The Law Cardinal Pell

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lebbo73 said:
I ain't praying for George at all. I suspect and hope he didn't molest anyone at all. Yhe difference between slanderous people like you and I is that I will let the legal system decide. Not my hatred for particular religions.
Click to expand...

Correction,"hatred for all religions",in particular those in power that assume objective moral superiority over the masses,yet rape children or look the other way,move them on and forgive those that do!
That pretty much covers most religious observants on the planet,unfortunately!
 
Windhover said:
The issue was whether Pell, who was a Consultor at the time, knew of the reasons for Ridsdale being moved.

Pell's evidence was that having read the minutes of the meeting which stated that it was "reasonably necessary" to move Ridsdale, he accepted the accuracy of the minutes in its generality as being consistent with his state of knowledge as to the specifics of what was said. That is, that there was no discussion at the meeting of the reason why moving Ridsdale had become "necessary". Pell had no direct memory of the meeting otherwise but was able to be certain that paedophilia on the part of Ridsdale had not been discussed because he would have remembered it.

Thus counsel assisting properly put to Pell that although he had no memory of what was said, he had a memory of what was not said.

The RC established that Pell as a Consultor had a duty to know why Ridsdale was moved. Pell accepted that there was an expectation that if there was criminal misconduct then the meeting would have been told. Pell accepted all the others at the meeting knew why Ridsdale was being moved.

Pell claimed he could be sure that Risdale's misconduct was not explained because of the difference between the minutes in the case of Fr Day cf the minutes regarding Risdale. When he was taken by counsel assisting to the Day minutes those minutes did NOT set out the reasons for Day being removed.

The only difference between the generality of the Day minutes and the generality of the Ridsdale minutes was that the Day minutes referred to His Lordship "explaining the reasons" it had become necessary for Day's removal whereas in Risdale's case the minutes simply noted it had become "necessary".

The point of the earlier concession Pell made that as a Consultor there was an expectation he would know why it was necessary to move a priest so that, the minutes recording that would be a simplification of what was known - namely that the necessity to move Ridsdale was because of his criminal misconduct - makes his claim that the minutes SHOULD NOT be read as assuming the reasons it had been necessary to move Ridsdale had been discussed.

In circumstances in which all the others at the meeting knew, it was Pell's duty as a Consultor to know, and the fact that the minutes recorded it was necessary to move Ridsdale point to 1 conclusion. That one conclusion is that Pell was lied to by all the others at the meeting as to the real reason for Ridsdale being moved, Pell failed to make any enquiry as to the real reason himself because he completely trusted Mulkearns and the others and Pell - a brilliant man by your reckoning - failed in his duty as a Consultor. Oh, and despite having lived with Ridsdale previously and subsequently being close enough to him to give character evidence in Court, presumably never had the human decency to discuss the matter of Ridsdale's necessary movement with Ridsdale himself proximate in time to the event. You would have to believe in the tooth fairy to believe all tha . . . . oh yeah, anyway.
Click to expand...

Geezus......it's almost as though you've never been to a committee meeting of any kind. Do you understand how they work? Various roles. People report on those roles. Then take varying levels of interest in matters not directly relating to them.

1. You don't think it plausible that those "in the know" might keep that select group to a minority?
2. Is it not conceivable to you at all that they might have kept the juniors out of the loop?
3. Can you not see the difference in the Minutes for Ridsdale and Day? (Extraordinarily, Counsel Assisting seemed to think they said the same thing). In the case of Day, Mulkearns outlined the reasons for him being dismissed. In the case of Ridsdale, there is no such reference. Only that the decision had been made.
4. Pell never gave character evidence for Ridsdale. He accompanied him to court as instructed to do.
5. It may come as some surprise to you, but left wing journalist Paul Bongiorno also lived with Ridsdale and saw nothing.

I do like the little shifts in language in your post though. Little lies to give it extra strength.
 
Ice-Wolf said:
Weird that it isn't being reported in the major news sites yet. Surely they'd be splashing it across the main pages.
Click to expand...
Yeah even twitter hasn't got anything , i'll delete for now
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Ice-Wolf said:
Weird that it isn't being reported in the major news sites yet. Surely they'd be splashing it across the main pages.
Click to expand...
Suppression orders for legal process of a fair trial without prejudice due to trial being split into Melbourne 90s and Ballarat 70s I understand. Second trial early next year.
 
NSWCROW said:
Yeah even twitter hasn't got anything , i'll delete for now
Click to expand...
Twitter has got a fair bit.
George Pell is the trending tag in Australia now
 
Boxhead_31 said:
Twitter has got a fair bit.
George Pell is the trending tag in Australia now
Click to expand...

