Predictable: legal team opts for boilerplate ‘high bar’ lament

Found out in the end, Cardinal George Pell’s accuser – no doubt briefed by his lawyer on PR tonality – pretends the system is to blame for not sustaining a bullshit story like his:

It is difficult in child sex abuse matters to satisfy a criminal court that the offending has occurred beyond the shadow of a doubt. It is a very high standard to meet – a very heavy burden. There are a lot of checks and balances in the criminal justice system and the appeal process is one of them. I respect that.”

 
Also predictably, “J” urges sexual abuse victims – presumably, he means real ones – not to be discouraged from coming forward to report their experiences to authorities. Thanks largely to the orchestrated travesty he was at the centre of, however, the lives and well-being of such people are now at far graver risk than before. It is by no means extravagant to argue the sinister Get Pell campaign will destroy, even kill, many people deserving justice. Instead of “I’m OK” neurotic waffle, “J” should have said sorry, explained why he did it, perhaps even shed light on the extent to which he was manipulated and by whom. That would be a real service to the truly vulnerable. It would reassure them that the fate of false claims needn’t be the fate of their genuine ones.

This entry was posted in Australian Story, Ethics and morality. Bookmark the permalink.

38 Responses to Predictable: legal team opts for boilerplate ‘high bar’ lament

  1. I for one would be happy to be locked up in a room with him (just to have a nice chat you understand).

  2. BorisG

    His statement is certainly much better than statements of some of his supporters, who talk about catholic mafia etc. impying the court was under pressure etc.

  3. Texas Jack

    And everyone is falling over backwards not to offend someone who’s been found to have lied. You can see how this stench starts. Having lied so often in front of media boosters they have to keep perpetuating the lie.

  4. J is entirely to blame.

    He changed his story three times to the police and perjured himself during the committal.

    The dead kid’s father’s lawyer once accused Pell of abuse when he wasn’t even in the country.

    The Victorian justice stem is a laughable hoax.

  5. BorisG

    I am not actually convinced that accusers of historical sex crimes should be allowed to be anonymous. Want to pursue a criminal case – come out. Cross examination, character etc. must be allowed.

    Otherwise it is not a level playing field. Some people are accused of these crimes, their reputation ruined by the publicity and then acquitted. One such case collapsed yesterday in WA. Taxi driver accused of sexually assaulting a passenger.

  6. nfw

    A high burden of proof? You mean the one we have basically always had in criminal cases, ie, beyond reasonable doubt? J could always bring a civil case where the burden of proof is lower but that would mean revealing him/herself and be open to much greater scrutiny. Bring it on J.

  7. Old Lefty

    For my money he forfeited any moral right to anonymity when he began colludinh with Milligan. That he did not thereby forfeit the legal right is an affront to justice.

    Notice Waller assuring the public that many Catholic clergy have been convicted. Are they the only perpetrators? Of course not, but nobody in PC circles wants to know about cases in state schools and institution, the arts and media, etc. Least of all Gillard, who has just weighed in, and her political poodle McClellan.

  8. Ivan Denisovich

    Para 118 of the decision:

    The likelihood of two choirboys in their gowns being able to slip away from the procession without detection; of finding altar wine in an unlocked cupboard; and of the applicant being able to manoeuvre his vestments to expose his penis are considerations that may be put to one side. It remains that the evidence of witnesses, whose honesty was not in question, (i) placed the applicant on the steps of the Cathedral for at least ten minutes after Mass on 15 and 22 December 1996; (ii) placed him in the company of Portelli when he returned to the priests’ sacristy to remove his vestments; and (iii) described continuous traffic into and out of the priests’ sacristy for ten to 15 minutes after the altar servers completed their bows to the crucifix.

    Para 127:

    The unchallenged evidence of the applicant’s invariable practice of greeting congregants after Sunday solemn Mass, and the unchallenged evidence of the requirement under Catholic church practice that the applicant always be accompanied when in the Cathedral, were inconsistent with acceptance of A’s evidence of the second incident. It was evidence which ought to have caused the jury, acting rationally, to entertain a doubt as to the applicant’s guilt of the offence charged in the second incident.

