Speaking of well connected…

‘Following the controversial George Pell trials of 2019, Tony Jones was critical of national debate questioning the guilty verdict, saying it was “disrespectful both of the jury and of the victim witness”. Well now… I didn’t know this but guess who Jones is married to? Blow me down! Sarah Ferguson. The pair came up with REVELATION and with consummate insider ‘get what you want’ placement power, got the whole deal perfectly timed for three crucial weeks. That’s just when Pell would be all over the news. Pell supporters would like a little clear air space to allow people to get at the truth of the new story. The High Court outcome will have produced a ‘victim witness’ with no ‘proven’ credibility whatsoever! But Sarah Ferguson and Tony Jones have thought ahead and tied up the publicly funded air time very nicely. That’s what I call clever. It’s also extremely nasty; but a bloody good earner! Pell and the Catholics will have to fight for air time.

Taking a step back; many have commented on the drama of the live coverage of the lost appeal, and no observer could’ve missed the body language of the dissenting justice Mark Weinberg.  He was fuming and in the end would not even walk out with the incompetent majority!  After reading the judgement one can see why.  No competent ‘involved’ ABC type investigative journalist could have avoided reading all of the reasons; and the even more involved (like Ferguson, Jones) could not have avoided reading it and getting a senior legal view on what is most likely to happen next. Some like David Marr are trained lawyers themselves, so they have a fair idea! By now they ought to have read more or less what I have read, and I would simply say that the facts and Weinberg has compelled an outcome. People can pretend all they like that Pell’s is a difficult case but having now been refined to this extent it’s just not! The High Court has had the spade work done for it by Weinberg. A ‘sensational’ 7-0 acquittal that I called months ago is now looming. So when Pell is freed the ‘ABC’ insiders will be notable for the sneer on their faces. Watch for the sneer because like the acquittal it’s definitely coming.

For the Catholics, the release will I suppose be another reason to believe. Oh well if that’s what floats the boat then let it be a vindication of holding to their faith and even a demonstration of the ‘power of prayer’. But from my perspective just 7 mortals will be involved, and the belief in the power of prayer won’t have extended to Pell ever relying on the next available legal aid lawyer that’s for sure! Praise the lord but pass the ammunition was always more like it!

Yet a simple case where a majority previously stuffed up badly is being fixed; that’s it.

The prosecution of George Pell is just a dead ‘man’ still walking! It’s been shot through the heart and only it’s running momentum carries the corpse onward. It’s an illusion of life. Yet what is crystal clear ought to be happening (an innocent man set free from jail) the ABC insiders will all sneer at! Just watch starting with Paul Barry. Meanwhile Ferguson and Jones will of course rake it in!

Naturally, other ABC current affairs programs like the Drum will put on a couple of Pell supporters but the inside mob will continue as if this is all to be expected when the rich and well connected pay enough money for good lawyers. Token Pell supporters aside, the implication in the coming wall to wall sneering will be that these ‘investigative journalists’ did their best but Pell got away with it AGAIN and he did so because he is rich and powerfully connected etc..

While they’re at it they will take another swipe at coal loving Tony Abbott (Pell is a denier don’t ya know) and war criminals John Howard and Jim Molan! At least Howard was a methodist! The Pell haters of the ABC in-crowd just don’t want this case proved to have been an impossibility and so Pell shown to be 100% innocent, but that is what he is 100% and that is because opportunity for the crime has been disproved.

What they want to say (and will ad nauseum) is that his guilt could not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt and that is all the High Court will have established! They will still refer to the victim and that will not mean George Pell. What they will mean is that the man who has had the mental condition and came up with this crazed delusion really is the victim as was his apparently ‘lying’ mate.

Another national disgrace is unfolding as this previous example is but partially dealt with. When a man who is 100% innocent of the crime he has just spent a year in jail over can’t get clear air from the state sponsored mass media -to properly cover his story- that country has a problem. It’s now March, so George Pell, by my reckoning will be released within about a fortnight and quelle surprise the ABC is currently advertising a 3 part documentary ‘Sarah Ferguson presents REVELATION for 17 March.’

