Religion Pell Guilty!

[Sainteric]

Mr Andrews was also critical of the church figures offering their support to the convicted sex abuser.

“I would hope that senior leaders of the Catholic Church across the country would take the opportunity to make it really clear that the Catholic Church is more about victims than it is about itself,” the Premier said.

https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/andrews-pell-s-defenders-are-wrong-20190304-p511kc.html

I don't like the ALP and most of its leaders much but if Andrews pushes through a bill to let all those in Victoria who have signed up to the Melbourne response to let the courts review the settlements. I will vote for him if he stands again.

 

[skipper kelly]

The use of probabilities to determine if an event did happen is so misleading it does my head in.

 

[skipper kelly]

Was is the probability that the jury all had the same bias against Pell?

 

[Sainteric]

The use of probabilities to determine if an event did happen is so misleading it does my head in.

It's not really probabilities that's been thrown around by Pell's supporters are meaningless.

The door was normally locked does not mean it's fort knox the court believed the boys were there.

 

[Maggie5]

What’s the role of Episcopal Vicar? Sounds good doesn’t it. “He was Episcopal Vicar so he must have known!!” Outrage outrage!

I recall that you said that Pell knew what was going on in 1989.
https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/thre...into-child-abuse.980616/page-82#post-54505932 - Post #2046

I listened to a conversation in the next room. I couldn’t help but hear it. Pell was losing his shit over Frank Little not sacking Peter Searson. He was using language more often found in a footy club change room. I’d never heard a priest, let alone a bishop, use language like that before. He was ropeable. And I couldn’t believe someone could dare criticise the Archbishop. Certainly not with that language.

I’ve met Pell only a few times. He wouldn’t know me. Those who describe him as lacking in empathy are right. He is very distant. He is large and he is intimidating.

But I have a hard time believing he is a pedophile, and I know for a fact that he was furious when an abuser wasn’t defrocked in 1989.

 

[skipper kelly]

It's not really probabilities that's been thrown around by Pell's supporters are meaningless.

Putting a number to the chances of an event occuring is fine. Putting a number to an event that has already occured is meaningless and misleading. Without going into an exhaustive explanation, Prince of Penzance was 100-1 to win the Melbourne Cup. PoP won the Melbourne Cup. It is now not 100-1 that PoP won the Melbourne Cup.

The door was normally locked does not mean it's fort knox the court believed the boys were there.

Exactly.

 

[Richard Pryor]

I recall that you said that Pell knew what was going on in 1989.
https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/thre...into-child-abuse.980616/page-82#post-54505932 - Post #2046

That anecdote doesn't really reflect well on Pell considering he later argued he was justified in sitting on his hands re; Searson because he never had enough information, which would seem to be contradicted by him being furious Searson wasn't dealt with in 1989.

Either he wanted a guy fired over reports he did not think were credible enough to take action over, or he let someone he believed could be a child abuser have access to children without a legal investigation on his watch, likely due to a commitment to keeping such matters internal at the expense of child safety.:

Pell gave evidence that he was handed a list of incidents and grievances about Searson in 1989. These should have been “sufficient that he ought reasonably have concluded that more serious action needed to be taken in relation to Searson”, counsel assisting wrote.

In his evidence Pell said he believed the list, which included reports Searson had abused animals in front of children and was using children’s toilets, did not contain enough information for him to act.

Searson died in 2009 without facing charges. The commission has previously heard he abused children in parishes and schools across three districts over more than a decade, and displayed strange behaviours such as animal cruelty and carrying a gun to school.

The submission published on Monday urged the royal commission to reject evidence from Pell that senior officials within the Catholic Education Office kept him in the dark about the extent of Searson’s behaviour because they were afraid Pell would take action against him.

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...usive-priest-searson-royal-commission-counsel

Another article which makes Barry's anecdote even more suspect, as it seems to contain statements from Pell which are wholly inconsistent with him being aware of, and incensed by, Searson in 1989 as he appears to argue he was not informed of the situation at all by those wanting to keep Pearson in the position.

If he in fact attempted to remove Searson from the position the defense of his inaction does not hold up, since he's arguing that he did not have enough information to attempt to have Searson removed after (according to Barry) acting to have Searson removed.:

https://www.smh.com.au/national/car...se-cover-up-inquiry-told-20160427-gofslb.html

Senior staff from the Catholic Education Office in Victoria strongly rejected Cardinal Pell's evidence that he was not made fully aware of Father Searson's behaviour while parish priest of Doveton in Melbourne in the 1980s.

