Updated George Pell * Dead at 81yo

[Melsy]

Which article was that?

Have you a detailed document of the turn of events that lead to conviction?

The prosecutions detailed allegations of exactly what happened.

 

[bigfarter]

Ive just read one article with some scope of the event.

What I find odd is that attire is worn over clothes, so removing attire is only stripping back to clothing worn to a church. Often the door is open as there is no need really it be closed in that situation.

Then both boys were 13 and this happened. That's highschool age. With two highschool boys present, I'm surprised they didn't run outside.

A very unusual set of circumstances. 1996 too. People were wary of such matters in the clergy. Parents were cautious.

If Pell removed more than the church garb which is worn over a shirt and long pants, this should have set off alarm bells. Shirt and pants only come off back at the priests home.

Pell must have been brazen knowing full well people could walk in anytime. Acolites are normally in attendance too. I'm going to read more.

Victims aren't perfect and don't necessarily do what you'd expect. Shock can account for many things, including standing frozen when you should be running to protect yourself. I can only imagine the shock and confusion if a man you respect and admire (especially in a religious sense) suddenly flashes you and moves to force oral sex.

As for him being brazen - I've seen the likes of Andrew Bolt and co. point to this as a reason it "couldn't have happened" - which is ridiculous. Frankly, if he's guilty of this crime, you can assume he's done it many times before, possibly for decades, and if that was the case why wouldn't he be brazen? Ridsdale did this stuff in plain sight and wasn't caught for decades. These people must have felt untouchable and quite safe in committing their crimes - after decades of doing so it would be almost second-nature.

Got to say, I'm disgusted in the likes of Bolt and Devine who are outright calling the victim a liar and smearing the jury and blaming the media. Ironic that they claim Pell didn't receive a fair trial, despite the fact there was a media blackout on it AND his defence were spending $50,000 a DAY AND he had a letter of support from a former Prime Minister (and public support from many high-profile people) and yet these people constantly vilify others (Refugees, the Sudanese, the homeless, the indigenous) with no regard for how that vilification may impact court cases and the like. Hypocrites. And now, supporters of a child rapist.

 

[Melsy]

Spot the Catholic!

Spot the idiot! I am registered as athiest with the government. Character attacks again.

 

[Melsy]

Victims aren't perfect and don't necessarily do what you'd expect. Shock can account for many things, including standing frozen when you should be running to protect yourself. I can only imagine the shock and confusion if a man you respect and admire (especially in a religious sense) suddenly flashes you and moves to force oral sex.

As for him being brazen - I've seen the likes of Andrew Bolt and co. point to this as a reason it "couldn't have happened" - which is ridiculous. Frankly, if he's guilty of this crime, you can assume he's done it many times before, possibly for decades, and if that was the case why wouldn't he be brazen? Ridsdale did this stuff in plain sight and wasn't caught for decades. These people must have felt untouchable and quite safe in committing their crimes - after decades of doing so it would be almost second-nature.

Got to say, I'm disgusted in the likes of Bolt and Devine who are outright calling the victim a liar and smearing the jury and blaming the media. Ironic that they claim Pell didn't receive a fair trial, despite the fact there was a media blackout on it AND his defence were spending $50,000 a DAY AND he had a letter of support from a former Prime Minister (and public support from many high-profile people) and yet these people constantly vilify others (Refugees, the Sudanese, the homeless, the indigenous) with no regard for how that vilification may impact court cases and the like. Hypocrites. And now, supporters of a child rapist.

I totally agree.

I want to know if any of the parties removed more than the church wear, still being fully dressed.

If any of the parties went below being fully dressed, then Pell should go to prison even if there was no sexual conduct.

If he was the Arch Bishop in 1996, he should know better that it was an immediate breach.

So if someone even took their shirt off, which is beyond church over wear, he should go to prison. Its not acceptable.

Here you can see black long pants underneath. Fully dressed.

 

[Melsy]

Essentially, church wear is a bit like university graduation dress. It is worn over existing clothing. Choir boys would be long pants and probably a long shirt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_dress

So if anyone went beyond removing official church attire, it should be prison.

Technically, their situation could have been done in the centre of the church because taking off officiado church wear would mean they are still fully clothed with shoes on. Removing the church attire out back is almost a matter of convenience where all that attire is stored.

This is why I want to see the detailed turn of events listed by the prosecution.

 

[Kurve]

.

Essentially, church wear is a bit like university graduation dress. It is worn over existing clothing. Choir boys would be long pants and probably a long shirt.

So if anyone went beyond removing official church attire, it should be prison.

