2020 Man of The Year: Cardinal George Pell AC

FALSELY accused by liars, vilified by bigots, framed by scoundrels and convicted by nitwits, George Pell was liberated from prison on 7 April when all seven justices of the High Court rejected the spurious charges against him. His imprisonment was the worst miscarriage of justice in Australian history and a global embarrassment that brought the nation’s justice system into unprecedented disrepute. Some would say the persecution of Lindy Chamberlain was even worse. The sectarian loathing observable in both cases was comparable but nobody ever suggested Mrs Chamberlain was convicted solely because malicious officials wanted to destroy her as a political enemy. Nor was a behemoth of fake news like the contemporary ABC marshalled against her.

Chronicler of the Rumble in The Jungle, Norman Mailer, once observed of the blows that caused George Foreman to buckle that Muhammad Ali held off on a coup de grâce as his opponent fell because it would have spoiled the elegance of the flurry. Pell’s restraint is actuated by spirituality rather than a boxer’s aesthetics but his victory in the hempen square is no less emphatic and his challengers are no less KO’d.

Since he left HM Prison Barwon, he has sought no revenge and has stated he will not sue the journalists and broadcasters who defamed him for spite and the applause of the like-mindedly vicious. No compensation will be sought. Pell has neither broken down like Graham Ashton – the police commissioner who once described the Cardinal’s accusers as “victims” – nor scampered from scrutiny through a graveyard like Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews. Instead, the 79 year-old prelate returned to work almost immediately and played the key role in banishing the money launderers and mafiosi from the Vatican. This week’s decree by the Supreme Pontiff that all power over Church monies has been stripped from the Secretariat of State and transferred to Cardinal Pell’s former office – the Secretariat for the Economy – is, in this writer’s opinion, the most stunning high policy triumph by an Australian churchman in history.

Tim Blair this week prophesied that an increasingly rage-fuelled Kevin Rudd may end up “selling self-published books at market stalls, in the manner of crazy old Jim Cairns.” There’s a good chance failed Pell hunter Louise Milligan might be there to keep him company. Like the gonzo guerrillas she once proudly captained, the ABC-employed author of the back-to-front titled The Rise and Fall of George Pell refuses to apologise.

Instead, since the acquittal of the century the punchy dead-enders have taken refuge in purported ‘findings’ of Julia Gillard’s Royal Commission Into Getting George Pell. Without evidence – and hard-pressed to table red meat for the ravenous mob – the commissioners declared themselves “satisfied” that Cardinal Pell knew about Gerald Ridsdale’s crimes and consciously discouraged situations involving clergy generally that might give rise to abuse or even the suspicion of it. Here the phrase “we are satisfied” has the same meaning as “the vibe of it” or “close enough for government work.” On the prudential avoidance of scandal, it’s a tragedy the Commission didn’t do the same. By not challenging its own poisonously construed terms of reference, those in government who still cover up child sexual abuse in remote communities and other state-governed entities got off Scot-free. The ALP officials who paid, loved and lionised Bob Ellis must have been pleased.

George Pell’s prison journal – now an internationally available spiritual classic – will still be read long after all the fatuous calumnies and their authors are forgotten. But he isn’t Man of the Year simply because he won but because of who he proved himself to be against impossible odds. All of the traits Australians prized most before saccharine mawkishness became culturally endemic – a sportsman’s bearing, courage, unwillingness to sob or whinge, never quitting, plain-speaking, cocking a snook at respectable authority and gracefulness in victory – were exhibited by him; indeed, they now define him. In this sense, the persecution of George Pell was actually the making of him. The cross are no match for the Cross. Never were; never will be.

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

243 Responses to 2020 Man of The Year: Cardinal George Pell AC

  1. stackja says:

    Amen!

  2. H B Bear says:

    Pell’s story (ordeal) is a very Christian one. No wonder the usual suspects hate him.

  3. JC says:

    FALSELY accused by liars, vilified by bigots, framed by scoundrels and convicted by nitwits, George Pell was liberated from prison on 7 April when all seven justices of the High Court rejected the spurious charges against him. His imprisonment was the worst miscarriage of justice in Australian history and a global embarrassment that brought the nation’s justice system into unprecedented disrepute. Some would say the persecution of Lindy Chamberlain was even worse. The sectarian loathing observable in both cases was comparable but nobody ever suggested Mrs Chamberlain was convicted solely because malicious officials wanted to destroy her as a political enemy. Nor was a behemoth of fake news like the contemporary ABC marshalled against her.

    Yep, an absolute fucking disgrace. An embarrassment in terms of what happened.

  4. bespoke says:

    I’ve used bits and peace’s of what Iv learnt hear to awaken some eye’s. Including Catholic family members. So maybe there is a purpose to it all, C.L.

  5. entropy says:

    Pretty sure the NT police wanted to get chamberlain too

  6. C.L. says:

    You’re pretty sure of that, are you?

    But they didn’t want to ‘get’ her as a political enemy, did they?

  7. Lee says:

    … the commissioners declared themselves “satisfied” that Cardinal Pell knew about Gerald Ridsdale’s abuse and consciously discouraged situations involving clergy generally that might give rise to it or even the suspicion of it.

    “The Royal Commission was also inconsistent in its findings. It accepted Father Madden’s evidence that he did not know of Ridsdale’s offending, but rejected the very same testimony when it supported Pell’s denial that he knew about it.” – Damian Grace

    Also, Bongiorno’s word that he didn’t know what Ridsdale was up to, was and is accepted by all and sundry, including the RC, even though he actually lived with the man.
    Cardinal Pell, though, is held to a different standard than his colleagues, or ex-colleagues.

  8. Dr Faustus says:

    All of the traits Australians prized most before saccharine mawkishness became culturally endemic – a sportsman’s bearing, courage, unwillingness to sob or whinge, never quitting, plain-speaking, cocking a snoot at respectable authority and gracefulness in victory – were exhibited by him; indeed, they now define him.

    And condemn the tale-bearers and coat-riders.
    A very solid man.

  9. Mustapha Bunn says:

    Lee … exactly.

  10. dopey says:

    Keith Windschuttle points out the RC’s frequent use of the term ‘inconceivable. ‘….” an admission that there is insufficient factual evidence for the finding….it had become addicted to using the term to paper over the reality that in too many places it never had enough evidence to support the finding it was always determined to make.”

  11. Peter Smith says:

    A brilliant piece; on the money.

  12. thefrollickingmole says:

    I should get a copy of his book for a mates wife.

    Shes very much in the “BuRN teh pEDooooo” camp despite agreeing the case was shithouse.

  13. Syd Gal says:

    Thank you for this post CL. Regarding the RC, if one takes a deep dive into exhibits and transcripts in some of the case studies, it is quite surprising that certain “findings” were made. Some quite revealing material was not cited or appears to be somewhat “glossed over” in the reports. And one Vic Pol Information Report on a historic matter upon which a “finding” is made is missing from the website. I’ve only looked at one person in Case Study #35 so far.

    Louise Milligan tweeted a photo of herself reclining with a book yesterday lamenting that she was at their “lovely NSW south coast beach house relaxing after a blissful swim for first time this year. It was 7 minutes before we got the news we have to pack up & go home to Melb after just 2 days’ holiday”. Little thought for a man who was wrongfully convicted on what appears to be the flimsiest of evidence based on what was put forward by K Judd on the HCA 12 March video, and imprisoned in solitary confinement for 400 plus days. For someone who has always promoted her compassion for complainants she met at the RC and through her various ABC TV programs, she shows no awareness of the hardships faced by elderly people who can’t be with their families, frontline health and medical workers whose holiday plans have undoubtedly changed and the many businesses facing very tough times this summer season.

    How will the Australian legal fraternity explain to their international peers about what on earth went on in relation to the investigation, prosecution and incarceration of Cardinal Pell? One person who has devoted much time to a forensic examination of the case is Chris S Friel on Academia and he has recently posted a piece entitled “Blind Spots” which highlights many of the unresolved questions.

  14. Leigh Lowe says:

    H B Bear

    #3705450, posted on January 1, 2021 at 2:44 pm

    Pell’s story (ordeal) is a very Christian one. No wonder the usual suspects hate him.

    That is what hurt the most.
    They couldn’t break him.

  15. Leigh Lowe says:

    Pedant alert.
    CL, I think the expression is “cocking a snook”, not “cocking a snoot”.

  16. Albatross says:

    punchie dead-enders

    You’re far too kind to Ringshot here.

  17. notafan says:

    Lovely piece thankyou CL.

    Why didn’t sevennilligan stay on at their lovely south coast beach house. Surely this fiasco will be done in a couple of weeks.

  18. Gab says:

    The real character of a man is observed under incredible circumstances and challenges. Cardinal Pell clearly demonstrated grace under pressure.

    His book is a must read – and the proceeds are being used to pay his legal fees.

  19. calli says:

    I’m glad it has worked out this way for Cardinal Pell and that justice was not only done, but done mightily.

    An excellent piece, C.L.

  20. incoherent rambler says:

    Not suing the clothes off the back of the slanderers leaves them to continue in their evil ways.

    Turning the other cheek does a disservice to the next vikplod victim.

  21. H B Bear says:

    incoherent rambler – inclined to agree. There is a time for vengeance.

  22. H B Bear says:

    Particularly when others may lack the resources/cash at your disposal.

  23. Carpe Jugulum says:

    Well written, cudos to you.

    My hope is that 7nilligan is brought low this year

  24. Roger says:

    Not suing the clothes off the back of the slanderers leaves them to continue in their evil ways.

    Turning the other cheek does a disservice to the next vikplod victim.

    The Cardinal spoke about our obligations to democracy and the truth the other day. I hope he comes to see that he has an obligation to pursue this further in the courts – not for himself but for our democracvy and its citizens. Any percuniary gain thereby could be donated to a worthy Catholic charity so that some good may come of all of this.

  25. Bones says:

    Well done Cats in charge.

    A wonderful and well earned accolade, leaving aside the boondoggle they put him through.

    God Bless Cardinal Pell.

  26. Des Deskperson says:

    ‘Also, Bongiorno’s word that he didn’t know what Ridsdale was up to, was and is accepted by all and sundry, including the RC, even though he actually lived with the man.’

