Updated George Pell * Dead at 81yo

[Happy Mastenator]

*not the betoota…View attachment 2331486View attachment 2331487

I get the old fogies like Howard and Abbott are standing by the old Pedo, but surely the "kids" going to this "college" must find this icky as hell?

 

[kranky al]

I get the old fogies like Howard and Abbott are standing by the old Pedo, but surely the "kids" going to this "college" must find this icky as hell?

I’d pull my kid out of there.

 

[kranky al]

Petition to change the name of the hall:

Sign the Petition

Request Campion College to Rename Pell Hall

www.change.org

Please sign and share

 

[Angry Red Bull]

George Pell was exonerated by High Court decision. I think that decision was appropriate because it was always almost impossible he did what they suggested he did without any grooming and in the sacristy at the busiest time.

Now people may think he covered for pedophiles and maybe he did. But was that out of misguided belief in the person than intentional support of their behaviour.? Jury is out.

As for his own behaviour pedophiles usually can't control their conduct..so to suggest he got to the ripe old age of 81 and failed to have any evidence that could be presented in court leads me to believe there was no offences. Opinion.. yes others can have opinions too but to taint the reputation without evidence, conviction and merely innuendo and opinion just as likely because his misguided belief in the concept of redemption for human he was associated with is not a step I'm prepared to go.

Red neck fervour to attempt to ruin everything a man stood for without any evidence. Sorry......not with you on this

 

[kranky al]

George Pell was exonerated by High Court decision. I think that decision was appropriate because it was always almost impossible he did what they suggested he did without any grooming and in the sacristy at the busiest time.

Now people may think he covered for pedophiles and maybe he did. But was that out of misguided belief in the person than intentional support of their behaviour.? Jury is out.

As for his own behaviour pedophiles usually can't control their conduct..so to suggest he got to the ripe old age of 81 and failed to have any evidence that could be presented in court leads me to believe there was no offences. Opinion.. yes others can have opinions too but to taint the reputation without evidence, conviction and merely innuendo and opinion just as likely because his misguided belief in the concept of redemption for human he was associated with is not a step I'm prepared to go.

Red neck fervour to attempt to ruin everything a man stood for without any evidence. Sorry......not with you on this

He wasn’t exonerated in any way shape or form.

The court found that he couldn’t be found guilty based on the evidence given.

Big difference.

And what he is undoubtedly guilty of is moving paedos around from diocese to diocese, covering up for them, not reporting them to authorities and even supporting them in court.

Which is worse than the paedophila as it enables it.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

He wasn’t exonerated in any way shape or form.

The court found that he couldn’t be found guilty based on the evidence given.

Big difference.

And what he is undoubtedly guilty of is moving paedos around from diocese to diocese, covering up for them, not reporting them to authorities and even supporting them in court.

Which is worse than the paedophila as it enables it.

Let me see..innocent..yep that's exonerated. Think what you want but it's not proven to standard by the evidence as adduced by High Court

 

[kranky al]

Let me see..innocent..yep that's exonerated. Think what you want but it's not proven to standard by the evidence as adduced by High Court

<<<Cardinal George Pell died this week in Rome having been acquitted by the High Court on child sexual abuse charges but without ever facing court over multiple other allegations. By Louise Milligan.​

The first time I met George Pell, I was a cadet journalist and he was the archbishop of Melbourne. He was dazzling.

Even then, Pell had a slightly terrifying reputation. He was loudly opposed to giving communion to gay Catholics and to women in the clergy, and would later declare that abortion was a worse moral crime than paedophilia.

His Catholicism was muscular and pugilistic. The motto he chose for his coat of arms was “Be not afraid”.

As I saw him leaving The Herald and Weekly Times building, I plucked up some courage and introduced myself. What happened next surprised me: Pell was utterly, utterly charming. He beamed a thousand-watt smile. His eyes softened. He conversed with me for a few minutes. He seemed charismatic, but also, to my surprise, kind.

That morning I got a glimpse of a man who would seduce prime ministers and newspaper editors, who would bedazzle not just parishes but dioceses, not just cardinals but popes. The sort of man who, when his death was announced on Wednesday, Tony Abbott would describe as a “saint for our times”.

I could almost feel the punch in the guts that statement must have been for survivors of clergy abuse across Australia – most particularly those whose abusers George Pell knew about and did nothing to stop.

