Protecting George Pell

[BruceFromBalnarring]

No its the harbour bridge - defo non standard and worth shitloads - but for you brucey - cheap as mate

You produced two reasons why Pell should be in jail.

I rebutted them.

So you produced a “standard” anti Catholic generalist rant.

 

[kranky al]

You produced two reasons why Pell should be in jail.

I rebutted them.

So you produced a “standard” anti Catholic generalist rant.

Except that you didnt.
You think you did.

And its a standard anti paedophile organisation rant.

i call organisations that protect paedophiles by their name - pedophile organisations.

To this day the church says that it will not report kiddie fiddlers that confess

Its a paedophile organisation.

 

[kranky al]

You produced two reasons why Pell should be in jail.

I rebutted them.

So you produced a “standard” anti Catholic generalist rant.

Btw

Recently a perth priest was caught ripping off the church for a cool quarter of a mill.

what do you think the catholic powers that be did?

a) moved him to another diocese

b) moved him to another post with no access to money

c) helped conceal his crimes

d) referred him directly to the police

The answer to this question as opposed to what they did and continue to do for the paedos should tell you everything you need to know about this disgusting organisation.

its a racket.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Btw

Recently a perth priest was caught ripping off the church for a cool quarter of a mill.

what do you think the catholic powers that be did?

a) moved him to another diocese

b) moved him to another post with no access to money

c) helped conceal his crimes

d) referred him directly to the police

The answer to this question as opposed to what they did and continue to do for the paedos should tell you everything you need to know about this disgusting organisation.

its a racket.

I imagine they referred the matter to police.

Just like the Archdiocese of Melbourne has been doing with sexual abuse cases since 1996 when Archbishop George Pell took over. Which strangely Graeme Ashton lied about to the Vic Parliamentary Inquiry. Which said lie George Pell proved was a lie. About a month before VicPol opened Operation Tethering without the existence of a complainant.

 

[kranky al]

I imagine they referred the matter to police.

Just like the Archdiocese of Melbourne has been doing with sexual abuse cases since 1996 when Archbishop George Pell took over. Which strangely Graeme Ashton lied about to the Vic Parliamentary Inquiry. Which said lie George Pell proved was a lie. About a month before VicPol opened Operation Tethering without the existence of a complainant.

Roman Catholic Priests Will Not Break the Seal of Confession to Report Child Abuse, U.K. Inquiry Told

The Roman Catholic Church says it will reject calls for priests to break the seal of confession in order to report child sexual abuse.

time.com

Archbishop says prison preferable to complying with child abuse confession law

Priests would have to break the seal of the confessional and report any admissions of child abuse under proposed news laws

www.theguardian.com

Melbourne Archbishop would choose jail over reporting abuse admissions from confessional

The Archbishop of Melbourne says he would rather go to jail than report admissions of child sexual abuse made in the confessional, as Victoria seeks to bring religious leaders under mandatory reporting laws.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Mick F]

I imagine they referred the matter to police.

Just like the Archdiocese of Melbourne has been doing with sexual abuse cases since 1996 when Archbishop George Pell took over. Which strangely Graeme Ashton lied about to the Vic Parliamentary Inquiry. Which said lie George Pell proved was a lie. About a month before VicPol opened Operation Tethering without the existence of a complainant.

Move on Bruce. You have done more than the Catholic Church could ever have expected.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Se

Roman Catholic Priests Will Not Break the Seal of Confession to Report Child Abuse, U.K. Inquiry Told

The Roman Catholic Church says it will reject calls for priests to break the seal of confession in order to report child sexual abuse.

time.com

Archbishop says prison preferable to complying with child abuse confession law

Priests would have to break the seal of the confessional and report any admissions of child abuse under proposed news laws

www.theguardian.com

Melbourne Archbishop would choose jail over reporting abuse admissions from confessional

The Archbishop of Melbourne says he would rather go to jail than report admissions of child sexual abuse made in the confessional, as Victoria seeks to bring religious leaders under mandatory reporting laws.

www.abc.net.au

Separate argument entirely.
If you want to debate that, then let’s do.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Move on Bruce. You have done more than the Catholic Church could ever have expected.

No.

 

[kranky al]

Se

Separate argument entirely.
If you want to debate that, then let’s do.