    J lied.

  9. Another example of the ‘#metoo’ travesty.

  10. stackja

    Old Lefty
    #3399790, posted on April 8, 2020 at 11:06 am

    JG was in trouble then announced RC. MSM forgot JG trouble?

  11. Old Lefty

    As part of the reckoning over this – the Royal Commission we should but won’t have – there should be an accounting of the opportunity costs. How much of the (finite) police and prosecution time, effort and resources that should have gone into pursuing real p3d0s did they waste on this grubby leftist political vendetta?

  12. Rob MW

    Also predictably, “J” urges sexual abuse victims – presumably, he means real ones – not to be discouraged from coming forward to report their experiences to authorities. Thanks largely to the orchestrated travesty he was at the centre of, however, the lives and well-being of such people are now at far graver risk than before. It is by no means extravagant to argue the sinister Get Pell campaign will destroy, even kill, many people deserving justice. Instead of “I’m OK” neurotic waffle, “J” should have said sorry, explained why he did it, perhaps even shed light on the extent to which he was manipulated and by whom. That would be a real service to the truly vulnerable. It would reassure them that the fate of false claims needn’t be the fate of their genuine ones.

    And that people, is the underlying truth of the whole matter, there’s no if’s, but’s or maybe’s about it. The damage done to genuine future child sexual abuse cases will, in all likely hood, be immense. Shame on the Victoria judicial system for pursuing such a flimsy case against the Cardinal, where ‘hearsay’ alone can determine the outcome of a criminal case. Did they really think that nobody would notice ? Shame on them.

    Well said CL.

  13. 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.”

  14. Bar Beach Swimmer

    CL,
    (Thanks for trying to work it out). Another poster linked to this post.

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

    But this is the one that I was thinking of:
    The many voices of The Kid in the #georgepell case

    Kind regards

  15. The BigBlueCat

    I don’t know whether witness J lied or not, or if he was abused but not by Pell. In any event, his case was bungled by VicPol and the DPP – they were relying on “the victim must be believed” when there is no certainty he was a victim at all, or a victim of Pell.

    Through this whole shambolic case, Pell was rarely given the presumption of innocence by the MSM (especially the ABC), who even in the last 2 weeks were actively accusing Pell of child abuse in Ballarat, by accusers whose cases were considered by VicPol but dismissed as being unable to be prosecuted.

    No doubt there are victims of sexual abuse out there – real cases where there is real evidence. They’re the ones that need to be tried. That Dan Andrews has nothing to say out the High Court’s 7-0 decision shows how contemptuous of the fair legal process he is; he should at least support the outcome.

  16. a happy little debunker

    beyond the shadow of a doubt

    That is not a legal standard.

    ‘Poor’ J* was obviously used and abused by Milligan, used and abused by the police and used and abused by the police prosecutors to make his memories fit the narratives.
    Now adding insult to these injuries he has been misled by his lawyers.

    * I say ‘Poor’ J, as I am able to hold true the presumption of innocence as to his actions.
    A presumption that so many denied and continue to deny George Pell.

  17. stackja

    a happy little debunker
    #3399854, posted on April 8, 2020 at 11:29 am

    Who really cares for “J”?

  18. Ivan Denisovich

    ‘Poor’ J* was obviously used and abused by Milligan, used and abused by the police and used and abused by the police prosecutors to make his memories fit the narratives.

    Fair point. A possibility.

  19. Natural Instinct

    Yesterday their was a link to an April 2019 Quantum report by Keith Windschuttle, Editor, Quadrant
    .
    Borrowed Testimony
    .

