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)

43 Responses to “Andrews”


  1. 1 Steve Owens

    I’m not as sure as you are that the High Court will be a lay down for Pell
    When they review the evidence they will see that Pell’s usual practice was meet and greet parishioners after mass invariably except not always.
    They will read that Portelli was always by his side but then not always.
    They will read that Portelli couldn’t remember if the exit processions in 1996 were internal or external
    They will read that Portelli says Pell would stay on the steps doing the meet and greet for 20 minutes sometimes 15 minutes sometimes 10 minutes and sometimes 2 minutes.
    But Portelli would always accompany the Arch Bishop to the sacristy
    but then he testified there may have been times when he didn’t. Sometimes Portelli would accompany the AB to the sacristy but not go in with him.
    Sometimes when Portelli wasn’t with the AB Potter would be and Potter testified that the AB never used the priests sacristy that he always used the AB’s sacristy. Potter testified that the alter severs were children when in fact they were adults.
    Mallison testified that he saw Pell robed and alone, Bonomy testified that he saw Pell robed and alone and Mayes testified that he had seen Pell robed and alone and in the choir room within 5 minutes of mass ending.
    Potter testified that the sacristy was always locked but Connor and McGlone testified that it was often unlocked.
    I think that Windshuttle pulls a bit of a slight of hand with his table. The alter servers according to Keith re enter the cathedral via the south transept they then go to the sacristy and Kieth has them creating this hive of activity why they go to the sacristy is beyond me for their purposes its an empty room. Their object is the sanctuary where the stuff that they have to carry back is located so they reach the sacristy only to go in another direction to start dismantling stuff. Clearly when they get to the sanctuary they don’t start taking stuff away while people are still praying you are going to have to help me here I’ve never been to mass do alter servers take stuff away while people are still praying? Anyhow there is a possibility of a hiatus. Keith may have to return to his original claim that J made it all up based on a Rolling Stone article.

  2. 2 patrickm

    ‘The altar servers according to Keith re enter the cathedral via the south transept’
    NO they dont!
    That is where the supposed 2 wayward 13 yr old choristers have doubled back to re-enter the cathedral; the altar servers come in via the back door (as usual) where they leave the Choir who turn right into their building. As the leaders of the procession they turn left back into the cathedral, then after the choir that is the very big middle section of the procession have all turned right into their building, the tail altar servers and the assisting priests also turn left as a second tranche arriving about 1 minute later.

    So both sets have come in the back door (East) about a minute apart, going past the unused Bishops Sacristy now on their left, and go right to the end of this section of corridor and then turn left again into the priests’ sacristy.

    So no wayward boys could be hiding along that corridor waiting for an opportunity to enter anything!

    The servers thus have directly gone in the procession but leaving the middle of that single procession (the big choir) to go their own way into their building in the east.

    The altar servers and priests are in 2 groups as they enter into the priests’ sacristy. This is where they separately, as a procedure, bow to the cross right at the end wall (south), and finally put down the heavy things they are already carrying (for those that are, as I don’t think the priests are carrying anything) and put them back into their proper storage spaces.

    Only then some of these ‘servers’ start their last job by going back through the priest sacristy door.

    They are now going past another door into the south wing of the cathedral proper where the wayward boys would alternately have to be waiting in plain sight of everybody else in the cathedral ‘hiding’ just the 2 of them in public in their bright red dresses and white frilly cover tops because there is nowhere else to be. These are big spaces but there are only a few of them; see diagram.

    The servers (the name says it all really) go straight through to the sanctuary and start getting a few more ‘sacred’ objects from there to put away for safekeeping till the next shearing. If other people are still near there still praying ‘private time’ then it is like the end of any function when people start putting away the chairs and that just might hurry people along; but remember these church officials are not clearing the cathedral of people and locking the place down, it will stay open for visitors to marvel at all day. All they are doing is getting the valuables so that the visitors don’t nick them. The statues and so forth that people are still praying before remain and that line of devoted people may not be quite finished even yet. examples are on the net.

    This is then a smallish period of back and forth process for the servers but not as I understand it for the more exalted priests and definitely not the most exalted bishop who has his own man to assist him at all times and who is still out the front (in the West) doing the all-important politics of meeting the ‘flock’.

    The servers are in a moderate but constant ‘hive of activity’ at and around the door into that priest sacristy preventing anybody getting into there where priests are anyway, until having got the last of the stealable work tools from the sanctuary -that are destined for the sacristy storage- they are then for the last time back in that sacristy at or about the same time as the Bishop and his MC together turn up to also divest.

    The priests are 1st able to themselves divest and say goodbye and go to their own Sunday lunches then the altar servers and then at or about the same time the exalted one and his mc. With Potter (now old and feeble giving evidence) the last man out and locking the door.

    Your understanding is utterly muddled. If you can’t follow this well I’m not surprised you don’t even try.
    consider…
    ‘… why they go to the sacristy is beyond me for their purposes its an empty room.’
    got it now?
    ‘Their [second] object is the sanctuary where the [extra] stuff that they have to carry back is located…’
    clear yet?
    ‘..so [naturally] they reach the sacristy [to bow and put away the stuff they already are carrying] only to go in another direction to start dismantling stuff [more like pick up and carry away as their second task].’
    That has to be simple enough!

    ‘Clearly when they get to the sanctuary they don’t start taking stuff away while people are still praying [yes they do] you are going to have to help me here I’ve never been to [a catholic] mass do altar servers take stuff away while people are still praying?’
    You have now got me an atheist of more than 1/2 a century PRAYING that you will go to lots of masses as your well-deserved penance!

    ‘Anyhow there is a possibility of a hiatus.’ Now if you can follow what is very clearly set out above you can see there is not!

    And never mind your political opponent Keith, this procedure is there to address quite separately from the question of where and why the lies came from J.

    What is clear is that the vile accusations against Pell that you want to see remain hanging over him are utterly false. J made it all up or it’s all a hallucination; those are the options.

    The Rolling Stone article is about another made-up story with similarities! But no matter the connection both these stories are made up. They are false and the main point is that this type of thing is this not unheard of as it is precedented!

    Currently, in the media there are foolish reports from those looking the wrong way.
    https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/george-pell-team-ignores-evidence-says-dpp/news-story/41d865be5a3fcd910ae0375083e43fd5

    There were no reports that I noticed when Pell’s legal team filed the 1st documents. I may have just missed them. But there is for the prosecution anyway! ‘Pell’s legal team needs to file a reply to the prosecution submissions by February 26.’and ‘A hearing will be held before the full court in March.’

    If that report is correct then I have to bring forward the Pell release date! The countdown is probably less than 50 days! Out before ANZAC day would be a very good bet in this case.

  3. 3 patrickm

    All of your following points, without any exception,

    ‘When they review the evidence they will see that Pell’s usual practice was meet and greet parishioners after mass invariably except not always.
    They will read that Portelli was always by his side but then not always.
    They will read that Portelli couldn’t remember if the exit processions in 1996 were internal or external
    They will read that Portelli says Pell would stay on the steps doing the meet and greet for 20 minutes sometimes 15 minutes sometimes 10 minutes and sometimes 2 minutes.
    But Portelli would always accompany the Arch Bishop to the sacristy
    but then he testified there may have been times when he didn’t. Sometimes Portelli would accompany the AB to the sacristy but not go in with him.
    Sometimes when Portelli wasn’t with the AB Potter would be and Potter testified that the AB never used the priests sacristy that he always used the AB’s sacristy. Potter testified that the alter severs were children when in fact they were adults.
    Mallison testified that he saw Pell robed and alone, Bonomy testified that he saw Pell robed and alone and Mayes testified that he had seen Pell robed and alone and in the choir room within 5 minutes of mass ending.
    Potter testified that the sacristy was always locked but Connor and McGlone testified that it was often unlocked.’

    IF there was no opportunity for the crime because there was no hiatus, are irrelevant dust thrown in peoples eyes!

    As shown by me above the procession got there 1st.

    Having got there 1st the speculative wayward boys had nowhere to hide without being noticed and it just gets worse from that point on for the story no matter when Pell and even if alone is supposed to have arrived!

    YOU and the High Court know there was what ‘…Portelli couldn’t remember…the 2 Christmas exit processions in 1996 were external!!
    Consequently…
    What sickens me in all this is that the Lawyers for the prosecution have to understand what they are doing here. That people can play these dreadful games and then be promoted to judges is headshaking. Shakespeare had it right.

    Now 7 of these types are going to judge and they know all the crap that is done by their sort so in the manner of set a thief to catch a thief they ought to have no problem ignoring such diversionary dust.

    Douglas Adams improbability drive has yet to compute this level of pink ducks all in a row singing Christmas hyms.

  4. 4 Steve Owens

    Yes you are correct the boys entered via the south transept not the altar servers however I still think that Kieth has a slight of hand. He says that the altar servers arrive at the sacristy at 12.08 and then the sacristy becomes a hive of activity but shouldnt he really say that the altar servers arrive at the sacristy 12.08 bow to the crucifix then leave to go to the sanctuary. Then at 12.12 sacred items start moving from sanctuary to sacristy.
    So there is a period where the sacristy is empty as described by J
    Its improbable that all the planets aligned but thats not what the appeal process was about.

  5. 5 Steve Owens

    OK have been watching mass on youtube because I have never been to mass. Yes I see that the altar servers are carrying stuff during the the exit procession so yes they must head towards the sacristy to put those things away bow to the crucifix and then leave to go to the sanctuary where Potter is waiting for people to finish praying before they gather stuff and start the hive of activity.
    The closer you look at this stuff the more you think that J might have something there is a period where the sacristy is unlocked and unattended. If he’s lying its a pretty good lie.

  6. 6 Steve Owens

    “The altar servers and priests are in 2 groups as they enter into the priests’ sacristy. This is where they separately, as a procedure, bow to the cross right at the end wall (south), and finally put down the heavy things they are already carrying (for those that are, as I don’t think the priests are carrying anything) and put them back into their proper storage spaces.

    Only then some of these ‘servers’ start their last job by going back through the priest sacristy door.”
    Can you save me some time I didnt see any transcript where priests stated that they came into the sacristy 1 minute after the alter servers and I didnt see anybody say that only some of the altar servers went out to collect stuff. If you could just point out where you are getting this information that would be appreciated

  7. 7 patrickm

    The top and tail of the same procession are as already explained in my writing, separated by both people -the 40 or so members of the choir- and consequently time and that is about 1 minute!