    More than just lived with him. There was a submission to the RC in which the informant alleged that, as a Catholic youth, he had personally complained to Bonge about Ridsedale’s antics but that Bonge had taken no action.

    Bonge has denied this, disputing the times, dates and places cited in the allegation. He went so far as to – unusually? – provide a stat dec. The allegations, so far as I am aware, never made it into any report of from the RC, probably fair enough since they were unsupported by any corroborating evidence. Never the less, there are two interesting points:

    the allegations against Bonge were more specific. So far as I am aware, no one has claimed that Pell was actually told about Ridesdale. The RC’s unsupported assumption was the Pell was working in the office at the time, so he must have known.

    never the less, the allegation against Bonge were thrown out on reasonable legal grounds. Those against Pell were not.

  27. gavalanche says:

    yes, his bearing has been impeccable, as befits a christian under persecution.
    i think the whole world is now like first century rome, and the christians are those getting a lot of flack for telling the truth in a sea of lies.
    but in the end, we know who prevails, and always will.

  28. dopey says:

    Windschuttle… p256…’ Pell’s alleged assault involved him putting two hands behind the choirboy’s head while at the same time using a third hand to masturbate himself . In the scenario preferred by Ferguson and Maxwell, he also needs at least one more hand, or more likely, given the weight of his array of garments, another two hands, to lift up all this gear and keep it out of the way while he does the deed.”
    Milligan described Maxwell and Ferguson as ‘ eminent judges.’

  29. Geriatric Mayfly says:

    Milligan described Maxwell and Ferguson as ‘ eminent judges.’

    Well, she would say that wouldn’t she.?

    How the two of them still have the gall to sit on the bench is simply breathtaking.

  30. FelixKruell says:

    He did withstand the trials with good grace – and his efforts in the Vatican against endemic financial corruption were also laud worthy. But I think it’s a stretch to give him man of the year.

    He came out of the royal commission looking like someone who closed the other eye rather than turning the other cheek. At best he was wilfully incurious as to the goings on around him (which doesn’t ring true given what we know of his personality) or he knew, but had the good sense not to rock the boat if he wanted to progress up the chain (which does ring true).

  31. Geriatric Mayfly says:

    My hope is that 7nilligan is brought low this year

    There’s a few others in that chain of slags who have mouldered in the feminist stews for too long and for whom the light of day would be of restorative benefit.

  32. Buccaneer says:

    The cultural left dropped this like a dog drops a sausage that’s come straight off the BBQ. Sadly, I suspect that like the dog, they’ll be back to wolf it down as soon as they can find another way to pick it up again. Once Pell is done with the corruption at the Vatican he has a task to do back home. I suspect that starts with the recipients of largesse but also includes just how the Bonge got a free pass and how hacks like Milligan can still call themselves journalists.

  33. notafan says:

    I hope most sincerely that Cardinal Pell at age 79, stays in Rome and does not return. The has done his fair share.

  34. notafan says:

    More projection FK?

    He thought they were active homosexuals, said as much in Rome.

    Bongiorno didn’t have a clue why should have Cardinal Pell?

  35. Tapdog says:

    … a sportsman’s manly bearing, courage, unwillingness to sob or whinge, never quitting, plain-speaking,…

    Sounds like the ideal chap to explain the financial deal between the Vatican and China. Pell will doubtless feel a special fellowship with oppressed Chinese Christians.

    Good luck with that George.

  36. notafan says:

    Exactly Des.

    If you believe Bongiorno you have to believe Cardinal Pell more so.

  37. Craig Mc says:

    How the two of them still have the gall to sit on the bench is simply breathtaking.

    While the stench of Rob Hulls lingers in Victorian courts, you try to not take a breath.

  38. Cassie of Sydney says:

    Thank you CL…a wonderfully eloquent piece about a man so wronged. The whole Get Pell saga was truly sinister.

    You write “will not sue the journalists and broadcasters who defamed him for spite and the applause of the like-mindedly vicious“…..CL…those “journalists and broadcasters continue to defame him for spite and the applause of the like-mindedly vicious“.

    They are scum…all of them.

  39. Cassie of Sydney says:

    “Des Deskperson
    #3705581, posted on January 1, 2021 at 5:47 pm”

    Well said DD.

  40. Cassie of Sydney says:

    “Syd Gal
    #3705501, posted on January 1, 2021 at 3:54 pm”

    Great post

  41. Lee says:

    … never the less, the allegation against Bonge were thrown out on reasonable legal grounds. Those against Pell were not.

    One standard set a priori for Pell by the RC, and all the Pell-haters, another for everyone else, including the indubitably left wing Bongiorno.

  42. Old Lefty says:

    Excellent piece as usual, CL.

    Just one quibble about the royal commission’s ‘poisonously sectarian terms of reference’. It was more subtle than that: the RC’s terms of reference gave it a mandate to investigate state institutions as well as religious and other non-government bodies, but it signally failed to do so except for a couple of pieces of token window-dressing. What we had, then, was an unexceptionable mandate (like the unexceptionable human rights clauses in the constitution of the USSR), but a grubby off-the-record political deal with the commissioners to target institutions and people on the Socialist Left’s hate list.

  43. Spurgeon Monkfish III says:

    That is what hurt the most.
    They couldn’t break him.

    He speaks about it here.

    405 days in gaol.

    There will be more of these witch hunts, now cultural collectivists have destroyed “our institutions”* and feel they have free rein to pursue their enemies (real and percieved).

    *They were never mine and never will be.

  44. FelixKruell says:

    Notafan:

    More projection FK?

    He thought they were active homosexuals, said as much in Rome.

    Bongiorno didn’t have a clue why should have Cardinal Pell?

    If he couldn’t differentiate between homosexuality and pedophilia, he had no business making his way up the chain.

  45. Anonandon says:

    Magnificent

  46. Tintarella di Luna says:

    Another great read, thank you C.L.

  47. Perfidious Albino says:

    Well written and judged CL. Kudos.

  48. Old Lefty says:

    Gerard Henderson has a wonderful name for Bonge’s screeds: the epistle of Father Paul to the Greenleftians.

  49. Wyndham Dix says:

    Unlike Cardinal Pell, none of his detractors that I know of could live up to these words of Sir Winston Churchill:-

    In war, Resolution [The Cardinal’s trial and strength of character through it]
    In defeat, Defiance [Stoicism during his incarceration]
    In victory, Magnanimity [Generosity of spirit towards his detractors after the HC overturned his false conviction]
    In peace, Goodwill [Peaceful co-existence with all]

    Cardinal Pell knows that he is a fallen man, as are his detractors. He knows also, as evidently they do not, that he has a Saviour who gave His Life to rescue him from his sins.

    “Vengeance is mine; I will repay says the Lord.” In the fullness of time Cardinal Pell’s unrepentant detractors and accomplices will discover this, to their considerable discomfort. The Cardinal will not be the One to administer the pain.

  50. David says:

    Fantastic commentary and suggestion. His stature has risen immensely through this disgraceful episode.

    Never underestimate the missionary zeal of the left to destroy things and people however. Look at how smoothly they moved onto the gossip peddled by the RC. Also, on the day of his Bolt interview, they leak yet further concoctions, without a shred of evidence to back them up.

  51. RainMan says:

    God bless Cardinal Pell.

  52. Jock says:

    brilliant. i agree

  53. PB says:

    If Pell had it bad, wait until they can openly use the US legal system to pay Trump back for daring to challenge their stranglehold on the Presidency. It will be the get-Pell operation on steroids.

  54. Baa Humbug says:

    Will those who persecuted and prosecuted C. G. Pell pay a price? No
    Will they and their fellow travelers be deterred from doing the same to others? Seems not.
    I’m very happy for the Cardinal. I think he is a good man.
    I am sad and concerned for the rest of us.

  55. PB says:

    “This week’s decree by the Supreme Pontiff that all power over Church monies has been stripped from the Secretariat of State and transferred to Cardinal Pell’s former office – the Secretariat for the Economy – is, in this writer’s opinion, the most stunning high policy triumph by an Australian churchman in history.”

    I read that a few times. He knew exactly the forces marshalled against him, and he knew the extent of their reach. Talk about a man focused on the mission. Remarkable man.

  56. SIMON NICHOLAS MORGAN says:

    Of course we knew Pell wouldn’t pursue the conga line of bigots and liars that landed him in prison, but he needs to give some thought to those poor wretches that are yet to be hounded.

    And he needs to give some thought to the Catholic church as well, because their next target is very likely to be another Catholic minister.

    The left will never learn from it’s mistakes unless it is made to pay a very high price for them.

  57. Nob says:

    FelixKruell
    #3705609, posted on January 1, 2021 at 6:22 pm
    He came out of the royal commission looking like someone who closed the other eye rather than turning the other cheek.

    That appeared to be the intention of the RC.
    “Guilty because he knew”
    In an era when the progressive media was inclined to be tolerant of , and even promote, P-doughs, and everyone else saw it as a single crime rather than a pattern of abuse. The whole nature of this kind of offending wasn’t properly understood as a recidivist addiction and it was considered bigoted to suggest otherwise.

    At best he was wilfully incurious as to the goings on around him (which doesn’t ring true given what we know of his personality) or he knew, but had the good sense not to rock the boat if he wanted to progress up the chain (which does ring true).

    It seems to me he made enemies because he did rock the boat.

    You seem to understand that the Catholic Church had many questions to answer about this period, (Pell finally took the lead on this when he was in a powerful position) but reluctant to examine your own profession’s ( I assume you are a lawyer of some sort) complicity in the self-critical way the RC has been doing for the last 20+ years..

  58. Syd Gal says:

    This may be old information but I only started looking at some of the RC reports in May this year.

    Felix K – On the RC, journalists such as Milligan and Davey have commented in recent zoom sessions about P Searson matters and there has been some coverage of the “List of Grievances” presented to Cdl Pell by a Union Rep in 1989. The list also included items such as: gas heaters not working/serviced, shade trees cut down, and excessive demands of staff personal time for religious observance, hence the Union Rep delivering the Rept, I guess. One key person involved in this meeting was unable to give evidence at the RC.

