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.

23 Responses to “The Stunt!”


  1. 1 patrickm

    Just watched this and I think it worth a look https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6isCUHOns3s

  2. 2 patrickm

    I did not begin my current defense of George Pell by referring to his ‘position, and his politics, and reverse engineer his innocence from there.’ The crimes he was accused of were never to me ‘unthinkable’ of the man or the position of cardinal. That these vile crimes were supposed to have been perpetrated within a ‘sacred’ location -of itself- was no problem for me either. The accusations only became improbable when I discovered what was the actual timing of them, given what precise location was involved and after and before what events they were sandwiched and on what possible days of the year they had to have been and yet not recalled!

    Additionally, they were allegedly committed in the middle of what to me were 2 alternative or conflicting other events simultaneously underway (the doorstop politicking of Pell and the cleanup ‘hive of activity’ following the outside procession) so a skeptical view grew stronger in my mind. It seemed to me that Pell was extremely unlikely to have been able to escape his commitments nor his minder and neither could J escape his commitments. Both ought to have been somewhere else with other people or they would have been missed! Neither were missed; indeed nothing at all stood out for any other witness involved at the locations on the day for either man. As my life experience was put to work in my decision making ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ could not now co-exist with the facts of this case.

    There was only 1 accuser and he alleged 2 boys were involved. The other man recently died, yet on 2 occasions denied to his mother that he had ever been in any way interfered with, so my doubt did not diminish in any way. That they never spoke of it was also improbable given they had sleep overs and so forth. But R’s mother later became a critical witness in exposing, via Milligan’s book, another change in J’s narrative from locked door to ‘blocked’ door. This evidence for me turned what was evidently a mad man into a bad man as well!

    The time period and location taken together established a massive credibility hurdle in my mind and other hurdles steadily made their own appearance as the accuser’s narrative began to visibly unravel on my note pad. The other hurdles included a) the totally spontaneous issues of the attacks b) attacking 2 boys at an improbably inconvenient moment for a new bishop in his new cathedral c) while still alive 2 ‘boys’ made a powerful complaint and mutual witness combination, yet no complaint emerged and did not despite plentiful financial incentives in the form of a large compensation payout important to an addicted individual; d) these boys were unknown to Pell and thus their personal character and parentage was unknown and by definition hugely dangerous for him being exposed for the crimes e) together with an unsatisfactory durational issue and literally silly actions alleged so that the credibility of the complainant was in a very sad state in my mind.

    The test of proven beyond a reasonable doubt was already stretched to its broken point by the very development of the story. But none of the above mattered because opportunity for the crimes was not – despite any twisting and turning of the prosecution- available! The room was not available for ‘poking around in’ and no opportunity = no crime.

    Opportunity for these crimes only became impossible for me and the case positively settled once every relevant person was reasonably positioned on the agreed route of a procession that is known to have taken place. The end result is that disinterested adults in the procession and on that route prevented or ‘blocked’ access of 2 supposedly wayward 13-year-old choristers into the priests sacristy for what has NOW in the latest iteration become a 10 minute period after the Sunday mass on either 15 or 22 of December 1996.

    That is the reason I say this is not a case to decide because it was not established beyond a reasonable doubt but because it was established that there was no opportunity. It therefore never happened and of this, there is no doubt at all in my mind. The case is thus fundamentally flawed.

    Steve Owens saying ‘I think that Pell should have got off because I think that our system is wrong…’ is also saying “Pell is guilty as this is what the current law permits”. Steve thinks ‘… if it’s one person’s word against another person’s word then I think that we should have the Scottish system where the accusation is judged unproven not guilty or innocent but not proven.’ So that way Pell (his political opponent) is still in Steve’s or at least the general public’s estimate possibly guilty.

    If Steve could have his wishes then at least Pell would then carry the burden of the accusation for the rest of his life. What can you do when the case was just not able to be proved? No acquittal for Pell. Mud was thrown; job done. A typical tactic of a pseudo leftist, but very poor form for a cruise missile fighter for democracy, now so silent over the activities of the world’s most important political leader Erdogan.

    Once again people who ought to know better hide when Erdogan is leading over Libya and Syria and dealing with the Russian aggressors etc. But again I digress…

    How the High Court lawyers turned judges write this case up is for them to worry about. I could care less. But however, they do so I say they will acquit Pell (unless he dies before the hearing). Now we Leftists are not obliged to have respect and confidence in Australian justice or in the legal process full stop. In fact, many people like me think that wholesale reform of our adversarial lawyers’ fest of a legal system is well overdue! But ought I speculate like this? Yes. Ought Steve comment about my reasoning and not hide behind his wishes? Yes.

    I think the following is an utter matter of fact, straight up and down decency reminder from a rightwing TV journalist!
    https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/pells-case-a-media-juggernaut-and-legal-minefield/ar-AAGlx2s

    Kenny is just telling everyone that naturally, people are not going to shut up about any trial that is this controversial.

  3. 3 Steve Owens

    “Yes. Ought Steve comment about my reasoning….” Your reasoning is based on Mr Windschuttles imagineering. He can imagine a detailed timeline for a date of which he is unsure of, a date that occurred decades ago. His timeline based on decades old recollections of people who had no particular reason for remembering what at the time would have been insignificant details of the day, a day which no one can put a date to.
    This case has produced a number of killer arguments for Pells defense from the inaccessibility of a Cardinals genitals to the copy cat nature of the allegations. None of these “killer” arguments are now taken seriously but by all means imagine away its a free country.