Technically, their situation could have been done in the centre of the church because taking off officiado church wear would mean they are still fully clothed with shoes on. Removing the church attire out back is almost a matter of convenience where all that attire is stored.

This is why I want to see the detailed turn of events listed by the prosecution.

There should be no further examination imo into the veracity and legitimacy of the victims accounts. imo. It's done, he's guilty. Let's not mention what was going on in Ballarat over decades, the highest suicide rate in Victoria and he hasn't explained yet what his secret visit there was all about before he fronted court.

Nor has George Brandis explained what he was doing in Rome on a secret meet with Pell. Oh, where is Brandis now?

It's difficult for me to believe the press would even run with Devine and Bolt attempting to discredit them and the process when Pell has had the most powerful organisation in the world, an overwhelming goliath behind him.

 

[Melsy]

.


There should be no further examination imo into the veracity and legitimacy of the victims accounts. It's done, he's guilty. Let's not even talk about what was going on in Ballarat over decades, the highest suicide rate in Victoria and he hasn't explained yet what his secret visit there was all about before he fronted court.

Nor has George Brandis explained what he was doing in Rome on a secret meet with Pell. Oh, where is Brandis now?

It's difficult for me to believe the press would even run with Devine and Bolt attempting to discredit them and the process when Pell has had the most powerful organisation in the world, an overwhelming goliath behind him.

This is why I want to see the detailed turn of events listed by the prosecution.

If he went beyond defrocking, he deserves to go to prison. Arch Bishop knows the consequences of going beyond fully clothed.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Have you a detailed document of the turn of events that lead to conviction?

The prosecutions detailed allegations of exactly what happened.

Your the one who wants to back peddle over what has already been proven.
I believe i shared a link for the discussion regarding what happened in the room. It is not detailed as it was not presented as such in court. Just that the victim said he turn the robe to the side where there was on an opening. I assume the opening is where the hand would be able to enter under the robes.

Still curious to know what article you were citing from??

Can’t believe your struggling to accept the courts findings. The victims statement has been accepted as fact.
Not sure what articles you have been reading.

 

[Melsy]

Your the one who wants to back peddle over what has already been proven.
I believe i shared a link for the discussion regarding what happened in the room. It is not detailed as it was not presented as such in court. Just that the victim said he turn the robe to the side where there was on an opening. I assume the opening is where the hand would be able to enter under the robes.

Still curious to know what article you were citing from??

Can’t believe your struggling to accept the courts findings. The victims statement has been accepted as fact.
Not sure what articles you have been reading.

Judging by your lack of knowledge of the detailed events. I take it you have little interest in examining facts in detail.

What I said, was if he went beyond fully clothed after defrocking, he needs go to prison.

You're more about delivering a political message. I can appreciate you don't want look at the facts.

 

[Melsy]

I'm surprised this hasn't been judge alone given the publicity.

Its a shame because we probably would have seen the statement of material facts.

Will the appeal argue an influenced jury?

 

[Slartibartfast]

Judging by you lack of knowledge of the detailed events. I take it you have little interest in examining facts in detail.

What I said, was if he went beyond fully clothed after defrocking, he needs go to prison.

You're more about delivering a message. I can appreciate you don't want look at the facts.

Haha, yes i have seen your support for pell.

Now your questioning my understanding.
He HAS been proven to be a peodophile.
I am not going to debate that any fiorther, if you are interested the details were in yesterdays press. Again, they did not go into details at great length in court. That is an issue for Richter and what questions he asked.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I'm surprised this hasn't been judge alone given the publicity.

Its a shame because we probably would have seen the statement of material facts.

Victoria only has jury trials , but i am sure you would have read that in the last day or so.

 

[Melsy]

Victoria only has jury trials , but i am sure you would have read that in the last day or so.

WA has jury trials too.

The Andrews Government will consider introducing judge-only trials in Victoria in a move that some lawyers believe could enhance the right to a fairer court hearing

 

[Melsy]

Haha, yes i have seen your support for pell.

Now your questioning my understanding.
He HAS been proven to be a peodophile.
I am not going to debate that any fiorther, if you are interested the details were in yesterdays press. Again, they did not go into details at great length in court. That is an issue for Richter and what questions he asked.

I can see you have tunnel vision of my claim that if Pell went beyond being fully clothed, he should go to prison. Either of the choirs boys beyond fully clothed in the same room, go to prison. As Arch Bishop in 1996, he should have known better.

This is why I want to see the detailed turn of events listed by the prosecution. The statement of material facts.

But you have been ignorant of that.

 

[Slartibartfast]

WA has jury trials too.