Its not a separate argument - they refer people who take their money to police and protect paedos

 

[schneebly1]

I wish there was something more concrete than a just compelling story.
(eg He has a big birthmark or tattoo of an angel on his d!ck etc)

I’ve noticed this is a common point of argument in those who defend Pell or at least say the verdict is suspect because it appears on first glance to be one person’s word vs another. However I think there is a critical statement in the Appeals Court majority verdict (footnote 47 on page 14 for reference) that most are overlooking:

It may not be entirely correct to say that A’s evidence was uncorroborated. To an extent his evidence was supported by reference to knowledge that he possessed which he could not have come by unless he was telling the truth. In any event, there is nothing particularly unusual in a jury convicting an accused on the strength of a so-called ‘uncorroborated’ complainant. A finding of guilt in such circumstances does not give rise, in and of itself, to a conviction being unsafe or unsatisfactory

Pell vs Queen

Unless I’m mistaken isn’t this an admission by the Appeals Court majority (Chief Justice and Appeals Court President) that somewhere within the testimony of the victim (still unreleased to the public) that there was specific knowledge he possessed that he only could have if he was telling the truth? Maybe it was a physical description of Pell’s nether regions? Or intimate details of the sacristy at that time? Who knows, but the prosecutors presented it into evidence, the trial judge allowed it, the defence couldn’t have it excluded, the jury used it to come to their verdict and the Appeals court upheld it. Whatever it was must have been compelling and corroborative.

Why aren’t people here talking about that little statement that apparently blows a lot of Pell’s defenders arguments out of the water?

Second key point is this statement from the Appeals majority (section 144-146 on page 45) regarding Pell’s robes:

The issue of Cardinal Pell’s robes is a good example. As already noted, the contention on the appeal was (as it had been before the jury) that the acts alleged to have been committed by Cardinal Pell in the first incident were ‘physically impossible’. Reliance was placed on categorical statements by Portelli and by Potter that it was not possible to pull the alb to the side while the cincture was tied at the waist.

In response, senior counsel for the Crown invited the members of the Court to try on the robes. They were an exhibit at the trial and, we were told, had been available to the jury in the jury room during their deliberation. Counsel for Cardinal Pell did not demur.

In final address, the prosecutor invited the jury to feel the weight of the alb and ‘assess its manoeuvrability as a garment’. This gave the jury the opportunity, counsel submitted, ‘to assess whether what [the victim] described as having occurred is physically possible or impossible.’ Having taken advantage of that opportunity ourselves, we consider that it was well open to the jury to reject the contention of physical impossibility. The alb was neither so heavy nor so immoveable as the evidence of Portelli and Potter had suggested. To our observation, it was well capable of being manoeuvred — while the cincture was firmly tied at the waist — in a way that might be described as being moved or pulled to one side or pulled apart.

So it seems after having examined the robes that the defence lawyers and their witnesses had testified were too hard for Pell to wear and molest the kids at the same time they found this to be false. So can anyone defend Portelli and Potter (Pell’s assistants) for their apparent lies on the stand? Can anyone see how the jury looked at Pell’s witnesses after those statements and saw them to totally lack credibility after that testimony? (the jury examined the robes too)

 

[Corpuscles]

I’ve noticed this is a common point of argument in those who defend Pell or at least say the verdict is suspect because it appears on first glance to be one person’s word vs another. However I think there is a critical statement in the Appeals Court majority verdict (footnote 47 on page 14 for reference) that most are overlooking:



Pell vs Queen

Unless I’m mistaken isn’t this an admission by the Appeals Court majority (Chief Justice and Appeals Court President) that somewhere within the testimony of the victim (still unreleased to the public) that there was specific knowledge he possessed that he only could have if he was telling the truth? Maybe it was a physical description of Pell’s nether regions? Or intimate details of the sacristy at that time? Who knows, but the prosecutors presented it into evidence, the trial judge allowed it, the defence couldn’t have it excluded, the jury used it to come to their verdict and the Appeals court upheld it. Whatever it was must have been compelling and corroborative.

Why aren’t people here talking about that little statement that apparently blows a lot of Pell’s defenders arguments out of the water?

Second key point is this statement from the Appeals majority (section 144-146 on page 45) regarding Pell’s robes:



So it seems after having examined the robes that the defence lawyers and their witnesses had testified were too hard for Pell to wear and molest the kids at the same time they found this to be false. So can anyone defend Portelli and Potter (Pell’s assistants) for their apparent lies on the stand? Can anyone see how the jury looked at Pell’s witnesses after those statements and saw them to totally lack credibility after that testimony? (the jury examined the robes too)

Hi schneebly1

I feel honoured (somewhat humbled ) that you would address me (my post) in your first post on BF.
I was a late comer to this issue, not a Criminal Law expert, not necessarily intending to defend Pell, just interested in the legal ramifications of this high profile case.
I suspect that poster BruceFromBalnarring, who has invested very considerable time on this matter , who does assert innocence, might be better placed to address your comments. However I will try to reply.

