This is a job for AUSTRAC

From the front page of The Australian newspaper:

Viv Waller, the lawyer representing the complainant, said he had not received any of the money allegedly sent from the Vatican.

No evidence confirming the plot has been furnished by Cardinal Becciu’s accusers.

Ms Waller said the surviving altar boy in the criminal case had no idea about what was being ­alleged. “My client denies any knowledge or receipt of any payments,” she said.

Let’s be perfectly blunt here: What else is he going to say?

Now everyone is making excuses – people have false memories, people have had traumatic lives.

Yes.

Okay.

Whatever.

I don’t care.

Somebody got $1.1 million to lie about Pell in court.

Somebody is guilty of an offense and has broken the law.

It gets worse.

Victoria Police has not received a complaint about the money transfers, which have further scandalised the Vatican and coincided with Cardinal Pell’s return to Rome.

Seriously people?

Why would anyone lodge a compliant with Victoria Police?

This is the same organisation that terrorised a 13 year-old girl several years ago. The same organisation that thought it okay to have a defence lawyer working as a police spy. The same organisation that arrest pregnant women for defying the government. The same organisation that enforces the ‘ring of steel’ around Melbourne. The same organisation that persecuted Pell. The same organisation that is perfectly capable of arresting pregnant women at the beach, but cannot crack down on gang violence.

Seriously – why would you lodge a compliant with Victoria Police?

To each and every single member of Victoria Police reading this; are you not ashamed?

Luckily there is a Federal agency that is designed especially for this very purpose.

Step up to the plate: The Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre.

AUSTRAC is the Australian Government agency responsible for detecting, deterring and disrupting criminal abuse of the financial system to protect the community from serious and organised crime.

Through strong regulation, and enhanced intelligence capabilities, AUSTRAC collects and analyses financial reports and information to generate financial intelligence. This vital information about potential criminals and criminal activity contributes to our national security and law enforcement investigations

For more than 30 years, AUSTRAC has been evolving to address the challenges in a financial system that is rapidly changing and targeted by criminals in complex ways. 

Now let’s be blunt here people – Austrac has have been providing employment of last resort for a whole bunch of folks … for 30 years.

Now is the time to reveal their value to the Australian public.

Who exactly paid $1.1 million to an Australian bank account?

Who received $1.1 million from a Vatican account?

What happened next?

The minister in charge, and responsible for all this, is Peter Dutton.

He can be contacted at:

[email protected]

tel:+61(07) 3205 9977

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

82 Responses to This is a job for AUSTRAC

  1. JC

    Just to fill in some gaps here. The Vatican would have a record of the account to whom the payment went to in Australia. We don’t need useless Austrac to find out.

    You can’t make an overseas payment without very clear and specific account details.

  2. JC

    Sinc

    I’m kind of surprised that the Italian papers received the tip-off about payment and the nefarious purpose. Why weren’t account details on the other end also given to the papers there? Sounds a little strange, no?

  3. Leigh Lowe

    I agree JC.
    The Vatican would know who the Australian recipient was in the first instance.
    But if it was a “clearing house” for onward distribution in Australia, they would not necessarily know that.
    If the Australian “post-box” recipient does not fully explain it, the Vatican simply self-reports to Austrac that they believe a crime may have been committed and Austrac is bound to pursue any domestic transfers.

  4. Rex Mango

    Sinc, sick em tiger. Was never a believer in the Vatican conspiracy theory at the start, but tracing this money should be simple.

  5. HP

    Viv Waller, the lawyer representing the complainant, said he had not received any of the money allegedly sent from the Vatican.

    Nah, probably went straight to [let’s not speculate precisely who the money went to. Sinc]

  6. Up The Workers!

    According to their website, AUSTRAC is required to be notified of ALL transactions of the value of AU$10,000 or more – flowing either in to, or out from, Australia, so if the amount involved was AU$1.1 million, then it falls very much in the AUSTRAC purview.

    What do they know about it?

