice, he did not stand on the steps of the Cathedral greeting congregants for ten minutes or longer; (ii) contrary to long-standing church practice, the applicant returned unaccompanied to the priests’ sacristy in his ceremonial vestments; (iii) from the time A and B re-entered the Cathedral, to the conclusion of the assaults, an interval of some five to six minutes, no other person entered the priests’ sacristy; and (iv) no persons observed, and took action to stop, two robed choristers leaving the procession and going back into the Cathedral.
  2. It suffices to refer to the evidence concerning (i), (ii) and (iii) to demonstrate that, notwithstanding that the jury found A to be a credible and reliable witness, the evidence as a whole was not capable of excluding a reasonable doubt as to the applicant’s guilt.

The Court of Appeal majority’s treatment of what their Honours rightly identified as the critical issue in the case was wrong for two reasons. First, Portelli’s evidence was unchallenged. Secondly, their Honours were required to reason in a manner that is consistent with the way in which a jury would be directed in accordance with the Jury Directions Act2015 (Vic). Their Honours were required to take into account the forensic disadvantage experienced by the applicant arising from the delay of some 20 years in being confronted by these allegations. Their Honours, however, reasoned to satisfaction of the applicant’s guilt by discounting a body of evidence that raised lively doubts as to the commission of the offences because they considered the likelihood that the memories of honest witnesses might have been affected by delay.

Emphasis added.

The Court of Appeal majority acknowledged that there was general consistency and “substantial mutual support”, in the account of the opportunity witnesses, as to what occurred after Sunday solemn Mass in the period when the applicant was archbishop. And, as their Honours also acknowledged, a defining feature of religious observance is adherence to ritual and compliance with established practice. However, their Honours again discounted this body of evidence, …

Emphasis added.

  1. There was a powerful body of evidence of the applicant’s practice of greeting congregants on the Cathedral steps following Sunday solemn Mass and that, while the length of this “meet and greet” varied, it occupied at least ten minutes. The applicant’s practice in this respect contrasted with that of his predecessor, Archbishop Little. Portelli served as master of ceremonies for both and it might be thought unremarkable that he should recall that on the first and second occasions on which the applicant, as the new Archbishop of Melbourne, celebrated Sunday solemn Mass in the Cathedral, he had greeted congregants as they left after the service.
  2. The respondent’s reliance in this Court on the two choirboys’ evidence, that sometimes the applicant processed back to the Cathedral with the choir, is no answer to Portelli’s evidence concerning the solemn Masses on 15 and 22 December 1996. Moreover, their evidence hardly calls into question the evidence of the opportunity witnesses of the applicant’s practice of greeting congregants after Mass.

The Court of Appeal majority concluded that it was “quite possible” for the priests’ sacristy to have been unlocked and that A and B might have entered the priests’ sacristy after the altar servers had bowed to the crucifix. Their Honours further concluded that it was open to the jury to find that the assaults took place in the five to six minutes of private prayer time, before the “hive of activity” in the priests’ sacristy, including the clearing of the sanctuary by the altar servers, commenced.

The possibility for which their Honours allowed is not without difficulty. A, a soprano, was close to the front of the procession. If A and B broke away from it and re-entered the Cathedral through the door of the south transept and went through the double doors into the western end of the sacristy corridor, it might reasonably be expected that they would have encountered the altar servers. The altar servers were at the front of the procession. There were at least six of them and there may have been as many as 12. Those in the front of the procession waited for the two servers bookending it at the rear and then they bowed in order to the crucifix. A further oddity is that A and B did not encounter any concelebrant priests in the sacristy corridor or the priests’ sacristy, notwithstanding that concelebrant priests would be expected to have gone into the priests’ sacristy to disrobe after the procession broke up. It was Finnigan’s evidence that there were other priests concelebrating solemn Mass on 15 and 22 December 1996.

Emphasis orignal.

UPDATE IV: Sky News Headline

Cardinal Pell’s convictions ‘quashed’ in shock appeal

FFS! In what way is this a “shock”?

This entry was posted in Open Forum, Rule of law. Bookmark the permalink.

912 Responses to Pell judgement day

  1. notafan

    Ten thousand a day seems reasonable.

    Victoria put him in prison.

    Victorian taxpayers can pay.

    We pay for every other boondoggle and fakeart.

  2. Cpt Seahawks

    How long did it take Monty to reappear after Trump won in 2016? It was months ?

  3. Rex Mango

    Leigh L, that is disgraceful that such a scatter gun approach got in-front of a jury. Particularly with the advantage that the passage of time gives to the prosecutor. Amongst many clowns (hello FelixKrudd) in this complete rock show, there is the Committal Magistrate, who was on air with John Faine & Milligan before the trial.

  4. Rex Mango

    The Committal hearing was also a chance for the prosecution to fine tune it’s case and perhaps the system might have worked if the jury had seen the prosecution case from the beginning. The whole system broke down completely.

  5. Bar Beach Swimmer

    The presumption of innocence is not supported by the Premier

    FG, not just the presumption of innocence and actual finding of not guilty.

  6. Nick

    LL, you’d think that such a red letter day would be remembered with certainty.

  7. Rex Mango

    Nick, problem is a whole bunch of social scientists have built careers analysing victims. They have come up with a couple of rules, which the legal profession has swallowed and obviously the Vic Court of Appeal. First rule is if anything the victim says doesn’t make sense, it is because of the abuse. Second rule is abusers are manipulative, so if anything they say does make sense, it is because they are abusers.

  8. Leigh Lowe

    JC

    #3398688, posted on April 7, 2020 at 7:15 pm

    Do people recall how Felicity was always babbling on about da secret testimony… testimony that everyone knew what was said anyway. He would say we didn’t hear this très secret discourse so we shouldn’t pass judgement and that the courts found the accuser to be credible.

    The go-to shut up line for all ABC types like Faino.
    “Oooh, if you knew what I know, you wouldn’t say that.”
    Leave aside for a moment the question of how people who hadn’t attended the hearings had knowledge of suppresed testimony.
    This was clearly part of narrative control.

    “Defenders of Pell will look very silly if all evidence comes out.”

    The High Court just blew that up.

  9. Bar Beach Swimmer

    We’re not the Federal Reserve

    But, JC, the only way Victoria can change if Victorians do pay for this debacle. Otherwise, they’ll be someone else who’ll at some time in the future have to go through this dishonest abuse of process, despite no actual evidence. Victorians may well express their disgust at VicPol, the Judiciary and your govt if they have to pay through the hip pocket. And let’s face it, Victoria is the most rabidly Left wing state in Australia. It may wake up the idiots that walk among you and your neighbours if the hip pocket nerve of all undergoes some sensitisation.