    Vol 1 of the RC Rept contains a breakdown of the $342M expenditure which includes $67M for the private sessions. The Narrative Section on the RC site includes the following statement: “Disclaimer: This is the story of a person who spoke with a Commissioner during a private session of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. Real names of individuals have not been used, except of public figures in a public context. The information the person provided was not evidence, the person was not a witness, and did not need to take an oath or affirmation, although they were expected to tell the truth. Nothing in this story is a finding of the Royal Commission and any views expressed are those of the person, not of the Commissioners”.

  59. Nob says:

    :
    RC = RC church in this instance, not Royal Commission

  60. notafan says:

    Felix

    They were as I best recall homosexuals as well, Catholic priests are supposed to be celibate, that behaviour is sinful, but Cardinal Pell was not their bishop, was he?

    Now it appears to me you think Cardinal Pell should have had ‘pedar’ as well.

    Isn’t that just a little bit unreasonable?

  61. FelixKruell says:

    Nob:

    The whole nature of this kind of offending wasn’t properly understood as a recidivist addiction and it was considered bigoted to suggest otherwise.

    No, I’m pretty sure most people always knew it was wrong.

    It seems to me he made enemies because he did rock the boat.

    In relation to child abuse? When exactly did he do this?

  62. Seco says:

    With all that has happened in 2020, Pell’s charges thrown out and his release from prison is the greatest of victories and one we should cherish dearly.

    I ordered his prison journal after Andrew Bolt posted about it so hopefully it’s not too far away.

    Thanks CL for fighting the good fight for so long.

  63. FelixKruell says:

    Notafan:

    They were as I best recall homosexuals as well, Catholic priests are supposed to be celibate, that behaviour is sinful, but Cardinal Pell was not their bishop, was he?

    Now it appears to me you think Cardinal Pell should have had ‘pedar’ as well.

    Isn’t that just a little bit unreasonable?

    It’s not the sin against the rules of celibacy that Pell should have cared about – rather the sins against innocent children.

    Pell didn’t need pedar – he apparently had kids telling him about the abuse. What would you do if a kid told you their teacher was abusing other kids from their class?

  64. notafan says:

    That is untrue in regards to Risdale.

    He did receive concerns about a Christian brother, which he passed on to the appropriate authority within their order but regrets trusting them to do as they ought, because they did not.

    You should know this already instead of presenting half truths.

    The RC recommended and the fact that most government in Australia have passed laws demanding that priests break the seal of the confession is based on the false premise that Cardinal Pell must have known for certain because he had heard Risdale’s confession.

    Risdale himself said he never went to confession so there you are.

  65. Petros says:

    So what happens to the two out of three judges that found him guilty, prior to the unanimous supreme court decision? Demoted? Sacked? Leave without pay?

  66. Ian of Brisbane says:

    If not for the viciousness of the ABC Pell would now be Pope and doing a much better job than the incumbent.

  67. FelixKruell says:

    Notafan:

    He did receive concerns about a Christian brother, which he passed on to the appropriate authority within their order but regrets trusting them to do as they ought, because they did not.

    No, he didn’t. He took it to the school chaplain. Not the headmaster. Not the bishop.

    I haven’t mentioned confession?

  68. FelixKruell says:

    Petros:

    So what happens to the two out of three judges that found him guilty, prior to the unanimous supreme court decision? Demoted? Sacked? Leave without pay?

    That’s not how it works. These are tough legal concepts to apply – there’s no rule book, other than ever changing legislation and precedents.

  69. Up The Workers! says:

    “FALSELY accused by liars, vilified by bigots, framed by scoundrels and convicted by nitwits…”

    That’s one of the best descriptions of the fact-phobic Leftard bigots, liars and quarterwits on the $1.3 Billion per annum Sheltered Workshop payroll of the A.L.P.B.C., that I have ever read.

    Odd that the now-despised Walkley Award is nowadays gifted to a Leftard agglomeration of Sorbent with newsprint. I had heard an improbable tale that it was once allegedly respected, but like most things associated with the far left and its fact-phobic hate-preachers, that was probably just gillarding.

  70. dopey says:

    The Windschuttle book is very strong Felix. You’ll need to be at the top of your game to dismiss it of course.

  71. Boris says:

    In my view a very important outcome of this is partial restoration of faith in the high court for many of us.

  72. jupes says:

    there’s no rule book

    LOL

  73. Tom says:

    The Cardinal spoke about our obligations to democracy and the truth the other day. I hope he comes to see that he has an obligation to pursue this further in the courts – not for himself but for our democracvy and its citizens.

    Spot on, Roger at 5.35pm.

    Unless these vicious anti-Catholic bigots like Milligan (and the ABC) are made to pay a price for lying their heads off and destroying people’s lives, they will keep doing it.

    The primary mission of Milligan and the ABC was revenge against the church for refusing to condone homosexuality. Every single one of the peedos cited in the royal commission was a male homosexual and the ABC is a haven for male homosexuals.

    So Milligan and the ABC did the most evil thing they could concoct in the Alinskyist style: they accused Cardinal Pell of being a protector of homosexual peedos when, virtually alone, he spearheaded the effort to clean them out.

    If he couldn’t differentiate between homosexuality and pedophilia, he had no business making his way up the chain.

    You idiot, Felix. As I said above, EVERY ONE of the peedos on the loose inside the Catholic church up until the 1980s was a male homosexual.

    Thank you, CL. A superb piece of writing.

  74. Tintarella di Luna says:

    Just one quibble about the royal commission’s ‘poisonously sectarian terms of reference’. It was more subtle than that: the RC’s terms of reference gave it a mandate to investigate state institutions as well as religious and other non-government bodies, but it signally failed to do so except for a couple of pieces of token window-dressing. What we had, then, was an unexceptionable mandate (like the unexceptionable human rights clauses in the constitution of the USSR), but a grubby off-the-record political deal with the commissioners to target institutions and people on the Socialist Left’s hate list.

    Indeed old leftie and the overarching institution over all institutions is the Parliament and the stats on that is quite interesting given that there have been a number of politicians convicted and gaoled for sex crimes against children — most of whom belonged to a particular political tribe at the time of the offences, and some who avoided the scrutiny by leaving the scene entirely before charges were laid. And what of the many government institutions which were at the centre of the Royal Commission whose first report was The Forgotten Australians a lot of testimony about sexual crimes against children in that report.

    And what of the Northern Beaches High Schools which were rife with teachers gaining sexual favours from students – so much missed by the Commissioners in the Get Pell Royal Commission.

  75. bespoke says:

    Felix spin is he did nothing and when proven wrong pivots to it wasn’t enough.

  76. Herodotus says:

    More than ten percent of this comment thread is by or in response to a daily troll.

  77. notafan says:

    You got it wrong Felix, again.

    The Christian Brothers are a separate entity to the diocese. He took it to an appropriate member of their hierarchy and would reasonably have expected an appropriate response.

    He regrets not pursuing it more vigorously.

    I am sure there are many others in that time who made complaints to police, who feel exactly the same way.

  78. Seco says:

    If local police knew of abuse and did nothing then that’s the end of the story for me.

    Pell did what he could when he could but nothing upset the ABC types more than refusing communion to the Rainbow Sash brigade. That was the moment “Get Pell” started because nobody cared much for child sexual abuse until then.

  79. Cassie of Sydney says:

    “Unless these vicious anti-Catholic bigots like Milligan (and the ABC) are made to pay a price for lying their heads off and destroying people’s lives, they will keep doing it.”

    That’s my belief as well. Neither their ABC, Louse 7-Nilligan, David Marr, the Victorian Police and all the rest of the associated scum have professed any remorse for their roles in the injustice done to George Pell. As for Louse 7-Nilligan, any decent person, indeed anyone with a smidgen of a conscience, would have swallowed their pride and decided to hide away for a while after the 7-0 verdict. But not Louse….she’s still out and about, hitting the airwaves, promoting a new book and being given an Wokeley Award.

    These people have no shame….they must be made accountable otherwise someone else will endure what Pell has endured.

  80. Dot says:

    Here’s a legal concept for you Felix.

    7 – 0.

  81. JC says:

    7/0 , doesn’t mean he’s innocent.

    Also it means there’s no evidence the Ringshot isn’t the neighbourhood fondler of cat’s genitalia.

  82. notafan says:

    No they didn’t seco.

    Someone, one day will look at complaints, charges, convictions and sentences in the time period.

    We already know a police officer was driven out of the force trying to pursue an abuser in Mildura iirc and another police officer used his position to abuse children for decades and got his name suppressed when he was finally convicted.

  83. gavalanche says:

    pell as the next pope?
    that would make life hilariously difficult for the abc

  84. Baa Humbug says:

    jupes
    #3705957, posted on January 2, 2021 at 3:44 am

    there’s no rule book

    LOL

    I know right?
    Yet so many of us spend so much time responding to that utter tosspot.
    Must be sport or something.

  85. Boambee John says:

    Pell didn’t need pedar – he apparently had kids telling him about the abuse. What would you do if a kid told you their teacher was abusing other kids from their class?

    Ask Bonge for advice?

  86. Mother Lode says:

    I would love to see the Cardinal go after his persecutors and expose them for what they are. But surely one thing that has become clear from this ordeal is the Cardinal’s faith. Jesus led by example and did not seek revenge.

    And for him, I would imagine that if any or some of his former tormentors repent then it will have been worth it.

    And although his book will be uplifting for his supporters it will also show the Cardinal to be very different to the monster the Victorian authorities tried to show him to be.

    Where would lawsuits against MUP, 7-Nilligan, and the malign agents guiding the Victorian police and justice system be held.

  87. feelthebern says:

    Is Pell now retired?
    Or does he have some role in the Vatican now he’s back in town?

    Pell the private citizen has no responsibility/obligation to pursue anyone.
    Formerly, Pell the senior figure in the Catholic Church, had a responsibility/obligation to pursue those who colluded against him.

  88. Cassie of Sydney says:

    “And for him, I would imagine that if any or some of his former tormentors repent then it will have been worth it.”

    Except they don’t and they won’t. The scum that make up the modern progressive left are incapable of acknowledging their mistakes. They just double down and persist with their hatreds…look at Slag Keneally and her targeting of Tony Abbott this week.

  89. Makka says:

    Thanks CL. A great piece.

  90. OldOzzie says:

    Excellent piece CL

  91. Geriatric Mayfly says:

    FelixKruell

    Could be 7Nilligan herself, or one of her devoted sisters.