Former deputy director of the Catholic Education Office Peter Annett told the royal commission parishioners and staff at Doveton's Holy Family school would have been "cheering from the rooftops" if Cardinal Pell, then an auxilliary bishop in the Melbourne Archdiocese, had worked to convince then-archbishop Frank Little to remove Father Searson.

When asked by counsel assisting Gail Furness to respond to Cardinal Pell's claim that the Catholic Education Office failed to properly inform him about Father Searson, Mr Annett replied: "I admit some shock that [Cardinal Pell] referred to inaction on the part of that Catholic Education Office. I was disappointed and perhaps angry."

Cardinal Pell told the commission he believed CEO staff lied to him because they feared he "would not accept the status quo."

Contrary to Cardinal Pell's claim, Monsignor Doyle said the CEO would have welcomed his assistance in removing the priest.

And while yes Pell did suspend Pearson after becoming Archbishop, he waited an entire year to do so, so even if one ignores the ample opportunity he had to seek police involvement he waited a whole year to do anything about someone he apparently believed to be a potential abuser eight years previous after receiving the opportunity to do something about it. Even then he almost certainly only removed Pearson because of his 1997 conviction (see below), and not his (according to Barry) outrage at Pearson's actions in 89:

The Catholic Church substantiated four complaints of child sexual abuse against Searson. He was also convicted in 1997 of hitting an altar boy.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11...-victim-of-paedophile-priest-released/6972448

Even without Barrys anecdote, this article illustrates Pell's acknowledgement of Pearson the abuser in private and wishy washy "I don't know" in public dual stance:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11...-victim-of-paedophile-priest-released/6972448

The letter, signed by the then-archbishop Pell and written in 1998, accepts that Ms Stewart was abused.

"On behalf of the Catholic Church and personally, I apologise to you and to those around you for the wrongs and hurt you have suffered at the hands of Father Searson," it says.

But, while being questioned in 2013 by Victorian MP Frank McGuire, Cardinal Pell defended his actions in relation to Searson.

The transcript of his evidence reads: "...No conviction was recorded for Searson for sexual misbehaviour - there might be victims..."

Of course all this is largely extraneous to his conviction/pending appeal. All it proves is that Pell was reportedly so furious about an abuser not being defrocked that eight years and one conviction later he was moved to act.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

I recall that you said that Pell knew what was going on in 1989.
https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/thre...into-child-abuse.980616/page-82#post-54505932 - Post #2046

That conversation that I overheard was in relation to general abusive behaviour, not sexual abuse. He discovered the sexual abuse upon becoming archbishop and that is uncontested by the RC.

EDIT: By which I mean, when the CEO was asked at the RC whether they had told Pell of allegations of sexual abuse they said they had not.

 

[Maggie5]

That conversation that I overheard was in relation to general abusive behaviour, not sexual abuse. He discovered the sexual abuse upon becoming archbishop and that is uncontested by the RC.

Define, 'general abusive behaviour' and why would that require defrocking?

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Define, 'general abusive behaviour' and why would that require defrocking?

It's on the record and you well know it. Something to do with a dead bird. I think something to do with a weapon. I don't have the time to look it up. But Searson was an utter bastard (as well as being an abuser) and Pell wanted him out. Even the Vatican tried to get Pell to reinstate him and he refused.

 

[Maggie5]

It's on the record and you well know it. Something to do with a dead bird. I think something to do with a weapon. I don't have the time to look it up. But Searson was an utter bastard (as well as being an abuser) and Pell wanted him out. Even the Vatican tried to get Pell to reinstate him and he refused.

That was bad enough for defrocking?

 

[Richard Pryor]

It's on the record and you well know it. Something to do with a dead bird. I think something to do with a weapon. I don't have the time to look it up. But Searson was an utter bastard (as well as being an abuser) and Pell wanted him out. Even the Vatican tried to get Pell to reinstate him and he refused.

If he was so concerned why did he not go to the authorities or do more to have an investigation put together? How can he, as he has more recently claimed, not have enough information to take action, want him defrocked, yet fail to spearhead further investigation and not be considered negligent at best?

And while Pell removed him in 1997, the fact he was made Archbishop in 1996, and Searson was convicted of assaulting an altar boy in 1997, suggest to me that he was more moved by Searson's actions finally running afoul of an external body more than anything else.