Yeah but the only article i can find in multiple places is from the one source
 
NSWCROW said:
Yeah but the only article i can find in multiple places is from the one source
Click to expand...
The dailybeast one, the radaronline one or the Churchmilitant one?
 
BruceFromBalnarring said:
Geezus......it's almost as though you've never been to a committee meeting of any kind. Do you understand how they work? Various roles. People report on those roles. Then take varying levels of interest in matters not directly relating to them.
Click to expand...

Sure Bruce. In my post I set out what Pell himself understood to be the role of a Consultor. The RC established that a Consultor was required to know why it was "reasonably necessary" to transfer a priest. That is, it was a matter "directly relating" to his role on the committee.

BruceFromBalnarring said:
1. You don't think it plausible that those "in the know" might keep that select group to a minority?
Click to expand...

Sure Bruce, it is plausible (indeed likely) that a select group might try to keep the knowledge of Ridsdale's criminal activity to a minimum number. What is not plausible is that "the brilliant" Pell, with personal knowledge of Ridsdale having lived with him in a period in which Ridsdale was actively engaging in his criminal misconduct (with or without Pell's then knowledge), with a duty as Consultor to know of the "reasonably necessary" reason for Ridsdale's transfer would have been fed a load of bs as to why and swallowed it.

One particular reason why it is not plausible is that Pell accompanied him to court in 1993 (i.e. stood by him) then knowing of his crimes and then knowing (or being in a position to know) that he Pell had been seriously deceived by others about Ridsdale. I imagine most people would be pretty angry to have been duped and would want to distance themselves from their own negligent complicity. But maybe I am being too uncharitable to Pell's compassionate soul - one that seems subsequently to have gone missing.

BruceFromBalnarring said:
2. Is it not conceivable to you at all that they might have kept the juniors out of the loop?
Click to expand...
What is junior about a Consultor? Why bother keeping junior Pell out of the loop? What was he going to do? Go to the police? Pull the other one. Tell me when that happened, once.

BruceFromBalnarring said:
3. Can you not see the difference in the Minutes for Ridsdale and Day? (Extraordinarily, Counsel Assisting seemed to think they said the same thing). In the case of Day, Mulkearns outlined the reasons for him being dismissed. In the case of Ridsdale, there is no such reference. Only that the decision had been made.
Click to expand...

I have quoted accurately the evidence. You are wrong. The minutes for Ridsdale said that it was "reasonably necessary" to move him.

BruceFromBalnarring said:
4. Pell never gave character evidence for Ridsdale. He accompanied him to court as instructed to do.
Click to expand...

You are right that Pell did not give character evidence in 1993. He accompanied Ridsdale to Court. To this extent he stood by Ridsdale, a man he presumably knew had actively deceived him when committing crimes living together in Ballarat, and a man about whom he had been seriously deceived by Mulkearns and others.

I can find no evidence Pell was instructed to accompany Ridsdale. This has been reported:

Cardinal Pell himself acknowledged as much in 2013, saying of his decision to support Ridsdale that day 20 years earlier: “I intended no disrespect to the victims. I understand now that they perceived it — and probably rightly — as such, but I did not at the time.” https://www.news.com.au/national/co...s/news-story/d218a60f50d73b3ba027d3bee4dd45c5

BruceFromBalnarring said:
5. It may come as some surprise to you, but left wing journalist Paul Bongiorno also lived with Ridsdale and saw nothing.
Click to expand...

I knew this. So what? I have never suggested Pell knew of Ridsdale's criminal misconduct when they were living together. What I DO suggest is that Pell would have known something of the man Ridsdale. He might have thought "Gee the guy seems genuinely caring for the welfare of young kids". He might have thought "the guy is a bit creepy" or anything in-between. The point is that Ridsdale was NOT just a name when his move became "reasonablly necessary. Ridsdale was a person he had had a relationship with by stint of living with him. Not knowing or enquiring why it was "reasonably necessary" to move him or being sucked in by whatever bs was feed to him becomes much more unlikely. That's all.

BruceFromBalnarring said:
I do like the little shifts in language in your post though. Little lies to give it extra strength.
Click to expand...

Thanks Bruce, the compliment would have greater impact if you could have exposed the "little lies".
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Ladies and Gents,

Are the laws crazy in this digital age? Yes.

Does the suppression order need to be obeyed. Yes.
 
I dont understand the suppression order in this day and age. Sure it might work, but in the age of the internet this will leak faster than a broken pipe in a flood. Another case of the law lagging behind technology.
 
hamohawk1 said:
I dont understand the suppression order in this day and age. Sure it might work, but in the age of the internet this will leak faster than a broken pipe in a flood. Another case of the law lagging behind technology.
Click to expand...
Yes, but we have to wait for it to catch up unfortunately
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top