    Whose palms were greased with that cash?

    What was the ostensible purpose for its transfer?

    Was it used for that purpose?

    Are there any taxation implications for the dodgy recipients of that dirty money?

    What connection exists between the greased palms of the (possibly criminal) recipients of the dirty cash, and the Labor Party’s Pell Stitch-up, Star-Chamber trials and gross Miscarriage of Justice?

    Were any of the Labor Party’s gang of violent fully-armed bully-boy head-stompers, bashers, choke-holders, “George Floyders”, telephone thieves, door-booters, windscreen smashers, harassers of elderly widows, pregnant women and other such innocent individuals, also on the end of the dirty money-trail?

  7. Nob

    Italian anti money laundering laws would require details of the transfer, signed affidavit from the sender witnessed at the bank, and a signed receipt from the recipient stating what services or goods were provided.

    At least that’s what happens got foreign transfers between businesses, over much smaller amounts.

  8. Nob

    However the details might prove anything or nothing or be ambiguous enough to support anybody’s theory.

  9. JC

    Nob

    One possible thing is that Italian money laundering laws would likely not apply to the Vatican as they’re a sovereign state. The vat would likely make payments independently and would act in its own name when making transfers. I’m sure the vat would be a signatory to international agreements with respect to anti laundering though.

  10. mareeS

    This is Mafia. Make no mistake, money gets travelled around from criminals, including the priesthood. We know the history, and this ex-cardinal is one of them. Good on the High Court for making its 7-0 decision to return Cardinal Pell to sorting out corruption.

  11. JC

    MareeS

    Yea, but naaa. It’s not mafia related because there’s nothing the mafia is buying in Australia. Also the last thing the mafia would be doing is sending cash digitally which can be traced.

  12. H B Bear

    More than likely wired to a friendly Australian 3rd party who walked it around to the actual recipient. I wouldn’t expect tracing information would get you very far. Especially with everyone involved wanting to bury the whole thing. Shades of Gillard, her boyfriend and the AWU. And look where that went, absolutely nowhere.

  13. Rex Mango

    Going to bed, but do think think victim support groups are the problem here. Think Broken Rites. Pretty sure like any victim group they need funds to ensure their survival.

  14. BrettW

    Great thread Sinc, especially comments about that poor excuse for a Police organisation.

    Any report of this to VICPOL would be a total waste of time. Remember it was three police officers who went to Rome to meet and interview Pell. One, Shane Patton, is now the Chief Commissioner. It was also him who gave the infamous press conference about multiple victims and offences, none of which were successful.

    Ideal if AUSTRAC can, with Vatican help, identify recipient and what happened to the funds.

    This case was a disgrace to justice in Australia and the PM or Dutton should at least direct somebody look into it as we know VICPOL hopelessly compromised regarding this this sorry excuse for an investigation.

  15. tombell

    I have just sent an email to Minister Dutton on point. I suggest you all do the same.

  16. C.L.

    The perjurer’s financials should be investigated.
    For example: is his house paid off?

  17. Ubique

    Austrac officials have mostly been on most extended diversity and EEO training. The rest were busy building the Austrac float for the Gay Mardis Gras. None of them know anything. They saw nothing. Their tracking devices had flat batteries as it was cloudy and windless on whatever day the Vatican money was transferred, so they didn’t even get out bed.

  18. mareeS

    Victoria is quite a state in disrepair. Johannes Leak drew a great cartoon in August of it being towed offshore by CCP under the red stars. Good riddance.

  19. C.L.

    The Australian:

    Follow the ‘money trail’ to investigate Vatican plot: Pell’s barrister

    Authorities should investigate allegations that a disgraced Catholic cardinal used Vatican funds to corrupt the sex-abuse case levelled against George Pell …

  20. Win

    Peter Dutton was in the Queensland Police Force pre politics .His office are approachable and were heavily targeted by Get Up at the last election.