32 Responses to “ABC ROYALTY”

  1. 1 patrickm

    I forgot about this article

    Incredible to me but it’s been a year of slowly working through this utter trash to prove that there is no clothes on this emperor! Nothing at all.

    The nutter never left the procession! The police ought to have known this before they took off for Rome! The whole case spells inquiry.

  2. 2 patrickm

    I think the key players in the ABC (technically not being complete dolts) are well aware of what’s about to unfold. After all, the extremely likely outcome is that after less than all of day 1, a 7-0 decision to hear the matter will clear the courts throat. Then after day 2 ends -and probably early- anything from an hour’s recess later (OK that IS unlikely but not impossible given the nature of this case and if they are all in agreement), to perhaps a delay of a few days or a week, for the HC to then come down with a 7-0 finding in favour of acquittal. Virtually an instant release – yet what is on the telly?

    The High court may take quite some time to publish their reasons but that would not justify delay in their decision. Less than a 7-0 majority would not take much longer to see Pell released anyway. Having reviewed what’s to go before the High Court I find it extremely hard to contemplate less than a unanimous acquittal. When the Victorian Appeals Court delayed I got worried and they had no justification to NOT drag it out -so that Weinberg could do them slowly as he published his crushing reasons alongside the majority. He just crucified the majority. BUT he has done that; it was all over then! When a fair minded person reads the two sets of reasons well… with the very greatest of respect (as they say when they have none) the majority ‘know not their arse from their elbows’ and it showed. It’s not something that one has to agonize over like the Pell haters are pretending.

    It won’t make sense in this case to be in any losing minority. It did for Weinberg, but if you take a long time to make a fool of yourself well what can you do… 4-3 in Pell’s favour would be a shocking outcome. It would cry out on its face as loud as I could want that the laws and the courts that are being so revealed required reform. But Pell would be free and the Catholics and supporters of justice also free to start to produce the now essential exposure documentary!

    I just can’t see 4-3. The HC in this case only has to spell out what the error of a majority in the lower court has been and it is compelled to do very little else. They may well want to, (I think they will) as this is an historical case but that would only delay the reasons not the release. The majority would act to release Pell and publish reasons later. The minority would look like the dolts they were when published either way! Once he is to be acquitted then the majority’s first job is to release him tout de suite.

    But back on planet earth… 4-3, 5-2, 6-1 what would be the point? After what has been refined by Weinberg how could 1, 2 or 3 of them say that ‘I hold these views beyond a reasonable doubt and the lower court was entitled to as well.’ The judges could guess that a documentary or a blockbuster starring Liam Neeson is coming. The film showing how it all works and how it’s impossible to have happened is coming! What will happen with their legal prestige when it has already all been spelt out? Why would you trash yourself with such a blatant blunder of an Albatross case?

    Having both read widely enough, people like me and the ‘Investigative journalists’ and management of the ABC are not expecting a different result. I say we all expect Pell to be released and the following is a great example of why. ‘Sufficient doubt. That doubt would be sufficient to require an acquittal if it attached to even just one essential element of the offenses charged. Justice Weinberg concluded that, “in my respectful opinion, these convictions cannot be permitted to stand. The only order that can properly be made is that the applicant be acquitted on each charge.” Indeed. And so one hopes, and perhaps dares to expect, the Australian High Court to conclude as well, some months from now.’

    Weinberg made the other 2 in the majority look like clowns and ‘with the very greatest of respect’ by now we ought to all know it! So REVELATION for 17 March! That is shocking. The ABC has no one that is calling this out. No one is standing up for Pell’s innocence. The ABC defenders will desperately point to Amanda Vanstone. But though I think she would agree that he is an innocent man I have seen nothing on this matter from her. 4 years ago before this case she spoke in his defence but that is not now relevant.

    This was a landmark case of monumental stupidity on the part of the majority. So even if as a rule I would not favour a conspiratorial approach to most matters, this latest conduct by the ABC has a real smell about it! The ABC is running REVELATION. They have not done the job they boast themselves so capable of, instead they are about to sneer at Pell’s luck in getting away with it again! They are shameless!