    The Philadelphia case was written up in Rolling Stone in September 2011, well before the Victorian police began what they called their “trawling operation” against George Pell, hoping to find someone to testify against him… In other words, the Rolling Stone story had been in circulation for four years before an Australian version was provided to the police.
    .
    So, what is the probability that the evidence given in Australia was not an authentic account of what happened in Melbourne but, rather, a copy of a story that had already been aired in print and online? Here are the similarities between the American and the Australian allegations:
    .
    # Both cases of sexual abuse occurred in the sacristy after Sunday mass.
    # In both cases, the victims had been drinking wine they found in the sacristy.
    # Both boys assisted in the celebration of the mass.
    # The priest fondled both boys’ genitals.
    # Both boys were made to kneel before the priest.
    # Both boys were made to perform fellatio on the priest.
    # Both the alleged victims were the only witnesses who testified for the prosecution in court—it was their word against the priests’.
    .
    The only difference between the American and Australian evidence was the account of a second alleged meeting, which the boys said took place “a few months later” in Philadelphia and “a month or so later” in Melbourne

    .
    Has this suggestion/conspiracy theory been rejected and put to bed?
    Has J, or his lawyers, addressed this issue?

  20. Natural Instinct

    there not their

  21. Tintarella di Luna

    Natural Instinct
    #3399904, posted on April 8, 2020 at 11:49 am

    Hmmmm yes read about that last year. Good question.

  22. Bar Beach Swimmer

    I am not actually convinced that accusers of historical sex crimes should be allowed to be anonymous

    The use of anonymity in the criminal justice system should cease.

    (I’m happy to be corrected, but I think it goes back to the taking of evidence in cases involving minors and where minors are the complainants. But having said that, it seems today that almost every narrowly drawn law, stipulation or rule may be redrawn for wider use after a requisite amount of time if left to politicians and the judiciary. And this is why we all should show a conservative demeanour in our approach when allowing for change in most areas of the law.)

    Why should a fully grown adult be able to come into a court of law and make accusations against another person as an anonymous accuser (solely?) because the alleged crime is claimed to have occurred when the complainant was a minor?

    It could be assumed that one of the reasons that complainants come forward during adulthood is because the accuser has reached a level of psychological maturity to be able to manage the court process. This then would negate the underlying reasoning that anonymity provides.

  23. bruce

    ‘Poor J’ remains anonymous and will continue on with his life. His victim though has his life and reputation in tatters and will continue to face false accusations.
    I am still waiting from any of our leaders (unless I’ve missed something) to express regret and tell us how shameful it was was that an innocent man could be treated so shabbily by the state and most media.
    BTW though the GG showed good judgment last year in in resisting calls from all and sundry, including the PM, to strip him of his awards until after the final appeal.

  24. Leigh Lowe

    Natural Instinct

    #3399904, posted on April 8, 2020 at 11:49 am

    Yesterday their was a link to an April 2019 Quantum report by Keith Windschuttle, Editor, Quadrant

    Thanks NI.
    That was the parallel case I was looking for.

  25. pbw

    More of J’s heart-warming press release really deserves to be read.

    “I would hate to think that one outcome of this case is that people are discouraged from reporting to the police. I would like to reassure child sexual abuse survivors that most people recognise truth when they hear it. They know the truth when they look it in the face. I am content with that.

    “My journey has been long and I am relieved that it is over. I have my ups and downs. The darkness is never far away. Despite the stress of the legal process and public controversy I have tried hard to keep myself together. I am OK. I hope that everyone who has followed this case is OK.

    “This case does not define me,” he said.

    “I am a man who came forward for my friend who, sadly, is no longer with us. I am a man doing my best to be a loving dad, partner, son, brother and friend. I am doing my best to find and hold joy in my life and to provide a safe and loving home for my family.”

    Isn’t it wonderful? He came forward for a friend, who fortunately, is no longer with us. [Oops, I made a mistake; I meant unfortunately. How do we overstrike?] His darkness is never far away. [This man has the soul of a poet.]

    He hopes that everyone who has followed this case is OK. Thank you, J. I certainly am.

    Most people, he assures us, recognise the truth when they hear it. [People like those on the second jury, for example.] In case you missed the point – they know the truth when they look it in the face [or on video. J, I would love to look you in the face. Let us know who you are, and how we can contact you.]

    J is doing his best to… etc, etc.

    Does anyone else have an aftertaste of saccharine?

  26. pbw

    P.S. Let’s hear it for ScoMo, who has been so responsible in all of his comments on this case.

  27. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha

    More of J’s heart-warming press release really deserves to be read.

    The Oz is not allowing comments on that story..

  28. Suburban Boy

    When will Wikileaks tell us who “J” is?