    The 2 groups that were returning to the priests sacristy were separated by a large choir that they had met on the way going into Mass at the same spot as they now parted on the way coming out. Time schedule meeting is how the two meet going into mass as the 1 all important and leading group coming from the sacristy split into the two sections by starting and after a few then letting in the choir then following after with of course the great man coming last like father christmas at the bloody pageant. On the home run the choir had to turn off and go in the other -eastern- direction into their building after they both got through the first locked door into the toilet corridor -with the tail still coming- but without Pell and his MC portelli who were attending to the politics with the flock at the other end of the cathedral in the West.

    That difference of getting the first group through the back door back into the cathedral and them just strolling on to the end place in the sacristy and the blocked tail getting their chance to come through that back door took about a minute! The priests were in the 2nd group. Is that now clear?

    This question from you is problematic, as you present as a serious researcher interested in getting at the truth of this case yet you seem to be struggling with the very basic issues involved. An unkind person might think you have gone out of your way to at this point know nothing much about it! You already ought to know from the abundant material that has been made available on this matter why there are 2 groups arriving back at the sacristy and that the priests were in the last group! Yet you still have this question!

    If you’ve adjusted to that reasonable thinking, contemplate another problem that devastates J’s story.

    ‘The abused choirboys then entered the choir room, through two locked doors, without anyone noticing, and participated in a post-Mass rehearsal; no one asked why they had been missing for ten minutes.’

    What is the credible evidence that 13yr old sopranoes could do this or even would do this? Why would they take this strange indirect route back out through the south transept around the building and then try to get through 2 locked doors when the alternative was to turn right and go through 1 unlocked door (doors from such places open out) and then only have to get through 1 locked door into the 2nd building where practice is underway? How could they not be missed if the choir had to practice and they vanished for 10 minutes? I’ll give you a hint; there are no genuinely satisfactory answers for these questions. More nonsense must be invented to get through the locked doors.

    After the High Court case is over all this will come out as the great silence is ended. Unsuspecting people are going to then be confronted with what interested open-minded investigators already know. Where will you stand?

    Remember this? ‘During the retrial, the defense demonstrated that, in order to sustain the charge that Pell had accosted and sexually abused two choirboys after Mass one Sunday, ten improbable things would have had to have happened and all within ten minutes:
    • Archbishop Pell abandoned his decades-long practice of greeting congregants outside the cathedral after Mass.
    • Pell, who was typically accompanied by a master of ceremonies or sacristan when he was vested for Mass, entered the carefully controlled space of the vesting sacristy alone.
    • The master of ceremonies, charged with helping the archbishop disrobe while removing his own liturgical vestments, had disappeared.
    • The sacristan, charged with the care of the locked sacristy, had also disappeared.
    • The sacristan did not go back and forth between the sacristy and the cathedral sanctuary, removing missals and Mass vessels, as was his responsibility and consistent practice.
    • The altar servers, like the sacristan, simply disappeared, rather than helping the sacristan clear the sanctuary by bringing liturgical vessels and books back to the sacristy.
    • The priests who concelebrated the Mass with Pell were not in the sacristy disrobing after the ceremony.
    • At least 40 people did not notice that two choirboys left the post-Mass procession.
    • Two choirboys entered the sacristy, started gulping altar wine, and were accosted and abused by Archbishop Pell — while the sacristy door was open and the archbishop was in full liturgical vestments.
    • The abused choirboys then entered the choir room, … missing for ten minutes.
    …Other choirboys (now, of course, grown), as well as the choir director and his assistant, the adult members of the choir, the master of ceremonies, and the sacristan all testified, and from their testimony we learn the following: that no one recalled any choirboys bolting from the procession after Mass; that none of those in the immediate vicinity of the alleged abuse noticed anything; that indeed nothing could have happened in a secured space without someone noticing; and that there was neither gossip nor rumor about any such dramatic and vile incident afterward.’

    ‘Do you now agree that ‘Should the appeal [to the High Court] succeed, the Victoria Police should review the adequacy of the police investigation of these serious criminal charges.’ https://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article/truth-and-justice-after-the-pell-verdict# Or do you think there ought to be an independent inquiry or as the premier would have it nothing at all?

    ‘Victoria police commenced an investigation one year before any complaints had been filed. During that investigation, the police took out newspaper ads seeking information about any untoward behavior with minors at the St. Patrick’s Cathedral in Melbourne —without any hint of such misbehavior having been received by the authorities.’
    https://news.yahoo.com/why-case-against-cardinal-george-220712305.html;_ylt=AwrJ7GA2zXVcvA8AJUwL5gt.;_ylu=X3oDMTByMjB0aG5zBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzYw–

    1/ Is it your view that all the Catholics (with perhaps the exception of the potential child rapist George Pell) were attempting to tell the truth to the court? Or do you cast doubt on their honesty?

    2/ Do you appreciate that all of your points, IF there was no opportunity for the crime because there was no hiatus
    AND that means no empty room for 5-6 minutes -now swollen to 10 minutes are irrelevant! And do you understand that means they (the wayward boys) had to work out how and when to come in and then have time to do stuff and that men were just off to the sanctuary to get something to bring back and put away? Can you grasp that there was never a large enough slab of time?

    By the time the servers got there the room had been unlocked for them by the sacristan Max Potter as usual. Potter wasn’t always an old and feeble man trying to remember events of 20 years past and being confused about the years when the Bishops sacristy became available again etc. Potter was at the time a key person for the High Mass ‘performance’ that knew what was to be done by whom and when and was working to his routine. The well-known show most probably ran smoothly because no one had any specific memory of either day. No one recalled any notable event from the 2 possible days except the priest on the front steps for the 15th whose mother embarrassed him in front of the new bishop. That indicates that the usual events went… as usual.

    But I say Christmas is a notable time for 13-year-olds and it goes against J’s credibility that these 2 days were pinned down and agreed from his 6mths range of a possible timeframe. How pathetic.

    To remember what was done at work 20 years ago in a non-memorable normal day is the very problem all of these people have got. Nothing happened and so the prosecutors played games. As shown by me above the first processionists carrying stuff got to the room 1st because they had to.

    You didn’t even know what way was South nor that they were carrying stuff and that is par for you. The altar servers being there excluded the boys from the room until YOU say it later became available! How did the boys know it was occupied without being in a position to look in? If they did look in did the men, there already, then not remember -that this very unusual appearance of choir boys looking in at them- happened? When and how could the boys know when to make their later move? Where could they hide until then? What would make them aware of the subsequent full availability of that room? With all those men in there how could they know when ALL were out again without poking their heads in? How did they get the right count to realize the coast is clear ‘let’s find the wine’?

    I say that you have to prove that this room did become available for we have no evidence that it did other than the garbled evidence from the mentally troubled complainant who did not even remember that the incident of his rape happened 10 or much more probably 3 days before Christmas 1996! This is the man who said they stole red wine that was later proven to have been white!

    I have said the room never became available from that point of return onwards and the clock goes tick tick tick. Everything has to happen by 11 minutes after the start of the regression and it patently can’t.

    The priests’ sacristy had concelebrating priests who arrived about 1 minute later in the second tranche STILL THERE and boys in red dresses could not just wait outside for people to depart so that they could sneak in behind! The fact that altar servers got there 1st means any real boy would remember that they couldn’t get in there because they had to first be somewhere else having made an improbable escape from the procession that was on its way to the scheduled after mass Christmas choir practice.

    But that means that the time is still ticking, ticking ever onwards for the imaginary boys as they are out in the L shaped corridor or in the Cathedral. There is nowhere else for them to be. But they can’t be there and not be spotted by the responsible adults of not just tranche 1 but also tranche 2 and other people like money people and female teachers that were about lots of adult catholic people even Potter who was about!

    BTW I missed 2 words ‘Only then some of these men the ‘servers’ start their last job by going back through the priest sacristy door’

  8. 8 Steve Owens

    The Catholic church has spent many millions of dollars defending George Pell. I think that they have a good case to get a substantial refund. As you have shown the altar servers get to the sacristy before the choir boys, the priests then arrive at the sacristy one minute later. The priests and some altar servers occupy the sacristy for the duration of the time that the offending was supposed to occur. Well done problem solved.
    I am mystified as to why the defense didnt just present the case as you have done.

  9. 9 Steve Owens

    OK I see now that you have corrected the error about some altar servers staying in the sacristy.

  10. 10 Steve Owens

    The whole case rests on whether the sacristy was unoccupied as only 2 people have testified that they have memories of those dates and ones memory was about the steps not about the sacristy and the other is J. We are reduced to what people did as a routine and have no insight into whether those routines were varied on the days in question.
    Windschuttle produced a time line that has the altar servers arriving at the sacristy at 12.08 and then the sacristy becomes a hive of activity.
    I have suggested that the altar servers arrive at 12.08 put stuff away and leave. They go to the sanctuary.
    Patrick you have gone with Altar servers arrive at sacristy 12.08 and then priests arrive at sacristy 12.09
    You seem to be alone with your priests theory as far as I can see the defense didnt raise it and Windshuttle doesnt include it in his table. As far as I know no priest has come forward with the suggestion that as part of the routine they followed the altar servers into the sacristy one minute after the altar servers arrived.
    So where do you get this vital piece of information? You just cant assume that the procession minus the choir heads to the sacristy. Seeing that we are basing our calculations on what was routine we need to know what the priest’s routine was and judging by the defense argument it wasnt to return to the sacristy immediately following the processions ending. Ive never been to mass but I have attended a protestant service that had 2 pastors after the service neither rushed back to their change rooms one greeted parishioners on their way out and the other mingled with the crowd. People wouldnt rush away there was a tendency to stay to be social to talk religion even I remember once to argue about whether the church should refurbish the organ or give the money to the poor. No prizes for guessing that the organ got a refurbishment.
    So I think that you have assumed too much and we are left with Windshuttle’s idea that the servers would have returned so quickly from the sanctuary that there was no possible opportunity or you can go with me and say that the servers may have been at the sanctuary long enough to have created an opportunity.