    Cardinal George Pell is 100% innocent, and his defence team can and has proved that comprehensively. So have others, quite independently, including me. So I can easily see why he will win the High Court appeal 7-0 and be released almost immediately. I won’t be shocked, nor fall for the obvious line that will literally sneer out of the ABC in-crowd, like Marr, Milligan, Ferguson, Barry etc. Indeed we have already seen it with Paul Barry already sneering away.

    Bolt made a bad blunder, and the pile on was predictable even (ungenerously) deserved, but they made a meal of it and predictably sneered at his apology as well! The ABC got their weapon and used it and as Barry said at the end… if Pell wins, watch this space for ‘Bolt to go on the attack’. As if the ABC is not neck deep in this vicious attack on Pell and as if any fair minded person could do other than go on the attack against the ABC. Bolt and Henderson will go on the attack and it will be correct to do so. But what will that attack amount to? How long until it blows itself out? The problem is the struggle to get the message out …to get to a wider audience than people normally get to. They currently have an audience who largely hold the same view already! The problem is to get to the ABC audience that the usual suspects are guarding access to so effectively preventing balanced access! They have the 1+ billion dollar clout! They can keep the flow of anti Catholic hysteria going even as Pell is winning. I’d be very surprised is they didn’t hedge their bets with a couple of different potential endings for their ‘revelation’. Last minute adjustments will work just fine, after all the point is to piggy back on the Pell controversy and then swamp the Pell persecution issue.

    The compelling fact is that the ABC has not managed with a billion dollar budget to spot what I have for free. I was open to the thought that Pell was guilty and objectively looked at the evidence. What I did they ought to have done! They could have – through the open honest and above board enquiry methods that I have deployed and that they proclaim themselves committed to found out what both myself and the vast bulk of the legal profession already know. They could have behaved in a non biased way BUT they haven’t. Time for Ita to step up and make the board effective against their out of control management and staff. Time to bring this out of control beast to heal.

    ABC bias is THE issue from the start! The demand ought to be directly at the government to do something about this dangerously biased organization. It has got to the point that an obviously innocent man has gone through all this and the ABC is up to their neck in an anti-Catholic attack. Correcting the bias does not mean just the right to a little balance but given how important this is to fundamental principles it requires intervention at board level. The person who ought to lead this effort ought to be Ita Buttrose! The Morrison government ought to demand action at board level. Pell is a victim of the ABC pseudoleftist in-crowd. The demand ought to be for fair time ON the ABC! The ABC must now promote the outcome of ‘our’ investigations that have necessarily gone further than the High Court that will only find not guilty! We ‘others’ have found impossibility for opportunity and thus the 100% innocence of George Pell. The High Court never had that responsibility. That’s for investigative journalists to do.

    Instead we have the ABC!
    They’ve kept their personal and professional lives very separate over the years but are now working together on Revelation for the first time since they met.
    “I have always had the view for a woman, in particular, that it’s very important that your career is considered in its own light,” says Ferguson.
    “Tony has his job and I have my job and they don’t need to cross-fertilise but the reason we brought him in on this project is that he is actually the best television writer I know of in Australia.
    “He’s a fantastic writer and filmmaker, and was so at Four Corners, and we needed that at this stage.
    “We worked together when we first met but haven’t for years since.
    “When you rang me we were just disagreeing about an interview grab in the opening of episode three, but otherwise it seems to be going ok! We try not to talk about the project after dinner, otherwise it’s hard from morning to night.”

    Here are 2 of my comments from before the lost appeal. Pell will have spent another year in jail!
    It looks like Pell will spend 3 months or more in Prison for a ‘crime’ that never had any credibility and so ought never have even gone to trial. Pell was dealing with 5 unsupported and almost self evidently preposterous accusations from 1 man. This man was previously reported as ‘not doing so well’ and from a reading of Milligan it appears that he had some level of mental health issues at the time he made the accusations.