  29. notafan

    J

    The boy with the chocolate drop eyes and curling lashes.

    (I’ve been reading a couple of lines from Milligan’s book at Chris Friel)

    No wonder he was so credible, except when he wasn’t (Jury the one)

  30. Leigh Lowe

    The boy with the chocolate drop eyes and curling lashes.

    (I’ve been reading a couple of lines from Milligan’s book at Chris Friel)

    I think we have discovered where and when the fellatio took place.

  31. Leigh Lowe

    From NI’s link at 11:49.

    The only difference between the American and Australian evidence was the account of a second alleged meeting, which the boys said took place “a few months later” in Philadelphia and “a month or so later” in Melbourne

    I am moving away from “deluded imaginings” to this being a carefully crafted story.
    The main accusation … abuse in the sacristy after solemn Mass whilst wearing ceremonial robes … was designed to shock, disgust and alienate traditional conservative Catholics. Of course, whilst this accusation is ‘high impact’ it carries the risk of being knocked over due to the implausibility of the opportunity to carry out the deed (which the HC did).
    The second accusation was a ‘saver’. A quick grope in a side corridor on a quiet week-day carries none of the risks of exculpatory witnesses countering the claim, as the Sunday Mass one had.
    The hope is that, if the first explosive claim fails, a jury miggt return a guilty verdict on the second, less serious charge.

  32. Cynic of Ayr

    currencylad
    perhaps even shed light on the extent to which he was manipulated and by whom
    In a way, this might seem unfair, but this man is now what? 43 or so years old?
    It seems a lot of effort for a few minutes of unpleasantness. If this is the WORST this feller has ever suffered, he’s led an extremely sheltered life. Perhaps a few minutes in a burn ward, or a trauma ward, might enlighten him as to just what real suffering is.
    He’s been manipulated, and maybe a bit too unsmart to figure it out. A certain Swedish girl is in a similar circumstance, in that she’s been manipulated too, and a bit unsmart.
    I wonder who paid the legal bills? This must have cost thousands. Did their ABC kick in? Even with the “no win no fee” racket, the disbursements would have come to a tidy sum.

  33. Tezza

    J’s ‘anonymity’ is a farce: “I’ll say what I want through my lawyers, but you can’t question my claims, and I don’t want to be contacted by the media.” A bit like Pell’s trials, really.

    It’s disgusting.

  34. JABL

    To re-post what I said on the Greg Craven thread as it seems as-posit

    A magnificent decision.

    The important takeways:
    1. If the uncontradicted evidence is that the the conduct complained of could not have happened then the case should have been taken away from the jury (assuming that the DPP was brain dead enough to allow it to proceed)
    2. The Defence appears to have been nobbled in that they were prohibited by law from accessing the complainant’s counseling history and medical diagnosis. This exists in at least two jurisdictions. In mine ‘any’ counselor be it a teacher or whom ever who gives ‘advice’ to a complainant is protected. This prevents, unless a Court rules otherwise, a defendant from knowing what a complainant may have claimed in the past (ie possible prior inconsistent statements).
    3. Further to 3 it is believed by some in legal profession in light of certain personalities involved in the Royal Commission that this may be covering a return to hypno-therapy and “recovered memories” with all the attendant injustice that entails.

  35. jupes

    He changed his story three times to the police and perjured himself during the committal.

    Yet the jury ‘believed’ him.

    It appears to me that both J and the 12 people on the Jury are part of the monstrous conspiracy to deprive a man of his liberty. Yet they are untouchable for some reason.

    Even Bolta won’t go as far as accusing J of lying. Good on you C.L.. At least someone is not afraid to state the bleeding obvious.

  36. Castle Wolfenstein

    It is indeed a high bar. Except when it’s lowered to 2 cm above the ground by a Victorian Court of Appeal majority.

  37. WDYSIA

    If I recall correctly, Brennan in his Sky interview suggested that it was J ‘s mother who first came forward with some complaint against a priest before 6 months later coming back with the Pell story. I have no doubt that J was used by various parties. I also have no doubt that J lied about Pell even if he convinced himself that he was telling the truth.

Comments are closed.