  11. 11 Steve Owens

    Just to be clear I have nothing against holding an inquiry into the Victoria Police its been 2 years since they announced a Royal Commission into the Victorian Police I guess that its high time for another one.
    I would prefer a standing inquiry like ICAC into the police from what I gather theres plenty to investigate
    https://www.hrlc.org.au/news/2018/12/3/royal-commission-into-victoria-police-scandal-welcome-but-lawyers-and-experts-call-for-immediate-police-accountability-reforms

  12. 12 patrickm

    ‘The High Court of Australia will hear the appeal against his conviction on March 11. The full bench of the court will adjudicate.’ https://www.bignewsnetwork.com/news/263918936/cardinal-pell-innocence-or-guilt—now-a-matter-for-the-high-court if Chris Friel says so, then I will take it as rolled gold! So we only have 36 days to go till the final appeal! Not much point explaining the issues beyond this point as we will know if I am basically right then or shortly after (I expect him to be released if not on the spot (unlikely but NOT impossible then within the month of March), so this is probably the last I will say on the stupidity of this conviction and the looming 7-0 result.

    Faced with the direct question over the need for an inquiry, Steve had to think about it. He first returns to the usual straw in mouth muck covered peasant like appeal because for Steve the real story is currently for the well paid and highly qualified ‘betters’ to establish! Well that won’t be long now, and Steve now knows a second train is just waiting in a siding! Andrews wants to derail it; Steve says he has nothing against this train and no reason to derail it. Good oh, but we will see how he helps to get it past Andrews and the others who will fight tooth and nail against it.

    Beyond this point I want to work on getting past Andrews and securing the inquiry that is so desperately required so I will not be inclined to engage further or directly with people that still think George Pell is any kind of pedophile. As I have indicated before Chris Friel has done sufficient work on the other dropped charges to not require much of an effort to expose them from me. So that said. Where are we at?

    First let’s review where we have got to and what’s our common base line now that we know the procession got to the sacristy 1st? For a moment I propose we forget everyone else and ask where are the red dress wearing 13yr old wannabe oenophiles? They are supposed to now be on the loose and back in the Cathedral but where? They 1st made an astounding escape back past about 40-50 men and boys. Not a soul noticed they were off in a direction that made no sense. Having gone around the long way we knew they had to lose this race. But it didn’t matter because the procession would turn up and spring them quaffing anyway. So now they had to wait for the sacristy to become available.

    Where were they waiting and how did they know when to make their move?
    After 10 minutes of escape from the responsible adult supervision they are going to have to get back through 2 locked doors that they have no keys for and enter choir practice room tear stained but unnoticed and then sing as good as ever.

    Nothing I have heard ever explains how this could all be done.
    Windschuttle does not just produce ‘a time line that has the altar servers arriving at the sacristy at 12.08 and then the sacristy becomes a hive of activity.’ he has the first group arriving and the other group then comes a bit later. He does not say if the first or last is the full time 6 minutes but we can guess that it is the last from his ‘positions allocated to participants’ comment. I am not alone at all; Steve is. Here is the full quote;

    ‘The procession after Mass was headed by several adult altar servers, followed by the choir in the order of sopranos first, then altos, tenors, baritones and basses—sixty choristers in all [not 40 my bad, but a very much stronger point is made]—then more altar servers, followed by priests, cathedral officials and, finally, Archbishop Pell. [pars 325, 364]

    The six minutes taken by the exit procession to move down the centre aisle of the nave of the cathedral, to go through the west door, and to take an external path back to the rear gate of the cathedral, and go from there to the priests’ sacristy, has been recently paced out and timed at the cathedral itself by a source I trust. [I will accept this on face value]

    The six minutes required for the exit procession is also the same that cathedral officials today say it takes the entrance procession for a Solemn Mass to move from the priests’ sacristy to the cathedral’s rear gate, and then via external procession to the west door, and then up the centre aisle to the positions allocated to participants inside the cathedral to celebrate the Mass.’

    Thus ‘to the positions allocated’ indicates total time and this was not my understanding but I will accept this because even so the basic problem still stands completely unaddressed. 6 full minutes PLUS is thus gone and that represents all the time that Potter had left for those in private prayer after the official mass had ended.

    The sacristy is where we now agree the procession was going to and their arrival there thus excluded a wine tasting for all that period and it also does for another 3 or 4 minutes after that BECAUSE that is taken up by the mundane process of putting things away and chatting and going out again through the same door into a choir-boy clear passage at least until these responsible men could disappear sufficiently for the 2 hiding boys to come back the other way and enter the room.

    Where were these boys at that moment? How did they or could they, know the coast was clear? Nobody has an explanation because there is none except the lawyers stunt! That was the best they could do and they had to retract that, but left the thought that where ever the procession men were, people were supposed to know where they were not -because J and R were there- and we have J’s word on that!

    Look at the floor plan; what are the possibilities and what did J say about this? We don’t know but somehow this is not in the judges minds. J just said he was in the sacristy with R poking around and participating in a Sunday wine tasting because apparently getting up to mischief, well that’s what 13 yr olds do.

    I think I now see at least a part of the problem that was just a confused old man who was once a sacristan, Potter. I now think I know what his method actually was at the time and that was to watch from the sanctuary until the procession had gone all the way out the west door and then himself taking the lectionary with him making a move over to his area of responsibility, the sacristy, where he would unlock it and open the door and where within he would place the lectionary. The sacristy has a 2 door entrance and as I understand it one door was all that was opened and held back with it’s floor bolt or whatever. By the time Potter had got there and had done all this the first of the procession would be coming in the back door. When they did he could go at whatever pace he chose but mild security issues suggests with some haste, back to the altar area, the sanctuary. Potter thus takes the route that the wayward wine tasters were supposedly coming along in the other direction! Potter would be the very first blockage to them hiding in that part of the corridor see floor plan. https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2019/10/pells-new-appeal-and-this-hiatus-this-gp/

    Naturally feeble old Potter never saw any boys but then they weren’t there anyway!

    This is a very major problem for the prosecution to overcome. It starts a chain of impossibilities that in the end were so blatant that the defense just ‘dropped the ball’ in a state of overconfidence. They had already ‘won’ and yet that was not how the jury was reasoning (if such a word can properly be used to describe what they were in fact doing) and that was falling for a 1-2 stunt.

    The 7th Day adventist church spent many dollars defending Lindy and Michael and it did them no good at all either! Nothing could break through till the matinee jacket was discovered and everything then changed straight away. The entire case was fabricated just as this case has been. None of what J has said is real.

    Throwing about your utter contempt for my capacity to reason is only demonstrating faith in your ‘betters’ to sort this out. Yet you have already changed your stand and believe Pell will be released. Steve now thinks Pell ought to be and for more than just the old reason. Word on word, not being good enough to suit you, was nasty but hell what can one do it’s the current law you thought! Now the case for you is NOT proven beyond a reasonable doubt no matter what the jury and the majority have had to say. Steve thinks differently now.

    However, just to change a little more thinking; how does the concept of precedence work for lining people up for this Sunday High Mass catholic procession at St Patrick’s Cathedral in Melbourne? I wonder -as just the 1st ‘for example’ that springs to mind- where Steve thinks the deacons are in the procession? Where does a Monsignor fit in? Short answer to all this is Steve not only knows nothing but delights in not asking the catholic people who do know and that is not me. I just grasp the very basic point that there is a hierarchy and it matters to the people involved. They know how it works. Nothing random about this and they come back as they went out; that is as hierarchical seniority protocol dictates. It’s just what they do.

    Monsignors, Priests, Acolytes, Decons, Bishops. different altar servers, how do they all line up? I think we don’t even need to know past the flippant expression that Father Christmas comes last. It flows from the lowest to the highest. Two of that list are usually the same BTW but not always but I digress…

    Hell; even Steve knows about protocol, so what is this feeble minded attempt to pretend that they all end up back at the sacristy at exactly the same time? That’s not possible. So what is the time span between the first one’s carrying the incense and the next being the cross and the next being the big candles then the REAL gap where the choir was followed by the more senior people who did NOT stop with Pell out the front (only Pell and his MC did that) as the 2nd tranche carrying the mitre and crozier as another example of something to be put away? https://sites.google.com/site/olwservers/server-notes/1115-mass-notes-1/mitre-and-crozier-bearers-at-solemn-mass The concelebrating ‘priests’ WERE in that second tranche that you are desperate to disappear and these more senior people did NOT have to go and get stuff from the sanctuary. That fact destroys the case entirely.

    Court proceedings have kept people in the know silent to this point BUT the great catholic silence is about to end with that final High Court process and then they will all be free to speak out. SO that next train is also coming it’s just waiting in a siding for the priority train to pass and unsuspecting people will be run over by it! Steve won’t be, he’s now been told it’s parked in that siding. It will want to go to a place called inquiry.

    Now what is it that the altar servers actually do when they get to the sanctuary? How many things are they going there to get? What is the turnaround time for each separate task? It’s evident to me that people are very visual and not so good at listening. These are questions that a good documentary or a block buster film will shock people with as they are demonstrated rather than talked about. Seeing this on the big screen will stun people if even half of the impact is achieved that I can imagine. Perhaps Sam Neil as the cardinal and Jack Thomson as Potter? I digress again…

    These after procession tasks are after all mostly only a fetch and carry exercise to retrieve a known and regular list of items for safe storage. What is that list? BUT just fetching 1 item completely stuffs up the opportunity window! What is a missal? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missal What time does it take to go and get a Missal? You just pick it up and turn on your heel to bring it back to put away. That is it; really! Carrying a pretty heavy Missal back. There really ought to be a drinks trolley type arrangement with modern oc-health and safety issues but again I digress…

    All the way out from the sacristy through the single corridor system out of direct view for a minute or so then back along the same corridor path into the scene of what was otherwise a children’s wine tasting party! Just 1 trip going away and coming back going in and storing and coming back out dominates the door and space of the sacristy for 2 minutes easily! What else do other altar servers go and get? Why did Steve use the misleading term dismantle? Where did that time consuming though come from? What was it that Steve though was being dismantled rather than just picked up? How long before the first man to get out to the sanctuary was back again in the sacristy and interrupting the wine tasting session let alone any other activity?

    Passing through the common space of the single corridor going to and from? How does a person who left the sacristy to get this item from the sanctuary to simply bring back make the opportunity for offending more possible?

    Is this 1 object brought back totally catastrophic for opportunity and so does the case fail? YES, I think it is and does.

    Sacristan Potter said he gave people a bit of private prayer time (on memory 5-6 minutes) but he knew when he had to be in the corridor unlocking the sacristy and opening the door for the coming procession. He knew what he was doing when young enough to be doing it! It WAS unlocked and they went in to put their stuff away. No kids swilling wine at that point and so Steve is now obliged to clear them all out as the stunt does.

