The Law Royal Commission into Child Abuse

Remove this Banner Ad

?? He will be found not guilty. The evidence is flimsy at best. Pell has been a marked man since The Royal Commission as victims have sought out a scapegoat.

Actually he's been a marked man by the police since they opened a case two years before receiving a complaint. Funnily enough about the same time Pell produced a book full of police referrals by the Church when Graeme Ashton had given evidence to the Victorian Parliamentary Enquiry that the Church had referred no cases.

But I'm sure that's just a coincidence.
 
You're right about that. Pell was running 3 full time jobs, and spending a few days a week commuting to Glen Waverley. There's no way he could have missed what Ridsdale was up to!

Absolutely.....Especially when those within his parish were telling him about Ridsdale behaviour often....Which was why Ridsdale was removed from so many schools to begin with.
 
Um....Have you ever been to school camp?

Plenty of rooms & private spaces in which to perpetrate perverted propensities, without anyone else knowing.

One instance is hardly grounds for serial ignorance on Bongiorno's behalf.....C'mon man.

One instance of ignoring a child complaining about a pedo priest is ok?

What is the cutoff because I can look for more examples if youd like?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

One instance of ignoring a child complaining about a pedo priest is ok?

What is the cutoff because I can look for more examples if youd like?
Answer your own question,I’m more interested in that!
You have sullied my view of you morally in this thread,and I’d like to know where is your tipping point?
 
You're right about that. Pell was running 3 full time jobs, and spending a few days a week commuting to Glen Waverley. There's no way he could have missed what Ridsdale was up to!
Pell has a very nice condo inside the walls (“walls are not good” says the chosen vicar for christ on earth) of the Vatican that he dwells with his MALE partner, but, let’s all ignore this FACT because he thinks we evolved from Neanderthals.
Your time is a tickin’ Georgie boi,the walls that guided and protected you,no longer exist,this is our home soil,and you have sullied the holy waters one time too much!
Human made law will now guide you on your road to disgrace and redemption,which you shall never attain!
Thank gawd!
 
Actually he's been a marked man by the police since they opened a case two years before receiving a complaint. Funnily enough about the same time Pell produced a book full of police referrals by the Church when Graeme Ashton had given evidence to the Victorian Parliamentary Enquiry that the Church had referred no cases.

But I'm sure that's just a coincidence.
Three people dined regularly at Nazareth House back in the early 70’s - guess their names...oh and my source - a Nun who served them
 
Answer your own question,I’m more interested in that!
You have sullied my view of you morally in this thread,and I’d like to know where is your tipping point?

That's right, HairyO. The moral position would be to hate Catholics one and all and stand behind hardline marxism/atheism because that's the future of morality.
 
Except the RC findings were that they were not telling him. But of course you know best.

Yep....It's not like he'd be up to speed with what's occurring in his own parish, nor the latest school in which his old mate had been plonked for the umpteenth time, in order to keep him from being lynched by the locals.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

That's right, HairyO. The moral position would be to hate Catholics one and all and stand behind hardline marxism/atheism because that's the future of morality.
I don't hate Roman Catholics. It's their stupid ****ing religion, its manipulative and cruel organisation, and their mindless embrace of both I find so offensive. BTW, I'm from the middle. You know, the aisle between the 'left' and 'right'. As Michael Jackson so famously sang, Aisle Be There. Trouble was, like all of those religious fantasists such as Roman Catholics, he rarely, if ever, was there. It would appear Micky did share Pell's alleged sexual proclivities too.

I might be onto something here. Has anyone ever noted the alarming similarities between Jackson and Pell? I have it on good authority that Pell would merely mouth the words of hymns when these were part of the 'service'. Instead of singing, he would get one of the altar boys to use their mouth, as a stand-in for him. As with Jackson, Pell was tone deaf. Pell was deaf in other ways too, especially in his heartless dealings with people whose life had been destroyed because they were raped as children by those of the odious priest class. That a man who was heartless, voiceless and earless could rise to such a position of influence and power says much about the Roman Catholic church. Pell was just the same as all the other sexual perverts within that organisation, who undertake never to have sex, at the age of 15, as a prerequisite to joining the scam (cops call 'The Joke').
 
The DPP has applied for an order - a super injunction - suppressing all reporting of the Pell trial, including suppression of the fact that there's an injunction suppressing the reporting.

https://newmatilda.com/2018/05/14/p...n-media-reporting-cardinal-george-pell-trial/

PS; which means that if it's granted on Wednesday, this post will have tp be deleted, and anybody who's read it will be required to forget that they ever read it, and that they were told to forget that they read it.
 
The DPP has applied for an order - a super injunction - suppressing all reporting of the Pell trial, including suppression of the fact that there's an injunction suppressing the reporting.

https://newmatilda.com/2018/05/14/p...n-media-reporting-cardinal-george-pell-trial/

PS; which means that if it's granted on Wednesday, this post will have tp be deleted, and anybody who's read it will be required to forget that they ever read it, and that they were told to forget that they read it.
Interesting... Can the press/media object or make representations against this?
 
A comment on that article made a good point; is the DPP doing it to prevent any attempts by the Pell camp to go for a mistrial based off any perceived reporting bias?
The issue may be that, if there are two separate trials, they don't want publicity about the evidence in the first trial making it impossible to get an untainted jury for the second trial - especially if some of the evidence is applicable to both cases.
 
The issue may be that, if there are two separate trials, they don't want publicity about the evidence in the first trial making it impossible to get an untainted jury for the second trial - especially if some of the evidence is applicable to both cases.

Makes sense to remove any opportunity for that loop hole to be used to get the case thrown out.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top