  4. 4 patrickm

    It was never difficult to spot that this verdict was unsafe even under current Australian law. A detailed timeline exists for any regular processional event as ‘it’s all been done many times before’. That real and undisputed outside procession during good weather is an ongoing part of the real, undisputed occasions known as Sunday High Mass at St Patrick’s Cathedral.

    Like shit, it just happens and that is so no matter which Sunday they were held or what year! The date is thus irrelevant and the decade irrelevant. Of course, it’s accepted to be a big picture timeline and therefore is approximate but it is credible or ‘real’ for our purpose because it’s within acceptable tolerance margins and that makes it a useful tool.

    A timeline must be grappled with and was by everyone involved and it is central to any reality that this be so.

    The approximate timeline is NOT ‘based on decades old recollections of people who had no particular reason for remembering what at the time would have been insignificant details of the day, a day which no one can put a date to.’ But rather based on standard procedures that most people would notice a departure from.

    You can in fact change all the names involved into the current people doing the same jobs and it makes no appreciable difference! The devil is in the generality here and not in any second by second level of detail. We are concerned with the big picture of multi minutes becoming available in a common workspace and it has now grown from 5-6 minutes to between a 5 and 10 minute window of opportunity – for not just a couple of rapes but a poking about and a swigging of wine and an unnoticed ingress and egress from 2 different parties etc., etc!

    Naturally, I have never mentioned ‘the inaccessibility of a Cardinals genitals’ or ‘the copy cat nature of the allegations.’ So Steve in typical desperation is forced to drag them in as if they are relevant. Naturally, they are not relevant and Steve has again failed to engage with my actual reasoning. Quelle surprise!

    ‘None of these [irrelevant] “killer” arguments are now taken seriously [so by clearly diversionary implication neither ought my reasoning ever so deftly avoided… NOT] but by all means imagine away its a free country.’

    But the problem remains for Steve; as he thinks Pell is correctly convicted according to the current law. Steve would like to see that law changed so that Pell shouldn’t have been convicted but alas rule of law and all, so bad luck for Pell. Steve quite apparently believes that disinterested investigators can’t possibly form a view that is more valid than either the last jury or the majority judges, yet he knows that in the Lindy Chamberlain case we could and with much less to go on! The stark reality of old father time tick-ticks away right in front of Steves’s eyes, but they won’t open.

    Opportunity for the crime was like a three legged stool. So if one leg fails the stool falls over and I’ve said it’s quite apparent that it already has fallen over and we are just waiting for the High Court to tell us it has! But for the conscientious investigator, all 3 legs have simultaneously failed and the case is irreparable wreckage.

    The result will be an acquittal and total vindication of Pell in the face of this unprincipled and inexcusable ABC/police led hatchet job. Naturally, Steve can’t see it coming and has not commented on the need or not for an investigation into the police activities that brought this case to court. Steve can hide till about the end of May then drag out the fudge recipes.

    Lawyer Viv Waller who has already been caught out lying about Pell over a fabricated claim of Pell misconduct [sight] proven by his passport and her lying proven by the transcript that Pell’s lawyers had to go to court to get hold of, is once again involved right at the centre of the attack on Pell. This lawyer is when it comes to Pell, just like Marr, Milligan, Morris-Marr etc. and that is incorrigibly prejudiced and unreliable to say the very least.

    Pell’s a 77yr old with significant health conditions so anything could still go terribly wrong but I’m starting a 130 day countdown for a hopeful target of 30th April and assuming one of the 31 days of May as the most probable for his release. So let’s look at the wreckage of this case that has me concluding that the High Court will rule 7-0 for acquittal. It could be just 5 on the bench but as it’s such a significant case I think all will want in on this legal kill.

    Leg 1: There was another witness [insert name] who besides Portelli and Pell himself who placed himself on the Cathedral steps on Sunday 15th of December 1996; he was a catholic priest who introduced his mother to Pell and she then embarrassed him in front of Pell making it a notable event for the man. This to me is a strong enough alibi witness to rule out the 1st of Pell’s masses as a possible date for the 1st alleged complaint and also incidentally, if not firmly establish, at a minimum indicate the Pell style ‘routine’ of these types of good weather Sunday High Mass occasions.

    Pell no doubt wisely chose to stand out the front in order to develop and strengthen his connections with his new ‘flock’. It’s just good politics; good for business if you prefer. Pell did become well known for standing out the front and this is quite uncontested. How could Pell guess that standing in full view out the front of a cathedral would lead to a conviction for pedophilia but in a very real way it has. If his procedure had been to ‘religiously’ stick with the procession this case could never have been sustained. Separated from the heard the legal hyenas and media jackals could pick him off and even the presence of a personal attendant couldn’t protect him.

    But the same procedures apply to the 15th as they do to the 22nd the following week so even with that extra alibi witness we don’t have to rule out the 15th as implausible. I’m looking for the impossible.

    It’s true that our thinking must only rise to the point that jurors MUST continue to entertain the reasonable doubt and thus uphold the continuing presumption of innocence that all defendants are supposed to start with. But it’s my contention that they don’t really start with that contention at all; a view shared by more than some police as well see Don’t Talk to the Police – YouTube The judge will tell them this but a person charged and standing in the dock are already 2 strikes down as the experienced policeman on that clip so eloquently puts it!