    Steve says the priests were probably somewhere else! That is what the stunt says and more! But it makes zero sense.

    But even if the priests had all ducked out the back for a game of two-up that Missal is heavy and it is coming back. Sacred ‘valuable’ stuff is soon moving towards the sacristy. The hive of activity movement within the opportunity time frame is along a path where red dress-wearing, wine scoffing, just teens can’t hide. The boys can’t even know when to enter the priest’s divesting space!

    All they could even see if they could see anything at all would be for some time people coming out of the sacristy door! How could they keep count of how many were coming out when they had to know exactly how many went in?

    Full time ran out after what…11 minutes? But we are not looking for full time at this point. When is the 1st man coming back with a sacred object? That come back splits the second 5-6minutes in half and thus destroys the case entirely. The charges are false BECAUSE there was no Opportunity.

    We created two (generous to ‘L’) halves to his 1st story. The allocated precession time being 6 minutes x 2 (till the boys are wine charged but singing like larks again). That is 12 minutes for the window of opportunity. So it is now only the second half time period we have to consider. The first 6 minutes are gone and the men are all inside the sacristy and about to all empty the room again and thus create and leave open an available space. The whole case relies on -to be correct- no one returning in that crucial period nor any other people turning up! Why ought that be considered even plausible? It had taken for the big procession 6 minutes clearly it would only take about half that to go about half that in a ‘there and back’ manner. 1.5 minutes out grab missal 1.5 back! 3 minutes later the room is disrupted again.

    So then the second half was split in half when the first altar server brings back the first sacred object from the sanctuary that they were out there to get! They went to get something and they didn’t wait around anywhere else they went and got whatever it was. Then after 1 or 2 trips, they went off to the ‘workers’ sacristy’ to themselves disrobe and go home for lunch!

    All this is going to make a very good film drama! Perhaps the director could overlay in ghostly pale the make-believe of J and courtroom recounting scenes with what is actually happening; overlayed just to drive the point of this madness home to an audience gripped with anger and shame at what they had been led to believe.

    We have established that men carrying things get to the sacristy before any choir boys could and we have proved that the church has a main door in the west a back door in the east and that logic tells us that when facing west, south is on your left. These points seem trivial and just a matter of fact but when dealing with a dissembler determined to not understand one has to get every point nailed until the inevitable silence unfolds. That silence is also coming!

    The ‘mitre and crozier’ were brought back from the front steps just as father Christmas has a reindeer and sleigh float that gets moved on when he steps off on Nth Terrace! Everything goes somewhere as Sherlock Holmes tells us.

    Pell in his managerial style, stayed out the front doing the politics that make very good sense for any new Bishop trying to have an impact with his flock…except in retrospect he needed proof that he was standing out there in public! The others had finished work for yet another mass and were off to divest and get to lunch. All this Steve style speculation about totally dissimilar religious Sunday services is simply dust. But it points out that the police should have full detailed records of several of these regular sunny day Sunday mass events and the comparison timing ought to be very well known to them.

    An inquiry would reveal what they actually took the trouble to establish, before setting all these funds in motion and all these people to work consequently all this suffering etc. They had no business bringing on these charges.

    Catholics that go to the St Patrick’s Cathedral in Melbourne for the Sunday High Mass can tell anti-Catholics if asked that the practice of the Bishop prior to Pell was not to stop on the steps in the heat etc and do the meet and greet but to continue the procession and get on with his day straight away. ALL of the rest of the procession got on with their day. That remained the case with Pell except that he and his MC stopped out front in the protestant manner. Pell was the one who introduced this rather common Anglican and protestant practice. Roman Catholic practice was to remain more aloof. It was just him and his MC that stopped out front to press the flesh in political terms. That is not in dispute.

    Others such as ‘priests’ were concelebrants of these Sunday events. That is also well known. This is not a Patrick invention that Steve can dismiss. Nor is it possible to misplace them in the procession. Father Christmas comes last! The hierarchy is evident in the precession. The reason the priests arrive at the sacristy one minute after the first tranche is because of the time it takes for the choir to get out of the way as they turn right. There is a simple traffic jam in the toilet corridor.

    ‘The priests and some [back and forth] altar servers occupy the sacristy for the duration of the time that the offending was supposed to occur. Well done problem solved.’ You bet. That is why it will be 7-0. Not long now!
    *******************
    ‘OK I see now that you have corrected the error about some altar servers staying in the sacristy.’ That is NOT what I have done at all. What I said in full context was…
    ‘The altar servers and priests are in 2 groups as they enter into the priests’ sacristy. This is where they separately, as a procedure, bow to the cross right at the end wall (south), and finally put down the heavy things they are already carrying (for those that are, as I don’t think the priests are carrying anything) and put them back into their proper storage spaces. Only then some of these ‘servers’ start their last job by going back through the priest sacristy door.’

    This last sentence could have better been put ‘Only then some of these, the ‘servers’, start their last job by going back through the priest sacristy door’ or ‘Only then some of these men, the ‘servers’, start their last job by going back through the priest sacristy door’. It’s quite stunning what a misplaced comma can do to meaning especially when people of ill will are about and looking for opportunities to dissemble.
    But now that we must think about this the more precise wording changes nothing in practice. It changes nothing because the point is people are coming into the room and from that point some are staying for the ‘duration’ and others just coming and going perhaps a couple of times in the relevant period! The absolute conclusion is that there was no opportunity for any crime because noncriminals were not able to be out of this space for any length of time that would even permit the wrongdoing of the wine finding and stealing let alone what was then said by the mad and bad man ‘J’ to insanely follow.

    Incidentally the scoundrels that have used this troubled man J, are fully responsible for what now becomes of him and I am genuinely concerned about his wellbeing after the 7-0 decision.

    Steve says; ‘I have suggested that the altar servers arrive at 12.08 put stuff away and leave. They [everyone] go to the sanctuary.’ But why should they leave? They are in the place to divest why not divest and go off to lunch? How many people are needed to fetch and carry how many things that are in the end the sacristan’s responsibility anyway and he has the juniors, the ‘servers’ to help him? I have deduced from the evidence that there were 2 tranches and you have failed to understand this. That reality took up yet another minute of precious time! Tick, tick. Even if it took 6 minutes they can’t all be finished and out in 8. That is just not how these people move! They are not soldiers with a sergeant major shouting at them move, move, move!

    ‘You seem to be alone with your priests theory as far as I can see the defense didnt raise it and Windshuttle doesnt include it in his table.

    IS THAT SO…
    https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2019/10/pells-new-appeal-and-this-hiatus-this-gp/

    …it is just not in his apparently OVER simplified table, yet it is clear in his article. Everyone knows this but not Steve who has forgotten to read!

    Try this from Windschuttle…
    ‘The procession after Mass was headed by several adult altar servers, followed by the choir in the order of sopranos first, then altos, tenors, baritones and basses—sixty choristers in all—then more altar servers, followed by priests, cathedral officials and, finally, Archbishop Pell. [pars 325, 364]’

    Steve says ‘As far as I know no priest has come forward with the suggestion that as part of the routine they followed the altar servers into the sacristy one minute after the altar servers arrived.’ Everyone but Steve understands that there was a second tranche that arrived about 1 minute after the first! I am not alone you are!

    ‘…I think that you have assumed too much and we are left with Windshuttle’s idea that the servers would have returned so quickly from the sanctuary that there was no possible opportunity or you can go with me and say that the servers may have been at the sanctuary long enough to have created an opportunity.’

    NO there was no possibility of red-dressed boys hanging around anywhere else waiting for a 2nd opportunity. Each minute counts and so does the number of people and their status. It is now a screamingly ridiculous case that requires an investigation. The legal issues are over for me I now want to get at the culprits. Australians deserve better.

    I’m not sure what the Catholic Church has paid out for the legal costs but the police believed Pell was a pedophile -when he never was- and they grabbed uncritically at any complaint that was made against him. The victim in all this is George Pell. The victimizers are the police investigators, the prosecutors, and the ABC/ Guardian types that are generally anti-catholic but totally anti-Pell propagandists.

    Milligan says ‘It’s the ultimate David and Goliath tale of a young man who never sought fame, just wanted justice, against a well-resourced defendant who has for years cultivated and been supported by the powerful.

    Imagine taking on Cardinal George Pell: the third most senior person in the worldwide Catholic Church. A man supported by two former prime ministers who didn’t spend a minute in court, didn’t hear or read a word of your evidence and yet nonetheless, by implication, branded you a liar.’

    But she can now imagine 7-0 from the High Court telling the world that this case stinks!

    Milligan says ‘The trauma and anxiety for all involved — J, the family of his dead friend, the entire community of people who have survived industrial-scale abuse by Catholic clergy in this country — cannot be underestimated.’

    Utter anti-catholic rubbish.

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08-21/george-pell-appeal-failure-no-surprise/11435046 Milligan will have to face up to this defeat.

    The high court will find for Pell after doing exactly what she called for and that is give it their undivided attention. I have given it mine as well and now I’m going back to Syrian and Turkish matters.

  13. 13 Steve Owens

    I have no idea how the high court decision will go. The workings of the legal system are a mystery to me. I was surprised when Pell was found guilty on the uncorroborated testimony of the complainant just as I was mystified to learn that Pell was not convicted in the Philip Island inquiry because there the complainant had corroboration.
    At the time 1962 he had warned another child who as a man came forward and said that the complainant had said “just watch out for big George” and that the complainants ex wife said that in 1975 he had told her that he had been sexually interfered with “by a big bastard named George” and that in 2000 he had phoned her to say that he had seen his molester on TV and his name is George Pell. Now that complainant had corroboration but the allegation went no where after the retired judge heading the inquiry said that the warning to the other child wasnt explicit enough.
    Now I know nothing of the Church or the Courts they both mystify me but I do know a bit about AFL and if an umpire misses an obvious free they will often award an even upperer at the next contest you see it all the time but umpires always say that they dont do it. I visited the Remand centre some years ago and ran into a guard who I went to school with and he gave me a bit of a tour. During the tour he said that every prisoner here was in for a crime but not necessarily the crime they were charged with.
    Anyway good luck now that you have completed your writing on this thread and we will see if the High Court bares any resemblance to the AFL

  14. 14 Steve Owens

    http://brokenrites.org.au/drupal/node/36 This is a good example not only of Pell’s prior but the way the church was able to brush this under the carpet. Clearly this was a police matter but the church was able to get away with an internal review headed by a retired judge. The judge was paid by the church to do this review.