It is refreshing that you are clearly reading the Judgements in detail, and make sensible, rational , non emotional comment. Well done!

Point 1.

I am not sure how far you are into the judgements?

It seems to me especially highlighted in Weinberg's dissenting judgement that the "special knowledge" was simply the Complainant's knowledge of the layout of the Priests Sacristy . Also, the unusual case that at the time the Archbishops Sacristy was not in use.
Of course, I nor the general public, do not know whether there was something else, too private a delicate to disclose. However, I suggest that if there was such, it would have been referenced/ highlighted ( in direct but veiled terms) in the main body of the judgements, rather than just a footnote.

My take is that given the vagueness of the Complainants general recollection of detail, I do not think it would be unusual that young boys who processed or walked past the Sacristy at times, and moved from Choir room to rehearsals in Cathedral (sometimes) past such Sacristy , may have had a 'sticky beak' look into the Sacristy at some point. It was not contested that he may have seen the interior as part of an introductory tour. In any event, apparently the renovated kitchen was not there at the time, so his recollection was not entirely correct anyway.

As for the timing re Archbishops Sacristy, well when they finally arrived at the only two dates in December (Complainant did not know) I can understand why the jury and Appeal majority found that corroboration compelling. However, my "tattoo comment" was pointing to the identification of the culprit. In the confused brief torturous moment, did he know who was assaulting him, 22 years prior?

For me the issue relates to establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt. I think there is some definite room for doubt. I see the footnote refers to the status and treatment of "uncorroborated Complainant" however the memory and details were so vague, and so many unresolved things (you will have seen BruceFromB mention). The Complainant was not asked directly until cross examination of exactly when and how he and his friend left the procession (was unable to advise), nor is there explanation of why the altar servers and other priests did not go straight to the Sacristy.
However maybe in the full trial more information was provided about the procession lingering outside? Who knows?

The matter now is beyond the "evidence" it is merely the High Court assessing the Appeal Judgement and the main issue I think is "reasonable doubt". Weinberg had legal doubts and explained them well.

Point 2

I am no expert, but that seemed to be a super dooper blunder by the legal defence!
Potter and Portelli would never have worn Archbishops garb, they should have ben more restrained in their views.
It definitely gave the impression they would say anything to help excuse Pell.
You will note Judge Kidd specifically directed that there was to be no such accusations or insinuation (loyalty etc) to be made by the prosecution, but that does not mean the jury did not think it.


Anyway the a-hole is in jail. He might be innocent of that crime but is currently paying the price of his status and success as the highest authority of a wicked deceitful organisation.

(Up as very early Golf tee off time )

Cheers

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

I’ve noticed this is a common point of argument in those who defend Pell or at least say the verdict is suspect because it appears on first glance to be one person’s word vs another. However I think there is a critical statement in the Appeals Court majority verdict (footnote 47 on page 14 for reference) that most are overlooking:



Pell vs Queen

Unless I’m mistaken isn’t this an admission by the Appeals Court majority (Chief Justice and Appeals Court President) that somewhere within the testimony of the victim (still unreleased to the public) that there was specific knowledge he possessed that he only could have if he was telling the truth? Maybe it was a physical description of Pell’s nether regions? Or intimate details of the sacristy at that time? Who knows, but the prosecutors presented it into evidence, the trial judge allowed it, the defence couldn’t have it excluded, the jury used it to come to their verdict and the Appeals court upheld it. Whatever it was must have been compelling and corroborative.

Why aren’t people here talking about that little statement that apparently blows a lot of Pell’s defenders arguments out of the water?

Second key point is this statement from the Appeals majority (section 144-146 on page 45) regarding Pell’s robes:



So it seems after having examined the robes that the defence lawyers and their witnesses had testified were too hard for Pell to wear and molest the kids at the same time they found this to be false. So can anyone defend Portelli and Potter (Pell’s assistants) for their apparent lies on the stand? Can anyone see how the jury looked at Pell’s witnesses after those statements and saw them to totally lack credibility after that testimony? (the jury examined the robes too)

Corroboration: The knowledge was in relation to the layout and the use by the Archbishop of the priest’s sacristy. And the argument isn’t so much that his evidence was I corroborated, but that it was preferred over so much evidence that was corroborated.