It would have been a punch in the guts, too, for the group of men who made direct accusations of sexual crimes against Pell, men I met for my investigation into him for the ABC and for my book Cardinal.

For many good people in the church, for many survivors racked with post-traumatic stress disorder, the circus that has surrounded his death has evoked that familiar tightness in the chest, that familiar, crushing anxiety.

The second time I met George Pell was in Rome in 2006 for the cross handover ceremony for Catholic World Youth Day.

I was by then a commercial television reporter and the stories we filed were very straight and positive – lots of shots of crowds cheering in St Peter’s Square, lots of high energy and political enthusiasm for the event.

“Who’s going to believe a little boy from a home against that conglomerate? You know? Against that bloody goliath? I’m due to get grilled, like I’m the ****ing villain. I’m not the villain, mate.”
Pell was there as the archbishop of Sydney. In his fleeting encounters with the travelling press, he was surly and officious. He looked down at us with mild disdain, like we were an annoyance, a distraction.

It didn’t occur to me then but by the time of that second meeting everything had changed for Pell – or at least, had begun to change. Four years earlier he had faced his first public allegations of child sexual abuse.

That accusation dated to the 1960s, when Pell was a seminarian nicknamed “Big George”.

The accuser, who had been an altar boy at the time, said Pell had touched him under the water at Smiths Beach in Victoria. This was to become a theme in the accusations against George Pell. Beaches and swimming pools and lakes and water. The Eureka pool in Ballarat. Lake Boga. A Ballarat orphanage shower. Torquay Surf Life Saving Club.

The man who said Pell abused him at Smiths Beach did not want to go to the police. Instead, he sought an internal church investigation.

A retired Supreme Court judge, Alec Southwell, was appointed. He found both Pell and his accuser believable, saying the man “gave the impression that he was speaking honestly from an actual recollection”.>>>


More: https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au...abuse-cases-which-george-pell-was-never-tried

 

[Angry Red Bull]

<<<Cardinal George Pell died this week in Rome having been acquitted by the High Court on child sexual abuse charges but without ever facing court over multiple other allegations. By Louise Milligan.​

The first time I met George Pell, I was a cadet journalist and he was the archbishop of Melbourne. He was dazzling.

Even then, Pell had a slightly terrifying reputation. He was loudly opposed to giving communion to gay Catholics and to women in the clergy, and would later declare that abortion was a worse moral crime than paedophilia.

His Catholicism was muscular and pugilistic. The motto he chose for his coat of arms was “Be not afraid”.

As I saw him leaving The Herald and Weekly Times building, I plucked up some courage and introduced myself. What happened next surprised me: Pell was utterly, utterly charming. He beamed a thousand-watt smile. His eyes softened. He conversed with me for a few minutes. He seemed charismatic, but also, to my surprise, kind.

That morning I got a glimpse of a man who would seduce prime ministers and newspaper editors, who would bedazzle not just parishes but dioceses, not just cardinals but popes. The sort of man who, when his death was announced on Wednesday, Tony Abbott would describe as a “saint for our times”.

I could almost feel the punch in the guts that statement must have been for survivors of clergy abuse across Australia – most particularly those whose abusers George Pell knew about and did nothing to stop.

It would have been a punch in the guts, too, for the group of men who made direct accusations of sexual crimes against Pell, men I met for my investigation into him for the ABC and for my book Cardinal.

For many good people in the church, for many survivors racked with post-traumatic stress disorder, the circus that has surrounded his death has evoked that familiar tightness in the chest, that familiar, crushing anxiety.

The second time I met George Pell was in Rome in 2006 for the cross handover ceremony for Catholic World Youth Day.

I was by then a commercial television reporter and the stories we filed were very straight and positive – lots of shots of crowds cheering in St Peter’s Square, lots of high energy and political enthusiasm for the event.

“Who’s going to believe a little boy from a home against that conglomerate? You know? Against that bloody goliath? I’m due to get grilled, like I’m the ****ing villain. I’m not the villain, mate.”
Pell was there as the archbishop of Sydney. In his fleeting encounters with the travelling press, he was surly and officious. He looked down at us with mild disdain, like we were an annoyance, a distraction.

It didn’t occur to me then but by the time of that second meeting everything had changed for Pell – or at least, had begun to change. Four years earlier he had faced his first public allegations of child sexual abuse.

That accusation dated to the 1960s, when Pell was a seminarian nicknamed “Big George”.

