Religion Pell Guilty!

[AM]

This is the most disgusting part of that article:

The piece has been circulated to every family with a child enrolled at a Catholic school, indicating that it represents the views of the archdiocese (the source says they actually had the bad taste to send a copy to St. Kevin's as well).

Reminds me of the story of Calwell and his wife walking out of their lifelong parish church one morning when the priest read out an archdiocese letter instructing parishioners to vote DLP.

You beat me to it, Fred

Very concerning that Father Brennan's piece has been sent "to every family with a child enrolled at a Catholic school, indicating that it represents the views of the archdiocese."

There is a worrying organised concerted campaign going on here not only by conservative Catholics but conservatives generally to, if not subvert the Rule of Law, weaken it not only in the interests of the predators but as a means of protecting the 'business'. There, I've said it.

Will they ever learn!

 

[Craven Morehead]

I don’t even like Pell and I don’t go to Church because of these sick perverts. It doesn’t change the fact that Pell has been stitched up for something he didn’t do.
I’ve been on different political forums for about 15 years and most people have wanted to see Pell go down for something, anything. Quite a few sources have told me that the guilty verdict was wrong and won’t hold up on appeal. Only time will tell.

When you say 'stitched up' there is no other conclusion to draw other than you are saying that the Principal witness was lying.
I want you to tell me why he was lying?
How he lied?
What specific part he lied about?
And why he would put himself in a situation which has pretty much f***ed his life even further than it already was?

I'd really like to hear your explanation on this.
And NO, I'm not interested in this bullshit about the church and Pell being 'victims'.
I want to hear the specifics of your beliefs with regards to this particular case.
Please.

 

[Admiral Byng]

I'm betting if the appeal holds up the same people who are now arguing there was pressure to convict won't acknowledge that they themselves are putting tremendous pressure on the appeal to find Pell not guilty. I don't recall seeing any talking heads saying "PELL IS GUILTY" prior to the trial in the same way as we're seeing the "PELL IS INNOCENT" line being pushed. Certainly there was pressure to have him in court, but I just don't recall it being put as bluntly as Bolt and his ilk are now pushing their narrative.

Which you never know, might backfire. The appels court might be so appalled at being pressured into finding a particular verdict that they will do the exact opposite out of sheer bloody-mindedness in order to demonstrate their independence.

 

[Strange Cat]

When you say 'stitched up' there is no other conclusion to draw other than you are saying that the Principal witness was lying.
I want you to tell me why he was lying?
How he lied?
What specific part he lied about?
And why he would put himself in a situation which has pretty much f***ed his life even further than it already was?

I'd really like to hear your explanation on this.
And NO, I'm not interested in this bullshit about the church and Pell being 'victims'.
I want to her the specifics of your beliefs in regards to this particular case.
Please.

Because he been on multiple political forums for the last 15 years!!!

Who needs first hand evidence from a survivor when you have that sort of knowledge!!

It should had been him that cross examined the survivor for 2 days instead of the beat legal defence lawyer in the country!!

I’m telling you we have a legal genius in our midst

 

[Forward Press]

When you say 'stitched up' there is no other conclusion to draw other than you are saying that the Principal witness was lying.
I want you to tell me why he was lying?
How he lied?
What specific part he lied about?
And why he would put himself in a situation which has pretty much f***ed his life even further than it already was?

I'd really like to hear your explanation on this.
And NO, I'm not interested in this bullshit about the church and Pell being 'victims'.
I want to her the specifics of your beliefs in regards to this particular case.
Please.

The key part is that the witness was able to describe with specific detail where the wine was kept and what the sacristy looked like inside, a room which indeed was almost always locked and the public was not allowed inside. If he made it all up, the two day cross examination would certainly have destroyed his story and resulted in a quick acquittal. But no, it's all part of a plot against the Catholic church.

 

[madmug]

When you say 'stitched up' there is no other conclusion to draw other than you are saying that the Principal witness was lying.
I want you to tell me why he was lying?
How he lied?
What specific part he lied about?
And why he would put himself in a situation which has pretty much f***ed his life even further than it already was?

I'd really like to hear your explanation on this.
And NO, I'm not interested in this bullshit about the church and Pell being 'victims'.
I want to her the specifics of your beliefs in regards to this particular case.
Please.

Lebbo is just mouthing Bolts waffle. Pointless asking Leb. You may as well save some time & ring Bolt.

 

[Richard Pryor]

Which you never know, might backfire. The appels court might be so appalled at being pressured into finding a particular verdict that they will do the exact opposite out sheer bloody-mindedness in order to demonstrate their independence.

And I think Bolt & Co. would actually like that even more. More "conservatives are persecuted" mileage from a true martyr of the cause than they will get from him actually being cleared.

 

[sherb]

Lebbo has gone peak stupid I see.

 

[Admiral Byng]

And I think Bolt & Co. would actually like that even more. More "conservatives are persecuted" mileage from a true martyr of the cause than they will get from him actually being cleared.

People like Bolt will never be silenced, but they might stop being listened to.

 

[Strange Cat]

Lebbo has gone peak stupid I see.

Certainly trumps any of the drivel that Bruce had written in here

That’s an amazing feat

 

[Richard Pryor]

The key part is that the witness was able to describe with specific detail where the wine was kept and what the sacristy looked like inside, a room which indeed was almost always locked and the public was not allowed inside. If he made it all up, the two day cross examination would certainly have destroyed his story and resulted in a quick acquittal. But no, it's all part of a plot against the Catholic church.

They also corroborated with other witnesses details of Pell's presence at the location of the crime. This is particularly relevant as the defense went all in on "It is literally impossible for this to have occurred" strategy, and the prosecution proved that that simply was not the case (by showing the accuser had to have had access to the sacristy, since he knew the layout of the area, and that Pell could conceivably have been in the sacristy at the same time as the accuser).

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-26/george-pell-guilty-child-sexual-abuse-court-trial/10837564

The first was a man who had kept a diary since 1973, which provided a record of every mass he had attended at the cathedral, the role he had played in it and the name of the celebrant.

Before he gave evidence, the prosecution had not been able to specify the Sunday mass after which the abuse was alleged to have occurred.

But with Jeffrey Connor’s diary, it became clear Pell had only celebrated two masses at St Patrick’s Cathedral in 1996, narrowing the possible dates of the offending to December 15 and 22.

Mr Connor told the court he had been asked about his diary by a former altar server who had been in contact with Pell’s legal team.

The other witness, criminal barrister Daniel McGlone, had gone to university with one of Pell’s lawyers and contacted him after learning about the allegations through “general Chinese whispers” among barristers.

Mr McGlone told the court that the allegations were at odds with his memories of masses at the cathedral, and he remembered introducing his mother to archbishop Pell on the front steps of the cathedral, after the archbishop celebrated his first Sunday mass at the venue.

He said it was an interaction he would never forget because when archbishop Pell had told his mother ‘you must be very proud of your son’, she had responded by saying, ‘I don’t know about that’.

The evidence placed Pell on the front steps when the alleged abuse was meant to have been occurring, effectively giving him an alibi for one of the Sundays when the abuse could have occurred.

But Mr McGlone’s memory had some deficiencies.

He gave evidence that particular Sunday mass had been the first time he had served archbishop Pell, until the prosecutor confronted him with a photo depicting him serving the archbishop at a Saturday night mass a week earlier.

After the last prosecution witness gave his evidence, Pell’s barrister announced the defence would not be calling any evidence of their own.

It meant Pell would not testify — the recording of his interview would be the only time the jury would hear from him.

Instead, the defence relied on the parade of witnesses who had thrown into question whether Pell’s offending could possibly have happened unnoticed.

Mr Gibson pulled the threads of evidence together to argue the abuse occurred during a five to six-minute hiatus in activity in the sacristies after mass. A few minutes when no-one would have ventured into the priest’s sacristy.

He told the jury that while archbishop Pell might have developed a routine of greeting parishioners on the steps after mass, the abuse had occurred after one of his first services

 

[Strange Cat]

They also corroborated with other witnesses details of Pell's presence at the location of the crime. This is particularly relevant as the defense went all in on "It is literally impossible for this to have occurred" strategy, and the prosecution proved that that simply was not the case (by showing the accuser had to have had access to the sacristy, since he knew the layout of the area, and that Pell could conceivably have been in the sacristy at the same time as the accuser).

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-26/george-pell-guilty-child-sexual-abuse-court-trial/10837564

Who needs facts when you have been reading political forums for 15 years

It’s a conspiracy

 

[Craven Morehead]

The key part is that the witness was able to describe with specific detail where the wine was kept and what the sacristy looked like inside, a room which indeed was almost always locked and the public was not allowed inside. If he made it all up, the two day cross examination would certainly have destroyed his story and resulted in a quick acquittal. But no, it's all part of a plot against the Catholic church.

A point which I have never wavered from since this started.
Every single apologist has been unable to counter it and, in my laymans belief, is the single piece of evidence that Richter couldn't counter and got Pell convicted.
It is also, imo, the cornerstone of his second avenue of appeal as it hurt his case so dramatically.

 

[Forward Press]

He gave evidence that particular Sunday mass had been the first time he had served archbishop Pell, until the prosecutor confronted him with a photo depicting him serving the archbishop at a Saturday night mass a week earlier.

Reminds me of part of Rolf Harris' defence being that he wasn't at the university on the day of the alleged offence yet a TV show clearly showed him on the grounds on that day.

Memories change after 20+ years. The fact that the accuser however remembered specific details of the sacristy was compelling, however.

 

[Richard Pryor]

Reminds me of part of Rolf Harris' defence being that he wasn't at the university on the day of the alleged offence yet a TV show clearly showed him on the grounds on that day.

Memories change after 20+ years. The fact that the accuser however remembered specific details of the sacristy was compelling, however.

Yep, it's also noteworthy as I'm sure most people would not be able to give details of a random room they got into once decades ago, however they would be able to remember vivid details related to a traumatic event.

 

[Strange Cat]

A point which I have never wavered from since this started.
Every single apologist has been unable to counter it and, in my laymans belief, is the single piece of evidence that Richter couldn't counter and got Pell convicted.
It is also, imo, the cornerstone of his second avenue of appeal as it hurt his case so dramatically.

Just on his appeal I believe Ritcher is basing it on the PowerPoint presentation and how the judge didn’t allow him to show the animation portion of the presentation to the jurors.

I haven’t looked too much into it but it’s a bit baffling that this is being used to based the appeal on.

 

[Frank Bunn]

I read somewhere that the hung jury was due to other matters being raised that were excluded from this case.

Then I guess it's reasonable to suppose that those matters excluded from the first trial may have made a difference in the second trial. But we don't know what those matters are so it's impossible to make a judgment on them.

 

[Forward Press]

Just on his appeal I believe Ritcher is basing it on the PowerPoint presentation and how the judge didn’t allow him to show the animation portion of the presentation to the jurors.

I haven’t looked too much into it but it’s a bit baffling that this is being used to based the appeal on.

What was the animation of? Was it about the complexity of the robes making it difficult to orally penetrate someone in six minutes?

If so, the jury listened to it and didn't think it would have made the alleged crime impossible anyway, so having an animation about that not allowed is certainly not a solid ground to appeal.

 

[gordo2016]

When you say 'stitched up' there is no other conclusion to draw other than you are saying that the Principal witness was lying.
I want you to tell me why he was lying?
How he lied?
What specific part he lied about?
And why he would put himself in a situation which has pretty much f***ed his life even further than it already was?

I'd really like to hear your explanation on this.
And NO, I'm not interested in this bullshit about the church and Pell being 'victims'.
I want to hear the specifics of your beliefs with regards to this particular case.
Please.

The Principal Witness put himself in that position because he is a man of unspeakable courage. He sums up what the word "hero", really means.

 

[Strange Cat]

What was the animation of? Was it about the complexity of the robes making it difficult to orally penetrate someone in six minutes?

If so, the jury listened to it and didn't think it would have made the alleged crime impossible anyway, so having an animation about that not allowed is certainly not a solid ground to appeal.

Which is why it’s baffling to me that he using that as a basis for an appeal, maybe it just comes down to technicality that because the judge dismissed it there’s evidence that not everything was presented to the jurors

Hopefully more learned legal minds can clear it up as I don’t think I have a solid grasp as to why it’s being used for the appeal

 

[Richard Pryor]

What was the animation of? Was it about the complexity of the robes making it difficult to orally penetrate someone in six minutes?

If so, the jury listened to it and didn't think it would have made the alleged crime impossible anyway, so having an animation about that not allowed is certainly not a solid ground to appeal.

That was my first thought, but such an animation would be largely irrelevant seeing as the jurors examined an actual copy of the robes physically:

Pell was alleged to have sexually assaulted the two choirboys while he was still in his ceremonial robes. The jury was shown the thick, ankle-length purple robes Pell wore as archbishop, and were allowed to examine them in the jury room. Mr Richter said it would have been impossible for Pell to have exposed himself to the boys (before he sexually abused them), as the robes were cumbersome and had no slit. But Mr Gibson, relaying the evidence of the victim, told the jury the robes could be manouevred to the side, which would have allowed Pell to have undone his pants underneath.

https://www.theage.com.au/national/...d-in-george-pell-s-trial-20190226-p510f6.html

Can't seem to readily find a photo of purple Catholic archbishop robes though.

 

[Strange Cat]

The Principal Witness put himself in that position because he is a man of unspeakable courage. He sums up what the word "hero", really means.

It’s bad enough making a police report against a government institution for past abuse

I can only imagine the courage required to face the most senior Church figuire in Australia , who has political access and unlimited resources

I couldn’t do it, making a statement was hard enough

 

[FredLeDeux]

That was my first thought, but such an animation would be largely irrelevant seeing as the jurors examined an actual copy of the robes physically:


Can't seem to readily find a photo of purple Catholic archbishop robes though.

Hard to believe all these 80-year-olds with bladder problems wouldn't be able to get their frocks out of the way in a hurry.

Either that, or
- they wear nappies, and/or
- they have a dedicated helper in minor orders - a Urinarian perhaps.

 

[Lebbo73]

The best piece I've read on the Cardy matter.

BAD BLOOD

“This does not bode well for Vatican acceptance of mandatory reporting duties for church officials, or for meaningful cultural change to protect young people in the care of Catholic schools, churches, and welfare organisations from sexual assault.”
If anyone here is on the payroll of a Catholic School and two Catholic Churches, you’d realise this statement is horse shit. The training I had to go through and the policies in place go above and beyond what is required by law. There is no question that Catholic institutions failed the vulnerable in the past. It isn’t like that anymore.

 

[Strange Cat]

“This does not bode well for Vatican acceptance of mandatory reporting duties for church officials, or for meaningful cultural change to protect young people in the care of Catholic schools, churches, and welfare organisations from sexual assault.”
If anyone here is on the payroll of a Catholic School and two Catholic Churches, you’d realise this statement is horse shit. The training I had to go through and the policies in place go above and beyond what is required by law. There is no question that Catholic institutions failed the vulnerable in the past. It isn’t like that anymore.

It all makes sense now