  92. Boambee John says:

    Geriatric Mayfly
    #3706067, posted on January 2, 2021 at 9:31 am
    FelixKruell

    Could be 7Nilligan herself, or one of her devoted sisters.

    So calling he/she/xir “Felicia” was close to the truth?

  93. woolfe says:

    Those who subscribe to The Paywallian please nominate George Pell as Australian of the Year

  94. Mother Lode says:

    Except they don’t and they won’t.

    But for him it is important to give them the chance, the choice.

    It is not a calculation, but a matter of faith that forgiveness will finally make for a better world.

    But I, like you Cassie, would have liked to see him order a container of pineapples to be rectally fitted to the lot of them.

  95. the sting says:

    Excellent article . Yes , the stench of Rob Hulls still lingers in the Victorian legal system . If he had stayed picking tomatoes at Rochester , Australia would be a better place .

  96. Pingback: 2 January 2020 – Dark Brightness

  97. Cassie of Sydney says:

    “It is not a calculation, but a matter of faith that forgiveness will finally make for a better world.”

    Agree ML..although in Joooodaism there must also be justice to make the world a better place.

  98. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha says:

    Those who subscribe to The Paywallian please nominate George Pell as Australian of the Year

    Done.

  99. Cassie of Sydney says:

    “Those who subscribe to The Paywallian please nominate George Pell as Australian of the Year”

    Done…and my sister has done so too.

  100. FelixKruell says:

    Tom:

    You idiot, Felix. As I said above, EVERY ONE of the peedos on the loose inside the Catholic church up until the 1980s was a male homosexual.

    Yet not every male homosexual in the church was a pedo. That’s why your point is nonsense.

  101. FelixKruell says:

    Notafan:

    The Christian Brothers are a separate entity to the diocese. He took it to an appropriate member of their hierarchy and would reasonably have expected an appropriate response.

    He took it to a chaplain. How is that an ‘appropriate’ meme err if their hierarchy?

  102. FelixKruell says:

    Dot:

    Here’s a legal concept for you Felix.

    7 – 0.

    I see you like confusing outcomes with concepts in this area too. How very primitive.

  103. FelixKruell says:

    Baa:

    I know right?
    Yet so many of us spend so much time responding to that utter tosspot.
    Must be sport or something.

    Yet once again, rather than responding to my point (show us the rule book!) you lot degenerate into personal abuse. Its like clockwork…

  104. Syd Gal says:

    Regarding Roger’s comment:

    The Cardinal spoke about our obligations to democracy and the truth the other day. I hope he comes to see that he has an obligation to pursue this further in the courts – not for himself but for our democracy and its citizens.

    Yes, Cardinal Pell has been very gracious in his recent interviews (with Raymond Arroyo 18 Dec and Colm Flynn 23 Dec). I have empathy for the people who dared question some of the evidence in Cardinal Pell’s case and supported him publicly and in social media – they were vilified by politicians, high profile media commentators and the angry mob. The trials must also have been very difficult for members of the Catholic community working in parishes, schools, aged care facilities etc. People I know walked away when started talking about the case.

    And in light of what was presented to the HCA on 12 March, how can the costs of the criminal justice process be justified: the police investigation (I think I read somewhere that 26 police officers worked on it), the committal, 2 trials, appeal and HCA judgment? We also have Part 3 of the ABC Revelations Programs which featured “Bernie” who was unable to proceed to the Committal- apparently the series took 2 years to make and must have cost a fortune with all the international travel involved. That program won the Walkley Documentary award in November. In recent news reports and zoom book promotional events, the ABC and key journalists/media pile on people are not recognising the result from the HCA and have to defer to the RC “findings” – which is precisely what P Kidd said the trial was not about.

    What Tom wrote about the Royal Commission and homosexual priests is very interesting – because that is the sense that I got when reading some of the exhibits from the late 1980s/early 1990s in one of the case studies on the RC site. It seems as if certain priests may also have been “unpopular” because they were authoritarian and held conservative/traditional views regarding the Church – the voluminous documentation certainly indicates there was internal conflict going on between some of the younger and older priests who lived together in presbyteries.

    If further Court matters were to be brought forward, perhaps that might make the media pay attention. Perhaps the truth might finally be revealed.

  105. John Comnenus says:

    This case destroyed the myth of an impartial Australian judiciary and an unbiased police force. It shows that our police forces and courts are being hyper politicised by the Left just like they have been in the USA. What this case, in conjunction with events in America and Europe show is the collapse of the institutional pillars of Western civilisation under the relentless assault from the Left amplified through much of our public services, our courts, our media, our corporations, educational establishments, governments and social media. It is no surprise that the destroying the Christian faith is the first step in destroying our institutions en route to destroying western civilisation. In my opinion, this is because Christian ethics and philosophy underpin everything in Western civilisation. It was the other thing built on the rock that Christ instructed Peter to build the Church on.

  106. Dot says:

    Here’s that legal concept for you again.

    7 – 0

    Anyone acquitted or has their conviction overturned is innocent.

    Now, have it as a background for your laptop, and when you forget, go outside and punch yourself on the sack until you remember.

    Here endeth the lesson.

  107. Old School Conservative says:

    Done, woolfe.

  108. Dot says:

    Also too we know Pell isn’t just presumed innocent; Jay is proven perjurer.

    This is the only reason why Phallus is running interference over this.

  109. FelixKruell says:

    Dot:

    Anyone acquitted or has their conviction overturned is innocent.

    And you held him to be guilty before that conviction was overturned…right?

    This post was about Pell being man of the year. Despite having his conviction overturned (and therefore being innocent in the eyes of the law), I don’t think he qualifies. Not because of that case, but because of his actions and inactions that came to light in the RC.

  110. FelixKruell says:

    Dot:

    Also too we know Pell isn’t just presumed innocent; Jay is proven perjurer.

    I see your embrace of the presumption of innocence is rather…limited.

  111. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha says:

    “Those who subscribe to The Paywallian please nominate George Pell as Australian of the Year”

    He’s the favourite candidate in the “comments” section.

  112. Joanna Smythe says:

    I suggested Cardinal Pell as the Australian are running a poll. My suggestion was rejected, probably because I pointed out why he wouldn’t be nominated, i.e. the ABC and the Victorian Police wouldn’t be happy. A few other people have nominated him. Peta Credlin seems to be winning so far for outing Daniel Andrews.

  113. Syd Gal says:

    Occasionally I wonder if what happened to Cardinal Pell may have happened to other priests..?

    Hard to know how certain ” findings” can be made about minutes of meetings – priests could be moved to other parishes/organisations for a variety of reasons – changing demographics, cultural/language issues, mental health issues, adult relationships.

    I will go back to those RC exhibits and transcripts as they are quite revealing. It’s strange the Newcastle case study materials have not been linked to the recently released report.

  114. Dot says:

    I never said Jay was guilty. A jury hasn’t convicted him yet.
    He actually did it.
    His crime disproves Pell’s guilt beyond any doubt.
    Pell actually didn’t do it.
    His conviction was overturned. – he should be presumed innocent like most of us are, regardless if we could or not prove that Jay is, in fact, as he is, a perjurer.
    …and you were so easy to trip up.

    At best, Jay should be tried; you’re supporting a sick conspiracy of cowards and bigots.

  115. FelixKruell says:

    Dot:

    I never said Jay was guilty. A jury hasn’t convicted him yet.
    He actually did it.

    So he can be presumed innocent at law, yet actually have done it? And this can’t apply to Pell because….

  116. jupes says:

    And this can’t apply to Pell because….

    It was impossible for him to have done it.

    You gullible twit.

  117. Dr Faustus says:

    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.

    So, J’s evidence presumably appeared “thoroughly credible and reliable”, but was also reasonably likely not to be true.
    There’s probably a number of lay terms for that…

  118. Matt says:

    I realise that Christians are mean to apologise however if I was him I would sue the ABC.

  119. Matt says:

    I realise that Christians are meant to forgive, however if I was Pell I would sue the ABC for defamation. (take 2!)

  120. Annie says:

    @Wolfe @ 9:54am:

    Brilliant idea. I wish I’d thought of it earlier.

  121. old bloke says:

    Thanks CL, a great piece of writing.

    One matter remains outstanding from this unwholesome and sad saga, to whom did the misappropriated Vatican dollars go. The Victoria Police won’t investigate, can’t the Feds investigate?

  122. Dot says:

    Because Jay lied and should be in gaol for perjury.

    Who is Jay? Inquirin’ minds wanna know!

  123. bruce says:

    Cardinal Pell. Crucified, dead and buried.
    Then the resurrection.
    Pope George 1 would be more than appropriate. And a great leader and reformer he would be.

  124. FelixKruell says:

    Jules:

    It was impossible for him to have done it.

    You gullible twit.

    12 people who heard all the evidence (unlike you or I) concluded otherwise.

  125. FelixKruell says:

    Dot:

    Because Jay lied and should be in gaol for perjury.

    But he’s not. He hasn’t been charged. He hasn’t been convicted. Meaning he is as innocent as Pell. Right?

    But glad you’re finally acknowledging that what the courts find, and whether they actually did the deed, are two seperate questions. JC (and the rest of you lot) has been struggling with this concept for a while now.

  126. Cassie of Sydney says:

    “Jules:”

    It’s “Jupes” twit.

    Oh and twit…when will you finally acknowledge what the High Court found? It was 7-0…something you seem to have struggled with for a while now.

    Now eff off TWIT.

  127. Tintarella di Luna says:

    Who is Jay?

    Hint: Chocolate-drop eyes

  128. Lee says:

    12 people who heard all the evidence (unlike you or I) concluded otherwise.

    And they were 100% wrong.
    But you keep trying to spin your way out of backing the wrong horse (the prosecution) all the way along.

  129. Dr Faustus says:

    12 people who heard all the evidence (unlike you or I) concluded otherwise.

    In Round 1, 12 people heard all the evidence and concluded otherwise.
    I guess it’s open for you to conclude the Round 2 jury had better hearing.

  130. Syd Gal says:

    Materials submitted by the DPP on the HCA site state that that complainant got the layout of the sacristy right and was able to identify the “correct” room. But as the swigging of the wine was always so important in the narrative, it would seem that the “correct” room would have to be the one where the wine was located.

    If you watch the HCA video 12 March video carefully around about 2 hours 50 onwards, you will hear that the complainant said he and his mate were poking around in wood panelled cupboard resembling a storage kitchenette immediately to the left of the door and they found some wine.

    In 1996 this area was a wardrobe for hanging vestments not a storage kitchenette housing wine.

    And here’s a section from the 2016 VicPol/Cardinal Pell Rome 42 min video in the public domain – Police talk about the storage area to the left of the door and Cdl Pell advises this was used to store vestments :

    “Detective Reed: Yep. Okay, they’ve walked in, and there was a wood panelled door – it’s been described to a storage area within the room. To your recollection, does the Sacristy have any area such as that within it?

    Cardinal Pell: Well, for vestments and things.

    Detective Reed: Ah, I don’t know what was ever held in there.

    Cardinal Pell: Yeah, well a lot of the vestments were kept there. The archbishop’s vestments.

    Detective Reed: Yes, okay, immediately on the left as you walk into the room.

    Cardinal Pell: Now, are we in the Archbishop’s Sacristy or the Priests’ Sacristy?

    Detective Reed: Pauses and moves notes. I presume from these gentlemen it was the Archbishop’s Sacristy….set up wise.

    Cardinal Pell: And what was supposed to be in these cupboards?

    Detective Reed: They found some wine in there.

    Cardinal Pell: That’s right, yes, well that’s not in my, in the Archbishop’s Sacristy…there is a formidable safe that was in the Priests’ Sacristy that was always locked”.

    Vic Police photos of the Priests’ Sacristy in the public domain show a storage kitchenette area (which apparently was installed in the 2000s) and an alcove area in the corner of the room.

    In the HCA 12 March video and transcript, there is a focus on the alcove area, with attention being drawn to photos. We learn that the complainant did not mention the “white door” which we can see in the VicPol photos – this was where the wine was stored.

    In relation to the “hiatus” matters – the point seems to be that the complainant and his mate would have still been in the long procession when the offending was supposed to have taken place. As soon as the procession got back to the Sacristy areas, the “hive of activity” would have commenced. Cardinal Pell would have been greeting parishioners on the steps of the church and then would have joined the group of con-celebrating priests, altar servers clearing the sanctuary etc in the room.

  131. Seco says:

    Cassie of Sydney
    #3706003, posted on January 2, 2021 at 7:20 am

    Go to any book store and all these people have books on display at or near the counter. Anything from the defence of Pell is sold online via Quadrant etc. they don’t even make the book stores.

    There is only profit in “Get Pell”, no blowback at all.

  132. John Comnenus says:

    Thanks Syd Gal. I guess Kruger etc never want to let any pesky details get in the way of a good persecution.

  133. H B Bear says:

    Go to any book store and all these people have books on display at or near the counter. Anything from the defence of Pell is sold online via Quadrant etc. they don’t even make the book stores.

    I’m still on a Readings mailing list from my days in Melbournibad. Reading any of their material tells you not to even bother looking in book shops.

  134. Lee says:

    I’m still on a Readings mailing list from my days in Melbournibad. Reading any of their material tells you not to even bother looking in book shops.

    The last time I was in Readings in Carlton (Melb.), in 2019, I thought it looked pretty woke/left.
    Very unsurprisingly, when I checked their online store the other day they didn’t even have a listing for Keith Windschuttle’s Pell book, although they did have some anti-Pell books.
    Abbey’s in Sydney apparently had it in stock a couple of weeks ago, but it is now listed as “to be ordered.”

  135. FelixKruell says:

    Cassie:

    Oh and twit…when will you finally acknowledge what the High Court found? It was 7-0…something you seem to have struggled with for a while now.

    I have always acknowledged it. We just seem to disagree on what it means. Though Dot seems to be finally grasping it. I’m sure you won’t be too far behind.

  136. FelixKruell says:

    Lee:

    And they were 100% wrong.

    They were? Says who? All I recall is a question about reasonable doubt that Pell did it, not about whether it was impossible that he did it.

  137. FelixKruell says:

    Dr Faustus:

    In Round 1, 12 people heard all the evidence and concluded otherwise.
    I guess it’s open for you to conclude the Round 2 jury had better hearing.

    Even in round 1, 12 people didn’t find it was impossible for Pell to have done it. Some clearly entertained reasonable doubt, others didn’t. Otherwise it would have ended there.

  138. Lee says:

    They were? Says who?

    The High Court, obviously.

  139. FelixKruell says:

    Lee:

    The High Court, obviously.

    You seem a little confused about what the High Court found. Maybe have another read?

  140. JC says:

    Even in round 1, 12 people didn’t find it was impossible for Pell to have done it. Some clearly entertained reasonable doubt, others didn’t. Otherwise it would have ended there.

    Those that did were like you , Ringshot. You wanted to see a very senior cleric fucked over big time, because you despise Catholicism.

  141. Lee says:

    You seem a little confused about what the High Court found. Maybe have another read?

    Don’t try pushing your sophistry and BS spin on me.
    I am surprised you even have the hide to comment on Cardinal Pell, having been wrong all the way through.

    Those that did were like you , Ringshot. You wanted to see a very senior cleric fucked over big time, because you despise Catholicism.

    The word “bigot” comes to mind, JC.
    It really hurts him that Pell was cleared by the HC.

  142. Cassie of Sydney says:

    “You wanted to see a very senior cleric fucked over big time, because you despise Catholicism.”

    Well said JC….the degenerate Kruella is a bigot and a fraud.

  143. Cassie of Sydney says:

    “Don’t try pushing your sophistry and BS spin on me.”

    It’s all he does here Lee. Among the trolls…he’s probably the slimiest.

  144. gavalanche says:

    the catholic church is much like all else today:
    white hats and black hats
    i think its time the white hats started clearing house.
    naming names…and damn the consequences
    and i think that is exactly what is going to happen this year
    probably quite soon

  145. Vicki says:

    A stirring and poignant tribute, currencylad.

    Cardinal Pell graced his calling. But I doubt whether his enemies his ever concede his innocence.

  146. MikeGiggler says:

    A lot of telling admissions in this tongue bath of an interview. I wonder if anybody else other than the divine Ms M would get away with what she says about the High Court:

    https://thegarretpodcast.com/at-home-with-louise-milligan/

  147. PB says:

    “i think its time the white hats started clearing house.
    naming names…and damn the consequences”

    At peak moral relativity as we are now in, it would soon become clear that one Xir’s White hat is another man’s Black hat.

  148. 2dogs says:

    There is reason for thinking that J was merely mistaken in his identification of Pell; he stated they had found wine in the sacristy, suggesting it was actually a priest, not Pell, who caught him. And a priest’s garments would have been easier to part in the manner J stated. So, good reason for thinking that J may have actually been assaulted by a priest. Having the bishop present out the front of the church, and drawing the crowd, would have provided a good diversion for such a priest.

    Such an argument could have been made much clearer with the diagram that the defence was prevented from showing.

  149. Dot says:

    So amazingly Phallus brings up his double standard AGAIN to run interference for Jay, but then drops it AGAIN to smear Pell AGAIN.

    Jay perjured himself. That’s the crime that was committed.

    Let’s see if it opens up any GATES. Or if anything HINGES on secret payments.

  150. Dot says:

    Whereas coward Felix has to INSINUATE that a good man committed a crime, he cannot deny that drug fucked grifter and all around scumlord “Jay” committed perjury.

    He can play word games, that’s all.

    Why would Felix SIMP so hard for Fatty Sevenilagain?

  151. grazza says:

    “Yet not every male homosexual in the church was a pedo. That’s why your point is nonsense.” Felix, what evidence have you got for this grand assertion?

    PS Article is spot on and irrefutable. Not sure about Pell for Pope. He has to get the votes.

  152. FelixKruell says:

    JC:

    Those that did were like you , Ringshot. You wanted to see a very senior cleric fucked over big time, because you despise Catholicism.

    I do? News to me…

  153. FelixKruell says:

    Lee:

    I am surprised you even have the hide to comment on Cardinal Pell, having been wrong all the way through.

    Sigh. Another person who’s sure I was wrong all along, but can’t point out a single thing I said was wrong.

    Well, here’s your chance. Show us where the high court said the jurors were 100% wrong in deciding it wasn’t impossible.

  154. FelixKruell says:

    Dot:

    Jay perjured himself. That’s the crime that was committed.

    Let’s see if it opens up any GATES. Or if anything HINGES on secret payments.

    Yet he hasn’t been convicted of the crime of perjury.

    You want us all to grant Pell the presumption of innocence, but refuse to do the same for Jay.

    You pathetic hypocrite.

  155. FelixKruell says:

    Grazza:

    “Yet not every male homosexual in the church was a pedo. That’s why your point is nonsense.” Felix, what evidence have you got for this grand assertion?

    About the same evidence as you have that not every priest was a pedo.

  156. Cassie of Sydney says:

    “You pathetic hypocrite.”

    Who wrote the following earlier…”you lot degenerate into personal abuse. Its like clockwork…“?

    You slimy hypocrite.

  157. Syd Gal says:

    2 Dogs – are you saying that Cardinal Pell was investigated from March 2013 re events in the Priests’ Sacristy, Vic Pol worked on this for more than 4 years until they charged him in June 2017, there was a committal, 2 trials, an appeal, a HCA judgment and 400 + days in gaol — but that J got the identity of his offender wrong?

    In her book Cardinal Milligan wrote about an offender PP Galea – who was supposed to have exposed himself to J while he was in primary school. Strangely, Galea does not appear on Broken Rites website.

    I think the material which the Defence wished to show to the jury was a moving animation not a diagram.

    When con-celebrating priests returned to the Priests’ Sacristy they would not have been alone – the Sacristan would have been there to unlock the door and then direct tasks to be undertaken, the altar servers would return sacred items from the sanctuary, and money collectors would be bringing parishioner contributions etc.

  158. gavalanche says:

    PB, the relativists ARE the black hats

  159. Dot says:

    FelixKruell
    #3706837, posted on January 2, 2021 at 8:52 pm

    Dot:

    Jay perjured himself. That’s the crime that was committed.

    Let’s see if it opens up any GATES. Or if anything HINGES on secret payments.