The Robes: The defence argument wasn’t that you couldn’t offend in those robes, but that the robes couldn’t be parted or moved aside in the manner evidenced by the complainant. Note the sleight of hand by the majority in mischaracterising the evidence in its rebuttal. The argument is made by people such as myself that the offending, especially the third part of what is described (the masturbation of complainant and himself concurrently) is next to impossible given the cumbersome nature of what Pell was wearing.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Its not a separate argument - they refer people who take their money to police and protect paedos

It is a separate argument and you and the writers of those articles well know it.

 

[kranky al]

It is a separate argument and you and the writers of those articles well know it.

What does the law say about reporting child abuse bruce?

does it say everyone except for catholic priests?

is there a little known clause that we havnt heard about?

I dont give a tinkers toss about your imaginary friends so called rules - theres lots of people have lots of imaginary friends. They all have their own little rules. None of them supersede the laws of the land - and what little moral authority the catholics had to get around this law was lost when they chose to aid, abet, conceal and lie about child abuse world wide.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

What does the law say about reporting child abuse bruce?

does it say everyone except for catholic priests?

is there a little known clause that we havnt heard about?

I dont give a tinkers toss about your imaginary friends so called rules - theres lots of people have lots of imaginary friends. They all have their own little rules. None of them supersede the laws of the land - and what little moral authority the catholics had to get around this law was lost when they chose to aid, abet, conceal and lie about child abuse world wide.

You haven’t even got the first idea about the confessional seal quite obviously.

Learn about it, then come back to me.

 

[schneebly1]

The Robes: The defence argument wasn’t that you couldn’t offend in those robes, but that the robes couldn’t be parted or moved aside in the manner evidenced by the complainant. Note the sleight of hand by the majority in mischaracterising the evidence in its rebuttal.

Hold on a second, the point that the robes couldn’t be “parted or moved aside” was directly addressed by the Appeals majority ruling. I’ll quote it again:

To our observation, it was well capable of being manoeuvred — while the cincture was firmly tied at the waist — in a way that might be described as being moved or pulled to one side or pulled apart.

There was no “mischaracterisation” or “sleights of hand”, they directly addressed that point. And directly refuted Pell’s defence team.

I am no expert, but that seemed to be a super dooper blunder by the legal defence!
Potter and Portelli would never have worn Archbishops garb, they should have ben more restrained in their views.

Wasn’t‘t Pell meant to have the $20’000 a day “best criminal defence lawyer in Australia” working for him? Isn’t his similarly high priced solicitor meant to be highly regarded too?

I could imagine a miscarriage of justice from a fresh out of uni public defender, but Richter and Walker are supposedly the cream of the crop.

How did they make such an obvious blunder? Don’t tell me at zero point in this trial they didn’t examine the robes and assess if their arguments made sense? If they didn’t then they no way deserve the money they charge.

Or was it because they needed to introduce anything into evidence to exonerate their client, even if it wasn’t totally legit....

 

[Gough]

You haven’t even got the first idea about the confessional seal quite obviously.

Learn about it, then come back to me.

I don't agree with the law regarding possession of a few beneficial herbs but I still have to abide by them.

 

[kranky al]

You haven’t even got the first idea about the confessional seal quite obviously.

Learn about it, then come back to me.

im an ex catholic.


I couldnt give a flying f}%% about the confessional seal.

the laws of the land dont make an exception for Catholics “confessional seal” any more than they do for some muslims wishing to perform genital mutilation on their daughters or church of latter day saints wanting to engage in polygamy.

hindu people cant enforce non beef eating edicts, jews cant stop us eating pork etc etc etc.

Your religious jibber jabber doesnt supercede the laws of this country - the fact that you

a) think it can

and

b) will defend its use to protect pederasts is illuminating

id bet my last dollar if the catholic church was threatened with losing its tax free status god would change his mind on the confessional seal very quickly.

imho that's exactly what we should do.

 

[Corpuscles]

Wasn’t‘t Pell meant to have the $20’000 a day “best criminal defence lawyer in Australia” working for him? Isn’t his similarly high priced solicitor meant to be highly regarded too?

I could imagine a miscarriage of justice from a fresh out of uni public defender, but Richter and Walker are supposedly the cream of the crop.

How did they make such an obvious blunder? Don’t tell me at zero point in this trial they didn’t examine the robes and assess if their arguments made sense? If they didn’t then they no way deserve the money they charge.

Or was it because they needed to introduce anything into evidence to exonerate their client, even if it wasn’t totally legit....

