Archive for the 'Pell' Category

Andrews

The High Court train is still coming, even if people look the other way. When it gets here the legal game-playing stops and reality will be released with Pell. That reality will run right over those still facing the wrong way. No prize for guessing what political elements will be run over. The smart ones are already well away from these tracks but the Victorian Premier is tied to them.

Steve Owens is not prepared to convict on the strength of what he now understands are the accusations and that is moving past the former position of not approving of a word on word conviction on principle.

After the appeal, and even before I read Weinberg I had already thought the appeal to the High Court ought to be made and what that court ought to find because of the merits of this case as they had slowly been revealed to me before that appeal. Nobody thought an appeal ought to be launched on the basis that the word on word legislation was unconstitutional, so Steve even if he didn’t like it, must have thought that it was open to the jury to find guilt in this case on the strength of that evidence as the majority concluded. Without Weinberg Steve would be lost.

The appeal itself was as I read it, unexplainable head-shaking crap from the majority and typical understatement from the dissenting lawyer turned judge.

If Weinberg did not exist, and some other judge had joined with the majority for a 3:0 decision I would not have altered my view of this case in the slightest. The majority were not dealing with the reality of time and space, let alone in their proper sequence by starting with the leaders of the procession. The leaders had to get to the priests sacristy first; and physical consequences follow from this deductive fact: starting with a time span that had just ended and another commenced.

Even running the ‘impossible’ argument; Say the boys had got there first anyway (and they physically could not without an actual and thus memorable disruption to the procession that we know did not happen because it was not recalled by the unchallenged witnesses) then the boys would have been discovered by the leaders of that procession as they entered that same room and no crime could result!

So despite the accusation, the facts disclose that the room is already occupied! And everything of the time sequence problem flows from this undoubted fact. The total normal time length of the procession had to expire without any opportunity arising for the boys to enter the sacristy.

The hive of activity evidence then prohibits a subsequent entrance to this area. The boys could never have been there! That is what Steve Owens won’t turn his mind towards.

My ability to spot a consequential massive miscarriage of justice does not rely on the games (with either good or bad motives) that are played by the bourgeois legal profession. I’m only glad that Weinberg was around and able to do as much as he has for the further legal process of the High Court that is coming in about 3-4 months now. ‘Their’ legal system is the very flawed adversarial system that Australians suffer under. I am not defending ‘their’ system but it looks like Steve Owens is.

On the purely legal issue, my view developed and changed from ‘not guilty’ to something else altogether…

These 5 accusations (for all the reasons already discussed by me) can’t be accepted to being proved to beyond the point of reasonable doubt. That doubt is only in theory; in practice, it’s really the opposite. The accused has 2 strikes against them by being there in the dock in the first place! The presumption of innocence is theory. But in theory, doubt was in this case supposed to remain standing in the accused favor but I failed to convince Steve of this. Dissenting judge Weinberg has convinced Steve of this. The rest of ‘us’ that he read could not get through to the political opponent Steve. Such a surprise.

But not guilty because of a demonstrable time and place problem ie a provable lack of opportunity, is another matter. The evidence shows the room where the 4 charges were said to have occurred could not be available for these attacks as others were using the room.

5-6 minutes were not (and even if unreasonably extended to 10 minutes) available for the crime.

The entire case has collapsed on those 2 physical points of time and space. There was no opportunity for Pell or anyone else to have committed these crimes at that time and place. If that is so it is clear that all 5 charges are simply false. The defense was correct to say that the case was impossible because it was.

How the jury and the majority missed this is interesting of itself but not important because that is what they have done like it or not. Facts are, as is said, stubborn things!

There is thus not even a need to look further and ask why the accusations were made by J, or how convincingly they were made by him; because without opportunity nothing could have happened no matter what was said! Enter the political, social and cultural dimensions to this case.

A lack of opportunity conclusion ALSO ends the legal issues – BUT we are left not with a political opponent that is still under a cloud and so maybe he is just lucky to have got off… because he is rich and powerful – but instead we are left with an innocent man that is now and could have been for years politically, socially and culturally attacked by the forces that now have to account for what they have been doing with all the power and funds at their disposal. An inquiry is in order to get to the bottom of this.