    The question arises; did Pell have a realistic opportunity combined with a credible motive to make an escape from his Master of Ceremonies, Portelli, on both Sundays (or if we set aside the 15th just the 2nd and only other possible occasion for the alleged offending)? The MC’s precise job was to accompany Pell during the entirety of this function, either three days before Christmas or 10 days before. Obviously these are 2 of the busiest occasions of any Catholic bishops calendar and this is precisely when an assistant to keep the event and the people moving is most required (a significant time in most 13yr olds calendars as well). Yet we are asked to believe that when required most, a common practice and required policy was discarded and yet not remembered or noticed by anyone else!

    During these closing activities of Pell’s 1st and 2nd High Mass at the reopened St Patrick’s cathedral what motive or realistic opportunity to depart existed? After the procession passed through the front door with Pell almost or at the very rear with a personal assistant by his side and about to once again become the very centre of importance and attention, respect and deference, how was there realistically an unnoticed departure back through the same door?

    As has been well noted by myself and many others if Pell had just kept going he would have got back to the sacristy quickest and safest from interruption and with the help of his mc Portelli be devested and away quicker for his usual restaurant lunch than with ANY OTHER method of departure so what was to be gained by choosing an unexplainable departure method and route? Indeed, why depart early from the all-important politicking? Networking can’t be done without the actual handshaking contact. Pell is well known for stopping on the steps after the formal part of the mass for his usual informal practice of meeting up with his parishioners; this ‘political’ purpose and well known regular detail was convincing established for me for the previous week and was to become his undisputed usual routine. Would he not be missed by Portelli and also confronted for the handshake by the following flock if he as supposed by the prosecutors made his way back through the cathedral? What could-would-did Portelli do when he found himself abandoned like a shag on a rock (and remember he claims he never did find himself in this predicament). Was Portelli a lying catholic as well? Was he a co-operative enabler for a spot of pedophilia? Motive and opportunity to be back at the sacristy at a convenient time for the complainant beyond the test of reasonable doubt does not exist for my money. Acquittal results.

    Leg 2/ was the sacristy empty of disinterested others for sufficient time at the exact time required to provide the spatial opportunity for the undetected crimes reported 19 years later at the height of an ABC induced anti-Pell hysteria? Who was supposed to be there? How did they realistically not remain there. How were they all disappeared by the prosecutors? Sorry but bowing to the cross and putting things away are quite regular matter of fact activities that don’t stop being so if the procedure goes back 2 decades. They remain a part of the actual mass that has not concluded till the last man is out of the sacristy. It’s just a busy working environment where a group of workers are completing their regular work in a standard manner. It’s no place for a couple of 13yr old choir boys who were actually required at choir practice and never missed to be poking around in a conflicting time period that precludes the mutually exclusive activities. Poking about and scoffing wine V putting down the quite heavy ‘sacred’ stuff always carried and putting these things away as usual.

    What to believe; what is to be done? We could believe that workers like to hang around (somewhere else unspecified) but still holding heavyweights like big brass crosses and huge candles or we could think that they finished their tasks and put these ‘precious’ objects respectfully away and got on with their next job so that they too could get home for Sunday lunch!

    A realistically reconstructed timeline based on the evidence is not ‘imagineering’. What it is stating the bleeding obvious. Steve can’t dispute that a procession actually takes time. He can’t dispute that everyone involved must be somewhere. What would happen to this case if people were where they ought to have been according to the usual timelines for this incredibly regular event? It would collapse is what! On a balance of probability test, none of these witnesses were out to protect a pedophile and lie for him. Acquittal results.

    Leg 3/ were 2 13yr old boys capable of leaving one multi supervised space undetected, arriving at another space undetected by disinterested adults milling about at least in the linking corridor, calling out while molested yet not being heard via an open door undetected, subsequently fleeing through that corridor space undetected and arriving after crying at the choir practice undetected and then sing like larks so that the choir could not detect any issue was affecting them? We will never know comes Steve’s reply; perhaps all that was possible. Perhaps it was, but perhaps it was not and a conviction can’t occur when a reasonable doubt is still held. Acquittal results.

    An argument can easily be mounted that opportunity for this crime has NOT met the test of being proven beyond a reasonable doubt and that if this is so then the conviction is not beyond a reasonable doubt. This case is a national disgrace so naturally more diversion about catholic crimes of the confessional are to be expected from the usual suspects.

    All very predictable from people determined to concede nothing to the wicked. Lack of opportunity, in this case, can be readily demonstrated to those who are not willfully blind but anyone busy derailing a thread by pushing the usual ABC distraction over the catholic ‘sacrament’ of confession is being willfully blind.

    I’ve reviewed the evidence that was highlighted by the 3 appellant judges and I’m horrified at the outcome from 2 of them but I’m not horrified because one unsupported witness resulted in the conviction; that aspect of this conviction only thoroughly disturbs me!

    It’s the lack of opportunity that brings on the horror! It’s the failure to even properly attempt to establish a credible opportunity narrative. The police laid these charges recklessly. They brought on this massive case that screams police misconduct and a biased investigation. This prosecution was really an abuse of process from the get-go. It is just a part of a vendetta that was a no-lose situation for the police involved.

    If they didn’t get a conviction mud would nevertheless stick and massive harm would be done and that would be a consolation prize. If they got lucky (and they did) they would hit the jackpot with a conviction! Nobody in the senior ranks was prepared to stop them nor properly supervise them and demand a real investigation of the allegations. SANO appears to me to have had carte blanche. A public investigation is required to establish just what has gone on.

    Pell is in jail for crimes that were never committed even if just because they could never have been. The catholic church -worldwide- has been ‘brand’ damaged for no legitimate reason and consequently, Catholics generally made to pay more than just a social cost. They are members of a religion almost led by a convicted pedophile so a major subtext is that pedophiles dominate this church! This decades-long ABC led unreasonable attack on George Pell has undoubtedly cost the church many millions of dollars in foregone revenue and harmed it’s membership levels, school enrollments and so on.

    Any serious democrat ought to spot why Australia requires a new inquiry!

  5. 5 Steve Owens

    “Naturally, I have never mentioned ‘the inaccessibility of a Cardinals genitals’ or ‘the copy cat nature of the allegations.’ So Steve in typical desperation is forced to drag them in as if they are relevant. Naturally, they are not relevant and Steve has again failed to engage with my actual reasoning. Quelle surprise!”
    Patrick in your first writing about this case on this site “Pell verdict manifestly unjust” 5 paragraphs in you link to an article by Brennan who runs with the cardinal cant access his dick argument.
    In your second attempt to address the case “Pell 2” the first comment is from Richard Mullins who raises the copy cat scenario. So I was not forced to drag them in they are in your link and in the first comment to your writing on this subject.
    “The catholic church -worldwide- has been ‘brand’ damaged for no legitimate reason….” Patrick the brand has been damaged because of widespread child molestation followed by cover ups followed by victim blaming and legal maneuvering to save money to the point where the church argued that there was no legal entity to sue and used its wealth to hammer complainants who did sue.
    We have now had a Royal Commission into institutional child abuse and the Commission recommended that the church adopt the social norm of mandatory reporting and the church refuses. Dont cry to me that the nasty ABC has run a vendetta or that a comedian wrote a song ridiculing Pells refusal to return because his health couldnt stand a plane flight when at the same time Pell was flying around Europe and sucking down beers. Jesus wept.

  6. 6 patrickm

    ‘I have never mentioned…’ I have linked to the progressive priest and lawyer Brennan who is an open political opponent of Pells. I thought then and still do that he had produced a very useful article. With his ‘insider knowledge’ and ‘good will towards all’ type of character, he is a credible example of a person who is unable to believe that these alleged attacks were true. I have also had Richard Mullins make comments on this site and naturally both are entitled to their views just as you are entitled to regularly make a fool of yourself despite any good will on my part to try to help you avoid this. Indeed even the ½ theorists are entitled to their discredited views of what the Russians would do in Syria! Of course none of these views are anything ‘mentioned by me’ whether I oppose them or not or just think they are additional material to be thrown onto ‘the scales of justice’.

    But you know all this and rather than deal with my clear position you would rather dissemble and thereby mislead others and perhaps eventually yourself. You pathetically throw up some feeble-minded dust like the catholic brand was ALSO damaged by other things but that was not what I am talking about and you know that as well. So be it. Your record stands.

    Unlike you I have evolved and deepened my views about Pell over time as the facts came out and especially so after the appeal reasons were published.

    Step 1 for me was; is Pell guilty or not guilty of child molestation? My answer is now; not guilty. So how say you?

    I have also been investigating other issues about Pell that I had taken somewhat for granted or ignored and as a result of this additional study I have had to change my views on some other matters.

    For instance; is it now my view that Geoge Pell was never involved in cover-ups of child molestation. There are the usual suspect others who have the ABC funding and the books published and who ran the police inquiries who believe otherwise (and I think that Steve sides with them) and these people IMV would also have THAT other mud stick to Pell irrespective of the truth.

    Was Pell involved in ‘victim-blaming’ IMV no he was not and this is but another example of the age-old tactic of just throwing that mud and some of it will stick. Victim blaming is a serious accusation leveled over pedophilia! In this case, it slips by as just part of the flow of gutter muck you are neck-deep in. But to blame the child for their abuse… well, let’s just say I’ll await any evidence and not hold my breath. Unless of course people think that all accusations are true and that any claim they are not is victim-blaming.

    What about ‘legal maneuvering to save money to the point where the church argued that there was no legal entity to sue and used its wealth to hammer complainants who did sue.’ On these topics, we are left with leadership issues that are of a different type of matter altogether and not questions that ought put anyone in jail. At the heart of these themes, we invariably find well-paid lawyers and other professionals like accountants that run the current capitalist system offering their best advice to all leaders of all organizations and pedophiles have been a blight in all institutions.

    But this case is about Pell being convicted of being a pedophile! It’s about an orchestrated campaign to paint him as one and get him jailed. It’s about putting forward rubbish as if it were credible. Consider how all this started with the notorious Painters and Dockers thug and life long criminal Phillip Scott…

    There is the regurgitated David Marr spin that reveals nothing of a notorious crook who was after a payday from the catholic church pedo payout fund https://independentaustralia.net/life/life-display/pell-fire-and-brimstone,5795
    And then there is the real Phillip Scott
    https://www.academia.edu/39313677/The_Credibility_of_Phillip_Scott

    I bet Steve Owens knew nothing of this! A whole chapter of the Costigan royal commission no less! The challenge for Steve is to form a reasonable view of what Philip Scott was most probably up to and how little David Marr types are interested in the facts. And that 1962 example Steve is just the first cab off the rank!

    The next cab is the bullshit from 1969, that caught up Viv Waller! Pell only had to produce his passport to prove he wasn’t even in the country! How about that! An accusation leveled at him and he wasn’t even in the country. Then Pells lawyers had to go to court to get the transcript to prove that Viv Waller was lying. But why should I spoil your opportunity for discovery? How about you report back on what she was caught out lying about? This is J’s lawyer mind! And so it goes on. But enough of that for now, you can drown in this gutter swimming.

    As Pell came into a position of authority his job was to deal with the issue of child molestation and to set up procedures to stamp it out to the best of his ability and deal with the historical cases as well. He was the first to take action! To my mind this goes to his credit.

    I find it very interesting that some lawyer led commission ‘recommended that the church adopt the social norm of mandatory reporting’ when the catholic community including priests already fully comply with this but you say ‘and the church refuses.’ when this is ONLY with reference to what a priest -like a lawyer- hears in a very special situation called – during the sacrament of confession. The lawyers claim privileged client-lawyer communications. The confessional issue ought not be presented as if it is not a problem for the catholic church or that it would lead to any convictions of pedophiles at all. The subject is interesting and not as simple as Steve Owens presents.

    Unlike the rats of the ABC and the pseudoleft etc that swim with the tide, Pell is obviously a brave man who holds to certain views that are currently unpopular and is facing up to a hysterical zeitgeist that has gripped the mass mood in Australia. With all his health problems upfront they were no more than reasonably dealt with as these unreasonable events have unfolded. Yet still the obvious nonsense of ‘come home Pell’; to face the 5yr Royal Commission a 2nd time and that after the Victorian inquiry! He has been there copping with this all along. Despite the reality that Pell came home to face this bundle of crazy charges that ALL had to be dropped except this last one that will end in an acquittal for a lack of opportunity. That is to say, it could not have happened. There is no doubt that ought to remain as to his guilt or innocence. His health was and is an inappropriate point of attack from guttersnipes. Naturally, Steve joins in.

    I’m looking forward to the gnashing of teeth when Pell goes back to Rome and celebrates mass at St Peter’s Basilica. When he is freed I hope all the cathedrals around Australia fill up for the Sunday Mass! After that I can go back to hoping that religion along with all the others returns to withering away!

    Incidentally Steve by your reasoning I have become responsible for your views as well! That is about as dumb as it gets. Probably best not to dig any further in this hole though it gives me a sadistic pleasure to watch you make an utter fool of yourself.

    If Pell is a proven and convicted pedophile then in the real world the masses are going to conclude he has also and always been involved in concealing the crimes of other pedophiles and so the whole ABC, Marr, Waller, Milligan etc -actually phony- narrative, is then fully vindicated. They were right to pursue him as ‘scum’ all along! Thankfully, for the sake of all the victims for the sake of the kiddies past present and future no less, they finally got him! They are true heroes. I don’t think so.

    But if I am correct and Pell will be acquitted then what? Totally exonerated yet he will still be covered in all this mud.

    So Pell will have paid a very big price and the Catholics will have paid a penalty for no legitimate reason. Immeasurable harm has been done, just as Pell told the police in Rome would be the case. Police misconduct is clearly the reality of this dreadful case. This is no way to spend 10’s of millions of the public purse and to cost the Catholic church such damage.

    Christmas is a big deal with Catholics as the money collection record will attest. The catholic church pass the ‘plate around’ at every Sunday mass without exception, so where were the money holders? These people have to be accounted for as well. When ought the money be counted and when was it? If not immediately while there are multiple collectors then the separate bags of monies will be aggregated and locked away and if that storage is accessible by an individual then they will soon have an opportunity to pilfer some money. That’s a breakdown in procedure right there so what ought to be the procedure? What was the procedure? I would follow the money trail. I would expect that at least 2 individuals would be involved to the point of establishing just how much money there is and recording it. After that point individuals have to account for a known quantity and can then be trusted to do the rest. Clearly the common corridor and even more people are still involved. These other people at some point and to some degree add to the number of adult eyes and ears blocking access for any wayward choristers waiting their chance to poke around and steal wine or a roaming rogue Bishop for that matter! Now I don’t know what the money holders were doing but people do know what the procedures were and so there were in that after mass 10 minute period others involved as well. Apparently there were also some women teachers about as well and they freely moved through the corridor after mass [sight]. These extra people are all of course quite peripheral but they are an indication of how criminally negligent this assault on the catholic church has been. The police had a number of reasonable measures that they ought to have pursued to establish the opportunity window before they unleashed this catastrophe on Pell and the Catholic church. They knew the damage that would be done. They didn’t care. That is a disregard of their own actions (in all directions including the misuse of police resources) to the point of criminal negligence.

    The proximity of all these adults makes any unnoticed ingress or egress to the sacristy by 2 out of place or context boys highly improbable.

    The numbers of the flock are right up at Christmas and so are the staff required for the shearing. J could not recall that this terrible attack on him and his mate was just before Christmas instead he offered a 6 months span of time during which it definitely happened and it was the defense that established the only possible days! Not good enough police work for my money. Beyond a reasonable doubt? I’m quite sure that it’s not!

    What I am sure of is that the allegations are without any opportunity and thus ought never to have been brought before any court in the first instance and that the fact that these charges were laid is THE issue. The police who set this fiasco in motion were breathtakingly incompetant or worse to have done so. Now why would a pseudoleftist want to let them off the hook that they have placed themselves on? Have pseudoleftists no reason to fear an out of control police force?