    Yet he hasn’t been convicted of the crime of perjury.

    You want us all to grant Pell the presumption of innocence, but refuse to do the same for Jay.

    You pathetic hypocrite.

    No dickhead.

    This is YOUR game.

    1. Smear Pell.
    2. Create an impossible standard to run interference for the criminal Jay.
    3. Ignore standard and demand others cannot have it for Pell, but MUST have it for Jay.

  160. grazza says:

    “Jay perjured himself. That’s the crime that was committed.

    Let’s see if it opens up any GATES. Or if anything HINGES on secret payments.”

    Dot, Witness J apparently did not want the second trial to go ahead for some reason. He should have taken the stand again rather than the jury being shown the video of his “story” (very similar to a 2011 Rolling Stone bogus abuse account that jailed three clerics in the State one of whom died in jail). People believe what they see on TV. J allegedly changed details in his story 24 times and could not identify the changes in the renovated sacristy which he said was the place where the improbable assault took place. Really ridiculous 5th charge of his groping the same boy in the narrow corridor when the procession was underway that he had grossly assaulted the previous year – other celebrants, choir master, choir, altar boys and minder saw NOTHING. Doozies of judges. Luckily Weinberg shredded his credibility and the High Court acquitted 7-0 restoring important legal principles. Ashton, Patton and Sano detectives will never recover their reputation.

    Follow the money? Only one firm has been identified in the Weekend Oz.

  161. Dot says:

    Syd Gal
    #3706841, posted on January 2, 2021 at 8:56 pm

    2 Dogs – are you saying that Cardinal Pell was investigated from March 2013 re events in the Priests’ Sacristy, Vic Pol worked on this for more than 4 years until they charged him in June 2017, there was a committal, 2 trials, an appeal, a HCA judgment and 400 + days in gaol — but that J got the identity of his offender wrong?

    LOL

    Jay is a proven perjurer (as yet, unconvicted).

    There was no offender on that day in 1996. He changed his story at least three times to the police and perjured himself at the committal.

    He must be exposed and tried, as much as his financial backers and enablers.

  162. Dot says:

    J allegedly changed details in his story 24 times

    Wow.

    He MUST be indicted for the cause of justice in Victoria and Australia.

    Both him and his enablers & financial backers.

  163. grazza says:

    Felix, yes I thought so – no research evidence at all. Well, as to priests who were pedophiles, you have only to visit Broken Rites/ Kelso Lawyers and Shine Lawyers to see that the ones who have been charged and jailed represent about 6 – 7%. And I would defend and support all priests who have lived lives of integrity and service. As for priests who are homosexual, an estimate for the Church of England in the 1980s was that “60%” were of that primary orientation. As to the figure in Ballarat and the Melbourne Archdiocese, I’ll leave that to your apparent omniscience. (PS you seem to have received a bit of flak from fellow bloggers – not in the spirit of Christmas!)

  164. Dr Faustus says:

    J allegedly changed details in his story 24 times
    Wow

    Oh, the youngness and naivety.
    Changing testimony on the fly is an infallible indicator of truthfulness and credibility.

  165. FelixKruell says:

    Dot:

    1. Smear Pell.
    2. Create an impossible standard to run interference for the criminal Jay.
    3. Ignore standard and demand others cannot have it for Pell, but MUST have it for Jay.

    1. Haven’t smeared Pell. Just not a slobbering fan boi.
    2. Insist on impossible standard of…consistency in application of the presumption of innocence.
    3. You do seem to have it in for Jay?

  166. Syd Gal says:

    Dot – Perhaps there were other issues going on with the complainant. His spokesperson was compensation lawyer Waller but the complainant said his case was never about money/compensation. Waller said in an interview with LIV in June that she and J would not be working together again.

    Felix K – regarding the jury – perhaps they were confused by the changing narrative about where the wine was located. I read that they asked to see the complainant’s statement but that this was denied. Even in the HCA materials, there seems to be some confusion about the wine. You may need to look at some of the Vic Pol photos in the public domain to see the furniture layout – the storage kitchenette (installed in the 2000s) is to the left of the door, the alcove is in the corner of the room.

    In the Rome interview, Police said the complainant said he had found the wine in the wood panelled storage area immediately to the left when you walk in the room. Cdl Pell spoke about this area being the place where vestments were stored.

    But on the HCA website, the following information is provided:
    31 Jan 2020 DPP material: “A described entering the Priests’ Sacristy just prior to the first incident and finding a wood panelled area containing cupboards and resembling a storage kitchenette. It was in this area that A said he and the other boy (B) found wine. Notably:

    1. A’s description of the layout and features of this area of the Priests’ Sacristy was accurate.
    11. The area described by A was only visible once well inside the Priests’ Sacristy.
    111. The area described by A was the area where the sacramental wine was stored and prepared for Mass”.

    But in the HCA 12 March 2020 transcript we read about the alcove area:

    “He had to have an opportunity, not just to go in, but to go right into that room and around the corner, and he had to get in there at a time that the wine was visible, because he not only described the inside of the room, he actually describes the wine being visible. So he was able to ‑ it sort of does not really matter whether it was red wine or white wine, the fact is he put wine in that very alcove. So he had to be in there long enough to either poke around to see that, or it had to be there”.

    You will see in the alcove photo that there is a white door – Portelli had said the sacramental wine was stored inside the vault in the priest sacristy

    from the transcript “stored in boxes on the ground ‑ on the floor of the vault. And that’s inside that ‑ ‑ ‑?‑‑‑White door”.

    When asked if the complainant mentioned the white door, the reply was:

    “No, he did not mention a white door. He mentioned – he did not see it. He did not see it inside the white door – he did not see it in the vault. When he saw it he said it was out. The white door you cannot get through. It is the vault. It is locked. He says he saw the wine in that alcove area when he was poking around in there.

  167. FelixKruell says:

    Cassie:

    “You pathetic hypocrite.”

    Who wrote the following earlier…”you lot degenerate into personal abuse. Its like clockwork…“?

    You don’t get to throw stones in this particular glass house, lady.

  168. Cassie of Sydney says:

    “1. Haven’t smeared Pell. Just not a slobbering fan boi.””

    No, what you are is a slobbering soy boy.

  169. Cassie of Sydney says:

    “You don’t get to throw stones in this particular glass house, lady.”

    You’re not the arbiter of what happens here soy boy. As I wrote above, you’re a slimy hypocrite….a degenerate slimy hypocrite.

  170. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha says:

    More popcorn, anyone?

  171. grazza says:

    Yes, thought so Felix – no evidence. Check Broken Rites, Kelso and Shine Lawyers – offending pedophile clergy, accused and jailed = about 6-7% of clergy who in the majority live lives of integrity and service. I’ll leave the numbers of clergy who are homosexual to your omniscience.

  172. Rex Anger says:

    More trollshit from Grigory.

    At least we’ve made him properly angry for once…

  173. Dot says:

    FelixKruell
    #3706868, posted on January 2, 2021 at 9:39 pm
    Dot:

    1. Smear Pell.
    2. Create an impossible standard to run interference for the criminal Jay.
    3. Ignore standard and demand others cannot have it for Pell, but MUST have it for Jay.

    1. Haven’t smeared Pell. Just not a slobbering fan boi.
    2. Insist on impossible standard of…consistency in application of the presumption of innocence.
    3. You do seem to have it in for Jay?

    All wrong, residential cretin.

    1. Yes you have.
    2. Yes you do, the point is that you are not consistent at all. You really have some fucking chutzpah running interference for a scumlord like “Jay” and then contradicting yourself to slime Pell again.
    3. Yes I do. He perjured himself (and made a multitude of false statements to the police) to put an innocent man in prison. He should pay for his crimes, as should his enablers and financial backers.

    You’re pissed off because I outlined your filthy little shell game. You’re not a man, you’re a grub.

  174. Old School Conservative says:

    Dennis Shanahan writes extensively today in The Oz on the George Pell investigations into Catholic finances, especially referencing the billions transferred to Australia before and during The Get Pell scandal.
    Two very interesting points I enjoyed:
    * after the High Court’s unanimous acquittal in 2020, Pell returned in October to Rome. He was given a ceremonial welcome from the Swiss Guard normally reserved for heads of state.
    * The Australian bishops are preparing to ask Pope Francis to investigate and explain the $2.3bn in transfers, which they say was not received by any church entity.

  175. NoFixedAddress says:

    My compliments CurrencyLad.

    Good job.

    Wouldn’t you love to be a fly on the wall of some Vatican finance offices!

  176. herodotus says:

    I said earlier that this thread had 10% of its comments written by or in response to a daily troll.
    It proceeded to get worse.

  177. FelixKruell says:

    Cassie:

    You’re not the arbiter of what happens here soy boy. As I wrote above, you’re a slimy hypocrite….a degenerate slimy hypocrite.

    The difference between us is that I show WHY I think someone is a hypocrite. You…don’t.

  178. FelixKruell says:

    Dot:

    Yes you do, the point is that you are not consistent at all. You really have some fucking chutzpah running interference for a scumlord like “Jay” and then contradicting yourself to slime Pell again.

    You haven’t explained why you think I’m inconsistent.

    I’ve explained why you aren’t consistent in your application of the presumption of innocence.

  179. FelixKruell says:

    Grazza:

    You’re assuming that all those who have that inclination have been charged/jailed.

    The reality is that we don’t know how many priests are homosexual, pedophiles, or both.

    We do know that some are pedophiles whilst being ostensibly heterosexual. They came up in the RC.

  180. LBLoveday says:

    A warning about buying Pell’s Prison Journal through Ignatius via the link in the article.
    .
    I ordered through Ignatius on 23 November, paying $US17.39 for first-class delivery on top of the book price of $US19.95 with a stated anticipated delivery date of 5 December.
    .
    3 January, no book, and I don’t anticipate receiving it now.
    .
    Piers Akerman recommends buying through Freedom Publishing Books and I’ve always found them reliable – I ordered through Ignatius because I read in a Bolt column that Ignatius published it, and went to their web-site without considering alternatives.

  181. Dot says:

    Absolutely pathetic, Felix. I pointed out many times the awful confected nonsense you were pulling.

    Eat shit. Everyone can see through your shell game you dishonest grub.

    Jay and his enablers & financial backers ought to go to gaol.