  10. BrettW

    Actually take it out of the VICPOL overtime budget. It is not like they do much actual police work anyway.

    If any of the so called Detectives from the Get Pell squad are still in the police they could be re-deployed to other vital duties such as ticketing people for teaching family members how to drive.

    notafan
    #3398780, posted on April 7, 2020 at 8:02 pm
    Ten thousand a day seems reasonable.
    Victoria put him in prison.
    Victorian taxpayers can pay.
    We pay for every other boondoggle and fakeart.

  11. Leigh Lowe

    The applicant sought leave to appeal against his convictions to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria (Ferguson CJ, Maxwell P and Weinberg JA). He was granted leave on a single ground (ground 1), which contended that the verdicts were unreasonable and could not be supported by the evidence

    And the appeal succeeded on that basis.
    7-Zip.
    Yeah.
    Like, no evidence, dude.
    A mere technicality.

  12. Nick

    7-0 from the HC who gave us the abbo genetic citizenship decision. Remember that Cats. How obvious must the Pell case have been ?

  13. FelixKruell

    Rex, Infidel and JC:

    I see. None of you can point to anything I actually got wrong. What frauds.

  14. Leigh Lowe

    According to Blot, the DPP refused to fund the case.
    VikPol picked up the tab.
    At the same time they were throwing shitloads of legal fees at trying to suppress Gobbo’s identity.
    So.
    How much did they push to raise in dodgy “road safety” fines to pay for this?
    How many country and outer suburban stations were cut to fund these crusades?

  15. FelixKruell

    Leigh:

    Leave aside for a moment the question of how people who hadn’t attended the hearings had knowledge of suppresed testimony.

    That was my entire point. None of us saw the key evidence. All we could rely on is the summaries by the various judges. Anyone claiming Pell could only be innocent was barracking for a side.

  16. Leigh Lowe

    Nick

    #3398860, posted on April 7, 2020 at 8:37 pm

    7-0 from the HC who gave us the abbo genetic citizenship decision. Remember that Cats. How obvious must the Pell case have been ?

    I don’t think even those running the case thought it was much of a chance.
    The whole plan was just to defame Pell, perhaps end up with a hung jury or maybe get a minor conviction if they got lucky.
    They were probably gob-smacked when the initial verdict came in.
    Would love to know the identity of the jurors.
    What is the betting a juror contacts Milligan some time soon.

  17. Leigh Lowe

    Anyone claiming Pell could only be innocent was barracking for a side.

    The side which now has seven High Court judges on the team.

  18. notafan

    No

    They were looking at the evidence and saying what the heck?

  19. WDYSIA

    I’m very happy that Pell was so emphaticallt acquitted but I do realise that he needed to spend a lot of money on a crack team. That crack team are merely guns for hire and are part of the corrupt system that actually put him there in the first place. For example, Ruth Shann was involved in this travesty of justice https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/the-crack-legal-team-that-arranged-a-qc-sons-plea-deal/ar-AAINxYq Walker himself will be trying to shut down free speech and academic freedom as he’s been hired by James Cook University to attack Peter Ridd.
    It is very clear that the Victorian legal system in particular is very sick but you are unlikely to get people within it calling for reforms. You certainly won’t get Dan initiating any inquiries. So while I am very happy for Cardinal Pell, I remain very fearful, especially for the little guy.

  20. Tintarella di Luna

    The ABC and the mainstream media will never give up – puts me in mind of this from the Barber of Seville

  21. Nick

    Anyone claiming Pell could only be innocent was barracking for a side.

    The side of reality

  22. Rex Mango

    FelixKrudd, like a dog returning to eat it’s vomit you are a disgusting troll. You are too cowardly to admit you were wrong & so stupid you keep coming back to prove how dumb you are.

  23. Oh come on

    Pope Francis
    @Pontifex
    In these days of #Lent, we’ve been witnessing the persecution that Jesus underwent and how He was judged ferociously, even though He was innocent. Let us #PrayTogether today for all those persons who suffer due to an unjust sentence because of someone had it in for them.

    Is this real? Did he really tweet this? You’re pulling my leg.

  24. Infidel Tiger

    Frank was referring to Holy Tuesday.

    Serendipitously it also happens to be Cardinal Pell’s complete and flawless victory day.

  25. BrettW

    Part of Hettys Johnson’s article in Courier Mail today.

    Actually if Pell did not have the financial backing he had he would be in jail for crimes he did not committ.
    For Ray Hadley and Johnson justice means if you are accused nothing you say will help your defence and should just skip the trial and go to sentencing.

    Her article is a shocker and Qld dodged a bullet by not electing her to Senate.

    “For those of us fighting this already unjust legal system, this decision just adds weight to the notion that if you have the money, power and influence then you too can defeat justice. And worse, you can set a precedent that will aid other predators to do the same.

    We believe this decision is a disaster in protecting children against sexual predators in Australia.

    My heart is with victims everywhere. Our system must change and now.

    There could have been no deeper nor decisive blow to our legal system than that which has just been handed down. Never before has the Charles Dickens – Oliver Twist adage, ‘the law is an ass’ been more applicable”.

  26. custard

    Myself and Mrs C often (always) refer to the ABC 7.00pm news as the #FakeNews

    So tonight we turn on and Pell is the story. They finish by outlining the next hatchet job on Pell….

    Seriously!

  27. Rex Mango

    While the High Court has out performed itself today, there is one real question. Why did they wait four weeks? They must’ve felt it was such a high profile case, they should get it right for world media. Still, that is a long four weeks for an innocent bloke.

  28. Leigh Lowe

    Rex Mango

    #3398920, posted on April 7, 2020 at 9:14 pm

    While the High Court has out performed itself today, there is one real question. Why did they wait four weeks? They must’ve felt it was such a high profile case, they should get it right for world media. Still, that is a long four weeks for an innocent bloke

    Not ideal.
    But it is hard to fault their approach really.
    Pretty important to nail down all corners of this one.
    Lawyers are lawyers.
    They would have mulled over the wording.
    Funnily enough, they probably spent a lot of time distilling it down to a simple, readable but bullet-proof judgement.
    Note that no-one has knocked a chip off the judgement so far.