    If I’m correct then Australia’s current legal system is also shown up to be in a shambles and progressive people ought to be thinking more broadly about this. A consequence of my speculation of a 7-0 HC conclusion is that the enemies of George Pell who have worked so ruthlessly to get that result ought then be subject to a close review over what they have been up to. Not Pell and not catholic confession and not pedophilia but what has brought this blatant injustice about and the Australian legal system into such disrepute. People might shrug from a 4-3 acquittal, but a 7-0 outcome ought not to produce that shrug. We have the chance to insist that policing be inquired into and some overdue changes made. What could be clearer than that after the country has been put through this fiasco.

    If the outcome is 7-0 because the opportunity was never possible then the police were just as capable as I have been in discovering this fact. The immeasurable damage these 5 false accusations have wrought on Pell and also on the Catholic church thus warrants a consequence. An inquiry into the police investigation and to organisations such as the ABC and journalists that have been a party to the construction of this witch hunt is required.

  7. 7 Steve Owens

    Oh ye of little knowledge there are restrictions to the lawyer client privilege it has limits like in the US where it is limited by the crime-fraud provision “The crime-fraud exception holds that if the client intended to commit or was in the middle of committing a crime or act of fraud and communicated this intent to the lawyer, the information is not under privilege. In other words, if a lawyer learns that his/her client intends to commit a crime or cover up a crime, the lawyer has the right to disclose this information to authorities.” Yes we should bring our laws into line at least with the US. If a person says to a lawyer I fuck and intend to fuck children or if it is said to a priest that lawyer or priest should alert the authorities. If anyone suspects that a child is being harmed by an adult they should be under legal compulsion to report. So please stop hiding behind imagined legal concepts and join the 21st century.

  8. 8 Steve Owens

    In Victoria there also exists limits to legal privilege
    “Exceptions to Legal Privilege
    There are a number of exceptions to legal professional privilege, even when the dominant purpose test is satisfied. These exceptions apply in circumstances where:

    The privilege has been waived.
    It is in the public interest.
    A statute modifies or removes the privilege where the legislature affords a competing public interest a higher priority.
    The communication is for the purpose of facilitating a fraud or crime.”
    I take your silence to be your usual silent apology… oh look Erdogan’s troops storm Damascus…oh look the Palestinian question resolved…oh look Putin storms through the Baltic states…oh look Iraq is a democratic model for the middle east.

  9. 9 patrickm

    You would be totally wrong in thinking I’m silent about anything at all but especially about any apology owed to a blatant dissembler who is deliberately diverting attention from a reasoned proof of Pell’s innocence, towards the general ‘theory of wickedness’ of Catholic clergy due to the problem they almost all have with the confessional issue.

    It’s both
    1) A total ‘red herring’ in this thread no matter how diverting you find it and
    2) a blatant attempt to derail an investigation of the actual relevant issues.

    I have always known there are ‘limits to legal privilege’ and I ought to have just ignored your wrecking.

    Meanwhile, just a few hours ago Erdogan said: “We hope that the international community will not make the mistakes in Libya that it has done in Syria.” And you would no doubt agree with him. I think he is directing that criticism a bit at himself as well! But the US and Europe let the Russians get into Syria! Obama and Merkel etc didn’t listen to the Turks!

    Erdogan has sent troops to help the Libyan government (which Steve supports) fight back against Putin’s troops who are attacking democracy and who are backed by undemocratic Egypt he seems to have forgotten that that is the reality!

    Turkish troops are still in Idlib blocking Putin and the HIRISE as they continue to try and drive Syrians into Turkey with barrel bombing. Turkish troops still at war with the PKK are now in much of the north of Syria that borders Turkey, where about 3.5 million Syrians are sheltered from the barrel bombing HIRISE. Yes, the Turks are backing the army you once supported the FSA, and now renamed but still the same people – when did Steve stop supporting them?

    The unresolved Palestinian question has gone through policy changes since GWBush became the first US president to declare the territories – occupied territories instead of disputed territories.

    Nobel winning Obama on memory started the reversal to the use of disputed territories which Trump has carried even further. I say both have harmed US interests in so doing.

    Erdogan has stood firm all along and Steve dissembles on everything.

    ‘oh look Putin storms through the Baltic states’…I never said he would storm anything other than whatever he thought he wanted to. The Russian gangster is undoubtedly a threat to all of Russia’s neighbors and to world peace let alone the Baltic states. I need not even think up examples of you throwing mud. Your hands are never clean.

    And for the final time, you can’t imagine just how glad I am that Iraq was liberated from the fascists and a formal democracy set on the road of struggle that you claim to support. Iraq is not as good as Turkey but is still a democratic model for the middle east as far as its regular elections and constitution are concerned.
    Too bad the same was not done for Syria!

    You make a better whining pseudo leftist defender of modern-day capitalism than you make any kind of a cruise missile defender of democracy. Perhaps you better get a hand up from your old mates and get back on that rickety old fence.