My question is not what sort of games can the legal profession play to hide that reality, but rather what was the SANO task force actually doing when they had a responsibility to work out if such an implausible accusation was even possible in the first place?

There are in short also the political, cultural and social issues to consider along with the legal, and there are many people who do not want these factors examined. Steve can start by acknowledging that this is the case. A clearly identifiable element do NOT want any further investigation; as a democrat I am deeply concerned about the power of the police and publicly-funded ABC journalists and I do want this inquiry.

For the account to have been real people had to be disappeared, or there had to be a Catholic conspiracy to assist in a crime of pedophilia and that is not the real world with the people in this procession. This 2nd form of acquittal thus drags in the police for these other reasons. The police who were in a position to know and yet didn’t go to the trouble of sorting this opportunity issue out; behaved much worse than just recklessly.

They had no excuse to have not sent a couple of police along to record over several Sundays just how the event would have unfolded, that could in any way enable boys to do the bad behavior claimed – without adults noticing what was going on! The police ought never to have flown to Rome with such twaddle! Pell should never have even been interviewed about such crazy accusations. This is persecution heaped upon persecution.

The fact that this man ‘J’ is mentally disturbed in some manner is totally relevant and it can be seen that I was correct to pick up on the issue. How is it that such a series of accusations were pursued by the police? This will have resulted after all the struggle, trauma and costs that Pell, the Church, and Catholics generally have been put through in a total defeat of all these accusations! They were all flawed to such a sad extent that these last 5, and clearly lunatic accusations were all that went to trial.

Steve is only ‘…prepared to go as far as judge Weinberg and say that there is a significant possibility that Pell is innocent and on that basis should walk free.’

‘Significant possibility’ when the words Steve is looking for are the jury got it wrong; that Pell ought not have been convicted; Pell ought not have spent 1 day in jail, but he will have spent over 14 months in jail and even Steve Owens with so little time to study the issue, understands that this outcome is wrong! So that begs the question; how was it that the police who are paid to do the investigating couldn’t understand that Pell ought not to be convicted from the evidence that they cobbled together? Why did they choose to believe a person with a mental disorder who was changing his story? Why did the police advertise for complainants? Why did they bring such feeble-minded accusations all the way to Rome, when J could not even get into the room because other people were already there? Is this how Australia ought to run? There are also the political and cultural aspects of our country to consider and Steve knows this and that is why Steve is dissembling.

People like David Marr have definitely not gone to ground and neither have the police. They have caused the mischief and will get away with it if there is no inquiry and the Victorian ALP Premier does not want one!

Marr did not think the High Court would be interested BUT they are! Mind you when Marr thought that Pell would win the appeal he thought the High Court ought to be interested! Chris Kenny just said ‘say what?’. Marr is exactly the bias of this case writ large. Marr’s motive is to get Pell irrespective of the evidence! Marr has no problem looking both ways to suit himself, just like all the rest of the anti-Pell campaigners that Steve is now unable to openly unite with. Yet Steve is also not wanting to expose them.

I am after an inquiry and their goal will be to prevent an inquiry. Steve Owens is heading for another fence to sit atop, with the pretense that it’s all too hard to work out!

What Weinberg has done is not now the important part that I have been trying to get at, and others are trying to hide from. Weinberg had explained the law to his incompetent Supreme Court colleagues – that somehow he could not get to join him in the real world. He went down 2:1 and I don’t understand that, nor do I claim to fully grasp how the jury could have been so flawed.

As luck would have it, Pell won the support of a single judge and that legal expert could clarify matters sufficiently for the scales to fall from Steve’s eyes. As far as an acquittal goes that is the simple luck of having this single judge to guide and explain how this case has gone so terribly wrong.

So now Steve, like me, also now thinks the High Court will rule in Pell’s favor. I couldn’t convince Steve, nor could Bolt, or Windschuttle etc., You just held to your initial discomfort of this being just 1 man’s word against another man, with no supporting evidence at all and THAT you found yourself unable to countenance, but that was the law and so there was nothing to see other than that. Importantly for Steve, the change of stance is only just enough. Weinberg is simply not concerned with the police misconduct that I have spotted and want dealt with. Weinberg is not interested in an inquiry that drags in the ABC. You can’t see anything wrong with what the police and the ABC have done, and in your view, Australia ought to just move on as the system has worked as it should!