The accuser, who had been an altar boy at the time, said Pell had touched him under the water at Smiths Beach in Victoria. This was to become a theme in the accusations against George Pell. Beaches and swimming pools and lakes and water. The Eureka pool in Ballarat. Lake Boga. A Ballarat orphanage shower. Torquay Surf Life Saving Club.

The man who said Pell abused him at Smiths Beach did not want to go to the police. Instead, he sought an internal church investigation.

A retired Supreme Court judge, Alec Southwell, was appointed. He found both Pell and his accuser believable, saying the man “gave the impression that he was speaking honestly from an actual recollection”.>>>


More: https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au...abuse-cases-which-george-pell-was-never-tried

There is no doubt suspicion..there have been no cases proven..most pedophiles don't get to 81 without a long history of convictions..Why is he different? You might suggest that he made some poor decisions that pedophile priests would redeem their misconduct..that is after a Christian ideal. Absolution. So being the focal point of the church and all they represent he becomes it's principal target too ..again nothing proven.

I'm influenced by the long life and not one proven case against him..that is extremely rare for genuine pedophiles..I don't like to crucify people on suspicion. But that's me. Recidivism runs at about 77% I recall

 

[Happy Mastenator]

There is no doubt suspicion..there have been no cases proven..most pedophiles don't get to 81 without a long history of convictions..Why is he different? You might suggest that he made some poor decisions that pedophile priests would redeem their misconduct..that is after a Christian ideal. Absolution. So being the focal point of the church and all they represent he becomes it's principal target too ..again nothing proven.

I'm influenced by the long life and not one proven case against him..that is extremely rare for genuine pedophiles..I don't like to crucify people on suspicion. But that's me. Recidivism runs at about 77% I recall

I'd hesitate a guess that most alleged paedophiles are never charged, let alone convicted. It's a massively traumatic event that most kids into adults don't want to bring up due to the pain, and the knowledge that obtaining convictions based on their word alone is very difficult.

I'm not going to go searching on my work computer, but imagine that there would be studies that show this.

But sure, there have been heaps of stories about Pell (and not just the matter that went to trial), but you keep believing that it's all a vast conspiracy of lies, rather than a trail of broken children.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

27% are proceeded with. 94% are charged..76% of those charged lead to conviction.. as Ive already mentioned about 78% recidivism.

The average number of offences by pedophiles is quite high....over 300 in lifetime per pedophile I understand from recollection.

The upshot of all these stats is that a lifetime pedophile is extremely unlikely to escape prosecution and conviction throughout his life. 18% conviction from offence and given the average is 300 offences it's extremely unlikely a pedophile would reach age 81 without one successful conviction.

With Pell i think it's just as likely he was the face of the catholic church which was seen to be covering up their pedophile offences ( per royal commission) so became a target. I find it reprehensible that police advertise for victims to come forward as they did for Pell..That isn't the way the justice system is supposed to work. So perhaps many of the accusations were contrived? There is some proof of that given of the two boys I understand one retracted his allegation entirely.

If we are going to convict shall we do it with convictions not suspicions?

 

[Happy Mastenator]

27% are proceeded with. 94% are charged..76% of those charged lead to conviction.. as Ive already mentioned about 78% recidivism.

The average number of offences by pedophiles is quite high....over 300 in lifetime per pedophile I understand from recollection.

The upshot of all these stats is that a lifetime pedophile is extremely unlikely to escape prosecution and conviction throughout his life. 18% conviction from offence and given the average is 300 offences it's extremely unlikely a pedophile would reach age 81 without one successful conviction.

With Pell i think it's just as likely he was the face of the catholic church which was seen to be covering up their pedophile offences ( per royal commission) so became a target. I find it reprehensible that police advertise for victims to come forward as they did for Pell..That isn't the way the justice system is supposed to work. So perhaps many of the accusations were contrived? There is some proof of that given of the two boys I understand one retracted his allegation entirely.

If we are going to convict shall we do it with convictions not suspicions?

That's not how statistics work.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

That's not how statistics work.

Yeah it is

 

[Thats Ambitious]

A couple of things-

What are the statistics of allegations - charges - convictions of highly powerful members of society who have the millions of dollars to take appeals all the way to the High Court?

Your are effectively stating 'if he was a pedophile he wouldn't have gotten away with it for so long'.... your faith in our police investigatory processes and the justice system must be immense.

 

[Cactus_]

George Pell was exonerated by High Court decision. I think that decision was appropriate because it was always almost impossible he did what they suggested he did without any grooming and in the sacristy at the busiest time.