So what, this case was in Victoria. Victorian trials are all done by jury only.

Your really struggling to accept the umpires decision.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I can see you have tunnel vision of my claim that if Pell went beyond being fully clothed, he should go to prison. Either of the choirs boys beyond fully clothed in the same room, go to prison. As Arch Bishop in 1996, he should have known better.

But you have been ignorant of that.

It does not matter , he pulled out his old fella from under his robes while dressed. That is what counts not some hypothetical situation you are imagining.

What dont you get, he forced a boy to perform oral sex!!!
Your worrying abaout how many clothes were being worn.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Louise Milligan’s book has had its suppression order lifted , it discusses the crimes he committed and the cover ups. This includes the cases which Pell was found guilty of. Anyone sincerely interested to discover the details it is now available.

https://www.mup.com.au/blog/cardinal-the-rise-and-fall-of-george-pell-book-suppression-lifts

 

[bigfarter]

This is why I want to see the detailed turn of events listed by the prosecution.

If he went beyond defrocking, he deserves to go to prison. Arch Bishop knows the consequences of going beyond fully clothed.

I'm not sure I understand why defrocking is your "go to prison" moment when he's been convicted of forcing oral sex on a child? Or are you doubting that happened? Not asking that antagonistically, just for clarification, because I'm confused why you keep coming back to this defrocking thing when it seems besides the point of the actual rape.

 

[Melsy]

I'm not sure I understand why defrocking is your "go to prison" moment when he's been convicted of forcing oral sex on a child? Or are you doubting that happened? Not asking that antagonistically, just for clarification, because I'm confused why you keep coming back to this defrocking thing when it seems besides the point of the actual rape.

The reason I asked for the turn of events or the Statement of Material facts, was that in reading the sanitised media version, Pell was in the rear of the church removing clerical overwear.

If Pell went beyond that in the front of children, although not lawful, he should go to prison anyrate.

I'm trying to work out what they convicted him on and how they proved it. The sacristy is essentially an open room that anyone walk through and do.

After the mass is concluded people walk through, mostly admin staff, etc. The parents might even come out back.

It turns out maybe not.

And when told he had found his victims ‘‘poking around’’ in the sacristy, he responded: ‘‘It’s an unfortunate term, poking around, but what do you do when you are poking around?’’
Pell denied the allegation he exposed himself to the two choirboys in December 1996, and then took one of the boys and pushed his head close to his penis.
When the next allegation was put to him – that he had taken the second boy and put his penis in the boy’s mouth – Pell said: ‘‘In a sacristy after Mass? Completely false.’’
When Detective Reed outlined the allegation that the then-archbishop had the second boy undress before he sexually abused him, Pell responded: ‘‘This is in the sacristy in the cathedral after Sunday Mass?’’

‘‘Well, need I say any more. What a load of garbage and falsehood and deranged falsehood.’’
On the final allegation, that he squeezed the second boy’s genitals in early 1997, Pell asked whether the incident occurred after a Sunday Mass. When told yes, Pell said: ‘‘That’s good for me because it makes it even more fantastic and impossible.’’

 

[Opine]

I doubt it.
The church has been stonewalling victims for decades. They have never truly acknowledged the widespread crimes happening within the church or have they responded appropriately once they were identified. Just a big business looking for the cheapest way out.
Even once guilt has been shown they made victims life a misery.
View the Fosters family response on 7.30 tonight.

Your concerns on the broader issue are valid, but this case did not address, nor reach a finding on, the issues that your highlighting. As was made expressly clear by CJ Kidd; the Catholic Church is not on trial. Leave it at that.

 

[Slartibartfast]

You just dont get it. He has been found guilty by the recognised legal system, when he had a bus load of high priced lawyers to Defend him.
I am not debating the merits of the finding, he was found guilty. It would be unfair to the VICTIMS of which you have little concern.
Take your peodophile supporting to the conspiracy board.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Your concerns on the broader issue are valid, but this case did not address, nor reach a finding on, the issues that your highlighting. As was made expressly clear by CJ Kidd; the Catholic Church is not on trial. Leave it at that.

Correct , the case did not address that but there is no denying the Catholic Churches apathy is why we are here today.

 

[Melsy]

The chances of someone witnessing this are high if it the case. Very high risk taking.

 

[Opine]

Correct , the case did not address that but there is no denying the Catholic Churches apathy is why we are here today.

We are here today because of the Church's current apathy towards victims, as much as we are here because of its previous failings.

 

[Melsy]

We are here today because of the Church's current apathy towards victims, as much as we are here because of its previous failings.

The church protected the church

After the next appeal, that could prove futile for the church.