There is now sufficient doubt for you to understand the case to the degree required to go along with that minority of one judge and condemn, the majority decision as an error that you want the HC to overturn 7-0.

WOW. That is something.

So, if all the judges had sung from the same Hymnbook, Pell would have no support from you except that you think that the law which could permit a word on word trial to bring forth a conviction of beyond a reasonable doubt in the first instance, is wrong. Luckily, we have the ruling elite lawyer turned judge to solve our thinking for us. Weinberg gives Steve the excuse to go further than he previously had.

What you had managed was something like; that bastard Pell could be convicted because it is the law that the jury can decide who they believe! And though you’re not happy with that state of affairs, nevertheless that is the law, and he had a fair trial and the jury convicted. So, nothing unusual in that and the High Court ought not to interfere with that!

No concession to any deductive reasoning from amateurs. No concern about what the police have been up to. No problem with a culture of hysteria generating a collective blind spot. No problem with the publicly funded ABC bias. NADA care, ZIP comment.

Steve can just bleat that really you can leave it for your betters to decide his fate. I can picture you, straw in mouth bringing in the squires sheep talking to another muck covered peasant; ‘Aye Jim lad; and it’s not as if that rich bastard has not had the very best legal minds that money can buy now is it?’ ‘They would have gone through all that stuff that them there Pell supporters are raising now; wouldn’t they Jimbo?’ Tis not for the likes of us to work this out and we’re all too busy with the sheep and the fires anyway! Mark my words, the lawyers will sort this out and we can rest assured of that.’

Given you understand ‘its the timing of the subsequent events that matter.’ who got to the room first? J and R who had to double back and work out where to go as they went back into a church like all young boys would NOT do after they got out of the joint or those leading the procession?

Naturally, you will stick to not knowing. It won’t matter to you to get to the bottom of this either. You won’t want another hearing for the other people in the procession to explain reality. Once you answer that question all the rest goes up in smoke.

Also, apparently the police from SANO have your full support. I on the other hand call for an inquiry into what has made Australia a laughing stock right across the world.

According to Steve, Pell is just lucky to be getting out under a cloud of suspicion thanks to Weinberg. The ability of others to see right through this is pure luck and anyway methodologically flawed. People ought not to try to work this out themselves because they were not in the room for the whole trial, so they really are not in anything like the best place to do the job. We should all just keep quiet and let the process unfold. But why will that not end with the police getting away with this misconduct, and Victorian Premier Andrews not looking the other way?

If it weren’t for Weinberg as far as you are concerned, Pell would just sit there and do his time!

Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews and fence-sitting pseudo leftists can pretend there is nothing to investigate. But when the next film is made it will show them all up as the threats to democracy that they really are.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_Angels_(film)

The Stunt!

How the Pell case jury was misled by the Barrister for the police prosecution on the question of opportunity.

A boxing referee says as their last instruction to ‘defend your self at all times and come out fighting’ and whatever else is going on you had better listen to that because that is when it all gets terribly real! There is no evidence for any conspiracy, in the Pell case. There is evidence of a stuff-up from the defense who dropped their guard after a simple lawyers trick from the other side that IMV worked as it was intended to.

Chris S Friel has exposed what happened at the point where for the jury and then later the majority judges of the appeal, opportunity for the crime was settled.

Yet the opportunity for the crime had not IMV become settled for the judge, Kidd, and so his failure is still apparent to me.

Both sets (jury and majority) did not grasp who from the procession was where and why there was, despite the attempt at a con job, nevertheless always someone in or around the priest’s sacristy at the relevant time.

Kidd was much better informed. He had the full story from when the jury was excluded and the 2 sets of Lawyers and himself had their ‘private’ conversation that led to the prosecution being obliged to withdraw that which there was no evidence for. He knew what the prosecutor was attempting to do over the issue of opportunity. He knew there was a fundamental clash of disinterested people accused of nothing being in the same room that by definition precluded 2 boys dressed in Choir garb from also being there and poking around!

The opportunity for any such MAD crime as was proposed to have been inflicted was never available. It is not open to the jury to find guilt absent opportunity and it is the judge who, under such circumstances, must direct the jury accordingly. The judge was not misled in any way by the prosecution and was in a position to place all the relevant people in the relevant NOW 10 minute period to exclude the possibility of any 2 choir boys poking about unobserved anywhere in or near the sacristy.

The very big issue is that the police, using extremely cheap methods of basic police work, ought to have been able to have worked this lack of opportunity out for themselves and the case with its huge costs and massive ramifications not only for Pell but for the Catholic church never have gone to trial.

The conclusion is that a wide-ranging inquiry into the police investigation is required and that ought to be the focus even now before the High Court has ruled.

I urge people to read widely across Chris Friel’s extensive work on the Pell case and on some other issues as well found here https://independent.academia.edu/ChrisFriel

Bellow is;
https://www.academia.edu/40840873/The_Hiatus_and_the_Crown and I have copied this work in full and just laid it up differently and added some additional comments.
*****************

The Hiatus and the Crown by Chris Friel

The “hiatus” is an enormous problem for the Crown. Robert Richter’s moving animation was meant to highlight it as Bret Walker underlined in his appeal. I have argued that the very idea (supported by the majority) was demolished by the dissent, albeit without using the word. Recently, both Keith Windschuttle and Andrew Bolt have provided very concrete demonstrations of the impossibility by attending carefully to the progress of the altar servers in the procession. I have tried to dot a few I’s, and cross some T’s in this respect. Actually, however long the procession took makes little odds as the altar servers in the procession were bound to arrive either before or shortly after the rogue choirboys. [Here I have to say that the leaders of the procession had to get there FIRST and the tail end of that same procession had to get there at about the same time that J gave evidence that he and R arrived and started poking around, ie. the room was occupied thus preventing the initial proposed poking around] This means [additionally] that they [the other Priests and Adult altar servers] would have interrupted Pell’s six minutes’ worth of scandalous behaviour, [making it] something that could not have gone undetected. For this reason there was just no opportunity for the assault to happen. The Crown, of course, were quite aware of the problem, and attempted to meet it by a conjecture quite unsupported by the evidence which they had to retract before the jury (upon a submission from the defence). I shall present some of the transcript from the trial and make some observations.

The relevant transcript is as follows: The prosecutor initially told the jury in his final address (at 1446):
‘Altar servers, according to McGlone, go in to priest sacristy, bow to the crucifix to end the mass, according to McGlone, before returning to their worker sacristy awaiting the interval of decorum, that Potter and Portelli spoke about, that must elapse before clearing duties can begin. Poking around the corridor, priest sacristy door unlocked and opened, altar boys go in.

The prosecutor went on to say (at 1461): ‘So I’m just doing it frame by frame if you like to give you an idea of what the Crown is submitting occurred on this occasion, the subject of the first incident. Then the altar servers enter and bow to the crucifix before leaving the priest sacristy and awaiting the green light from Max Potter. It is then another five to six minutes, p.473, line 26, it’s then another five to six minutes whilst parishioners were walking up to the sanctuary and kneeling, according to Potter, where Potter would give parishioners their private time.’

Then he says (at 1462): ‘So Potter says it’s then another five to six minutes, this is after he’s unlocked the door, having taken the book in, it’s then another five to six minutes whilst parishioners were walking up to the sanctuary and kneeling, “Where we’d give parishioners their private time” before he would move to the sanctuary to start clearing up. Remember he said, “Then we would move in after that,” at p.473. Door 2 unlocked, door opened, altar servers come in, bow to the crucifix, leave, no other priests with them. Then there’s five to six minutes of a gap.’

MS SHANN for the Defence put this to the judge: ‘Can we just raise one issue in particular which is really with the hope that our learned friend might take the opportunity to either tell us where we’ve got this wrong or fix it up with the jury. The submission was put that the altar servers would go into the priests’ sacristy to bow to the crucifix, and then go and wait in the workers’ sacristy for the interval of decorum to pass. That is not a concept which we can find anywhere in the evidence, nor was it put to McGlone who said, “We bow to the cross and then start going back and forth between the priests’ sacristy and sanctuary,” that’s at 981 to 982, or Mr Connor who says, “We bow to the cross and then start clearing in and out of the priests’ sacristy for the next ten minutes,”

1039 to 1040.’ The prosecutor made this retraction in his final address to the jury:‘ Mr Foreman and members of the jury, before lunch I had spoken about there being this period of time after the altar servers had bowed to the crucifix in the priests’ sacristy and before Mr Potter had started ferrying items from the sanctuary to the priests’ sacristy. I think I might have said that the altar server were in their workers’ sacristy during this five to six minute time period. There is, of course, no evidence of that, and there’s no evidence of where they were. There is evidence of where they weren’t from J, and that is that they weren’t in the priests’ sacristy, so I was inviting you to conclude that it was during this period waiting for the green light from Mr Potter that, wherever the altar servers were, it was not in the priests’ sacristy. I just wanted to make that clear.’

In this theory that the Crown had to retract, the idea is that the hiatus in the sacristy ran from approximately the fifth to the tenth minute after Mass and that while the altar servers had by then arrived at the priests’ sacristy to complete the procession with a ceremonial bow they had temporarily left and waited in the workers’ sacristy (which was where, for example, the florists worked) and remained there until it was time to get busy replacing items from the sanctuary to the priests’ sacristy. The notion had to be retracted, though, because it was purely conjectural and found no basis in the evidence. It was very clearly a desperate and arbitrary straw clutched upon by those who appreciated well the strength of the opposing argument. Still, it might be claimed that, though unsupported, the theory may well be true. For if the complainant’s evidence is taken as compelling, and if the altar servers were not present during the assault, but if they had arrived at their destination, and if they had to be on hand as they were soon to get busy, and, for sure, they had to be somewhere … then maybe they were just next door?

To the contrary, we must point out: In the first place, this would lengthen the time of quiet on the sanctuary to around 10 to 12 minutes, a little more, maybe, when one factors in the phased entry and withdrawal of the servers [leading and tailing the procession]. This, perhaps, is not impossible, but the only grounds provided for a hiatus at all are from Potter’s evidence which refers to 5 or 6 minutes immediately after Mass had ended (or after the procession had reached a certain point). To double the hiatus, in effect, is to cherry pick and misapply this evidence. There would simply be no necessity for the altar servers to make themselves scarce for this duration. Moreover, and in the second place, if the altar servers were in the habit of doing such a thing it would be a matter of practice, and evidence of such practice would have to be based on some authority such as Potter. But no citation is given – the idea being purely conjectural.

Third, and in any case, the very purpose of the hiatus is to allow a period of calm on the sanctuary rather than the sacristy. So there is simply no reason to allow peace and quiet to prevail there – by expelling the servers, adults and children [??], only to leave and disturb the florists next door! Fourth, and pertaining to all matters in the hiatus theory, the idea only arises on the supposition that Potter opened up the room and left it unattended for an extended period of time. This is quite gratuitous, but gets its flimsy support from the evidence, to wit, that McGlone could not say that Potter was always there to meet the returning altar servers. Now, the evidence in Court was, as Weinberg noted, was that this would only ever have been for a couple of minutes (see McGlone’s evidence referred to in 729). Still, we have to ask where Potter was during this time, and there simply is no reason to think that he would be in the workers’ sacristy, preserving the calm of his own work place. For if calm was needed there it was surely needed for him in that place.

Fifth, and moreover, supposing some peace and quiet was needed in the sacristy so that the altar servers (adults included) had to go elsewhere then presumably they would have had to be redirected to that place by someone (Potter) who would have stayed in the priests’ sacristy. For example, he may have wanted people out of the room until the concelebrating priests who had left their valuables in the priest’s sacristy returned so that they might have some security – in which case he would surely have kept watch in that very room – if he unlocked it at all, which seems otiose. [note: serving no practical purpose] If the altar servers had to wait somewhere before they got busy why not just keep them waiting outside? [because they were carrying stuff already that had to be put away all before 2 stray 13 yr old Choristers arrived to start poking about] But, sixth, then, the theory of the eviction to the workers’ sacristy is quite insufficient to exclude others who would return to the priests’ sacristy.

I mean, those who did not have to busy themselves on the sanctuary.
These include concelebrating priests returning to disrobe and collect their valuables (here see Potter’s evidence in 727, 732; Finnigan’s 735-6),
those who had collected money and who were handing it over to those who would deposit in the safe (728),
and also, in particular, those altar servers who formed the rear of the procession and who were charged with returning the mitre and the crozier.

My understanding from those informed on this matter is that, even though these items would normally be kept in the Bishops’ sacristy [at the time unable to be used because it was being used as an art studio for painstaking repair of valuable works of art] , still, they would be collected in the priests’ sacristy, presumably by the sacristan (Potter) or the assistant sacristan.

Even if a pause in the business of the altar servers made for a hiatus in the to-ing and fro-ing from sacristy to sanctuary this pause would not ensure a hiatus in the sacristy.

Seventh, even if the first, and then the second tranche of altar servers were redirected (there and back again) from priests’ to workers’ sacristy (for no assigned reason) we have in any case no peace and quiet in the very public corridor that included, say, people working in offices who would have wished to have been allowed to give evidence
i (see Finnigan referred to in 734; Mallinson, 737; Cox, 735; and also Rodney Dearing, 738). Just before when they were sneaking in, and just after when they were “freaking out,” the choristers would have encountered this crowd – contrary to the evidence given by the complainant. The sneaking in, especially, which on this theory would have been only after all the altar servers had been and gone (before coming back again shortly), would have been especially acute.

Eighth, we can add that this would equally be true of Pell who arrived after the choirboys did allowing them time to start poking, stealing, and drinking. We would only point out that in this scenario the brazenness of his already bold actions is increased by the recent presence and current proximity of the altar servers, and also, by making his return later, affords him even less time for interruption (say from his MC who he somehow managed to shake off).

Ninth, we have elsewhere pointed out the difficulties for the account given of the return of the choristers. We would simply point out that an additional delay of 5 or 6 minutes plus only makes the account more problematic, for example, in meeting up with the other choristers.

Tenth, and finally, we note that Justices Ferguson and Maxwell, whose task it was not only to give a ruling but to offer reasons, while they conclude (at 300): “In our view, taking the evidence as a whole, it was open to the jury to find that the assaults took place in the 5-6 minutes of private prayer time and that this was before the ‘hive of activity’ described by the other witnesses began,” so that strictly speaking they do not assert that this hiatus began immediately after Mass, nevertheless, have no recourse to such there-and-back-again fancies at one time mooted by the Crown. Were they thinking along such lines we feel that they would have done well (a) to inform every one of their thinking, and (b) to meet some of the obvious objections.

Let us conclude here. We cannot think that the appellant judges were unaware of the desperate contortions of the Crown in their search for a spare six minutes. It seems to us that the Crown try everything not to run into that most explosive of conclusions, that the allegations cannot have been true for there was simply no opportunity for the crime.

The fundamental problem, though, is that the altar servers returned to the sacristy, including those bringing back the mitre and crozier. The so-called hiatus must of necessity either have been before this return or else after it. Both possibilities must be rejected. If it is said that the hiatus was before the return then a consideration of the time taken for the procession shows that the hiatus would have elapsed by the time the choirboys reached the sacristy. This is true regardless of whether the procession was quick or slow as the altar servers who would bring the hiatus to an end were in the very same procession as the choirboys.

However, if it is said that the hiatus began after the altar servers returned then at least two problems arise. The first concerns the whereabouts of the altar servers, for as we have shown, the idea that they were dismissed to a room nearby is untenable. The second problem concerns the fact that the hiatus was terminated by several others, not just altar servers. Strictly speaking, the hiatus was only ever in the sanctuary, and not in the locale of the alleged assault.

Obviously, the contortions and distortions of the Crown cannot have gone unnoticed by the majority. With this in mind the reader may care to take a microscope to the relevant passages that we have already critiqued. I argued that the glaring omission in their treatment was a complete failure to address just when the altar servers returned, how long the procession took. However, it can also be noted how difficult it is to pin the majority down as to whether the hiatus was before or after the return – this notwithstanding the fact that they appear to locate it immediately after Mass, something they are careful never to state explicitly. The reason is clear enough. They consider the matter first with the left eye by putting their hands over their right, and then with their right eye by putting their hands over their left. Unfortunately for them, they are totally blind in both eyes.

i https://angelusnews.com/news/world/former-melbourne-cathedral-workers-doubt-pell-abuse-could-have-occurred/

END
*******************
A great contribution from Chris S Friel.

Nevertheless, despite ‘the stunt’, the time required for opportunity still didn’t actually add up. The jury -and the appeal Judges also- were all conned into thinking the timing did make sense. They were all unable to keep track of the numbers because the Jury had been told that J gave the only evidence of where they were not, with respect to the availability of the room and as it was believable evidence from ‘a witness of truth’ no less and that ‘if you believed him you would have no trouble convicting’ Pell then there was no requirement to dig too deeply into the actual and plentiful evidence that did contradict J! He had said the room was empty and the prosecution then fudged and told people that this was the only evidence, so the others that had to be somewhere were where the prosecution had without any evidence placed them. The jury was asked to conclude that as indicated by them -even if they were forced to withdraw because there was NO evidence for this- logically that is where they all were.

The jury ought to have retained their doubt. The Majority ought to have seen right through the stunt.

I just want to add that it’s my understanding that the tail of the procession that arrived about 1 minute or so after the head of that steadily moving continuous line of Catholics included priests; and that they did not have duties to ‘clean up’ back in the Sanctuary but rather just had their de-vesting to attend to and then after whatever small talk at the end of another mass occurred amongst themselves, make their way back into the common corridor to then go their way for Sunday afternoon. Now sacred vestments don’t get dumped in a washing basket like a bunch of footy guernseys by teens that then might run for the door these priests are altogether more ponderous. They have specific procedures to follow. The garments are carefully and very respectfully treated and put away appropriately by those that are wearing them – except for the Bishop who when he eventually gets there has a helper to assist him take them off and put them away and who is as Master of Ceremonies supposed to as his job description not leave his Bishops side!

Self evidently all this other devesting also takes time including that spent in that corridor that prevents the room being available for the vile attacks that were alleged. The Adult altar servers (and as I understand it that is all there was but I’m now not sure how I got that impression), would then have after each finished his particular ‘hive of activity’ tasks in the sanctuary then end his tasks by coming back through the corridor into the sacristy and then start to de-vest as well. Having devested they all then had to go out through that same corridor to go home or wherever else for the rest of the Sunday activities.

There never was any available time for offending and so we may conclude that this incident is entirely delusional (where it is not just plain lies, for example changing the story from Pell locked to Pell ‘blocked’ the door is more than delusion).

‘What is to be done’ after the High Court acquits Pell? The dramatic events are less than 5 months away. A fightback could be spectacular or people could just be relieved and the usual suspects who were up to their necks in this terrible beat up be allowed to sneer at Pell’s luck, at having the wealth to get him off etc.

If there is to be an exposure it ought not just be a job for Andrew Bolt, Miranda Devine, Greg Craven, Gerard Henderson and the other usual suspects from the right who are in the position to publish. see https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/more-doubts-over-pell-case-paul-kelly-and-guy-rundle/news-story/914ef9fdad71a39f7ec822e62fb99f40 The genuine Left ought to show up as part of the bigger picture of exposing this MSM pseudoleft that has in 2019 so ‘jumped the shark’ with their hysteria.

Democrats ought to speak up now and go public with our challenge to that MSM hysteria. We well know ‘where the broom does not reach, the dust will not vanish of its own accord’.

The new religion is now built up to sufficient strength to simply shout ‘denier’ and effectively silence people with their de-platforming methods. They now hunt for ‘witches’ and every day they find us, denounce us and silence us. Pell is just the most prominent ‘climate denier’.

2020 is a great opportunity for a prize-fight. Happy New year to all fighters for democracy.