Now people may think he covered for pedophiles and maybe he did. But was that out of misguided belief in the person than intentional support of their behaviour.? Jury is out.

As for his own behaviour pedophiles usually can't control their conduct..so to suggest he got to the ripe old age of 81 and failed to have any evidence that could be presented in court leads me to believe there was no offences. Opinion.. yes others can have opinions too but to taint the reputation without evidence, conviction and merely innuendo and opinion just as likely because his misguided belief in the concept of redemption for human he was associated with is not a step I'm prepared to go.

Red neck fervour to attempt to ruin everything a man stood for without any evidence. Sorry......not with you on this

The jury is not still out regarding Pell

The vast majority of people have a very clear and considered views on what George Pell was, and the vast majority do not agree with you “Angry Red Bull”

As for the man himself he has finally escaped the reach of any further juries or courts

Which just leaves one question Angry Red Bull . . . why are you so intent on defending him, with all of these long, incredibly wordy posts?

What is the purpose of all your tricky legalistic defences of him?

I’m presuming that you’re some variety of internet troll, but why you’d pick the topic of CSA as a target for your disingenuous posing . . . I can’t imagine.

And why are be spending so much effort and time trying to defend Pell?

Even if you did manage to convince one person (and I don’t think you will) and even if you legalistically threw doubt on one individual allegation – Pell definitely behaved disgracefully towards the victims of CSA, and was unrepentant, self-serving, arrogant, and a bully, complicit in allowing the abuse to continue and knowingly complicit in denying justice to the victims.

That is not the judgement of the court. That is my judgment based on among other things hearing Pell himself speak.

Get out a bit. Ask around. Bolt and Howard and Abbott are practically the only people who agree with you and they are three men who are not famous for speaking the truth.

 

[Cactus_]

A couple of things-

What are the statistics of allegations - charges - convictions of highly powerful members of society who have the millions of dollars to take appeals all the way to the High Court?

Your are effectively stating 'if he was a pedophile he wouldn't have gotten away with it for so long'.... your faith in our police investigatory processes and the justice system must be immense.

Excellent point

 

[Angry Red Bull]

The jury is not still out regarding Pell

The vast majority of people have a very clear and considered views on what George Pell was, and the vast majority do not agree with you “Angry Red Bull”

As for the man himself he has finally escaped the reach of any further juries or courts

Which just leaves one question Angry Red Bull . . . why are you so intent on defending him, with all of these long, incredibly wordy posts?

What is the purpose of all your tricky legalistic defences of him?

I’m presuming that you’re some variety of internet troll, but why you’d pick the topic of CSA as a target for your disingenuous posing . . . I can’t imagine.

And why are be spending so much effort and time trying to defend Pell?

Even if you did manage to convince one person (and I don’t think you will) and even if you legalistically threw doubt on one individual allegation – Pell definitely behaved disgracefully towards the victims of CSA, and was unrepentant, self-serving, arrogant, and a bully, complicit in allowing the abuse to continue and knowingly complicit in denying justice to the victims.

That is not the judgement of the court. That is my judgment based on among other things hearing Pell himself speak.

Get out a bit. Ask around. Bolt and Howard and Abbott are practically the only people who agree with you and they are three men who are not famous for speaking the truth.

I'm not a troll and I don't 'support' him..if you are going to draw a line and condemn those on the other side I just believe that line should be as confidently precise as would exist in court convictions. And if you can't get to that point then he deserves the same lattitude that is accorded those that are alive and have faced and met their judgement. Otherwise we all become vigilante justice just as you are now attempting to impart your judgement on me. Why? Because you can't understand and jump to hasty judgement attempting to convict me for merely having the good judgement and temperament to hesitate. The justification is YOU KNOW and only that..that is my very point though you DON'T KNOW and we never will because he has never been judged and successfully convicted. I hesitate and would with anyone on any offence because I resist becoming red neck vigilante justice even in death. I think all people deserve that dignity and respect including Pell. Have your suspicions but treat them as suspicions rather than advance them to conclusive findings simply because he is no longer here and you can take that liberty in his absence. Sorry, I won't.

 

[kranky al]

27% are proceeded with. 94% are charged..76% of those charged lead to conviction.. as Ive already mentioned about 78% recidivism.

The average number of offences by pedophiles is quite high....over 300 in lifetime per pedophile I understand from recollection.