  21. Mr Bunny

    The Vatican as a separate State, can formally request AFP assistance under a criminal mutual assistance request. Whether the Vatican funds were used in the Pell case or not, the overriding allegation is they were stolen or misappropriated. Therefore the use of those funds in Australia may amount to use or possession of proceeds of crime of a foreign indictable offence. AUSTRAC is a regulatory agency, not a criminal investigative agency.

  22. Farmer Gez

    Ms Waller said the surviving altar boy in the criminal case had no idea about what was being ­alleged. “My client denies any knowledge or receipt of any payments,” she said.

    The non surviving altar boy never stated he’d been raped to anyone.
    I still can’t get my head around the fact that Pell was found guilty of assaulting a dead person on the say of another.

  23. ben

    If you are a friendly Australian third party and walked the money to the final recipient the ATO should be interested in speaking to you. If you have 1 million of ‘income’ and you can’t explain how that money is not ‘income’ then you are going to have a big tax liability.

  24. Mother Lode

    Victoria Police has not received a complaint about the money transfers, which have further scandalised the Vatican and coincided with Cardinal Pell’s return to Rome.

    Perhaps they could advertise for people to come forward.

    Best play it safe: Advertise in a niche magazine like ‘Modern Toe Nail-Clipper’.

    Finnish language edition.

  25. Entropy

    Ms Waller said the surviving altar boy in the criminal case had no idea about what was being ­alleged. “My client denies any knowledge or receipt of any payments,” she said.

    This might be true. It convienientlyleaves out other options well alone, such as
    *the law firm itself
    *support groups
    *relatives of the lone accuser, Sorry, “surviving” alter boy.
    As three examples right off the top of my head

  26. TC

    I’ll bet a few dollars found its way into a Pell supporting campaign, just to muddy the waters.

  27. Sinclair Davidson

    What is going on JC? This is very out-of-character for you.

    Normally you would be highly intolerant of this sort of thing.

    So this is the story. Either:
    1. Money was given to Pell himself to finance his defence.
    2. Money was given to someone else for some other purpose.

    Now we can sit around all day waiting for a Vatican report or even the Italian authorities to investigate, or we can get that same information from our own government who employ people out of our tax dollars to tell us.

    It is plausible but highly unlikely that it was 1. The Vatican wouldn’t need to cover up a defence payment. So it’s 2.

  28. Walter Plinge

    Bolt last night hinted that we should look at unexplained betterment for one of the parties. “I can’t say any more for obvious reasons” (or words to that effect).

  29. William the Conjuror

    So this is the story. Either:
    1. Money was given to Pell himself to finance his defence.
    2. Money was given to someone else for some other purpose.

    Or,since it is fake news: no money was given to anyone in Australia.

  30. duncanm

    The Italian reports mentioned that the money went through the local Apostolic Nunciature.

    But I repeat myself.

    Do any finance cats know the jurisdiction of that particular arm of the Vatican? Is it classed as an Australian entity for financial purposes (ie: where’s the international boundary)?

  31. Craig Mc

    I strongly suspect there are well-oiled systems for moving money in amounts below AUSTRAC’s radar, and lawyers would be their best customers. I wouldn’t hold out much faith in governments’ ability to discover the truth.

    Why even assume the money ever entered Australia? It could be waiting in a numbered bank account in some friendly domicile.

  32. Tel

    duncanm: if the transfer went through any Australian bank, or another bank that does payment clearance via the RBA system then from perspective of “international boundary” it would already be inside Australia.

    Willing to be proven wrong, but I’m fairly sure a diplomatic embassy cannot create some bubble of protection around bank accounts, and I had a search but could not find any Vatican Bank branches operating in Australia.

  33. candy

    Obviously a crime otherwise the Pope and the crooked cardinal would open the books immediately to see the honest transactions to various charity/help organisations in Australia and all would be settled all above board, no malarkey. Straightforward. If you are honest, you are not afraid and it is as simple as that.
    The Pope is an elderly simple man who may not cotton on to things and be hoodwinked.

    Austrac and Dutton probably won’t touch it because will be accused of helping p…do Pell even though Cardinal Pell is innocent. They are frightened of that. Even now after the HC found in favour of Cardinal Pell, no politician is willing to say “justice is done”. Too scared of the left media, or someone who has influence.

    e the Lindy Chamberlain “crime” – some people never believe she is innocent and no amount of logic sways them.

  34. William the Conjuror

    logic

    Huh?

  35. duncanm

    Thanks Tel.

    Although the Vatican’s is not a full diplomatic mission, foreign governments can carry bags of cash around without inspection, no? (they do in all the spy books I’ve read, and that’s based on fact, right? ;).

  36. Epicurious

    “To each and every single member of Victoria Police reading this; are you not ashamed?” You’re kidding, right? You assume VicPol can read or you assume Dan will let them read something right of Marx’s memoirs.

    Another point is that the funds may have gone elsewhere, not to Australia. So any search has to involve el-Vaticano.

  37. C.L.

    Old and busted Conjurer: “The Church is an evil institution capable of anything – get Pell!”
    Fresh new Conjurer: “The Church is above reproach – leave Becciu alone!”

  38. Chris M

    Why would anyone lodge a compliant with Victoria Police?

    Yes, in Victoria it’s not what they are for. Also it could be awkward if they were the recipients for example.

  39. mc

    Maybe this is something you can get 4Chan onto, the seem to make the investigators in the US look amateurish.

  40. William the Conjuror

    No-one has mentioned Bitcoin.

  41. H B Bear

    Gargooglery releases the more stupid of his current sock drawer.

  42. Roger

    The Italian reports mentioned that the money went through the local Apostolic Nunciature.

    I was wondering if the Nuncio was involved.

    The present incumbent, a Filpino, has been here since 2015. Being a diplomat I don’t imagine he wears his eccesiastical politics on his sleeve.

    He would also have immunity from prosecution if anything untoward was discovered.

  43. Rob

    Wheels in motion?
    This is a potentially explosive issue – needs to be kept alive

  44. John snowy Bowyer

    I forwarded the article to Dutton and asked him to do his job. I also CC to my local Rep Russell Broadbent who a week ago sent me his new idea. Set up a commission to investigate Criminal injustice as in the Lindy Chamberlain case. Here is something much more topical that he can raise in Parliament and get the ball rolling on.
    We really all should bombard the Minister and our local MP too.

  45. Roger

    He would also have immunity from prosecution if anything untoward was discovered.

    Further – and I’ll stand open to correction on this as it’s not an area of expertise – official or personal bank accounts would be regarded as the property of the Vatican, who would have to provide a waiver for them to be examined by Australian authorities.

  46. ExIronCurtain

    Viv Waller, the lawyer representing the complainant, said he had not received any of the money allegedly sent from the Vatican

    .
    So the complainant is still being represented by the law firm speaking on his behalf (conceivably after consultations).
    That usually results in quite a few pages of notes being added to the dossier and charges in blocks of 15 minutes or part thereof.
    Who pays the law firm fees?
    Who paid the fees for the complainant, now that I think about it?
    Was there any “compensation” payout that the law firm drew upon at the time?
    Would that be non-refundable?

  47. Real Deal

    William bias showing.

    William the Conjone-less.

  48. P

    The Italian reports mentioned that the money went through the local Apostolic Nunciature.

    I was wondering if the Nuncio was involved.

    The present incumbent, a Filpino, has been here since 2015. Being a diplomat I don’t imagine he wears his eccesiastical politics on his sleeve.

    He would also have immunity from prosecution if anything untoward was discovered.

    Pope Francis Meets With Australian Nuncio, Amid 700k-Euro Bank Transfer Allegation


    Archbishop Yllana was appointed to nuncio to Australia in 2015, succeeding Archbishop Paul Gallagher, now the Vatican’s “foreign minister.” The Register has learned that Archbishop Yllana and Cardinal Becciu are friends. Born the same year (1948), they both entered the Holy See diplomatic service within months of each other in 1984.