""Or was it because they needed to introduce anything into evidence to exonerate their client, even if it wasn’t totally legit...."

This points somewhat to the difficulty I have with the majority judgement.

It is the prosecutors job to prove the crime beyond reasonable doubt. The defence does not have to prove anything.
However ought raise something that gives rise to at least a doubt

I wonder whether you saw this article by Russell Marks posted earlier by poster Caesar
https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au...ge-pells-appeal-the-high-court/15738228009096

I recommend you read the full excellent article but an except:

What is perhaps most striking in the Victorian majority’s reasoning is that it effectively allowed no possible defence for Pell: there was nothing his lawyers could have said or done, because the judges appeared to argue it was enough to simply believe the complainant on the basis of his performance under cross-examination.

I don't know enough about robes and such to even guess how practical it is? Nor do I understand the defence strategy on that aspect. Maybe Pell told them it was impossible?

Anyway on reflection I find it a bit strange that you picked an obscure (not terribly important post of mine to enter the discussion . You don't happen to know a bloke named Tim who barracks for the Demons do you?

 

[schneebly1]

It is the prosecutors job to prove the crime beyond reasonable doubt. The defence does not have to prove anything.
However ought raise something that gives rise to at least a doubt

I don't know enough about robes and such to even guess how practical it is? Nor do I understand the defence strategy on that aspect. Maybe Pell told them it was impossible?

Well the prosecution did exactly what you said.

I think there’s a bit of a myth about how the standard of guilt is established in a trial. In an age of DNA testing and all these TV shows where suddenly a critical piece of evidence shows up at the last minute we all think that every guilty verdict is made and upheld with solid corroborative evidence. Even the Appeals court stated this is a furphy. Lots of criminal trials come down to witness statements and witness credibility. I remember a murder case in Sydney a few years back where the judgement stated the trial basically rested on the credibility of a single witness. But after going through the exhaustive legal standards and procedures that witness was accepted as credible, as was the witness in the Pell case (and yes, witness testimony is evidence).

But even though you dismiss “Australia’s best criminal defence lawyers” blatant incompetence when it came to not checking whether or not a key defence in their trial (offending could not have taken place whilst wearing those robes) as irrelevant it actually does point to the credibility of the evidence they present in front of the jury.

Even Pell’s appeal to the High court now accepts the witness is telling the truth. Their appeal is based around their claim that the Appeals majority and jury didn’t accept their witnesses statements that supposedly exonerated Pell were not taken as credible.

As the appeals court majority pointed out, it was exactly things like the apparent lie on the stand by Potter and Portelli about the robes. Which instantly in the minds of the jury puts all their other apparent exculpatory evidence into doubt. Portelli reckons he was with Pell all the time after the mass? He was a heavy smoker, and loved to go outside for a ciggie ASAP after mass, another lie. Can’t you see it’s actually the defence who were exposed as liars? The prosecution proved their case beyond reasonable doubt to the jury using a very credible witness. And despite all your protests that’s enough to convict. That’s why the Appeals majority agreed with the prosecution. The defence now has to prove their witnesses should be seen as credible, which will in my opinion be hard with their robes defence, but who knows what black magic they can work.

The High Court isn’t going to review the case a third time. Unlike the jury and Appeals judges they aren’t going to walk through the crime scene, they aren’t going to examine the robes, they aren’t going to view the victim’s testimony. This appeal will solely be on the underlying law used in the case and the defence’s attempt to make it invalid. Legal loopholism at it’s finest. Who knows with $20-30,000 a day lawyers they may trick them to see it their way.

 

[schneebly1]

I think what confuses some is they think that the Pell case is akin to two kids on a school playground getting into an argument, running into the principal’s office, giving their “he said, she said” stories and then the principal believeing one story over the other because of “feels”....

The legal standards and procedures that have to be met in order for witness testimony evidence to be admitted are comprehensive and expansive. And after being held up to that scrutiny they are entered into evidence. With just as much weight as a so called “smoking gun” to non legally trained outsiders. It isn’t a case of “he said, she said”. If you think this way of the Pell case you’re mistaken.

Those who think the prosecution didn’t present a legally qualified case beyond reasonable doubt need to read a bit more law. You can try and attempt to get Pell exonerated via changing the underlying law used in this case, to demand DNA evidence for a conviction to be recorded for instance, but that means you’ll have to change it in Parliament, and good luck going to an election with a policy to make it easier for child molesters to be on the streets...

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

im an ex catholic.