The upshot of all these stats is that a lifetime pedophile is extremely unlikely to escape prosecution and conviction throughout his life. 18% conviction from offence and given the average is 300 offences it's extremely unlikely a pedophile would reach age 81 without one successful conviction.

With Pell i think it's just as likely he was the face of the catholic church which was seen to be covering up their pedophile offences ( per royal commission) so became a target. I find it reprehensible that police advertise for victims to come forward as they did for Pell..That isn't the way the justice system is supposed to work. So perhaps many of the accusations were contrived? There is some proof of that given of the two boys I understand one retracted his allegation entirely.

If we are going to convict shall we do it with convictions not suspicions.

Man in position of power with 2 former prime ministers openly shilling for him hasn’t been convicted previously so must be innocent.



There’s a reason we need instructions on everything now.



You.

 

[Lebbo73]

*not the betoota…View attachment 2331486View attachment 2331487

High Court 7 to Nil. Nearly as conclusive as the Newcastle U15’s against the Matilda’s!

 

[kranky al]

High Court 7 to Nil. Nearly as conclusive as the Newcastle U15’s against the Matilda’s!

Ridsdales been fondling kids again

That wasn’t of any concern to me.

*shows up in court to support Ridsdale - the pardon he moved from diocese to diocese as molestation complaints came in…

 

[Happy Mastenator]

Yeah it is

For starters you are making up numbers. Notwithstanding that there is also a distinction between Paedophile and sexual abuser of children.

Risdale was a paedophile, he had a compulsion he couldn't control and was a massive recidivist.

Highly likely that Pell was a sexual abuser of children, in that he abused children for a period in time earlier in his career, as a crime of opportunity, before stopping as he became more high profile. It was an endemic cultural problem in the catholic church at the time.

The vast majority of sexual abuse against children never results in a conviction. Due to the high threshold of proof and the time that passes between the crime committed on young children, to when they are normally ready to come forward. To think otherwise is insane.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

High Court 7 to Nil. Nearly as conclusive as the Newcastle U15’s against the Matilda’s!

Absolutely. It's totally ludicrous suggestion he flopped it out in sacristy at the busiest time with it being pitt central and without any grooming on very first meet because the children had drank a glass of wine. That a jury ever found him guilty is sad indictment on judgement. Even worse that 2 of 3 judges on appeal confirmed the decision. And he had a priest attest to where he was. Thankfully the most experienced realised the mistake in High Court. 7 - 0

All we have left is suspicion.... AND he was the head of the church who had made regrettable decisions around those in their ranks making him a target. Did one of the kids retract his allegation......yes..Possibly pangs of conscience in trying to frame him. On the back of being made a target the police also advertised for victims to come forward..Forgive me but that's not how the justice system should work especially in those circumstances..Woeful judgement by LE

We will never know. That is my point.

 

[Kurve]

Absolutely. It's totally ludicrous suggestion he flopped it out in sacristy at the busiest time with it being pitt central and without any grooming on very first meet because the children had drank a glass of wine. That a jury ever found him guilty is sad indictment on judgement. Even worse that 2 of 3 judges on appeal confirmed the decision. And he had a priest attest to where he was. Thankfully the most experienced realised the mistake in High Court. 7 - 0

All we have left is suspicion.... AND he was the head of the church who had made regrettable decisions around those in their ranks making him a target. Did one of the kids retract his allegation......yes..Possibly pangs of conscience in trying to frame him. On the back of being made a target the police also advertised for victims to come forward..Forgive me but that's not how the justice system should work especially in those circumstances..Woeful judgement by LE

We will never know. That is my point.

There was a priest within, who was trying to sound the alarm about Pell for a long time.

 

[faible]

ARB defending Pell with the same fervor he attacks the McCann's it seems.

Attacking the entire justice system to defend Pell, who at best covered up sexual abusers and at worst was a sexual abuser himself is certainly a choice.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

There was a priest within, who was trying to sound the alarm about Pell for a long time.

Which itself is also untested suspicion and hearsay. You don't think the church is free of politics and disputes do you? Again suspicion

 

[Thats Ambitious]

And he had a priest attest to where he was.

Nope, read the judgement. The 'witnesses' to where Pell was at the time of the alleged offences could say where Pell 'usually' was at that time. He could not swear that is actually where Pell was at that time and date.

As is common with historical sex offence cases, the passage of time creates uncertainty and doubt as witnesses cannot recall details from years prior with precision.