    But crucially the vital change in his story is from locked to unlocked. The man either made up a story or more probably was delusional when he reported the matter to the police.

    The police then took many months to get a cleaned up formal statement from him.

    The truth was that the complainant never knew what the sacristy looked like from the inside because as a choirboy he would most probably never have been in it! The grieving mother had no reason to lie and Milligan knows this.

    The police knew that the complainant changed his story from crimes that supposedly took place behind locked doors to ones that happened while the doors were open!

    As Bolt is pointing out; the beak that has just sentenced Pell in his sentencing remarks simply said that he was compelled in his actions as a result of the Jury; reading between the lines he almost apologized for sentencing Pell, but that’s not the way that the ABC types are reporting this.

    BTW I’m an atheist quite hostile to any hocus-pocus. But this case is one of utter rubbish and as bad as any I have seen. The appeal will be unanimously upheld IMV.
    Posted by patrickmul, Thursday, 14 March 2019 1:01:35 PM

    When a case smells as bad as this one does it has clearly gone into the realm of a manifestly unsafe verdict.

    It is vital to recall that 2 boys were supposed to have been set upon by a Bishop in full regalia after a mass and both of them orally raped and that they then went back to singing and that they kept in contact but they never spoke of it again!

    What we are being asked to accept is that a person who is always after money to feed a drug habit never twigged that he had a rock solid case and a big payout coming from the Church that was regularly paying!

    He and his mate supposedly took no interest in the welfare of any other choir boys. They were treated in this manner but could care less about those that were to follow. Isn’t that typical of men. Only think of what?

    This isn’t thinking it is lunacy pure and simple.

    People have a duty to protect children but their minutes of trauma bring on nothing but a police beat up after a delusional accusation by one of them 20 very odd years later.

    It is no good hiding behind the great wisdom of our police prosecutors and a perverse verdict from a jury because we all know that it was the very same idiocy that produced Lindy’s nightmare.

    This case simply can’t be beyond a reasonable doubt and that is why it will be undone on appeal. But it ought never have gone to trial in the first place. The authorities knew that they were bringing a case that didn’t stack up and ABC journo Milligan knows it as well.

    Pell can’t be convicted of this utter rubbish and it is not just right wingers saying so. I am of the extreme left and I say this madness endangers us all.
    Posted by patrickmul, Thursday, 14 March 2019 3:47:46 PM

  3. 3 patrickm

    Getting exciting now…
    Jeremy Gans is a Professor in Melbourne Law School, where he researches and teaches across all aspects of the criminal justice system.

    ‘This plethora of options is one reason I’m not game (this time) to predict anything about next week’s hearing. Grant or refuse? Decide or refer? Facts or law? Process or substance? Safe or unsafe? We don’t even know yet whether Pell’s case will be heard before a bench of five (the usual number) or seven (for constitutional or other big cases, or if the court is thinking of overruling one of its own decisions). Even the Kiefel court’s most reliable feature — its extreme collegiality — isn’t what it used to be.

    But the lack of predictability is what makes next week’s hearings especially interesting. While Pell’s first appeal was live-streamed, his second will be live-tweeted (from the High Court’s own “overflow” facilities, where phones are permitted). For those who can’t attend, transcripts will be published online each evening and video a few days later. But, as always, there’s nothing like being there.’

    Well maybe he has read to many law books!
    He has another article
    ‘We cannot (and should not) expect a court’s judges to wholly ignore how, in a high-profile case, they — and their processes — will also be judged. In the case of the four judges who denied special leave to Colin Ross, the final judgement came fifty years after the last of them died. In 2007, Victoria’s Supreme Court — relying on fresh evidence — recommended Ross’s posthumous pardoning for the murder of Alma Tirtschke. •’

    It all started with this type of article and the alibi was real all along!

    100% innocent!
    Every bit of this junk case fell apart when you take a close look. So why didn’t the police in the SANO task force take a real close look?
    Conclusion an inquiry!

  4. 4 patrickm

    1/ I expect Pell to be released by 5pm Thursday and that’s about 78 hours from now!