  29. vlad

    While the High Court has out performed itself today, there is one real question. Why did they wait four weeks? They must’ve felt it was such a high profile case, they should get it right for world media. Still, that is a long four weeks for an innocent bloke.

    Not quite four weeks. And that’s blisteringly fast for the HCA.

    And they’re busy, I suppose. They’ve got a lot of other work as well.

  30. Rex Mango

    Also smacks of judicial arrogance, as in we are the High Court and we move at our own speed, even when the prisoner is a Cardinal.

  31. Leigh Lowe

    Infidel Tiger

    #3398912, posted on April 7, 2020 at 9:07 pm

    Frank was referring to Holy Tuesday.

    Serendipitously it also happens to be Cardinal Pell’s complete and flawless victory day.

    Internal comms.
    Pope Fonzi is telling the renegades in the Vatican that George might be back.

  32. pete m

    Rex, they must have been some issues they wanted to debate about appropriate orders given how badly the CA hearing was done.

    Once that was sorted Bell J I’m sure tasked the judgment writing which everyone else just went cool.

    Had a few hours now to digest and seeing some twitter comments so hating of him still makes me rage at the injustice of what he went through. However, nothing can remove my inner smile, especially as my motherinlaw was crowing about the CA verdict which shocked me to my core. She is of curse a staunch catholic (not raised as one) and ABC watcher, but lately watches Sky so some hope they can make her see reason.

    Interesting Keiffel CJ has come back to Qld during this pandemic. No place like home. I’m sure Cdl Pell thinks likewise.

  33. Rex Mango

    Vlad, earlier this year, in a similar case (as in criminal jury conviction, not sex abuse) from Queensland, they adjourned for less than five minutes, then ordered an acquittal, reasons to follow.

  34. Rex Mango

    pete m, yeah think you are right. They moved slowly but surely and finalised it all at best time of year for Pell.

    Carpe, thanks for that, but trying to watch Battle of Britain at same time.

  35. FelixKruell

    Leigh:

    The side which now has seven High Court judges on the team.

    I must gave missed that part of the decision where they say he can only have been innocent.

  36. FelixKruell

    Rex:

    FelixKrudd, like a dog returning to eat it’s vomit you are a disgusting troll. You are too cowardly to admit you were wrong & so stupid you keep coming back to prove how dumb you are.

    Still waiting for you to point out how I was wrong…I suspect I’ll be waiting a while.

  37. More fake news at the Wrongversation.

    Pell did not win on a technicality you fools.

    It was a miscarriage of justice.

    The cops, the complainant, the DPP, the magistrate, County Court Judge Kidd and two of the Vic. CCA judges have been rebuked in the most severe way possible.

    Never forget that a doctored phone conversation was adduced as evidence in the Crown case.

    All of those above rebuked are either criminals, incompetent, malfeasant or corrupt.

    In a more sane country populated by adults, we’d see governments fall with mass sackings.

  38. Rafe Champion

    Let’s not go overboard. That’s taxpayer cash you’re spreading around.

    Cancel one or two of the submarines!

  39. I must gave missed that part of the decision where they say he can only have been innocent.

    What the HC said was there is a significant possibility that an innocent man has been convicted. But you knew that.

  40. All of those above rebuked are either criminals, incompetent, malfeasant or corrupt.

    or all of the above

  41. Leigh Lowe

    pete m

    #3398942, posted on April 7, 2020 at 9:23 pm

    Rex, they must have been some issues they wanted to debate about appropriate orders given how badly the CA hearing was done.

    He spent 13 months in the slammer.
    You can maybe assign 2-3 weeks of that to the HC.
    The rest belongem Viktorianistan.
    And there was no way they could order immediate release after the March hearing on a gut feel and write the judgement subsequently.
    As I say, a simple judgement, but bulletproof.
    No-one has managed to put a dint in it.
    I also agree with the legal eagle on Blot. I think this judgement not only exonerates Pell on criminal grounds but probably sinks most thoughts of civil actions.

  42. vlad

    Vlad, earlier this year, in a similar case (as in criminal jury conviction, not sex abuse) from Queensland, they adjourned for less than five minutes, then ordered an acquittal, reasons to follow.

    I’d say because it’s such a big case they wanted their reasoning to be out there – ie with the decision – in the intellectual marketplace to “legitimise” his being let out in people’s minds. Otherwise there’d be so much second-guessing and uncertainty as to whether it was right or not. I think they made a wise decision to wait until they were good and ready and then let the world have it with both barrels with no warning.

  43. Rex Mango

    Those names Bolt reads out for the Pell Pile On need to be preserved for posterity: Phillip Adams, Richard Ackland, Paul Bongiorno, Barry Cassidy, Sarah Ferguson, Peter Fitzsimmons, Ray Hadley, Derryn Hinch, Frank Elly, David Marr, Tim Minchin, Lucy Morris-Maher, Leigh Sales, Tim Cantpronouncethesurname, & Jack Waters. Gotta hand it to Bolt he’s happy to pick a fight.

  44. Leigh Lowe

    Frank Walker from National Tiles

    #3398960, posted on April 7, 2020 at 9:33 pm

    More fake news at the Wrongversation.

    Pell did not win on a technicality you fools.

    Let’s hear what the Magnificent Seven had to say …

    The applicant sought leave to appeal against his convictions to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria (Ferguson CJ, Maxwell P and Weinberg JA). He was granted leave on a single ground (ground 1), which contended that the verdicts were unreasonable and could not be supported by the evidence

    And the appeal succeeded on that basis.

    Yeah.
    A mere technicality.

  45. dover_beach

    I’ve had a real spring in my step today.

  46. Gotta hand it to Bolt he’s happy to pick a fight.

    About fucking time

  47. Leigh Lowe

    dover_beach

    #3398976, posted on April 7, 2020 at 9:38 pm

    I’ve had a real spring in my step today.

    And, strangely, I didn’t sleep well last night.

  48. Rex Mango

    FelixKrudd, you can’t admit you were wrong when seven judges of the High Court told you so. Can’t express myself any other way than to just say Seven Nil. Let those numbers reverberate inside the vacant cavity between your ears for eternity. Also stop repeating yourself, it is boring.

  49. When will there be disciplinary action, a criminal investigation or at least some people being sacked for putting up faked evidence in a criminal trial?

    If anyone in the DPP knew, they ought to be disbarred/struck off the roll immediately.

    Any cops who did this should be sacked and have their pensions donated to sex abuse victims.

    If I fabricated evidence in even a civil trial, I’d be liable to serve a multi year prison term.

    So why are the Victorian DPP and police immune to investigation or prosecution over such a dishonest, justice stymieing act of infamy?

    Imagine if a private citizen did so with a doctored out of context phone conversation or a criminal or civil trial.

    It would be front page news and result in a certain conviction and gaol sentence.

  50. vlad

    OT: Battle of Britain is a great movie.

  51. vlad

    Well, I’ve been reading about this decision now for almost 12 hours straight.

    That’s all for today. Good night.

    And God bless – and God bless Cardinal Pell and the High Court.

  52. Eddystone

    BoltA is fuming. Righteous anger, which I think many of us are feeling.

    Gerard doesn’t look well.

  53. feelthebern

    Footage of Bolta.

  54. Rex Mango

    Agree, Bolt on a mission. He understands what it’s like to be the victim of a false witness.

  55. C.L.

    ‘Night, Vlad.
    I feel the same as Bolt, really. More angry than thrilled.
    Strange. But I guess that’s a good thing, really.
    This fight isn’t over.

  56. FelixKruell

    Carpe:

    I must gave missed that part of the decision where they say he can only have been innocent.

    What the HC said was there is a significant possibility that an innocent man has been convicted. But you knew that.

    Those two things are not the same. I hope you know that.

  57. Rex Mango

    Thanks again Carpe for the second link, Bolt is on a mission.

  58. C.L.

    High quality Bolt, indeed.

  59. Rex Mango

    FelixKrudd, you are the unflushable turd of the legal system. I would rather injest distilled Coronavirus than your legal opinion.

  60. FelixKruell

    Rex:

    FelixKrudd, you can’t admit you were wrong when seven judges of the High Court told you so. Can’t express myself any other way than to just say Seven Nil. Let those numbers reverberate inside the vacant cavity between your ears for eternity. Also stop repeating yourself, it is boring.

    Still waiting…

    Let me help you. This is the bit where you find what I said, quote it, then compare it to what the high court said. Then you have yourself an argument that I was wrong. See, easy!

  61. FelixKruell

    Frank:

    The cops, the complainant, the DPP, the magistrate, County Court Judge Kidd and two of the Vic. CCA judges have been rebuked in the most severe way possible.

    I get you’re upset with some of those – but why Kidd?

  62. Rex Mango

    FelixKrudd, how does Seven Nil sound?

  63. Rex Mango

    Seven Nil you cretin.

  64. Nanuestalker

    @ JC
    Tim Minchin needs a slap down on twitter

    Tim Minchin

    @timminchin
    ·
    58m

    Fuck him. His legacy is toast. But you survivors? KNOW that you are goddamn heroes to most Aussies. You took on one of the biggest institutions of all time, & you won. The church will never again be a safehaven for abusers. Your courage has made our country safer for kids.

  65. Rex Mango

    Seven High Court Judges v FelixKrudd, Internet Troll Extrodinaire.

  66. Rex Mango

    Gotta get back to Battle of Britain FelixKrudd, but Herman Goering ran that operation far better than you do your arguments here.

  67. Leigh Lowe

    From the ambulance chaser representing the father of tge ID’d junkie ..

    “Our client says this man, who the jury believed, is an upstanding citizen who had nothing to gain from speaking out other than to protect other children from the pain and suffering he has to live with on a daily basis.”

    Oh?
    Nothing to gain?
    He has signed a waiver that he doesn’t expect compo?
    Nah.
    Thought not.

  68. JC

    FelixKruell
    #3399033, posted on April 7, 2020 at 10:21 pm

    Carpe:

    I must gave missed that part of the decision where they say he can only have been innocent.

    What the HC said was there is a significant possibility that an innocent man has been convicted. But you knew that.

    Those two things are not the same. I hope you know that.

    Felicity.

    Appeals courts don’t technically find people innocent or guilty, you dipshit. An “applicant” wins or loses an appeal against a guilty verdict. You really are an incompetent, mendaciously dissembling little turd.

  69. Leigh Lowe

    Nanuestalker

    #3399050, posted on April 7, 2020 at 10:27 pm

    @ JC
    Tim Minchin needs a slap down on twitter

    Ask him how his Dreamworks movie project is going.

  70. Rex Mango

    FelixKrudd, currently running a case against state run home for the mentally infirm. Need to provide a few case studies. What is your address so we can subpoena you as a witness?

  71. Leigh Lowe

    Appeals courts don’t technically find people innocent or guilty, you dipshit. An “applicant” wins or loses an appeal against a guilty verdict. 

    That is generally true.
    But I think the comprehensive smashing dished out today goes a little further.
    Despite all the ABC posturing today I reckon the HC has nobbled a lot of planned civil cases.
    I mean, witness J and the father of the junkie will probably be advised to give it a miss.

  72. feelthebern

    Someone will start a ticker.
    Days without a civil case brought against Pell: 1 (as of 10am tomorrow).

  73. Rex Mango

    Do luv the father of the dead choir boy who is running a sex shop somewhere, living alternative BDSM lifestyle, demanding compo. Love is love.

  74. Infidel Tiger

    Appeals courts don’t technically find people innocent or guilty, you dipshit. An “applicant” wins or loses an appeal against a guilty verdict.

    You are never found “innocent”. You are presumed innocent from the get go.

    You can be found guilty or not guilty.

    The guilty verdict for Pell was not only quashed but acquitted. The highest level of clearance possible.

  75. Leigh Lowe

    The guilty verdict for Pell was not only quashed but acquitted. The highest level of clearance possible.

    What was the count?
    How many on the bench?
    How many for and against?
    Any dissenting judgements?

  76. C.L.

    No new fishing boat for you: Dad of choirboy ‘furious’ over Cardinal’s release.
    ——
    Nobody in the media has bothered to ask why this father speaks through Shine Lawyers. He’s not involved in the case and his son is dead. He’s clearly buzzing around like a shithouse fly hoping to get some cashola out of this. Too bad, pal.

  77. Leigh Lowe

    Rex Mango

    #3399069, posted on April 7, 2020 at 10:41 pm

    Do luv the father of the dead choir boy who is running a sex shop somewhere, living alternative BDSM lifestyle, demanding compo. Love is love.

    Are you taking the piss?

  78. C.L.

    Do luv the father of the dead choir boy who is running a sex shop somewhere, living alternative BDSM lifestyle

    Really?

  79. Infidel Tiger

    Just checking the tape…

    Looks like 7-0. No dissenting opinions.

    Even the whacko lefties on the HC decided a horrid and tremendous miscarriage of justice took place.

  80. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha

    Tim Minchin needs a slap down on twitter

    Tim Minchin should be horsewhipped, in the street, at the very least. I’m remembering his whiny little dirge about “Come home, Cardinal Pell.”

  81. New South Holland

    Cartlicks 1 Commos 0

  82. JC

    Even the whacko lefties on the HC decided a horrid and tremendous miscarriage of justice took place.

    I know a couple of barrister types. Lefties. Even they were shocked with the Victorian appeals decision and the general feel in the chambers was the same at the time.

  83. Rex Mango

    Look, know not much about the bloke, but think the deal is he left his missus about the time the choir boy topped himself & now is on the Gold Coast perhaps running sex shop in a BDSM relationship. Essentially he makes Dusty Martin’s old man look like father of the year.

  84. WDYSIA

    UNANIMOUS DECISION

    Quashed: High Court declares Pell innocent

    The High Court has freed George Pell in a stunning repudiation of the Victorian judicial system and the police force.

    29 MINUTES AGO  By JOHN FERGUSON

    I hope that will be in majorly big letters in tomorrow’s edition.

  85. Leigh Lowe

    Infidel Tiger

    #3399084, posted on April 7, 2020 at 10:51 pm

    Just checking the tape…

    Looks like 7-0. No dissenting opinions.

    Even the whacko lefties on the HC decided a horrid and tremendous miscarriage of justice took place.

    Really?
    That … ah … well … gee, that is awkward.
    So not even a little dissenting view we can hang our hat on?

  86. WDYSIA

    Surely there is nothing stopping anyone reporting on the father’s background and activities? Especially if he expects to enrich himself on the back of sexual abuse victims.

  87. JC

    Here Nanu.

    Tim Minchin

    Fuck him. His legacy is toast. But you survivors? KNOW that you are goddamn heroes to most Aussies. You took on one of the biggest institutions of all time, & you won. The church will never again be a safehaven for abusers. Your courage has made our country safer for kids.
    Raising hands

    Fuck you too Minchin. And your own legacy is toast too, you third rate act. And remember this “I’m a musician with a swollen sense of my ability to articulate my insignificance”. Exactly!

  88. WDYSIA

    Did Bolt read out Louise Milligan’s name?

  89. Leigh Lowe

    C.L.

    #3399080, posted on April 7, 2020 at 10:50 pm

    No new fishing boat for you: Dad of choirboy ‘furious’ over Cardinal’s release.
    ——
    Nobody in the media has bothered to ask why this father speaks through Shine Lawyers. He’s not involved in the case and his son is dead. He’s clearly buzzing around like a shithouse fly hoping to get some cashola out of this. Too bad, pal.

    Note that Shine lawyers very carefully quoted the shyster to avoid being accused of dissing the HC themselves.
    Contempt and all that.
    As I said above, the extent of the HC decision pretty much scuttles any civil claim associated with the St Pats matter at least.

  90. Leigh Lowe

    Did you ask him how his Hollywood movie career going?

  91. Rex Mango

    Ok here is the link. This bloke demolished the prosecution case better than any lawyer. Lot of reading too as very thorough and readable. Search at the bottom for ‘sex shop’ & you will see what I am talking about, Ballarat, not Gold Coast:

    https://unfortunateopinions.wordpress.com/2019/12/18/the-incredible-kid/

  92. Nanuestalker

    That was a bitch slap JC, you can do better than that. Hehe!

  93. WDYSIA

    Can someone interpret this please?

    Louise Milligan

    @Milliganreports

    BREAKING: #Auspol It’s understood

    @DanielAndrewsMP

    spoke to

    @ScottMorrisonMP

    today, asking to immediately remove redactions from Royal Comm findings re #Pell. RC found Bishop didn’t lie to consultors, including Pell, re why moved paedo Fr Gerald Ridsdale to abuse ever more kids.

    8:04 pm · 7 Apr 2020·Twitter for iPhone

    513

    Retweets

    1.5K

    Likes

  94. JC

    Did you ask him how his Hollywood movie career going?

    Okay.

    Hey, how’s that Hollywood career going? You know, where you’re hallucinating about being the next huge bankable star.. winning all those academy awards. You non-entity. The only place you can draw a crowd is ABC’s Q&A.

  95. Leigh Lowe

    Rex Mango

    #3399103, posted on April 7, 2020 at 11:05 pm

    Ok here is the link. This bloke demolished the prosecution case better than any lawyer. Lot of reading too as very thorough and readable. Search at the bottom for ‘sex shop’ & you will see what I am talking about, Ballarat, not Gold Coast:

    Right.
    Watching the Shine Wymmins today I thought “her words say they are going to court, but her tone says defeat”.
    They were hoping for a criminal conviction so that Pell would be advised to fold on a civil settlement.
    Now they have to put a degenerate freeloader in the box.
    Not happening.

  96. Leigh Lowe

    Nice JC.
    Enhanced and embellished above my simple enquiry, but nice.

  97. FelixKruell

    JC:

    Appeals courts don’t technically find people innocent or guilty, you dipshit. An “applicant” wins or loses an appeal against a guilty verdict. You really are an incompetent, mendaciously dissembling little turd.

    Lovely straw man you built there. But it belongs to Carpe, not me.

  98. FelixKruell

    Rex:

    Still waiting…

  99. Leigh Lowe

    WDYSIA

    #3399106, posted on April 7, 2020 at 11:10 pm

    Can someone interpret this please?

    Louise Milligan

    @Milliganreports

    BREAKING: #Auspol It’s understood

    @DanielAndrewsMP

    spoke to

    @ScottMorrisonMP

    today, asking to immediately remove redactions from Royal Comm findings re #Pell. RC found Bishop didn’t lie to consultors, including Pell, re why moved paedo Fr Gerald Ridsdale to abuse ever more kids.

    “Bishop” is Rotten Ronny Mulkearns who shifted Ridsdale around.
    The claim is that members of his Diocesan consultors committee (including Pell) were told.
    The problem (for Milligan) seems to be that the documentary evidence (minutes etc) doesn’t support this.

  100. Rex Mango

    Can highly recommend this bloke’s blog. He has left no stone unturned, understands logic & writes very well. Also as an added bonus, he is quite obsessive & has debunked the Pell case completely:

    https://unfortunateopinions.wordpress.com

  101. Rex Mango

    FelixKrudd, you are an appalling waste of time. Admit you were wrong. The truth will set you free. Then you might be able to get out of the house & stop stalking people on the internet.

  102. feelthebern

    “Bishop” is Rotten Ronny Mulkearns who shifted Ridsdale around.

    Who died of arse cancer.
    In pain.
    Which makes me smile.

  103. FelixKruell

    Rex:

    Still waiting…I’ve said lots on the topic. You should have no problems locating something I got wrong.

    Then you might be able to get out of the house & stop stalking people on the internet.

    That’s illegal now I’m afraid.

  104. WDYSIA

    Thanks Leigh. Ok that make sense. I would have thought that if there was any damning evidence against Pell in the Royal Commission, then they would have most definitely laid charges by now. It seems Milligan is just s*** stirring again.

  105. Rex Mango

    FelixKrudd, perhaps you would prefer:

    Nil v 7

  106. Gyro Cadiz

    Hate-filled crazies, weirdo bigots, goat-cheese curtain dwellers, Christophobes, atheists, snowflakes, conspiracy theorists, wackjobs, demented loonies and all manner of other virtue-signallers and leftards are still spattering the #pell twitt(sew)er thread with their exploding heads. Full on and non stop.

    Its funny and weirdly pitiful all at the same time.

  107. WDYSIA

    Feelthebern – I knew who Mulkearns was but I didn’t know about his cancer. Justice.

  108. Rex Mango

    FelixKrudd, shall use Greek = I & Arabic = 0

  109. Rex Mango

    FelixKrudd, am interested in hearing your legal opinion of prospects for the appeal against the High Court decision?

  110. So Louise Milligan is supporting (lying for) Mulkearns and attacking the recently acquitted Dr Cdl. Geo. Pell?

    She’s a fat dishonest turd like Jerry Nadler or Mal Colston.

  111. Leigh Lowe

    WDYSIA

    #3399132, posted on April 7, 2020 at 11:34 pm

    Thanks Leigh. Ok that make sense. I would have thought that if there was any damning evidence against Pell in the Royal Commission, then they would have most definitely laid charges by now. It seems Milligan is just s*** stirring again.

    Absolutely zero possibility of any criminal charges arising.
    Anything civil will be a case of “Bloggs vs Pell, Diocese of Ballarat, Order of the Little Sisters of the Bleeding Nose of Jesus, Parish of Buninyong and others”.
    Pell’s name will be appended purely for street theatre purposes.
    In fact, they would be nuts to sue him alone as he was a peripheral player back then.

  112. Rex Mango

    FelixKrudd, this song is going out to you. Tturn it up, suck it in & take a big bite you massive turdburger:

  113. Rex Mango

    FelixKrudd, 7 Nil ring any bells:

  114. WDYSIA

    Thanks again Leigh. It may be nuts but it seems only nuts are involved.

  115. Rex Mango

    Hey FelixKrudd, you low lying snivelling cowardly piece of who cares, this song is dedicated to you & your zero mates fighting a seven v one unappealable decision. Suck it up, you can’t appeal:

  116. Iampeter

    It most certainly is not

    If that was true then the Dark Ages would’ve been the most prosperous and advanced time in history.
    But truth isn’t really important to Christians and there supporters is it?

    If people choose to live by taking a vow of poverty or not to be wealthy, what does it have to do with you? Moreover, aren’t these the rights you’re always banging on about?

    If that’s all they wanted to do then they are leftists but we can live and let live.
    Sadly this is not all that they want to do. Like all leftists they want to regulate every aspect of our lives and certainly have no respect for anyone’s individual rights.
    The Pell case demonstrated that Christians are right up there with other leftist factions playing identity politics and trying to score points in the victim Olympics.

    The actual basis of our wealth and prosperity is rational philosophy,
    This is just drivel and again it demonstrates your weakness in the area of economics.

    So economics is not based on rational philosophy?
    Hahahahaa. Even the most hardcore Marxists aren’t left wing enough to say stuff like this.
    Only at the Cat can someone say something like this and go completely unchallenged by everyone.

  117. This is only a guess but if you wish to discuss philosophy on every thread, you’re probably a troll and running interference.

    …and predictably like the serial killer from South Park, Putrid declares that we fail to see his greatness.

  118. Iampeter

    I was just responding to one JC’s posts that was actually coherent enough to respond to.
    No one is discussing philosophy with you. Don’t worry.

  119. dover_beach

    FelixK, from memory, you continuously defended the reasoning of Fergerson and Maxwell in the Court of Appeal. Their reasoning was rejected unanimously, 7-0, by the High Court. Further, you repeatedly mentioned ‘evidence’ the jury and CoA justices were supposedly privy to but not us, and yet here the HC justices have decided unanimously, 7-0, that Pell could not be reasonably found guilty of such a crime even taking into account that ‘evidence’.

  120. calli

    But truth isn’t really important to Christians and there supporters is it?

    Truth is of vital importance to Christians.

    Grammar and spelling is a close second.

  121. notafan

    Dark ages.

    Lol.

    Seriously the ground work is set but no credit.

  122. FelixKruell

    Dover:

    Further, you repeatedly mentioned ‘evidence’ the jury and CoA justices were supposedly privy to but not us, and yet here the HC justices have decided unanimously, 7-0, that Pell could not be reasonably found guilty of such a crime even taking into account that ‘evidence’.

    Now have another read of what you just said. I said we shouldn’t judge without having seen all the evidence. I have no issue with those who HAVE seen that evidence (the court of appeal or the high court) judging.

  123. Bec

    Felix with all this embarrassing talk about the HC not finding Pell innocent, you just make it clear to everyone that you do not understand the presumption of innocence. How awkward – it’s so basic.

  124. FelixKruell

    Bec:

    Felix with all this embarrassing talk about the HC not finding Pell innocent, you just make it clear to everyone that you do not understand the presumption of innocence. How awkward – it’s so basic.

    Which talk would that be? Are you confusing me with someone else? How awkward.

  125. dover_beach

    FelixK, I notice you remained silent re your defence of Fergerson and Maxwell’s reasoning as to whether it was ‘open’ to the jury to entertain a reasonable doubt. The HC unanimously, 7-0, said they ought have, contradicting Fergerson and Maxwell in the strongest terms. I also notice you continually referencing ‘evidence’ you do not know exists but you believe the jury, F&M must have been relying on for their judgements to make sense given the paucity they had publicly to rely on to justify their decisions. The HC’s historic unanimous decision, 7-0, quashing the trial and appeal, renders your reliance on this ‘evidence’and F&M’s reasoning foolish beyond words.