  182. Cassie of Sydney says:

    “The difference between us is that I show WHY I think someone is a hypocrite. You…don’t.”

    LOL…you’re a moron as well as a slimy hypocrite.

  183. FelixKruell says:

    Dot:

    Absolutely pathetic, Felix. I pointed out many times the awful confected nonsense you were pulling.

    No, you just keep claiming to have done so. But you haven’t. Scroll up and check.

    Why is Pell entitled to the presumption of innocence, but not Jay?

    The only reason you’ve given is your own personal belief around their guilt or innocence. Which is exactly what you decry when anyone else dares do it in respect of Pell.

  184. FelixKruell says:

    Cassie:

    LOL…you’re a moron as well as a slimy hypocrite.

    What is the point of you?

  185. stackja says:

    Get Pell postings?
    Scrolling, scrolling…

  186. Cassie of Sydney says:

    “What is the point of you?”

    To call out your degeneracy, your slimy hypocrisy and your lies.

  187. calli says:

    If Jay is arrested for perjury and goes up before the beak, of course he will be presumed innocent until proved guilty. He then has the right to appeal. If his appeal goes all the way to the HC, and he is acquitted, he will be assumed innocent and his record scrubbed of any charge or conviction. He is an innocent man.

    I believe that’s how it works.

    Shooting the breeze on a blog is a world away from the courts. Just looked up the penalty for perjury in NSW. Pretty severe.

    The false statement can be made in oral evidence or in writing. In New South Wales, perjury is governed by Section 327 of the Crimes Act and carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment. If the false statement is made in order to bring about a conviction or an acquittal, the maximum penalty is 14 years.

    Yikes!

  188. Syd Gal says:

    LB Loveday – Cardinal Pell’s Prison Journal Volume 1 the Cardinal Makes His Appeal was available in the Mustard Seed Bookshop, Liverpool St, Sydney some weeks ago but it looks like they are out of stock at the moment (and I see on the website the shop reopens on 11 January) https://mustardseed.org.au/.

    Keith Windschuttle’s book The Persecution of George Pell is also available from the shop.

  189. FelixKruell says:

    Cassie:

    To call out your degeneracy, your slimy hypocrisy and your lies.

    Then do it! What are you waiting for?

  190. FelixKruell says:

    Calli:

    If Jay is arrested for perjury and goes up before the beak, of course he will be presumed innocent until proved guilty. He then has the right to appeal. If his appeal goes all the way to the HC, and he is acquitted, he will be assumed innocent and his record scrubbed of any charge or conviction. He is an innocent man.

    I believe that’s how it works.

    Exactly. In the eyes of the law, both Pell and Jay are innocent. And should be treated as such.

  191. Dot says:

    In the eyes of the law, both are innocent.

    Pell is factually innocent.

    Jay committed the crime that framed Pell and should face justice.

    I don’t have to do anything for Jay because that drug fucked idiot won’t sue anyone.

  192. Dot says:

    Why is Pell entitled to the presumption of innocence, but not Jay?

    There is a pattern in these comments.

    In the very next sentence, Felix has a tendency to then slime Pell.

    His disgusting shell game is blown wide open.

    Despite Pell being acquitted and Jay being a factually proven (as yet, not convicted) perjurer, whose perjury itself sold Pell down the river.

  193. JC says:

    In the very next sentence, Felix has a tendency to then slime Pell.

    Yep. He’s a 100% slimeball. “at law” , FFS.

  194. Geriatric Mayfly says:

    Despite Pell being acquitted and Jay being a factually proven (as yet, not convicted) perjurer, whose perjury itself sold Pell down the river.
    Does that make his lumpen lawyer Waller an accessory to the fact?

  195. stackja says:

    GM – Waller protected by the sisterhood?

  196. Dot says:

    LOL

    Waller once accused Pell of terrible crimes when he wasn’t even in the same country at the time they made up for the non-crimes occurring.

    What a buffoon. Yet, she’s on the Vicco Law Reform Commission.

    Mmmyes, we’re in the very best of hands.

  197. Geriatric Mayfly says:

    Vicco Law Reform Commission.

    Distorting the law to suit the agenda aka. The March Through The Institutions.

  198. FelixKruell says:

    Dot:

    In the eyes of the law, both are innocent.

    Pell is factually innocent.

    Jay committed the crime that framed Pell and should face justice.

    I don’t have to do anything for Jay because that drug fucked idiot won’t sue anyone.

    Well that’s a start. You’re finally acknowledging that the court isn’t the only arbiter of guilt or innocence.

  199. FelixKruell says:

    Dot:

    Despite Pell being acquitted and Jay being a factually proven (as yet, not convicted) perjurer, whose perjury itself sold Pell down the river.

    As long as you also allow others to believe Pell remains ‘factually proven’ of being guilty, that’s fine.

  200. FelixKruell says:

    JC:

    Yep. He’s a 100% slimeball. “at law” , FFS.

    Shouldn’t you be having a go at Dot? After all, he’s calling someone guilty of the deed, despite being innocent ‘at law’.

    That’s what you (falsely) accused me of…

  201. JC says:

    I get it. You’re now angry with Dot for applying the principle you yourself established here with:

    7/0 doesn’t mean he’s innocent.

    Hypocrite.

  202. Tel says:

    * The Australian bishops are preparing to ask Pope Francis to investigate and explain the $2.3bn in transfers, which they say was not received by any church entity.

    How the heck could that kind of money be funneled from any well known and well respected organization into some vague black hole of nowhere? How could it be this even requires more than a few days of investigation?

    Pick any large commercial organization, like BHP or Westpac, or even Microsoft and then imagine some small group of individuals got $2.3bn of funds transferred to some special side project that no one knew about … how long would it take before alarm bells went off and black helicopters landed on their lawn?

    Imagine how every single news report would light up if such a thing was discovered.

  203. notafan says:

    The Vatican bank had poor controls over who could open accounts.

    It’s most likely the money was being laundered though Vatican accounts by the usual types.

    Total Vatican income in 2013 was $315 and expenditures were $348 million.

  204. notafan says:

    Contact them LBLoveday.

    Us mails are very slow ATM, covid etc.

  205. notafan says:

    They should have a tracking number anyhow.

  206. FelixKruell says:

    JC:

    I get it. You’re now angry with Dot for applying the principle you yourself established here with:

    7/0 doesn’t mean he’s innocent.

    Hypocrite.

    Err no. I’m praising him for that bit. In the comment just above yours. Comprehension issues again?

    Just wondering why you aren’t attacking him for that view, like you regularly do me?

  207. Lee says:

    In the very next sentence, Felix has a tendency to then slime Pell.

    Yep. He’s a 100% slimeball. “at law” , FFS.

    And probably the biggest hypocrite here.
    And that’s saying something with the competition he has from other leftists here.

  208. David says:

    You’re finally acknowledging that the court isn’t the only arbiter of guilt or innocence.

    Yep that’s exactly why the media, Victorian police and the Royal Commission have worked tirelessly to destroy Pell’s reputation. Throw enough mud and some will stick no matter the merits. Particularly when a significant portion of the public are predisposed to anti-catholic bigotry. If the frame doesn’t work in the courts, public opinion is the back up.

    This raises an important point on Victoria’s right to anonymity laws. Why does J get to throw mud from the shadows and not be subject to the same court of public opinion? To me this is a fundamental departure from our adversarial system of justice. It’s more akin to the French inquisitorial approach. However would you trust the Victorian criminal justice system to fearlessly seek out the truth? A few recent examples of the legal standards in Dan’s Democratic Republic of Victoristan: Shorten ‘investigation’, Lawyer X, red shirts, hotel quarantine inquiry, and authoritarian COVID justified crackdown because Dan was made to look bad.

  209. Syd Gal says:

    Two very interesting pieces over at Quadrant online today: “The Credibility Deficit of Victoria’s Courts” by David Ward and “When Judges Get It Wrong: The Case of John Fleming” by Augusto Zimmermann.

  210. Dot says:

    FelixKruell
    #3707955, posted on January 3, 2021 at 8:18 pm
    Dot:

    Despite Pell being acquitted and Jay being a factually proven (as yet, not convicted) perjurer, whose perjury itself sold Pell down the river.

    As long as you also allow others to believe Pell remains ‘factually proven’ of being guilty, that’s fine.

    No Felix, you bigoted, know nothing gang moll.

    You are totally wrong, ignorant of the law and verging on being clinically mentally retarded.

    Jay perjured himself at the committal. During his statements to police, four different versions were made as statements after 36 factual changes – one of which was he got a date wrong – which made the non-crime impossible.

    The incompetent magistrate took it further. The first trial was inconclusive. The second trial ended in a conviction because it was unlike any trial the western world had seen from 1689 to 2015. The self admitted ignorant commercial law judges erred on appeal in applying law and fact. The High Court said it was a fantasy and applied law and fact correctly and acquitted on appeal 7 – 0.

    Pell is innocent “at law” (LOL, that distinction is about law and equity). He is also, as an immutable fact, innocent. We know this PRECISELY because of dishonest coward “Jay”‘s perjury.

    Jay at best is mentally ill, he is a proven perjurer. He remains to be charged, indicted or convicted (hence we cannot justly deprive him of any rights). However, he actually carried out the justice offences mentioned.

    There is no inconsistency here, just *you* being duplicitous and verballing others – then the laughable shell games begin for you; smear Pell, hold Pell to a standard Jay has never been held to, declare Jay innocent and then insinuate Pell “did it” out of “respect for da courts”.

    You reprehensible, smug little coward.

    Jay and his financial backers & enablers ought to go to gaol for their sickening, evil and astonishingly arrogant hijacking of our justice system. As do any cops or judicial officers who knowingly supported this sickening witch hunt.

    They’re mafioso with briefcases and they have made the public care less about actual victims with their utterly demented and hate filled crusade of lies and venom.

    I hope you enjoy being passed around at dinner parties.

  211. JC says:

    Dot is 100% , Ringshot. You’re a piece of shit. Nothing personal though.

  212. Baa Humbug says:

    JC
    #3708061, posted on January 3, 2021 at 9:37 pm

    Dot is 100% , Ringshot. You’re a piece of shit. Nothing personal though.

    Hah! Love it.