  49. Michael A

    I don’t know about the Vatican money, but we already know that Lawyer X Gobbo was paid millions by VicPol authorised by the Victorian Labor Party in 2010 to keep her quiet about what they had done. Did VicPol pay anything to the false accuser? Or anyone else? What we need is an investigation into all parties who could have influenced the absurd Pell result in Victoria. The veil of secrecy surrounding the second jury who brought in such a ridiculous result needs to be lifted and they should explain themselves. If they were merely stupid, and dumb luck selected 12 clods, so be it. But I am deeply uncomfortable with the jury selection process in Victoria especially where the first jury got it right 10-2 and the police were still so confident to push for a second trial where the second jury got it wrong 12-0. It is not proper that their identities remain concealed (thanks to changes to the Jury Act brought in by Daniel Andrews) but they were ALL known to Graham Ashton and VicPol (the identification of all members of jury pools are forwarded to the Chief Commissioner of VicPol for vetting). We know that VicPol at one time had 20 SANO officers working to get an innocent man convicted. What were they doing, given they obviously weren’t properly investigating? Checking social media posts of the potential jurors?
    I wish Pell was less forgiving. Louise Milligan should be sued in Italy for Calumny which carries a prison term of four to twelve years if the act results in a prison sentence exceeding five years, from six to twenty years if the act results in a life sentence which is essentially what Justice Kidd gave Pell. I can hear Tim Minchin now: “Come to Rome, Louise Milligan…”

  50. Leigh Lowe

    P at 11:19.
    That is huge.
    The Australian Papal Nuncio recalled for a “please explain”.

  51. P

    That is huge.
    The Australian Papal Nuncio recalled for a “please explain”.

    Sure is LL

    Can’t resist quoting this bit –

    Cardinal Becciu’s alleged involvement apart, an anonymous Vatican source with detailed knowledge of the matter confirmed to the Register that the wired funds were off the books and so there was no obligation to report them. They were ostensibly sent to the apostolic nunciature for “works to be done” that involved the “restoration of a gate.

    If that was the case, the source added, the nunciature should have the documentation, including details of how much the restoration cost and to whom the job was awarded. The sources the Register spoke to hypothesize that instead of the funds being spent, in full or in part, on construction project, they were paid to another entity that intended to bolster the sexual abuse case against Cardinal Pell and put an end to his efforts of financial reform at the Vatican, as has been reported the Italian newspapers La Repubblica and Corriere della Sera.

  52. H B Bear

    Sounds like Gillard’s home reno.

  53. duncanm

    ABC news?

    ..crickets..

    Appalling.

  54. Leigh Lowe

    H B Bear

    #3608928, posted on October 6, 2020 at 12:01 pm

    Sounds like Gillard’s home reno.

    Please, please, let the gate guy be the “dodgy Greek” who built Gillard’s Great Wall.

  55. Rex Mango

    ABC News busy trying to link Tony Abbott to this money.

  56. Leigh Lowe

    You are kidding, right, Rex?
    Although nothing would surprise.
    I’ll bet they are concocting a bunch of smokescreen/unicorn distraction lines as we speak, should this blow up.

  57. feelthebern

    So Pell’s biggest detractor sent 1.1mill to Australia to defend Pell.
    Yep, makes sense.

  58. Roger

    That is huge. The Australian Papal Nuncio recalled for a “please explain”.

    But even if there is “something to explian”, Australian authorities may not be able to access the financial records without the Vatican’s agreement. I imagine that decision will be made by Pope Francis and Cardinal Parolin, no doubt in consultation with Cardinal Pell.

  59. Rex Mango

    LL, yes was kidding, but just googled ABC & Card Becciu & could find a couple of things, most recent being 5 days ago – they report Pell returning too, but can’t seem to join the dots:

    https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/vatican-finances/12720598

  60. *Fixing a gate* means replacing a hinge (cardinal).