  126. Iampeter

    But truth isn’t really important to Christians and there supporters is it?
    Truth is of vital importance to Christians.
    Grammar and spelling is a close second.

    Aside from the oxymoron of the first sentence, trying to focus on grammar when you have no arguments is also not a sign of honesty.
    Zero for two and all in one post. Good job!

    Dark ages.
    Lol.
    Seriously the ground work is set but no credit.

    This would be another example of that Christian honesty, right?
    Lol indeed.

  127. Boambee John

    Tim Minchin babbles.

    The church will never again be a safehaven for abusers.

    To a great extent, that is because of actions taken by George Pell to remove or sideline a particular group which had infiltrated the Church.

    As the Royal Commision data demonstrated, the peak period for abuse was the 1970s and 1980s, before Pell got into a position to clean the malefactors out.

  128. Iampeter

    The HC’s historic unanimous decision, 7-0, quashing the trial and appeal, renders your reliance on this ‘evidence’and F&M’s reasoning foolish beyond words.

    Yea but how does that get reconciled with all the claims from Pell supporters about how corrupt our system is and how everyone was out to “get Pell” and Christians?

    See, playing leftist identity politics means you’ve lost irrespective of what’s happened to Pell.

  129. JC

    Yea but how does that get reconciled with all the claims from Pell supporters about how corrupt our system is and how everyone was out to “get Pell” and Christians?

    That’s petty much how the High Court called it Plodes. 7 nil is a resounding kick in the balls for the entire corrupt judicial system in Victoria. 7 nil!

    How was the slow cooked crow you shared with Felicity for last night’s dinner? Was it candle lit?

  130. How?

    Waller made a false accusation contrary to evidence and is not disbarred. An apology? No, she’s still engaging in champerty and maintenance.

    The committal magistrate allowed a trial despite the complainant perjuring himself.

    The cops allowed him to change his story three times.

    The cops and DPP used an edited phone tap as evidence.

    The trial judge excluded exculpatory evidence on pain of contempt if court.

    Maxwell and Ferguson played dumb on this.

    Fatty Ashton lied to the Royal Commission.

  131. notafan

    Operation Tethering.

    Aka

    Get Pell.

    It’s not rocket science.

  132. FelixKruell

    Dover:

    FelixK, I notice you remained silent re your defence of Fergerson and Maxwell’s reasoning as to whether it was ‘open’ to the jury to entertain a reasonable doubt. The HC unanimously, 7-0, said they ought have, contradicting Fergerson and Maxwell in the strongest terms.

    I defended them, because I found their decision fine. I also found Weinbergs decision fine. They took different approaches to considering how the evidence against the accuser should be weighed up. I recall saying this was the very point the high court would need to adjudicate.

    I also notice you continually referencing ‘evidence’ you do not know exists but you believe the jury, F&M must have been relying on for their judgements to make sense given the paucity they had publicly to rely on to justify their decisions. The HC’s historic unanimous decision, 7-0, quashing the trial and appeal, renders your reliance on this ‘evidence’and F&M’s reasoning foolish beyond words.

    We do know that evidence exists. It’s the testimony of the accuser. We just haven’t seen or heard it. The courts did. They ALL relied on it, high court included. Are we all foolish?

  133. Up The Workers!

    “The church will never again be a safe haven for abusers.”

    It never was.

    That is surely the job of the of the rock-spider-friendly organisation that Milton Orkopoulos M.P., Keith Wright M.P., Bill D’Arcy M.P., Terry Martin M.P., Bob Collins M.P., Andres Puig and Bull Shitten M.P. all belong(ed) to.

    That’s the same one that Juliar Gillard exempted from the deliberations of the Royal Commission into Institutional Child Abuse.

    That Royal Commission now needs to be reconvened to investigate the outfits which were corruptly exempted from scrutiny – particularly in the light of the gross Miscarriage of Justice perpetrated by one of them against Cardinal Pell as a distraction from its own members’ vile activities.

  134. The “evidence” was also dishonestly changed three times prior to charges being laid and it was perjured against in the committal.

    The High Court relied on it to unanimously come to the opposite conclusion of the Victorian appeal turkeys.

    Once again Felix, it’s not hard.

    Keep on staring at the ceiling whilst the rest of the class waits for the penny to drop.

  135. Helen

    Given the whole think reeks of personal vindictiveness, what is it that the Vic police actually had against Cardinal Pell to pursue this through to forcing the first charges and court case?

    Or was he a scape goat by them to cover u their uselessness in other areas? If so big big own goal because they just reinforced it.

  136. stackja

    Ray Hadley and Alan Jones feud over George Pell case
    An almighty stoush erupted today involving top-rating radio hosts Ray Hadley and Alan Jones over Cardinal George Pell, who’s been acquitted of child sexual abuse.

    Matthew Benns, The Daily Telegraph
    Subscriber only
    |
    April 8, 2020 9:28am

    The long running feud between radio hosts Alan Jones and Ray Hadley erupted into open warfare on the airwaves this morning.

    Hadley blasted Jones for “poorly researched rubbish” on his breakfast show and said only “good taste” prevented him saying more.

    The outspoken morning show presenter furiously attacked Jones over an interview he had with The Daily Telegraph’s columnist Andrew Bolt.

    Bolt had appeared on the breakfast show with Jones and said: “I need Ray Hadley to apologise now, I was very hurt, he did a rant calling me creepy accusing me of creepy behaviour for defending George Pell.”

    Jones told Bolt: “I am sure in his heart of hearts he regrets those comments as well.”

    But Hadley responded angrily saying he had not called him creepy for defending Cardinal Pell but for his comments about a boy who had been abused. “I won’t be apologising to Bolt,” he said.

    “I never said the words attributed to me in relation to George Pell, no one asked me from that radio program this morning whether I said those words, that’s poorly researched rubbish,” he said.

    “For the attack on me this morning on my own network, to say I am disappointed yes I am,” he said. “Am I surprised, no I am not.”

  137. stackja

    Helen
    #3399810, posted on April 8, 2020 at 11:17 am

    Lawyer X?

  138. dover_beach

    I defended them, because I found their decision fine. I also found Weinbergs decision fine. They took different approaches to considering how the evidence against the accuser should be weighed up. I recall saying this was the very point the high court would need to adjudicate.