  213. FelixKruell says:

    Dot:

    Jay perjured himself at the committal. During his statements to police, four different versions were made as statements after 36 factual changes – one of which was he got a date wrong – which made the non-crime impossible.

    And what makes you sure that constitutes perjury?

    There is no inconsistency here, just *you* being duplicitous and verballing others – then the laughable shell games begin for you; smear Pell, hold Pell to a standard Jay has never been held to, declare Jay innocent and then insinuate Pell “did it” out of “respect for da courts”.

    I declared both of them innocent, in the eyes of the law. Holding them to the same standard.

    I also stated that I don’t know whether either of them actually did it – just that it’s possible. Holding them to the same standard.

    I hope you enjoy being passed around at dinner parties.

    I don’t dine with priests…

  214. FelixKruell says:

    David:

    This raises an important point on Victoria’s right to anonymity laws. Why does J get to throw mud from the shadows and not be subject to the same court of public opinion? To me this is a fundamental departure from our adversarial system of justice

    Agree – the protections for those making an accusation have become too great, given the potential impact on those accused. It should be limited to minors.

  215. JC says:

    And what makes you sure that constitutes perjury?

    Your principle.. The Ringshot Rule.

    7/0 but it doesn’t mean he’s innocent.

  216. Dot says:

    I hope you enjoy being passed around at dinner parties.

    I don’t dine with priests…

    What a bigoted sack of shit.

    Hitler would be proud.

  217. Dot says:

    And what makes you sure that constitutes perjury?

    He contradicted himself during the committal.

    Oh well. Chocolate drop eyes can do nothing wrong in KKK Felix’s world.

  218. Tintarella di Luna says:

    Dot
    #3708055, posted on January 3, 2021 at 9:31 pm

    Che abbattimento! bravo Dot, ben fatto

  219. David Insider says:

    It was the NT Government that wanted to debunk the Dingo story in order to protect the fledgling NT tourist industry.

  220. FelixKruell says:

    Dot:

    He contradicted himself during the committal.

    Ahuh. You might want to pick up that criminal law textbook from 1974 and remind yourself of what constitutes perjury.

  221. Dot says:

    It was perjury.

    He knowingly made a false statement under oath in connection to a judicial hearing. As it was done maliciously to bring about a false conviction, it is in the higher range of offending.

    He got caught in a lie and had to contradict a prior statement. At least one of those statements was wilfully dishonest and thus perjurous.

    He may have proven his offence later on or committed perjury on more, future occassions.

    He should face justice, as should his motley crew of bigoted enablers and financial backers.

    This would mean decades long gaol terms.

  222. FelixKruell says:

    Dot:

    He knowingly made a false statement under oath in connection to a judicial hearing. As it was done maliciously to bring about a false conviction, it is in the higher range of offending.

    It’s the “knowingly” part that you’ve failed to provide any evidence of.

  223. JC says:

    Dot, apply the Ringshot law.

    7/0 doesn’t mean he’s innocent. Up talk too as it sounds better.

  224. JC says:

    Dot you’re right of course.

    Weinberg was polite, but we all know he thought Jay, was a lying, perjurious turd.

  225. FelixKruell says:

    JC:

    You still haven’t figured out that Dot is agreeing with me, that a person can be guilty of having done the deed even without a court finding them guilty?

    Not the brightest, are you?

  226. Dot says:

    Assuming he was of a sound mind, he must have knowingly done so.

    The only other possible conclusion is that Jay is seriously mentally ill.

    His backers ought to be in prison for abuse of a vulnerable person.

    That or him being guilty as well are the only valid choices.

    Either way there should be gaol terms measured in decades.

  227. Dot says:

    You still haven’t figured out that Dot is agreeing with me, that a person can be guilty of having done the deed even without a court finding them guilty?

    No.

    Pell’s innocence is proven by Jay’s serial lying, serial perjuring, impossible dates and physical impossibilities.

    ON TOP OF bring acquitted.

    Nor does Jay need to be convicted to prove Pell is innocent, Jay’s offending is already proven (but Jay should face justice which would likely result in 10 – 14 years imprisonment).

    Jay and his enablers and financial backers should all go to gaol for a very, very long time.

  228. JC says:

    Of course he’s agreeing with you, you numbskull. He’s applying your legal principle that

    “7/0 doesn’t mean he’s innocent”.

    Just like you argue the high court finding doesn’t remove Pell’s legal guilt, we can now argue that under the Ringshot rule, jay is a dishonest turd. Just like you. Nothing personal though, Ringshot.

  229. FelixKruell says:

    Dot:

    Assuming he was of a sound mind, he must have knowingly done so.

    The only other possible conclusion is that Jay is seriously mentally ill.

    Or he’s just not certain of the surrounding details of something that happened 20+ years ago? That’s the obvious conclusion, surely?

    But either way – you’re just making assumptions. No evidence.

  230. FelixKruell says:

    Dot:

    ON TOP OF bring acquitted.

    Simply saying this bit destroys JC’s ‘argument’.

  231. FelixKruell says:

    JC:

    Just like you argue the high court finding doesn’t remove Pell’s legal guilt, we can now argue that under the Ringshot rule, jay is a dishonest turd. Just like you. Nothing personal though, Ringshot.

    Yes, you can.

    See how I’m applying my principles consistently?

    You on the other hand? Not so much…

  232. Rex Anger says:

    See how I’m applying my principles consistently?

    The only thing consistent about you Grigory, is your trollshit.

    And your compulsive desire to have us pick it up and smear your face in it.

    Rather than be humbled or even repulsed, you enjoy it.

    Why else are you constantly here, seeking to derail everything other than all attebtion being solely focussed on you and your trollshit?

    I am now convinced you care for absolutely nothing about the subjects on which you post, except to focus everyone on your trollshit.

    Who cares for Pell’s innocence? Or Jay’s? At law or not?

    Who cares for election fraud? Proven or not? Who cares even for who isnPresident?

    It’s all about, and only ever about Grigory and his trollshit.

    And until the moderator finally does something about it, he will just keep weebling back up daily to repeat his antics.

    Catallaxy Files- Australia’s leading Grigory-shit blog and sock drawee…

  233. FelixKruell says:

    Rex:

    Oh Rex. You’re projecting again. Thankfully that’s one psychological condition you seem very good at recognising.

    What are any of us doing here, other than commenting on the topic? Well actually, you lot seem to just throw around insults without commenting on the topic. We have a word for that…trolling?

  234. Dot says:

    Or he’s just not certain of the surrounding details of something that happened 20+ years ago? That’s the obvious conclusion, surely?

    But either way – you’re just making assumptions. No evidence.

    No, you are totally wrong again.

    Why are you defending this scum bag? Are you or have you ever been Vivian Waller? 🤔😝🤣🙈

    The evidence (his dishonesty foolishly allowed during the committal) is compounded by 36 factual changes to Jay’s statements and three revisions of his original statement given to the police.

    He’s either guilty or being used; if the former the abusers are his co-conspirators.

    In which case, justice demands they all go to gaol for many decades each.

  235. Rex Anger says:

    What are any of us doing here, other than commenting on the topic?

    They are trying to, Grigory. You on the other hand, are not. And you know it.

    Well actually, you lot seem to just throw around insults without commenting on the topic. We have a word for that…trolling?

    And you accuse me of lacking self-awareness Grigory…

    If you truly felt you were merely being abused (boo hoo, poor Grigory), you would either complain to the moderator or go any post elsewhere.

    Instead, you seek only to prolong the fight, by inflaming others. Nothibg to add. Notbing to clarify. Certainly nothing to edify or provide a counterpoint. Just Y00z Rong! Or y00z no nuffingk! Or Just Cuz Court Said sew dunna mean he innercent!

    Closely followed by variations on Iz smarter dan y00z! Or Datz nut wut da law meenz! Purely to upset people and prolong the fight.

  236. FelixKruell says:

    Dot:

    The evidence (his dishonesty foolishly allowed during the committal) is compounded by 36 factual changes to Jay’s statements and three revisions of his original statement given to the police.

    You still have no evidence of intent. Simply getting facts wrong, or changing details of his story, is not enough. Try again.

  237. FelixKruell says:

    Rex:

    If you truly felt you were merely being abused (boo hoo, poor Grigory), you would either complain to the moderator or go any post elsewhere.

    You want to cry to mummy?

    Instead, you seek only to prolong the fight, by inflaming others. Nothibg to add. Notbing to clarify.

    Scroll up Rexy…scroll up. Post after post where I explain my views.

    Then look at your own posts. Read them.

    I’ll wait here.

  238. Dot says:

    “Evidence of intent”

    No. Once again, you are totally wrong.

    He had to contradict his (most recent) police statement to correct his “error” of oral evidence adduced in the committal.

    His defence is either insanity, substantial impairment (only a partial defence) or admission that a lesser crime was committed – which then damns him as he traps himself into committing perjury again.

    He’s toast if the Vic DPP pull the trigger.

    Maybe they’re sympathetic to his mental issues, if so, his backers and enablers should go to gaol – and he should be put in a home for his own safety and society’s general safety.

  239. Rex Anger says:

    Scroll up Rexy…scroll up. Post after post where I explain my views.

    Then look at your own posts. Read them.

    I’ll wait here.

    No Grigory.

    You have wasted quite enough of the Cat’s time with your endless dissembling, smears, pedantry and smirking at your alleged superior intelligence and understanding relative to everyone else’s.

    Well done to you that you honour the courts’ findings, even though you clearly indicate that you disagree with them. Every other Cat honours the courts, too.

  240. FelixKruell says:

    Dot:

    He had to contradict his (most recent) police statement to correct his “error” of oral evidence adduced in the committal.

    His defence is either insanity, substantial impairment (only a partial defence) or admission that a lesser crime was committed – which then damns him as he traps himself into committing perjury again.

    You keep ignoring the need to show that he KNOWINGLY gave the wrong evidence. Correcting errors isn’t of itself enough.

  241. FelixKruell says:

    Rex:

    Every other Cat honours the courts, too.

    Yeah, we noticed that when Pell’s case was still at the court of appeal. There was a lot of honouring going on then.

  242. Rex Anger says:

    No worse than your incessant trollshits regarding 7-0, and your further incessant trollshits since this thread was first posted, Grigory…

Comments are closed.