  61. P

    I just put up a news search for ‘Australian Nuncio’ on Bing (not had much luck with Google lately) and came up with this new thread on Catallaxy:

    Breaking: Nuncio linked to Get Pell cash is old mate of Becciu

    NCR: Pope Francis Meets With Australian Nuncio, Amid 700k-Euro Bank Transfer Allegation. Incidentally, a nuncio being “received in private audience” by the Supreme Pontiff – having been ordered to the …

    Catallaxy Files 11m

  62. Rafiki

    Bluntly, if one is to say that no weight can be given to the complainant’s denial because ‘what else would he say’ then no weight should have been given to Cardinal Pell’s denials when he was interviewed in Rome. Yet Weinberg gave them weight. And Weinberg did not find that J was a liar.
    J’s denials stand as credible until there is contrary evidence.

    Why be so certain only one person got the 1.1 dollars? If one pursued this bribery theory, it is more probable that several people, not including J, got a reward for making allegations so weak they did not get to trial, but created prejudice that made a fair trial impossible.

  63. Rafiki

    “allegations that were so weak”

  64. Simon Morgan

    Loise Milligan was unavailable for comment.

  65. Leigh Lowe

    Why be so certain only one person got the 1.1 dollars? If one pursued this bribery theory, it is more probable that several people, not including J, got a reward for making allegations so weak they did not get to trial, but created prejudice that made a fair trial impossible.

    It doesn’t matter.
    In fact, if the money was spread around to generate a lot of smoke, it is even more corrupt.
    The corruption wasn’t necessarily to secure a conviction, but merely to smear Pell so much that not only was he taken out of play, but it would serve as a warning to others who might delve into Becciu’s financial dealings.
    Bolt has made reference (both in print and on air) about someone “making transactions that you wouldn’t expect he would have the means to do”.
    Someone in the food chain has received cash.
    We need to know who and why.
    Oh, and J’s identity wouldn’t be protected in any reporting of these matters, just that the media would not be able to say that he was the witness in the Pell case.
    But if 5 or 6 people are named, dots will be joined.

  66. Leigh Lowe

    But even if there is “something to explian”, Australian authorities may not be able to access the financial records without the Vatican’s agreement.

    Roger, I think Pope Fonzie will try to resolve it internally but, if he is met with stonewalling, I wouldn’t rule out him self-reporting the transactions to regulators everywhere.
    And Becciu’s boys do NOT want that.
    Who knows where it will lead?

  67. Leigh Lowe

    Rex Mango
    #3609029, posted on October 6, 2020 at 1:24 pm
    LL, yes was kidding, but just googled ABC & Card Becciu & could find a couple of things, most recent being 5 days ago – they report Pell returning too, but can’t seem to join the dots:

    What is telling is that they haven’t run an interference story, singing the praises of Becciu, or at the very least running a “move on, nothing to see here” story.
    Someone in the ABC knows.

  68. Sinclair Davidson

    Bluntly, if one is to say that no weight can be given to the complainant’s denial because ‘what else would he say’ then no weight should have been given to Cardinal Pell’s denials when he was interviewed in Rome. Yet Weinberg gave them weight. And Weinberg did not find that J was a liar.
    J’s denials stand as credible until there is contrary evidence.

    Hmmmmmm. Let me think. Pell was found not guilty by 7 High Court judges after being formally accused of a crime. J has not been brought to court the explain his now discredited testimony. So we can believe Pell.

    Why be so certain only one person got the 1.1 dollars? If one pursued this bribery theory, it is more probable that several people, not including J, got a reward for making allegations so weak they did not get to trial, but created prejudice that made a fair trial impossible.

    Indeed – if only there was a government agency superficially tasked with investigating and resolving such questions …

    I’m surprised at you Rafiki.

  69. JC

    Bluntly, if one is to say that no weight can be given to the complainant’s denial because ‘what else would he say’ then no weight should have been given to Cardinal Pell’s denials when he was interviewed in Rome

    I get it Rafki. They can both be honest and truthful if you believe in parallel universes where both were telling the truth separately in different universes. Great point.