I couldnt give a flying f}%% about the confessional seal.

the laws of the land dont make an exception for Catholics “confessional seal” any more than they do for some muslims wishing to perform genital mutilation on their daughters or church of latter day saints wanting to engage in polygamy.

hindu people cant enforce non beef eating edicts, jews cant stop us eating pork etc etc etc.

Your religious jibber jabber doesnt supercede the laws of this country - the fact that you

a) think it can

and

b) will defend its use to protect pederasts is illuminating

id bet my last dollar if the catholic church was threatened with losing its tax free status god would change his mind on the confessional seal very quickly.

imho that's exactly what we should do.

I don’t give a flying * about the confessional seal either. I think it’s a big wank.

But just as big a wank, even bigger, is this pretence that the confessional seal is some big barrier to the exposure of sexual abuse by priests. As though they even confess their abuse, or worse, as though they’d confess their abuse if they had any concern the seal might be broken.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

I think what confuses some is they think that the Pell case is akin to two kids on a school playground getting into an argument, running into the principal’s office, giving their “he said, she said” stories and then the principal believeing one story over the other because of “feels”....

The legal standards and procedures that have to be met in order for witness testimony evidence to be admitted are comprehensive and expansive. And after being held up to that scrutiny they are entered into evidence. With just as much weight as a so called “smoking gun” to non legally trained outsiders. It isn’t a case of “he said, she said”. If you think this way of the Pell case you’re mistaken.

Those who think the prosecution didn’t present a legally qualified case beyond reasonable doubt need to read a bit more law. You can try and attempt to get Pell exonerated via changing the underlying law used in this case, to demand DNA evidence for a conviction to be recorded for instance, but that means you’ll have to change it in Parliament, and good luck going to an election with a policy to make it easier for child molesters to be on the streets...

Welcome to BigFooty. Have you met Number 37? I think you’d get along well. You argue from the same misplaced authority.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Well the prosecution did exactly what you said.

I think there’s a bit of a myth about how the standard of guilt is established in a trial. In an age of DNA testing and all these TV shows where suddenly a critical piece of evidence shows up at the last minute we all think that every guilty verdict is made and upheld with solid corroborative evidence. Even the Appeals court stated this is a furphy. Lots of criminal trials come down to witness statements and witness credibility. I remember a murder case in Sydney a few years back where the judgement stated the trial basically rested on the credibility of a single witness. But after going through the exhaustive legal standards and procedures that witness was accepted as credible, as was the witness in the Pell case (and yes, witness testimony is evidence).

But even though you dismiss “Australia’s best criminal defence lawyers” blatant incompetence when it came to not checking whether or not a key defence in their trial (offending could not have taken place whilst wearing those robes) as irrelevant it actually does point to the credibility of the evidence they present in front of the jury.

Even Pell’s appeal to the High court now accepts the witness is telling the truth. Their appeal is based around their claim that the Appeals majority and jury didn’t accept their witnesses statements that supposedly exonerated Pell were not taken as credible.

As the appeals court majority pointed out, it was exactly things like the apparent lie on the stand by Potter and Portelli about the robes. Which instantly in the minds of the jury puts all their other apparent exculpatory evidence into doubt. Portelli reckons he was with Pell all the time after the mass? He was a heavy smoker, and loved to go outside for a ciggie ASAP after mass, another lie. Can’t you see it’s actually the defence who were exposed as liars? The prosecution proved their case beyond reasonable doubt to the jury using a very credible witness. And despite all your protests that’s enough to convict. That’s why the Appeals majority agreed with the prosecution. The defence now has to prove their witnesses should be seen as credible, which will in my opinion be hard with their robes defence, but who knows what black magic they can work.

The High Court isn’t going to review the case a third time. Unlike the jury and Appeals judges they aren’t going to walk through the crime scene, they aren’t going to examine the robes, they aren’t going to view the victim’s testimony. This appeal will solely be on the underlying law used in the case and the defence’s attempt to make it invalid. Legal loopholism at it’s finest. Who knows with $20-30,000 a day lawyers they may trick them to see it their way.

Where were the altar servers?

 

[kranky al]

I don’t give a flying fu** about the confessional seal either. I think it’s a big wank.

But just as big a wank, even bigger, is this pretence that the confessional seal is some big barrier to the exposure of sexual abuse by priests. As though they even confess their abuse, or worse, as though they’d confess their abuse if they had any concern the seal might be broken.

Its the sheer arrogance of an organisation responsible for tens of thousands of kids lives ruined thumbing their nose at our laws thats the point.

They should be bought sharply to heel.