  15. 15 patrickm

    Before you go any further with this tack READ THIS
    https://www.academia.edu/39313677/The_Credibility_of_Phillip_Scott

    You don’t know what you are talking about yet! This thug and life long crim got a whole chapter in VOL 4! I presume you don’t know. So just read up on what you are buying and onselling from the usual suspects.

  16. 16 Steve Owens

    Seriously? You think that an organisation approached by a person who claims that a prominent member of that organisation has committed crimes of a sexual nature against children, that the correct response is anything other than advise that person to go to the police.
    You think that in these circumstances it’s OK for that organisation to hold an in house review where it pays all the people who conduct the review. Seriously?
    Plus the time honored practice of character assassination of people who report crimes is beneath contempt.

  17. 17 Steve Owens

    I should be very clear here if someone approaches an organisation with a child sexual abuse allegation the organisation should not only advise the person to go to the police the organisation should approach the police for gods sake its not that difficult organisations like the catholic church have memorandums of understanding with the police and under MOU’s theres usually a regular get together between the higher ups of both organisations.

  18. 18 patrickm

    I propose to use occam’s razor on this issue and below -using the work of Chris S Friel as my underlying template- I have cut and pasted my way to a simple explanation of why the credibility of Phillip Scott is approaching zero!

    Scott is a lifelong thug who was IMV and given the hysterical anti Catholic-cleric mood at the time realistically looking to shakedown the Catholic Church for a tidy little payout! He didn’t get away with it! But Milligan got dirt to fling at Pell and Steve has a ‘Prior’ if you don’t mind! A fucking PRIOR! I suppose it’s hard to see over the curb from where the cruise missal contingent are now meeting.

    Let’s
    ‘… sample the Costigan report into the Trades Union of which Scott was a member. Because the 1980s inquiry into violence committed by the Painters and Dockers Union uncovered links to illegal gambling Frank Costigan devoted a fourth part to SP betting, singling out Scott in chapter 4 (devoted to him alone). Early on Costigan explains the difference between runners who would take bets from punters in, say, hotels, and “controllers,” who would supervise a number of hotels. Phillip Scott, an executive member of the Union from 1978, “carried out this function.” The controller has to install his man in the establishment. “Should the publican raise objection, the supervisor ‘persuades’ him to withdraw by threats of violence.”’

    Scott’s whole life was about getting hold of money in a systematic criminal manner and I am saying that it is reasonable to look at this ‘complaint’ as perhaps an attempted shakedown and as just another example of his trade.

    At the 2002 stage of his life thug work was just starting to slow up as he was now about 52! He will I think be 70 in 2020 and direct thug work is probably, guns aside, now behind him. Scott’s last conviction before the shakedown attempt was for selling drugs and he got 3 yrs for that one! But hey as you get older you get ‘smarter’ and he is a full on liar because his entire life has been a lie. The whole business of his life is telling lies. So IMV as a total career criminal he may well have constructed another one…His whole life had been in the service of workers as a ‘union man’ don’t ya know! Well genuine leftists would not be buying that line. Pseudoleftists on the other hand will attempt to sell anything that they can lay hands on. If it’s a choice between George Pell and a lifelong criminal thug well no guess on who has the ‘priors’.

    This 2002 inquiry that the Catholic church was [in my view stupidly] prepared to undertake is NOT the inquiry for 2020 that ANDREWS and others WILL TRY TO BLOCK. They don’t want that coming inquiry!

    The Sydney Catholics in using retired Judge Alec Southwell QC to conduct an inquiry into allegations made against George Pell who had recently been installed as Archbishop of Sydney are now in 2020 being scoffed at by Steve, as obviously doing something inadequate and what is more inappropriate! Southwell is suspect as far as Steve is concerned. Yet IMV the Sydney Catholic leadership should have told Scott to fuck off and go and tell it to the police! Steve sort of agrees but only sort of. Because…

    …the main point that Steve is trying to get at is that the Sydney Catholic leadership were somehow trying to shield a pedophile from being brought to justice because that is what the leadership of the Catholic church is up to! That is what Pell was up to. He might not have done this, but who cares because he did the earlier one that he got off on! Really? That is what is for sale in Steve world. A world where the catholic leadership are often pedophiles and they protect others of the same ilk in a big pedophile club. No wonder any story at all can get a guernsey in this world.

    If you can just create even an impossibly stupid 5 minute window of opportunity anytime in the last 40 years or so well hell that’s at least time to rape 2 choir boys! We know that because we have a finding of ‘fact’ from an independent jury that ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ that IS what happened! No mucking about with all this weirdo grooming stuff. No getting to know your victim and no plotting a way to exploit a vulnerable person; no time for all that usual pedophile stuff. Who cares that the parents might be the chief of the police force and a supreme court judge; apparently kids will say nothing, not even to each other! Did someone say KFC or perhaps gullible idiots?

    So long as it’s Pell we’re talking about everything is believable even Philip Scott and his ‘I’m not dodgy assss and his I never knew he was a crook and that was how I had my lifestyle paid for’ estranged wife!

    Where is the truth in all this bleats Steve; how can we really ever know? All we know is this Scott case was a prior; and this is important to spread about now when others are calling for an inquiry, just ask my mate Milligan and her pals in the ALP and the ABC! Just ask David Marr! No I don’t think I will beccause I’d rather kick the shit out of yet another stupid example of what Pell has had to put up with from the rats of the pseudoleft.

    The Philip Scott ‘case’ is appalling and Steve is blathering about it..

    Steve believes that Pell is a pedophile and he has ‘priors’ that he nonetheless got away with. In other words he has NO prior convictions but he has a file of some other junk accusations that the rats put together (and that is exactly why an inquiry into the SANO is required) and a strong brick wall gets built from piddly little bricks as these! You just have to have enough muck to stick them all together and Steve is more than happy to be a muck spreader.

    But what would the police have done with the little brick thrown by Scott? Throw it on the pile is what. Is Steve suggesting that they would have taken this gross attempt at a shakedown to court? Would any magistrate let it go to trial? No they wouldn’t. There is just nothing there to sustain a conviction and that outcome would then let the church off from a payout to Scott anyway! The Church would never pay compensation after Pell was cleared in court now would they, so Scott the crooked gambler, would never have gone to the police! This complaint -straight from the gutter- was one for the ABC via Milligan!

    Scott’s only chance for the all important payout was the no lose option that he took. Just a little of his time was all he had to outlay. The actual similarity to what the current case is all about is that there is nothing credible in it and that’s exactly why Pell will get a 7- 0 acquittal that the usual suspects will then bellyache about. Steve in throwing around muck to stick these little bricks together is getting in early. Why ought democrats want an inquiry when there are all these other cases that Pell ought to have been convicted on (and ‘inexplicably’ he got off)? Well why indeed.

    Phil Scott refers to molestation said to have taken place in 1961/2 by the young seminarian Pell at a summer camp. The fact that they were at the camp is as we shall see the only connection to the truth but an account sympathetic to the old standover thug and lifelong criminal ‘complainant’ Scott can be found in Louise Milligan’s Cardinal. Scott wasn’t always an almost retired standover man! He was once a 12yr old who was perfect for Pell style (totally unsatisfactory non actual sex) molestation. A dead end complaint for sure BUT this modus operandi will later come in handy for the ABC and Milligan and Steve!

    ‘The Southwell inquiry was set up to establish whether the complaint had merit. It was not meant to be
    “Adversarial,” as per a court of law, so that the inquiry did not attempt to establish whether Pell was in effect
    “guilty” of indecent assault beyond reasonable doubt.’ PELL never (hard to say that in Australia currently) could have been convicted for this in an Australian court. ‘It is clear that in coming to his conclusions one of the key planks for Southwell was the testimony of Scott’s wife, known as “Mrs. C.”’

    …Scott’s testimony certainly required “caution.” He was a career criminal with 39 convictions including a sentence of over 3 years for drug-dealing as late as 1995 (for which he served 2 years). As we shall see, a short chapter of the Costigan Commission (in the fourth part dealing with illegal bookmaking) is devoted to Phillip Scott. However, a key aspect of the husband’s story was backed up by the wife, and in three places the judge reports that he accepted the honesty of Mrs C (though never going so far as to describe her as “patently” honest). For although Scott only complained forty years after the event (having come into contact with “B,” Bernard Barrett of Broken Rites), Mrs C agreed that in 1975 or 1976 her husband had spoken of abuse involving both himself and his friend Michael Foley who died in 1985) by a “big bastard called George.” Much later in May 2000 Scott claims to have recognised that “big George” was in fact the new archbishop of Sydney (or at any rate, an archbishop) at which point he contacted his long estranged wife which is when his wife agreed that the brief conversation that had happened 14 or so years previously, never to be raised again, had indeed taken place. The significance of this “evidence of first complaint” was that it showed that at that time (1975) Scott could not have been making stuff up with a view to compensation’.

    Crims work like others in their part of the lying trades. They construct the case to stand up in court. They anticipate the objections as best they can and then eliminate them. That is their business model and 39 convictions suggests he was not that good at it!

    BUT ‘Costigan notes the long periods off work on workers’ compensation’ so that was a lucrative way to keep the money flowing without having your day taken up with work; that sure gives a man time to think about other scams.

    …Costigan refers to Ray Michael who ran a pricing service in Sydney (providing up-to-date information on odds) to which many bookmakers subscribed so that his books were like a “who’s who” of bookmakers. Scott was one such subscriber. However, it seems that Scott was more than that. For Costigan describes the John-le-Carré-esque procedures of secrecy that Michael erected, that nonetheless Scott penetrated. And the inference was clear that, when a client owed him money, Michael would rely on those such as Scott who had first introduced that client, inducing them by “an appeal to their good nature and principles” (as Michael told Costigan). Costigan resorts to irony when Michael invokes the sacred obligation of confidentiality as akin to the priestly seal of confession. He remarks that “those like me [who] were trained by the Jesuits will know exactly what Mr. Michael meant, ‘Bless me Godfather for I have sinned’.” Next we learn how Michael later went on record as never knowing Scott “at any time” five or six days after receiving a visit from “six or seven painters and dockers including Mr Scott” who had flown to Sydney to say “ hello” to Michael at his hotel.

    Common sense suggests that the wife must have been implicated to some degree in Scott’s dishonest life. She would have known of his absence from work and something of his lavish lifestyle. Despite separating from him, she nevertheless gained financially from his labours. Costigan makes clear that Scott positively flaunted his contempt for the law, something about which Mrs. C could scarcely miss. We cannot help wondering whether, in an effort to persuade, Scott would at times make an appeal to her good nature and principles, especially when drunk.

    Not only (as the defense pointed out) is it improbable that she could recall a common name like George in a conversation that arose just once, never to be spoken of again, but also that she was so absolutely certain about it after a duration of fourteen years, even remembering the year in which the conversation took place. To us it would be more plausible had she said that she thought that her husband had said something like that, at some time or another. Moreover, she remembered also that Scott claimed that he had named Michael Foley as another boy who was abused. Yet it seems as though, despite showing an interest, she never bothered to check the fact with him presuming here that she knew Foley. He was arrested with Scott in 1981 and died in 1985.

    Moreover, it seems very strange that in July 2000 Scott would (a) ring his estranged wife to talk about something that had been “swept under the carpet” when they were together, and (b) discuss, not so much the events themselves of 1961 (as Scott had it), but a fleeting conversation about those events that they had had in 1975, which (c) they fortunately both remembered, and (d) two years later they could both even recall the month of the call which (e) which would help support a story that in 2002 would be revealed as inconsistent. In short, all this gives the impression of contacting someone else who they would not likely contact, and speaking about something that they would not likely speak about, but which at a later date conveniently becomes an alibi to support a story that has started to unravel!

    Steve….‘I was mystified to learn that Pell was not convicted in the Philip Island inquiry because there the complainant had corroboration.’ From the crims wife who was fully aware of her role and the fact that there was zero down side for her!

    A lifelong thug and all round crim said that ‘At the time 1962 he had warned another child who as a man came forward and said that the complainant had said “just watch out for big George” and that the complainants ex wife said that in 1975 he had told her that he had been sexually interfered with “by a big bastard named George” and that in 2000 he had phoned her to say that he had seen his molester on TV and his name is George Pell. Now that complainant had corroboration but the allegation went nowhere after the retired judge heading the inquiry said that the warning to the other child wasn’t explicit enough.

    Steve please, please stop it or you’re definitely going blind or to hell or something terrible will happen to the atmosphere or something. Just accept that ‘Now I know nothing of the Church or the Courts they both mystify me’
    Nobody missed an ‘obvious’ guilty verdict! So ‘an even upperer at the next contest’ is unwarranted. That is so even if it were anyway to let courts (that weren’t Egyptian!!) operate. People with real problems ‘see ‘it’ all the time’ even if ‘it’ just is not how the world is working! We have names for this. It’s not just jaded working stiffs who often believe that ‘every prisoner here was in for a crime but not necessarily the crime they were charged with.’ People don’t have to be Egyptian to think like a fascist.

    ‘Plus the time honored practice of character assassination of people who report crimes is beneath contempt.’
    What character is under attack? This case is part of the current scandal! This gutter trash is why we require a full on investigation.

    What has led to people being so persecuted by the law?

  19. 19 Steve Owens

    Philip Scott may be a bad person who saw an opportunity or Philip Scott may be a bad person who was sexually assaulted by a trainee priest when he was a child. I dont know and you dont know.
    What we do know is that in response to his allegation the church had an internal review and decided that it couldnt decide what had happened.
    My and I think very reasonable point is that any organisation when approached by a person with an historic claim of childhood sexual abuse should tell the police. Is that too hard?
    There is a pattern here if you are looking for patterns and that is the pattern of cover up. An internal review! Would you accept an internal review from any other organisation?

  20. 20 patrickm

    Philip Scott IS a very bad person and Milligan hid this in the way she wrote about him and so did you!

    The Sydney Catholic leadership could not stop standover man Scott talking to the police if he wanted to! Is that too hard to understand! No that is crystal clear even to Steve! So what is Steve actually playing at with this diversion? There is ZERO cover up with this. It was NOT an internal review! Scott couldn’t tell the police, who could not take such junk to a trial even if they had wanted to and as we know they did want to! That is why we want an inquiry. Why won’t Andrews want one?

    This review by a retired judge was the best deal that this revolting crim could get but it did not get him his payday!

    Milligan and you are painting him as an unfortunate victim attacked and traumatised by Pell driven perhaps into a life of crime… well what else could we expect from the cruise missal pseudoleftist? As so often happens with her cartoon characters like the Kid and the Choirboy it ends very badly for Pell’s victim! Heroin, crime, mental disorders and on it goes.

    This matter could not have gone to court so the stupid catholic leadersip in Sydney trying to show they were prepared to subject themselves to an investigation held a credible inquiry. That inquiry despite what is demonstrated about the issue as above, ‘couldn’t decide what had happened’ and that is very generous to the thug complainant given what he had cobbled together with his wife!

    Steve has stumbled onto the next scandal that Milligan is up to her neck in and has partially exposed her in bringing this up but there is more muck coming to block all efforts at unity to get that inquiry all while bleating neither of us really knows what happened -because we would need a well resourced inquiry for that! Hmm I suppose we would!

  21. 21 Steve Owens

    “Steve believes that Pell is a pedophile” No you are making stuff up again
    Pell was accused of sexual assault at Smiths beach and Pell was accused of sexual assault at the Eureka swimming pool and Pell was convicted of sexually assaulting children in St Patricks Cathedral. All I have ever said is that Im surprised that he wasnt convicted of the Smith beach allegation which had some collaboration when he was convicted about the Cathedral allegation which had none.
    Pell should be no stranger to child sexual abuse CSA he was so to speak in the thick of it. He was a senior church figure in Ballarat
    In 1972 he shares a house with notorious pedophile Risdale who he describes as a friend
    He was part of a committee that moved priests around but he suspected nothing in the movements of Risdale despite Risdale being moved 5 times. 14 priests in Ballarat were pedophiles 45 ex students from Ballarat committed suicide 130 claims of CSA were substantiated since 1980. The school St Alipius was virtually a nest of pedophiles. Pell lived in the parish house of St Alipius but he suspected nothing. When asked about Risdales CSA he said that it wasnt of much interest to him. When Risdales nephew brought the CSA to Pells attention he states that Pell advised him to keep quiet. Pell accompanied Risdale to court an act of christian charity no according to Pell he thought that having him there may result in a lesser sentence.
    But this one is the killer in 1974 a teenage boy complained to him that Christian Brother Edward Dowlan was “misbehaving with boys” Pell did nothing, when asked why he did nothing he stated that “The boy wasnt asking me to do anything about it” You have got to be joking a teenager reports CSA to a senior cleric and nothing was done because the teenager didnt instruct him in what the teenager wanted done about the CSA.
    Yes Pell launched the Melbourne response but this was clearly damage control an effort to stop the church bleeding money.
    http://www.brokenrites.org.au/drupal/node/60
    https://www.sbs.com.au/news/explainer/what-cardinal-pell-told-child-sexual-abuse-royal-commission

  22. 22 Steve Owens
  23. 23 Steve Owens

    just in case you missed it
    “Pell chose not to report a serious allegation that a priest was sexually abusing boys at a Victorian Catholic school, because the student who warned him about the abuse “wasn’t asking me to do anything about it’’.

    Pell admitted he should have reported the “very serious” allegation he received that priest Ted Dowlan was “misbehaving with boys’’ to school authorities immediately.”

  24. 24 Steve Owens

    Im glad you have invoked Occam’s Razor in this discussion lets use it a bit more. Lets see if Pell’s credibility stands up under Occam’s razor.
    Now Pell’s position is that he never did CSA or covered up for CSA For this to be true then J must be a liar and Phillip Scott must be a liar and Mrs Scott must be a liar and witness H must be a liar and Les Tyack must be a liar and Lyndon Monument must be a liar and Damian Dignan must be a liar and Dominic Risdale must be a liar and the person who claims he told Pell about his younger brothers abuse must be a liar and bishop Mulkearns must be a liar and the ex Bishop of Melbourne must be a liar.
    So thats 11 liars if we are to believe Pell
    What would Occam’s razor say about a situation where its the word of one v the word of 11?

  25. 25 patrickm

    Before I reply I want you to check this 2010 article out and report back on what you then understand you have wrong from your above posts.

    https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/lynching-pell-works/news-story/3b76a870a5e95528d024b5164c6fa2bb

    enjoy and I can’t wait to see just what you do with this.

    Also witness H has slipped my notice or memory can you tell me or remind me what or where witness H is from exactly so I can be sure to address all of them!

  26. 26 Steve Owens

    Witness H was the lad that came forward as an adult and said yes Scott had warned him to stay away from big George.
    Look I have trouble accepting anything put forward by Andrew Bolt from experience I find that believing the opposite of what he says is more likely to be true and yes I know that I should take each of his claims as they stand but the guy is such a liar.
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/06/andrew-bolt-got-his-facts-wrong-but-thats-not-the-only-thing-wrong-with-his-column

  27. 27 Steve Owens
  28. 28 Steve Owens
  29. 29 Steve Owens
  30. 30 Steve Owens

    See there you go more Bolt distortions “Then a report showed the fire had been lit on just the third day of the camp. On it went. Although Pell was alleged to have abused X repeatedly in front of other boys, not one witness from that camp could be found to corroborate X’s story, although well over a dozen were asked to testify.”
    Bolt doesnt add that there was a fire attended bu the CFA in 61 and one in 62 he just uses the one that suits him. Then theres the not one witness but no mention that witness H came forward and corroborated Scott’s testimony. That why I treat anything that Bolt writes with a long stick he either outright lies or distorts the truth. He has an ideological agenda and never produces anything that is anywhere near balanced. Already in this thread I had to correct him about his OJ assertion but its all part of a right wing narrative.

  31. 31 Steve Owens

    See Bolt writes like he knows that the fire happened on the third day of the camp but the inquiry was not sure whether the camp was in 1961 or 1962. Bolt writes like he can fix an exact date where all the inquiry participants are struggling to fix the exact year.
    “Early in the hearing it became apparent that there was considerable doubt whether the alleged molestation of the complainant took place at a camp in 1961 or 1962. As will be seen, the complainant, who stated his belief that he went to only one camp (and that belief was much in issue) fixed the date by reason of the fact that a fire occurred nearby during the camp in question, and enquiries of the Country Fire Authority (“C.F.A.”) showed that they had attended a fire in the vicinity on 13th January 1961 (during the 1961 camp); accordingly, the complainant fixed that as the date of the relevant camp. However, extraordinarily enough, there was also a fire nearby at the camp of 1962; this information was gleaned from Christus Rex, the monthly newsletter of Braybrook parish; included in the article is the information that both the complainant and the respondent were at that camp. To ensure that the merits of the complaint could be properly investigated, I sought, and in due course obtained, an amendment to the Terms of Reference so that after the expression “in 1961” was added “or 1962″.”

  32. 32 Steve Owens

    Oh we need to make that list 12. Pell claimed that Monsignor Fiscalini also lied in an effort to hide the enormous amount of CSA from Pell. Of course Pell states that he heard rumors but what did it have to do with him he was only these priests and brothers boss.
    I still have no idea about the high court they just decided about whether aboriginal people could be aliens. It seems like a no brainer as the government attempts to deport 2 aboriginal men but it still went 4-3. So 3 high court judges have saw dust for brains.
    https://www.sbs.com.au/news/high-court-rules-aboriginal-australians-cannot-be-aliens-under-the-constitution

  33. 33 Steve Owens

    Well Ive read and reread the Bolt article and I guess you are proffering it as an example of extremely poor journalism.
    Well I agree this article is shite.
    Firstly “First he said in a statement that it was 1961. Then perhaps it was 1962.” How come Bolt doesnt correct this error yes Scott thought that it was 1961 because of the fire report but then people realised that there were fires near the camp in 61 and 62 and that records from the parish put Scott and Pell at the 1962 camp. So where is the correction? Bolt issues no correction to this obvious error why because it doesnt suit his narrative?
    Secondly “Then a report shows that the fire had been lit on just the third day of the camp.” Again no correction surely Bolt knows about the second fire. Why put this in when its an obvious error?
    Thirdly “…not one witness could be found to corroborate X’s story.” Here we go again this is an outright lie what about witness H. It doesnt surprise me that you are unaware of witness H if you are just reading Bolt you would not know he exists.
    Fourthly most of the article is an effort to dirtbag Bernard Barrett. Who cares if Barrett told Scott that he could get money who cares if Barrett told Scott that he could help or even write a victims impact statement.
    If Scott was after money then what he says makes no sense. If he says as an Altar boy he was abused by some low level priest then the church would have conducted a much more victim friendly investigation but if you say it was the Bishop then the church goes from a judgement based on the balance of probabilities to a judgement proven beyond reasonable doubt.
    So thanks for highlighting this thoroughly crappy piece of journalism I will add it to my Bolt collection.

  34. 34 patrickm

    My man says …
    ‘The Kid, incidentally, actually went to the police, a feat Scott never managed, and Scott would not speak about “it” when Milligan visited him in May 2015.’ (CF) https://www.academia.edu/39313677/The_Credibility_of_Phillip_Scott
    Or Steve’s man says…
    ‘So, beginning in 2000, Phil tried to alert the church authorities. Phil emphasised that he was not seeking compensation. And he was not reporting this matter to the police (therefore there is no police investigation into Phil’s complaint).’ (BR) http://www.brokenrites.org.au/drupal/node/36
    And in the press…
    Almost 10 years ago Andrew Bolt in the Herald Sun June 14, 2010 reported his earlier article from the Herald Sun, 10 OCT 2002, Page 019 Complain for gain By: ANDREW BOLT and we consequently learn that nothing was being covered up by the Catholic leadership in Sydney! Bolt had said then…

    ‘But after reading key bits of the evidence, I’m not surprised X refused to go to the police about Pell, as church officials had urged. I can’t imagine them thinking the case, on this material, was worth prosecuting. Yet we’ve now had Pell’s name dragged though the garbage tip, thanks to claims dragged out of an apparently reluctant “victim” in part by an outfit he claims tempted him with huge dollars, and then helped to arrange publicity that could only hurt Pell. And I fear we may see even flimsier accusations made against hapless priests — so long as their kick-me church keeps offering dollars to denouncers.’

    X turns out to be Philip Scott the life long criminal with a taste for easy money! And right back then Broken Rights and Bernard Barrett are in the thick of this smearing of Pell. ‘Sher: Did you tell him there was a $50,000 limit? Barrett: Yes, but that conversation took just a few seconds . . . Then Sher asked Barrett to hand to the inquiry notes he had possibly taken involving X’s complaint. Barrett refused. “I don’t have to show it to you,” he snapped. He had “lost confidence” in the inquiry. He hadn’t thought it would be so “adversarial”. ’

    This effectively answers your big point about what you thought the Sydney leadership of the Catholic church was up to. Either you accept that Scott was told to go to the cops and wouldn’t or you don’t. But if you don’t accept this then it is you who ought to provide evidence for the inexplicable brokenrights view but you can’t blame them!
    You made your muddled claim here
    February 5, 2020 at 8:55 am Edit
    I have no idea how the high court decision will go. The workings of the legal system are a mystery to me. I was surprised when Pell was found guilty on the uncorroborated testimony of the complainant just as I was mystified to learn that Pell was not convicted in the Philip Island inquiry because there the complainant had corroboration.
    At the time 1962 he had warned another child who as a man came forward and said that the complainant had said “just watch out for big George” and that the complainants ex wife said that in 1975 he had told her that he had been sexually interfered with “by a big bastard named George” and that in 2000 he had phoned her to say that he had seen his molester on TV and his name is George Pell. Now that complainant had corroboration but the allegation went no where after the retired judge heading the inquiry said that the warning to the other child wasnt explicit enough.
    Now I know nothing of the Church or the Courts they both mystify me but I do know a bit about AFL and if an umpire misses an obvious free they will often award an even upperer at the next contest you see it all the time but umpires always say that they dont do it. I visited the Remand centre some years ago and ran into a guard who I went to school with and he gave me a bit of a tour. During the tour he said that every prisoner here was in for a crime but not necessarily the crime they were charged with.
    Anyway good luck now that you have completed your writing on this thread and we will see if the High Court bares any resemblance to the AFL
    and here
    February 7, 2020 at 8:23 am Edit
    http://brokenrites.org.au/drupal/node/36 This is a good example not only of Pell’s prior but the way the church was able to brush this under the carpet. Clearly this was a police matter but the church was able to get away with an internal review headed by a retired judge. The judge was paid by the church to do this review.
    And you made it here
    February 8, 2020 at 12:11 am Edit Seriously? You think that an organisation approached by a person who claims that a prominent member of that organisation has committed crimes of a sexual nature against children, that the correct response is anything other than advise that person to go to the police.
    You think that in these circumstances it’s OK for that organisation to hold an in house review where it pays all the people who conduct the review. Seriously?
    Plus the time honored practice of character assassination of people who report crimes is beneath contempt.
    and here
    February 9, 2020 at 1:14 pm Edit I should be very clear here if someone approaches an organisation with a child sexual abuse allegation the organisation should not only advise the person to go to the police the organisation should approach the police for gods sake its not that difficult organisations like the catholic church have memorandums of understanding with the police and under MOU’s theres usually a regular get together between the higher ups of both organisations.
    And then again here
    February 9, 2020 at 3:37 pm Edit Philip Scott may be a bad person who saw an opportunity or Philip Scott may be a bad person who was sexually assaulted by a trainee priest when he was a child. I dont know and you dont know.
    What we do know is that in response to his allegation the church had an internal review and decided that it couldnt decide what had happened. My and I think very reasonable point is that any organisation when approached by a person with an historic claim of childhood sexual abuse should tell the police. Is that too hard? There is a pattern here if you are looking for patterns and that is the pattern of cover up. An internal review! Would you accept an internal review from any other organisation?’

    You fail to notice that the Judge tasked with the inquiry got his terms extended exactly as he sort and yet think you are making an important point as you spread muck and nitpick about Bolt while the big picture escapes your attention!
    Till finally here you said…
    February 11, 2020 at 12:34 am Edit
    See Bolt writes like he knows that the fire happened on the third day of the camp but the inquiry was not sure whether the camp was in 1961 or 1962. Bolt writes like he can fix an exact date where all the inquiry participants are struggling to fix the exact year.
    “Early in the hearing it became apparent that there was considerable doubt whether the alleged molestation of the complainant took place at a camp in 1961 or 1962. As will be seen, the complainant, who stated his belief that he went to only one camp (and that belief was much in issue) fixed the date by reason of the fact that a fire occurred nearby during the camp in question, and enquiries of the Country Fire Authority (“C.F.A.”) showed that they had attended a fire in the vicinity on 13th January 1961 (during the 1961 camp); accordingly, the complainant fixed that as the date of the relevant camp. However, extraordinarily enough, there was also a fire nearby at the camp of 1962; this information was gleaned from Christus Rex, the monthly newsletter of Braybrook parish; included in the article is the information that both the complainant and the respondent were at that camp. To ensure that the merits of the complaint could be properly investigated, I sought, and in due course obtained, an amendment to the Terms of Reference so that after the expression “in 1961” was added “or 1962″.”

    BUT
    Now that you know that what I was saying is more the actual point and that you have been barking madly up the wrong tree you have to switch to just blathering that Bolt is a liar etc.

    You have your answer as to why this inquiry was conducted in the manner that it was.

    It’s no fault of Pell, nor in this case the police, nor the Sydney leadership etc and you also incidentally have some evidence along the way that Brokenrights and Bernard Barrett are up to no good! Why wouldn’t he hand over his notes for example?

    Rather than properly engage with the material you choose to misuse this material to keep throwing the muck.

    It’s your fault you can’t see this until I point it out to you.

    I’m satisfied that you are required to undo your error in thinking as set out in your above posts and at the same time I’m convinced that you won’t really undo anything. There’s been all this time for you to get this correct BUT you have not got it and won’t accept that this is the reality. You can’t be told because you won’t be told. You just keep changing tack rather than facing up to anything! And that is how you will undoubtedly keep going! By not facing up to the muck that you are spreading you can pretend there is really something in this when I -as an open honest and above board contrast to you- am able to find out that there is nothing in any of it!