  10. 10 Steve Owens

    Just Pell nothing but Pell
    As I have said before I was surprised at the guilty verdict as I didnt think that they had any evidence against him only one uncorroborated testimony from the accused. However I was incorrect it is legally valid to convict a person on testimony alone in child sexual assault cases.
    As to the evidence put forward such as the time line stuff well didn’t his legal team present this at the trial? Didn’t his legal team present this at the appeal?
    Any time line argument is hamstrung by the fact that no one can tell me what day the offense is alleged to have occurred. I know nothing of Catholic church ritual but I have watched enough Father Ted to know that mass length can vary.
    I think that there is enough doubt to warrant an acquittal some jurors on the first trial thought so and so did one appeals judge. Why the jury thought that he was guilty beyond reasonable doubt I don’t know. I never saw the evidence which was the lengthy cross examination of the accuser bu Pell’s lawyer.
    You are convinced by the time line defense as others were by the genital inaccessibility argument or the copy cat theory and Pell’s defense team will get one more chance to run the time line theory past a panel of judges let just hope they have more insights than those I gleaned from Father Crilly

  11. 11 Steve Owens

    Not Pell
    I am fully aware that the courts can get things wrong, currently Brendan Dassey rots in jail despite by my count 6 judges having ruled in his favour
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Dassey

  12. 12 Steve Owens

    Not Pell OJ Simpson
    So Andrew Bolt thinks that the Pell case is the OJ Simpson case in reverse. OMG does he know anything about the OJ Simpson case? A case where a leading police investigator Mark Furman when asked if he had planted evidence in this case pleaded the 5th amendment declining to answer on the grounds that his answer might incriminate him. The prosecution argued that in the life and death struggle between Ron Goldman and his murderer Goldman had been able to inflict injury on the murderer and that the cut to OJ’s hand was that injury despite evidence given by people who came into contact with OJ within hours of the murder who stated that OJ’s hand was uninjured and several testified that they had looked at his hands to see if he was wearing his championship rings.
    As the saying goes if the murderer was injured and OJ was not you must acquit and if the police cant testify that they havent planted evidence you must acquit.

  13. 13 Steve Owens
  14. 14 Steve Owens

    I am a bit surprised why we are arguing I thought that Pell’s defense at trial had generated reasonable doubt. I thought at appeal the fact that the most experienced criminal trial judge came out in favour of acquittal was a good case for reasonable doubt. If the High court keeps him in prison I will be very surprised. So on the issue of guilt or innocent I come down on the side of innocent. On the issue of how the Church has handled the whole child sexual abuse scandal I could only rate them as 1 out of 10. To quote the royal commission from memory they described the churches handling of the scandal as catastrophic.

  15. 15 Steve Owens

    Just in case anyone is interested in the OJ Simpson frame up
    https://ojsimpson.co/oj-simpson-fact-fiction-ep-4/

  16. 16 Steve Owens

    Just want to address the nonsense that Im a dissembler who tries to divert the purpose of this thread.
    1 I talk about the Catholic Churches response to CSA issues yes,is this not relevant, it was you who raised the damage done to the churches brand.
    2 I ridicule the I cant find my dick in all these robes theory but it was his defenders who introduced this.
    3 I ridicule the copy cat theory but it was his defenders who introduced this theory.
    4 I talk about the OJ Simpson case but again it was his supporters who introduced this into the argument.
    5 I do think that the opportunity argument has some weight although Im still at a loss to know how a mass 22 years ago on an indeterminate date ended at 12:02 thats very precise timing when we dont even know the date in question.
    I stand by my original position that I dont know if Pell is guilty but I do think that there is reasonable doubt and under our system reasonable doubt equates to an innocent verdict.

  17. 17 Steve Owens

    If you want to find a dissembler take a look in the mirror and ask who introduced Erdogan into this thread, Erdogan in the Pell thread and Im the dissembler. As Jesus said take the log out of your own eye before you take the speck out of someone else’s.

  18. 18 Steve Owens

    OK I reviewed my posts and I did mention Erdogan first, my bad, looks like I might just be an evil dissembler

  19. 19 patrickm

    You quite obviously are not even trying to read as you don’t even understand the parameters of what this post is attempting when you say ‘…although I’m still at a loss to know how a mass 22 years ago on an indeterminate date ended at 12:02 thats very precise timing when we don’t even know the date in question.’

    What was said already in these posts was along the lines that precision for the start of the procession (ie.12:02 or any other number) is irrelevant because when it DID start everything THEN worked to a timetable that is known within small parameters. People HAD to get to the scene of this supposed crime first whatever the time they BOTH started from. Just understand that much and go DOH!

    Almost everyone that counts is in the same lock step procession till it was said to break step!

    It was agreed by both sides that this working procession took place so therefore after that start whenever it was the time spans for set sections of the procession and other associated tasks comes into play. People who were there at the time knew that no unusual event occurred that would somehow have interfered with the usual process that saw people that were at ‘work’ get to go home for their Sunday lunch. It’s a known working process that has been done hundreds of times over decades. You can see what it looks like by viewing examples of it on the net. Like any shearing of the sheep process, people involved know how the shed works and who stands where when the work is in progress. The work was still in progress.

    This case is not about what happened in the shed when everybody else had gone home. It is about what was happening (or even able to happen) in a workspace in the middle of the work! No other workers are accused of concealing the rape of two children of 13years of age.

    Enter the process of logical deduction.

    There is both a reasonable travel time allowance and a real mutually exclusive conflict of space possession.

    The 4-6+ parties heading for the same room are a blockage to children being there! J and R are meant to be heading for the same room as was a small swarm of other people! A window of opportunity must be opened for the offending to be possible. Those known others that got to the room first had to all be cleared out of that room before anything else untoward could happen there. Boys would have to arrive work out others were there and wait for the others to show up as well.

    Thus J and R would have to hang around and wait in a spot where they could not do so without being spotted and challenged by responsible adults that were known to be about.

    So they could not even wait for an opportunity (that was never coming anyway).

    It is, therefore, a ridiculous charge to have been brought and we have to try to explain how such a gross injustice was done to a totally innocent man.