  70. jupes

    I’m surprised at you Rafiki.

    I’m not.

  71. Rafiki

    Sinc and JC – my point is that nothing much if anything turns on J (through his lawyer) denying that he got a reward. As Weinberg’s treatment of Pell’s denial shows, a denial can be given weight. Weinberg also allowed that a truthful person can simply be mistaken, including as a result of imagination. J was not found to have lied by Weinberg or the HC.

    My second and more important point is that an alternative ( and I suspect more fruitful) case-theory to pursue is that money was spread to others. Leigh Lowe, while criticising me, agrees. Sinc’s focus on the one recipient theory, and what that will be taken to mean, may miss the target. At least, at this point, other case-theories need to be explored.

  72. JC

    Rafki

    Weinberg most certainly did give weight to J’s testimony. He sided with Pell.

  73. Rafiki

    Did the bars open early in your neighbourhood JC? Weinberg held that, notwithstanding that J did not lie or fantasise, the other evidence, which in his view included Pell’s denial (which was not in court, but in the Rome interview), was such as to give rise to a reasonably possible doubt that Pell was not guilty. The High Court is to the same effect.
    That’s the sum of it. Now what in hell are you on about?

  74. Leigh Lowe

    Ah, Rafiki, that is fairly simplistic and sort of implies that it was a “J said – George said” trial.
    There were more than twenty witnesses supporting Pell and directly conflicting with J’s account, including timelines which effectively rendered J’s account practically impossible.
    Weinberg and the seven High Court judges didn’t call J a liar.
    They didn’t have to.
    But their judgements lead to the conclusion that it is almost certain this is what they believe.
    The offence was impossible.
    Even the Vicco DPP tried desperately on appeal to “elasticise” a previously proven timeline.

  75. Roger

    Roger, I think Pope Fonzie will try to resolve it internally…

    Yes, Leigh, that’s how these things are usually played by the Vatican.

  76. Rafiki

    LL I know very well about the other witnesses. I assumed that when I referred to the other witnesses readers would have been familiar with the judgment and known the detail. There was nothing simplistic about what I said. It was a simplified summary.

    Weinberg is clear in saying that he did not hold that J lied. I think I cited the relevant paragraph just recently. I am in Sydney at present (in a full and large restaurant with no masks and packed tables) and my copy is not with me.

  77. Mike W

    Why do you keep talking about Weinberg JA? The judgments of the 7 High Court Justices are far more cogent than anything coming from the Victorian Court of Appeal. They destroy the credibility of the prosecution case against Pell.

  78. Mike W

    It appears that the money was sent to Australia via the Nunciature, which means in effect under diplomatic immunity. Hence why the Nuncio has been summoned to Rome for “consultations” i.e. interrogation as to what was done with the money when it arrived.

    It may well have been laundered into cash for distribution to key people who would keep the prosecution focussed against Pell. That need not include witness J – it could have been someone whose role was to talk J into believing that he had been assaulted by Pell.

  79. 2dogs

    it is more probable that several people, not including J, got a reward

    What was the timing of this payment?

    Maybe it was to bribe VicPol to prosecute after the DPP refused.

    J could just be a political enemy of Pell, and it could easily be the case that he wasn’t in it for the money and still lied.

    But we now what VicPol is like.

  80. ExIronCurtain

    Judges like Weinberg or the 7 in the High Court most probably did not want to over-complicate their reasoning with “proving” that J’s testimony was in fact perjury. The appeal was against the guilty verdict.
    More is the pity.
    That anyone of sound mind would convict of a crime against a deceased person (who certifiably asserted he had not been abused before he died) based on the say-so of another person and only on that say-so ought to have their heads read. A “crime” without a victim or complaint or evidence.
    Great forces of evil were at work there. Why bring it up in a disculpatory fashion?

Comments are closed.