    You see I started this research with quite similar (biased) thinking towards Pell for example
    I said…
    ‘For all manner of reasons I think Pell is a sick creep, BUT the evidence to convict on the 5 charges just doesn’t add up to beyond a reasonable doubt as I think Frank Brennan and George Weigel demonstrate.’
    And I said
    ‘I suspect, as a result of watching a bloke on a current affairs program….Probably this ‘July 27, 2016: Pell issues a statement denying sexual abuse allegations made on an Australian Broadcasting Corp. current affairs program.’
    …who told of an incident at a pool in Ballarat in 1970s in a very convincing manner. That Pell has been up to no good way back then. But clearly nothing that could convict has been found and put before a court over this. The prosecution kept that case going and only now after it has helped do damage have they dropped it. This is a typical stunt. Those now dropped charges for that – or some similar incident created a background of suspicion and no doubt hatred for some.
    Pell was thereafter up against it until his defense team finally dropped the ball in the second trial.’
    And finally I said…
    ‘In this case Pell is also a dingo but not all dingoes got to eat the baby! This conviction had to have been appealed.
    To protect the likes of Lindy and the rest of us, any unsafe verdict must not stand despite any gut wish to cheer on a conviction for Pell! His appeal ought to be upheld and this Dingo ought to be set free to scurry off back to Rome.’
    Now
    As a result of my now considerable effort to understand the issues that Pell has been dealing with for these almost 2 decades since Scott attempted his little shakedown assisted by the rats that are nested with Bernard Barrett in Broken Rights, I feel that I owe Pell an apology and have no hesitation in making it.

    Pell is an innocent victim of the schemes and lies of these fools and scoundrels. In short Pell’s credibility stands up under Occam’s razor! Just as mine did when a long list of scoundrels pulled the same type of stunt on me!

    Steve can’t and won’t face up to the fact that ‘J’ must be a liar, or R a liar a coward and a fool (or J could be mentally troubled but then he drifted into lying as I showed). Steve knows that R and J can’t be both telling the truth and both were supposed to have been Pell victims! Why has Steve put aside Occam’s razor for that problem? Why is Steve calling R a liar, a coward and a fool? Isn’t the simplest explanation to say enough to such utter rot that has Pell for now a convicted pedophile!

    5 somehow, someway, spare minutes for raping 2 magical kids who can get through locked gates and hide in open corridors and cry then sing etc etc eventually vanish until we all have to throw up at what Pell has been convicted over. This is not how the world works! That is how bad and mad this is. So no matter what Steve is saying in public I say Steve himself doesn’t really believe it anymore! No you don’t!

    Yet Steve is still at least theoretically sticking to the total weight of ALL the muck as a form of guilt and has the number of people that has to be dealt with by me now standing at 12.

    Well let’s just call a halt at that number and see what this lawyers dozen is actually made from!

    Starting with witness H. I take it (just from the lack of detail) that all Steve has from him is the single report (from Steve’s BR source) that ‘Another former altar boy (labelled as “H”) told Mr Southwell that, at the Phillip Island camp, he was warned by both C and A to stay away from Big George.’ Is that it or have you something else to bring to my attention?
    . . .”H”, a patently honest witness, said that he left Christ the King school at the end of 1960, and the 1961 camp was the last he attended. “A”, the complainant and the respondent were among those present. He remembers various frolicking activities, and a night walk where the boys were spread out.
    However, no-one at the inquiry suggested that the references in the Christus Rex parish newsletter of February 1962 were other than accurate, and the lengthy note of the 1962 camp included “H”‘s name among the altar boys present. It follows that his honest recollection as to the date of his last camp is in all probability mistaken, a fact which underlines the great difficulty of fact finding in relation to incidents occurring 40 years ago.
    He said he had a clear recollection of “A”, who, although about seven months younger, “always tended to look after me a bit and he came up to me and he said to me one day, “just watch out for Big George”, and thereafter “I didn’t get too close to him”. . .

    I’ll wait to see from Steve just what I ought to make of witness H; and then I will start on the rest of the list.

    You can also tell me about how you dispose of R as a liar, coward and fool when I don’t think that he is any of these things! Why wouldn’t J and R protect kids from being raped like they ‘were’? Why wouldn’t they make the church pay recompense that was so clearly appropriate? Why would R twice lie to his mother and also never ever speak of the event ever again and just continue for some months with Choir?

    Those questions are quite a stumbling block to a doubting Thomas like me.

    The days roll on and the High Court train is coming in 1 month! That’s IMV what dragging up the rest of the muck is all about. We will have to see what we can do before we conclude as Steve would have us that ‘Pell will be ‘just lucky to get off’…’lucky he only did a year’ etc.

    I currently think what has gone so terribly wrong that this man was jailed because of the rubbish that these creeps in the in-SANO-Brokenrights-ABC goon squad have cobbled together!

    BUT I HAVE A BIG ADVANTAGE.

    For Steve there must be fire where there is so much smoke. Therein lies that usual stunt of the industry of liars that we are dealing with. Steve has the nerve to turn a blind eye to this stunt again! Again!
    Reminder…
    Thug Dean Male says words to the effect of ‘I was just pulling down notices for a student meeting when….
    And then ‘Wife’ Jan Mahoney fills out a statement
    Then Peter Bailey
    …Robyn Ann Williams
    …Ernest Mennie
    …George Kontos
    …Anthony Ward
    …Darryl Burns
    …Steven Miller
    …James Hugo
    …Helen Adams
    …Sacha Sewell
    …Kylie Mitton
    …Pauline Weekly
    …Gillian Brannigan
    …Scott Grist
    …Louise Biggs
    …Kat Grant
    …Christopher McGarrigan
    …Wendy Bithell
    And there are more…..I just have to dig into the muck that was and is Ian Chubb!

    So given what I know of the method I think I CAN explain how this was done to Pell and he only had 12!

  35. 35 Steve Owens

    Damn we have to add 2 more Pell claims he was decieved by Arch Bishop Frank Little and the Education office
    “One Doveton priest was the deranged Peter Searson, who wandered the Catholic school in military clothing, sometimes carried a gun, stabbed a bird with a screwdriver and tortured a cat. He was also molesting many children.

    A teacher at the time, Carmel Rafferty – whose attempts at whistleblowing ended her career in Catholic education – said a delegation went to Pell, Searson’s bishop, to share their concerns, but these were dismissed. Pell told the royal commission that this was because he was deceived by archbishop Frank Little and the education office.

    After she was sacked and the pastoral response office closed, Ms Last set up In Good Faith and Associates to support survivors. She also set up the Melbourne Victims’ Collective, which has 120 members who complain they were traumatised by the Melbourne Response.

    ‘‘I believe Pell set up the Melbourne Response partly to protect himself. I believed that from the beginning … He had no understanding of victim care,’’ she says.”

  36. 36 Steve Owens

    Heres a source about H https://www.smh.com.au/national/exonerated-not-forgotten-20021015-gdfq57.html
    I dont know why you are so muddled. I have never said that I think Pell is guilty.
    I have said that Im surprised that he was convicted on one other persons say so.
    I have said that his actions and statements look very bad for his claim that he has never covered up CSA
    I have said to the effect that many stars would have to align to find that all his accusers are lairs.
    I have said that organisations accused of harboring child sex abusers should not resolve serious accusations with in house reviews.
    If the church urges anyone to take matters to the police and they refuse well thats where the matter should stay.
    I see no point in continuing from my point of view I answer all of your points and you answer none of mine.
    Good day sir.

  37. 37 Steve Owens

    Cant wait for the redacted parts of the Royal Commission to be made public. Smart money says that it will be bad news for Pell. If it was good news it wouldnt have been redacted.
    https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/dark-secrets-could-be-revealed/news-story/dcc63fd7abc93d63fe2c9b2082119809

  38. 38 Steve Owens
  39. 39 patrickm

    That link has a fire wall.

    What point are you actually wanting to make other that to throw more speculative muck? Why do you imply that the RC and the authorities in this latest matter are pro Pell biased and have wanted to protect him?

    Are you hoping that something will be released about something before the HC appeal to achieve something?

    That seams like ‘something, something, something…Pell’s a pedo!’

    The HC is less than a month away now so why wouldn’t people be wanting the HC to get about it’s appeal first before anything else is thrown around? Let me think could this be part of an anti Pell smear method? Pile stuff on make sure never to get anything dealt with and then point to the thickness of the file as guilt by probability!

  40. 40 Steve Owens

    Dont fret, the extensive redactions will be unredacted until after the high court reaches a decision.
    1 the point I want to make is that information regarding Pell in the Royal Commission is yet to be released and wont be released until he has exhausted his appeal process.
    2 Your question “Why do you imply that the RC and the authorities in this latest matter are pro Pell biased and have wanted to protect him?” I have no idea what this question means. Im not implying anything other than there is more information from the findings of the royal commission to be unredacted and Im not suggesting anyone is protecting Pell its just normal procedure to with hold this information until the criminal proceedings have been finalised.
    I am just saying that it will be interesting to finally see what the royal commission thought.
    We will just have to wait for the high court and then wait for the redactions to be unredacted

  41. 41 Steve Owens

    If you want to get past the Australians pay wall you can google Royal Commission redaction news and every time I do that I can access the article as a sample.

  42. 42 Steve Owens

    Patrick this is what disappoints me about your style of arguing.
    On Feb 10 you linked to a Bolt article. In reply Feb 10 I linked to 4 articles that spoke about Bolt lying plus I pointed to 2 errors in his article one his insistence that 1961 was the year in question and secondly his claim that Scott’s story lacked corroboration when clearly and not mentioned by Bolt was that Scott had corroboration from witness H.
    Now you responded at length but ignored the fact that that I had pointed to 2 deficiencies in Bolts account. Your response was that I am “blathering that Bolt is a liar ect” and thats it, you write reams in response but restrict yourself to 7 words on the substantial part of the exchange.
    So just let me recap I don’t put much trust in Andrew Bolt because he is a proven liar and in the article you cite there are 2 glaring errors.

  43. 43 Steve Owens

    You have gone silent again. Bolt has 3 points against Scott’s story
    1 Scott is a person with a criminal history (as is Pell)
    2 the fire occurred on the 3rd day of the camp in 1961 so the boys wouldnt have lit it in retaliation to repeated molestation
    3 Scott had no contemporary collaborative evidence of molestation.
    Point 1 no contest
    Point 2 is a distortion of the evidence that no fair minded person would use (he doesnt mention the fire in 1962 or the documented evidence that the camp was in 1962)
    Point 3 again a complete distortion of the evidence presented. (Bolt says no contemporary collaboration and fails to mention witness H)
    So there we have it you are prepared to use the arguments of a journalist who again and again is found to be a distorter and liar and when I pull you up on this you either produce a mountain of irrelevancies or go silent.

Leave a Reply

*