    You have been told that these workers had to get there first and then bow and then put down and away in the usual storage the things they were carrying and you were told they then had a variety of tasks to attend to that kept the entrance to the room unavailable to any boys to come through. Just to be clear these boys could not even hang around outside waiting for their chance to go in and poke around and then find and steal the wine and then drink it until discovered and told off. The second tranche had to arrive as well thus the time other people were taking up destroyed the opportunity window tick by tick and this is right before your eyes. So you direct attention to other matters.

    Mass had not ‘finished’ for these honest ordinary workers going about their work. They were just trying to finish their regular and real work and go home to lunch etc. That is what makes all this so infuriating because we don’t even have to think about what Pell or J had to say. We know by the process of deduction that the room was not available. We know that what J is saying can’t be true.

    You stand by your ‘original position that I don’t know if Pell is guilty’ so you are not interested in deduction and what has been demonstrated in a step by step effort to prove that he could not be just not guilty but because of the lack of opportunity, he had to be innocent.

    You are only prepared to say Pell couldn’t be convicted but you just can’t work out if this multiple rape was possible or not. The jury is only asked how say you guilty or not guilty? A jury is never asked to declare a person innocent of the charges. That is what this thread is attempting.
    Yes I know that you have said ‘I do think that there is reasonable doubt and under our system reasonable doubt equates to… not guilty [ not ‘an innocent verdict’] as you know the smell still lingers and will do for the rest of his life.
    Of course, I raised the damage done to the church’s brand because this damage was in the context of the police deliberately or incompetently wronging Pell and squandering public resources doing so. You don’t want to deal with this but instead, remind people that other things have happened and that is not legitimate.
    This thread has not mentioned the robes so you know doubt felt it was assisting by doing so. Frankly, it looks more like you wanted to downplay the analysis of this thread by associating it with some other material that you presumably find even less convincing. The same with the copy cat theory and OJ Simpson is no help either.
    When you say ‘I do think that the opportunity argument has some weight’ I say good; now deal properly with that all important issue that this thread is here for..
    Erdogan is not – in the volume of what I substantively put forward to try to prove my thesis- avoidance nor anything to do with dissembling on my part. You do not contribute substantive argument in a fair manner that would permit any measure of discursive comment in passing.

    For your information;

    dissembler – a person who professes beliefs and opinions that he or she does not hold in order to conceal his or her real feelings or motives. dissimulator, hypocrite, phoney, phony, pretender.

    The purpose of this thread is to explain how the jury was conned by a lawyers trick.

    All you have got to is 2 reasons for reasonable doubt and a prediction that if ‘the High court keeps him in prison I will be very surprised.’

    So ‘on the issue of guilt or innocent I come down on the side of innocent’. Then you ought to say why he is not just not guilty but actually you believe him to be innocent of the charges and that implies that the victim is either mad or bad. Because they are mutually exclusive and you are fudging taking a genuinely clear stand like I have.

    How any other matters have been dealt with would have to be studied for me to form a view and that is not something that I have looked into because I am dealing with what Pell is in jail for.

    Now given that you are prepared to say the HC ought let him walk free with an acquittal rather than declare some form of mistrial and order he stand trial again, are you prepared to take the next step and conclude that there ought to be an inquiry into what has gone on here and are you prepared to upset all the haters and declare that you are convinced that this man is innocent and that the accusations are false?

  20. 20 steve owens

    Yes I understand that the 12:02 is just a guess about when these things usually finish and that the finishing time is not relevant because its the timing of the subsequent events that matter.
    You wish to prove Pell’s innocence but I cant go through this stuff in any more clear way than people who have much more time than I do to examine it and in this I mean Pell’s defense teams and judge Weinberg. Clearly his defense teams spent much effort in trying to convince the jury and the appeals panel that the time line made the crime impossible and they failed. For me what is important is what Weinberg has to say and he says that the time line make it doubtful to have occurred and that there is a significant possibility that the accused is innocent. I can do no better with the time line than Weinberg did and say that Pell should go free because of reasonable doubt and that is all he needs.
    You ask if I think there should be an inquiry but inquiry into what? The system has worked as it should allegations made investigation held committed to trial Pell got a fair trial granted that a percentage of innocent people get convicted all the time. Its not like he’s part of some impoverished oppressed minority heavens he belongs to one of the richest organisations in the world he has the support of one of the most influential media organisations in the world as well as the support of several ex prime ministers. Am I prepared to declare this man innocent well no Im 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.

  21. 21 Richard Mullins

    Who is Steve Owens? Is he shilling for some stakeholder in this case?

  22. 22 patrickm

    No Richard he’s just the very long term resident anti communist that I happen to have known for a bit over 50yrs.

    Just saying that time span in itself is a worry. His good side is that he is a Port Adelaide supporter!

  23. 23 Steve Owens

    LOL I admitted to a work mate this week that Im actually a Stalinist. On the basis that Stalin had 2 historic missions one was to drive the Nazi menace from Eastern Europe and the other was to guide the Soviet Union from the age of people pulling plows to the age of rocket ships in space. I support both these accomplishments and Stalin did them.
    He may have been a murdering psychopath but I dont think anyone else could have done these things. Trotsky had the ability to do these things but he lacked the support of the party and there for he couldnt do it.
    As to Pell I think that you guys are clutching at straws. My personal opinion is that he should be released due to lack of evidence. I think that there is too much reasonable doubt but you guys think that you can prove his innocence, well good luck with that in the High Court.
    Patrick you are very generous to suggest that I may have a good side.

Leave a Reply

*