    Their decision was ‘fine’ but the HC rejected it unanimously? Not at all. The HC does not reject reasoning of a high quality, 7-0. This unanimity indicates strong and universal disagreement on the same points in the reasoning of F&M. This unanimity is a strong rebuke to what you have in the past defended and presently call ‘fine’.

    We do know that evidence exists. It’s the testimony of the accuser. We just haven’t seen or heard it. The courts did. They ALL relied on it, high court included. Are we all foolish?

    Dear God.

  139. dover_beach

    Dot, good to see you back and well, mate.

  140. FelixKruell

    Frank:

    The High Court relied on it to unanimously come to the opposite conclusion of the Victorian appeal turkeys.

    Once again Felix, it’s not hard.

    Actually the high court relied far more on the evidence provided by the other witnesses. Clearly it is hard after all?

  141. Helen

    Does any one have a link to time lines of abuse happening, where Cardinal Pell was at the time and what steps he took (with timeline) to remove that sick group?

  142. calli

    The troll has no sense of humour.

    Remarkable.

  143. FelixKruell

    Dover:

    Their decision was ‘fine’ but the HC rejected it unanimously? Not at all. The HC does not reject reasoning of a high quality, 7-0. This unanimity indicates strong and universal disagreement on the same points in the reasoning of F&M. This unanimity is a strong rebuke to what you have in the past defended and presently call ‘fine’.

    Yes. Because the high court had to pick one approach. Both couldn’t be right. I would have been wrong on one of my ‘fines’ whichever way the high court had decided.

    Dear God.

    Dear god indeed. You’d think it was self evident. But I keep having to repeat it here.

    But thank you for keeping it civil.

  144. That’s true Felix, I never said otherwise.

    I can’t help you anymore.

    Try the Reading and Writing Hotline.

  145. notafan

    Helen

    I don’t know that that is helpful.

    Cardinal Pell became Archbishop of Melbourne in August 1996 and immediately took steps to set up the Melbourne Response.

    Prior to that he had various administrative roles and other senior clerics, Bishop Mulkearns in Ballarat, Archbishop Little in Melbourne were in charge of their respective dioceses.

    To me it’s a little bit like claiming grade six teacher X in Melton South should have known and is responsible for the behaviour of grade five teacher Y in St Albans because twenty, thirty, forty years after the events he is now principal of Werribee South.

    Any complaints go to the principal of St Albans, not teacher x. The most teacher x might know is gossip. And as cardinal Pell has said he didn’t know, that should be the end, unless people have REAL evidence to the contrary.

  146. notafan

    Felix is a gnostic relying on ,’secret evidence’.

  147. notafan

    Incidentally you could and should point the finger at every teacher, parent, social worker and police that knew about historical sex abuse and covered up.

    The police in certain rural towns, Inglewood for example, definitely knew about Ridsdale.

  148. dover_beach

    Yes. Because the high court had to pick one approach. Both couldn’t be right. I would have been wrong on one of my ‘fines’ whichever way the high court had decided.

    The HC picked the only ‘fine’ chain of reasoning available, Weinberg’s. F&M’s chain of reasoning was strongly rebuked, 7-0, because it was far from ‘fine’. You do not get a decision, 7-0, justices all aggreing on the same points for the same reasons where F&M were wrong if their reasoning was ‘fine’.

  149. notafan

    Legal decisions are now reduced to coin tosses.

  150. dover_beach

    Dear god indeed. You’d think it was self evident. But I keep having to repeat it here.

    BTW, you are wrong on this point too. Reading the HC judgement, they rebuke F&M for relying too much on this ‘evidence’, and they strong recommend that in future appeals, the justices rely simply upon the testimony of the witnesses, without relying on the demeanour of the witnesses via video recordings, in order to forgo the errors that this may lead to. In other words, we were at an advantage in judging the facts; not disadvantaged, as you allege.

  151. Iampeter

    Cardinal Pell became Archbishop of Melbourne in August 1996 and immediately took steps to set up the Melbourne Response.

    Yea, that’s part of the reason he has such a bad reputation.
    The Melbourne Response was a terrible undertaking that further compounded all the issues. It is not something any other organization would’ve been allowed to setup, which is why all this talk of “get Pell” is so absurd.

    If Pell really wanted to be a hero he would’ve urged the Church to stop sheltering any peddas, call for them to be thrown out, thrown out any that he could himself, turn over documents and names to the police, etc, instead of what the response did.

  152. FelixKruell

    Notafan:

    Felix is a gnostic relying on ,’secret evidence’.

    Dear god. It’s like talking to idiots. On this very thread you have been wondering who the accuser is, what he was thinking etc. Because you haven’t seen him. You haven’t heard his evidence. It is suppressed. It remains suppressed. That’s the ‘secret’ evidence that the courts have all relied on.

  153. FelixKruell

    Dover:

    You do not get a decision, 7-0, justices all aggreing on the same points for the same reasons where F&M were wrong if their reasoning was ‘fine’.

    Sure you can. The comments by the high court about the court of appeal were about weighting given to conflicting evidence. Again, evidence only they have been fully privy to. Hardly a fundamental slap down.

  154. FelixKruell

    Dover:

    BTW, you are wrong on this point too. Reading the HC judgement, they rebuke F&M for relying too much on this ‘evidence’, and they strong recommend that in future appeals, the justices rely simply upon the testimony of the witnesses, without relying on the demeanour of the witnesses via video recordings, in order to forgo the errors that this may lead to. In other words, we were at an advantage in judging the facts; not disadvantaged, as you allege.

    Not quite. The rebuke was about video versus transcripts. We have seen neither in relation to the accusers testimony.

  155. Helen

    CL none of the links work any more (except for the Quillette – The Many Lies of Carl Beech – in you piece No country for old Catholics.

    Why would that be?

  156. Helen

    Nota, I wasn’t wanting to point the finger, rather thought the evidence might show he did what he could when he could.

    There are many throwing about the “he hid the priest “or “he moved the priest on so he could do it all over again” I think this is in relation to Risdale.

    It would be good to have the timeline to rebut.

  157. Lee

    No new fishing boat for you: Dad of choirboy ‘furious’ over Cardinal’s release.
    ——
    Nobody in the media has bothered to ask why this father speaks through Shine Lawyers. He’s not involved in the case and his son is dead. He’s clearly buzzing around like a shithouse fly hoping to get some cashola out of this. Too bad, pal.

    Utterly contemptible father, practically accusing his dead son of being a liar.
    You’re right, C.L., money is definitely his bottom line.

Comments are closed.