The absolute best case for Pell in this scenario is that he allowed eight years to go by without following up on concerns about child safety, although the fact he apologized in a private letter to a victim of sex abuse at the hands of Searson in 1998 suggests a worse scenario to me. Even if one interprets that in the best possible way for Pell (that he was just being polite) the fact he declined to volunteer that he had, at the very least, knowledge of an accusation of sexual abuse against Searson when interviewed in 2013 does not speak well for him; link to article: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11...-victim-of-paedophile-priest-released/6972448

Although of course this really has little bearing on Pell's current case.

 

[Richard Pryor]

I think the following has to be considered when looking at Pell's handling of Searson also:
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...cher-would-get-help-he-tells-royal-commission

Pell told the royal commission into institutional responses into child sexual abuse on Wednesday he knew in 1974 that Dowlan was alleged to have sexually abused children but he did not seek information on the exact nature of Dowlan’s offending, nor did he tell the bishop of the diocese, or the police, of the offending.

Dowlan was moved at the end of 1974 from St Patrick’s College. He went on to abuse boys at Warnambool Christian Brothers College, Chanel College, Geelong, and Cathedral College, East Melbourne.

“My whole assumption … was that the [Christian] Brothers would be dealing adequately with the matter,” Pell said. “I was not aware then ... of their poor record – while I learned about later – in dealing with such things. I presumed that when they shifted him, they would have also arranged for some appropriate help.”

Considering he seems to be of the opinion that Searson was not dealt with adequately in 1989, whether he thought the abuse was sexual or not, and did nothing about it for close to a decade, his claim of naivety and faith in the system being the obstacle between him and doing anything about someone he thought to be a pedophile working in schools becomes harder for me to accept, although I understand that is a subjective reading.

His inaction re; Dowlan also makes it far more credible he knew, and did not act, on Ridsdale's crimes.

 

[Seeds]

"LOL" What are you, a child?

There's no back pedal. The odds presented are just very generous (in terms of "guilty") of the opportunity for the crime to present themselves. They don't deal with the actual commission of the crime itself.

I've asked the question a few times here for no response.

Is anyone even a little concerned that VicPol opened and investigation into a bloke for sexual abuse in the absence of a complainant?

Why are you assuming the events are independent?

 

[Reynolds Number]

 

[Colonial]

He was innocent until proven guilty.

Did this flog miss the court case?

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

 

[Colonial]

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

 

[Frank Bunn]

He was innocent until proven guilty.

Did this flog miss the court case?

You've got the wrong end of the stick. Try watching the video.

 

[gordo2016]

Premier Dan Andrews says senior Catholics planning to visit Cardinal George Pell in jail would be wrong to do so. “I would hope that senior leaders of the Catholic Church across the country would take the opportunity to make it really clear that the Catholic Church is more about victims than it is about itself,” he said.

Dan Andrews has his critics. But finally a decent, compassionate response from a man in a position of leadership. Unlike the disgrace responses from Howard, Abbott and Archbishop Fisher.

 

[skipper kelly]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutor's_fallacy

Interesting place to start if people are interested in researching the 'impossible argument' that was reportedly used in this trail.

 

[Colonial]

You've got the wrong end of the stick. Try watching the video.

I'm bang on actually


Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

 

[Frank Bunn]

Speculation that a former St Joseph's Boys Home student will lodge a claim in the Supreme Court today alleging he was molested in a swimming pool in the 1970's by Cardinal Pell.

I take it that you've moved on from your opinion when Bill Shorten was alleged to have r*ped someone?

Am I the only one who has misgivings about someone who waits 28 years before taking action over an alleged rape?

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

He's trying so hard to be alt-right. I don't think he has it in him.

 

[Pie eyed]

All he is doing is making excuses for it.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

Seriously...you need to read the article.
He is trying to explain why sexual abuse issues are rife within the Church.
Are you upset he doe not blame everything on pedophilia or homosexuality?

It is an accurate summation.

There is certainly no excusing anyone or anything in that article.

 

[Colonial]

Seriously...you need to read the article.
He is trying to explain why sexual abuse issues are rife within the Church.
Are you upset he doe not blame everything on pedophilia or homosexuality?

It is an accurate summation.

There is certainly no excusing anyone or anything in that article.

Seriously. Have read it.

What has pedophilia got to do with homosexuality? its zero by the way.

It's because the sack of shits are protected protected in the church. They are supposedly safe there.

The excuses of loneliness and other stuff is just garbage and looking for reasons.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk