Religion Pell Guilty!

JeanLucGoddard

Premiership Player
Joined
Aug 21, 2018
Posts
3,992
Likes
9,025
AFL Club
North Melbourne
There's a remarkable similarity between the version of events told by Pell's accuser and a story that appeared in Rolling Stone in 2011.

“Billy” was a 10-year-old student at St. Jerome School in 1998, and an altar boy just like his older brother before him. A sweet, gentle kid with boyish good looks, Billy was outgoing and well-liked. One morning, after serving Mass, Rev. Charles Engelhardt caught Billy in the church sacristy sipping leftover wine. Rather than get mad, however, the priest poured Billy more wine. According to the grand jury, he also showed him some pornographic magazines, asking the boy how the pictures made him feel and whether he preferred the images of naked men or women. He told Billy it was time to become a man and that they would soon begin their “sessions.”​
A week later, Billy learned what Engelhardt meant. After Mass, the priest allegedly fondled the boy, sucked his penis and ordered Billy to kneel and fellate him – calling him “son” while instructing him to move his head faster or slower – until Engelhardt ejaculated. The priest later suggested another “session,” but Billy refused and Engelhardt let him be.​

Hard to draw any conclusions from it but it would be interesting to know if the defence questioned "The Kid", as Louise Milligan refers to him, about it. Were the jury made aware of this story and the possibility that "The Kid" could have read it?

https://www.rollingstone.com/cultur...tholic-churchs-secret-sex-crime-files-243513/
Seriously? The two accounts are hugely different - notably Pell didn't ejaculate, nor did he show any magazines.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

sorted

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Aug 21, 2016
Posts
5,139
Likes
6,503
AFL Club
Geelong
Seriously? The two accounts are hugely different - notably Pell didn't ejaculate, nor did he show any magazines.

Both incidents involved -

young altar boys drinking wine​
that they found in the sacristy​
after Sunday Mass​

where they had assisted​
the priest fondling their genitals​
they were made to kneel before the priest​
made to perform fellatio on the priest​
there were no other witnesses to the events​

Like I said, you can't draw conclusions from the extraordinary coincidences in themselves but it would be interesting to know whether questions were asked about the Rolling Stone article to the accuser in front of the juries.
 

Boston tiger

Premiership Player
Joined
May 10, 2010
Posts
4,839
Likes
3,455
Location
Where it all began
AFL Club
Richmond
Both incidents involved -

young altar boys drinking wine​
that they found in the sacristy​
after Sunday Mass​

where they had assisted​
the priest fondling their genitals​
they were made to kneel before the priest​
made to perform fellatio on the priest​
there were no other witnesses to the events​

Like I said, you can't draw conclusions from the extraordinary coincidences in themselves but it would be interesting to know whether questions were asked about the Rolling Stone article to the accuser in front of the juries.
They are not extraordinary coincidences. Altar boys sneaking wine is not extraordinary. Fondling genitalia in abuse is not extraordinary. No witnesses is not extraordinary. If you are an alter boy the only time you will be molested is either before or after mass because any other time you aren’t an altar boy. etc etc etc.
 

sorted

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Aug 21, 2016
Posts
5,139
Likes
6,503
AFL Club
Geelong
They are not extraordinary coincidences. Altar boys sneaking wine is not extraordinary. Fondling genitalia in abuse is not extraordinary. No witnesses is not extraordinary. If you are an alter boy the only time you will be molested is either before or after mass because any other time you aren’t an altar boy. etc etc etc.
I would argue the events in both incidents are very unusual. The coincidences are extraordinary.
 

JeanLucGoddard

Premiership Player
Joined
Aug 21, 2018
Posts
3,992
Likes
9,025
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Both incidents involved -

young altar boys drinking wine​
that they found in the sacristy​
after Sunday Mass​

where they had assisted​
the priest fondling their genitals​
they were made to kneel before the priest​
made to perform fellatio on the priest​
there were no other witnesses to the events​

Like I said, you can't draw conclusions from the extraordinary coincidences in themselves but it would be interesting to know whether questions were asked about the Rolling Stone article to the accuser in front of the juries.
They really aren't extraordinary, let alone even coincidences.
 

JeanLucGoddard

Premiership Player
Joined
Aug 21, 2018
Posts
3,992
Likes
9,025
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Coincidental enough that the accuser should have been questioned about it and the jury asked to consider it.
I don't who this ******** is more offensive toward,the now vindicated victim or Robert Richter's professionalism.

I hope you're trolling here.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

sorted

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Aug 21, 2016
Posts
5,139
Likes
6,503
AFL Club
Geelong
So the accusation here is "witness J" read a magazine article and decided to put himself through a personal hell in order to "Get Pell"?
FMD!
Not an accusation. But it's a remarkably similar story. There have been false accusations before.

It's impossible to attribute the motivations behind those with terrible events wishing after many years - for justice, or to tell their their story, or internal peace. You could probably tell us more.

It's also possible that someone with other motivations could make up such allegations or could read of them and use them towards their desired intentions.
 

Soft Downhill Skier

2008-2010 wasn't me.
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Posts
34,524
Likes
27,367
AFL Club
GWS
Not an accusation. But it's a remarkably similar story. There have been false accusations before.

It's impossible to attribute the motivations behind those with terrible events wishing after many years - for justice, or to tell their their story, or internal peace. You could probably tell us more.

It's also possible that someone with other motivations could make up such allegations or could read of them and use them towards their desired intentions.
Thee sexual abuse the kid suffered was common in terms of sexual assault. There was nothing fantastical about the accusations.

Are you accusing the kid of having some other motivations?
 

Not Important

All Australian
Joined
Oct 4, 2016
Posts
797
Likes
619
AFL Club
Richmond
It is like taking two workplace assault cases and saying "There was a photocopier in both offices,oh my god!"
it is straw man twaddle from a member of the pell choir aimed at distraction. possibly a member too unattractive for the cardinal to take out his todger for. it is just crap dressed up as being meaningful.
 
Joined
Oct 5, 2012
Posts
994
Likes
1,140
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Coincidental enough that the accuser should have been questioned about it and the jury asked to consider it.
Yep ok, be sure to let Richter know of his stunningly obvious oversight then eff off...until of course another one of your team comes back with another ******** and desperate misdirection. This is as bad as ‘we don’t know what we took but we know it wasn’t illegal’.
 

FredLeDeux

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 2, 2012
Posts
23,539
Likes
34,218
AFL Club
Geelong
it is straw man twaddle from a member of the pell choir aimed at distraction. possibly a member too unattractive for the cardinal to take out his todger for. it is just crap dressed up as being meaningful.
It comes from a Keith Windschuttle article in Overland.
The article is just a rehash of the familiar Pellist conspiracy theory "It's all a Vic Police fit-up".
The article is really only interesting for a couple of things
- it all hinges on a couple of beautiful textbook fallacies of the argument from personal incredulity variety
- he criticises Millington for not knowing about the US case, but despite his previous writings on the topic, he didn't know about it himself until a reader told him
- he acknowledges that Rolling Stone was published in an Australian edition from 1972 onwards, but slides past the question of whether the article in question was ever published in Australia, or only the US, a pretty damning indictment of the quality of work by a one-time academic historian UNLESS he knows the answer is "only the US".
 

sorted

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Aug 21, 2016
Posts
5,139
Likes
6,503
AFL Club
Geelong
Yes it is, you're accusing someone who was raped as a child of making it up because you read some **** in magazine.

It is deeply offensive.
I thought you were more concerned that this was more offensive toward Robert Richter's professionalism? You know, the guy who didn't put his client on the stand and described the incident as 'no more than a plain, vanilla sexual penetration case where a child is not volunteering or actively participating'. And lost the case.

I'm not accusing anyone of anything. I'm saying, given the very unusual nature of both incidents and the extraordinary coincidences between them, that it would be interesting to know if Pell's accuser was questioned about it.
 

sorted

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Aug 21, 2016
Posts
5,139
Likes
6,503
AFL Club
Geelong
- he acknowledges that Rolling Stone was published in an Australian edition from 1972 onwards, but slides past the question of whether the article in question was ever published in Australia, or only the US, a pretty damning indictment of the quality of work by a one-time academic historian UNLESS he knows the answer is "only the US".
This is not relevant considering that Rolling Stone has been online since the early 1990s and its complete archive was made available in April 2010.
 

Not Important

All Australian
Joined
Oct 4, 2016
Posts
797
Likes
619
AFL Club
Richmond
It comes from a Keith Windschuttle article in Overland.
The article is just a rehash of the familiar Pellist conspiracy theory "It's all a Vic Police fit-up".
The article is really only interesting for a couple of things
- it all hinges on a couple of beautiful textbook fallacies of the argument from personal incredulity variety
- he criticises Millington for not knowing about the US case, but despite his previous writings on the topic, he didn't know about it himself until a reader told him
- he acknowledges that Rolling Stone was published in an Australian edition from 1972 onwards, but slides past the question of whether the article in question was ever published in Australia, or only the US, a pretty damning indictment of the quality of work by a one-time academic historian UNLESS he knows the answer is "only the US".
i did not have to go past the name of windschuttle to reaffirm it was twaddle. a wannabe historian who has no credibility whatsoever.
 
Top Bottom