    2/ Pell’s Appeal is an historic case, so I expect that all 7 High Court judges will be involved in it, despite only 5 being required! None of them would want to miss out and I presume that none would trust one another! We are all meant to assume they have had to say nothing to each other, to this point. This is so that they can approach the matter with ‘untainted’ and independent eyes. So OK let’s assume just that. However, before they walk into court all 7 will have read the 2 competing sets of reasons and any new paper generated by this level of Appeal (and that’s not very much). So, they already know what they are going to do. There will be no sensational argument that’s put by an amazing barrister, no Horace Rumpole moment when the case turns. The truth is that the massively overpaid barristers are not much more than part of the stage set now because after the ‘paper’ the rest in this court is but theatre and simply designed to ensure that everybody has confidence in the legal process. No barrister in this court over this issue is going to lean forward and announce that ‘with the very greatest of respect’ your honor knows not their arse from their elbow.

    Now because it is also clear to me that the case is a prosecutorial and appellate court scandal, and given that I expect a 7-0 outcome for Pell it would be unsporting of me not to spell out what I expect to happen with the performance.

    3/ I expect that the court will basically only hear from the prosecution on the question of ‘if the court should hear the case’, and very briefly Pell’s lawyers, then after a ‘short time’ will hold a quick consultation or adjournment and begin to hear the case immediately. So actually ½ of day 1 will be taken up with substantive effort on the actual appeal. So I expect the first ‘breaking news’ about 50 hrs from now (say about 2pm Wednesday)!

    These 7 judges can literally do what they like and the lawyers appearing for the prosecution have nobody to complain to after. The only check on them is themselves in some type of embarrassing dissenting judgement like has already happened to the Victorian majority, or perhaps a future High Court. They act like inquisitorial judges!

    4/ I expect that with more than an hour of day 2 left the court will take an adjournment to confer and return with the decision to acquit obviously reserving reasons for a later date!

    Any other outcome would be foolish if all 7 are already determined to hear the matter, and even if there was a dissenter among them or even 2 or 3 there is no reason to keep the man in prison for 1 minute longer than the moment that they or the majority have decided to release him. Despite my own experience with this court and courts in general on ‘the paper’ as I have read it, I’m quite unable to be ‘sensible’ and even think that there could really be a dissenter!

    That is about as dramatic as any case could be and the TV will instantly go mental! The ABC sneering will start immediately on ‘The Drum’ and genuine analysis will be swamped with the ‘Andrews’ point being that Pell has only been acquitted because there was insufficient evidence for a conviction! The battle against the might of the ABC/ALP/Green anti-Catholic alarmists to prove Pell 100% innocent will have thus begun.

    It’s very important that the Catholics connected to St Patrick’s Cathedral get cracking with a visual expose of the idiocy of what was alledged by the incompetent police. The fightback must be focused on getting an inquiry.

    How could such a stupid case have ever got going so that police flew to Rome to ask idiotic questions arising from the rantings of a hallucinating individual, when they could have found out he was bonkers from the very start!

    What went wrong with the ABC? There was no investigative journalist in the entire organization that could speak out as clearly on this case as I have been able to and has Bolt, Windschuttle, Divine and people like Chris S Friel. They all may not be quite as independent as I am and have been all along over Pell but even so the ABC has produced nothing positive for Pell at all and that is obviously unacceptable.

  5. 5 Steve Owens

    “1/ I expect Pell to be released by 5pm Thursday and that’s about 78 hours from now!”
    Thats a swing and a miss.

  6. 6 patrickm

    Have to agree!

    But I was right that they would all hear it, and I will be right that they will grant leave and acquit him.

    So with the very greatest of respect as they are all full of it with their own importance I would only start to worry after 2 weeks. As I said above…

    ‘I think the key players in the ABC (technically not being complete dolts) are well aware of what’s about to unfold. After all, the extremely likely outcome is that after less than all of day 1, a 7-0 decision to hear the matter will clear the courts throat. Then after day 2 ends -and probably early- anything from an hour’s recess later (OK that IS unlikely but not impossible given the nature of this case and if they are all in agreement), to perhaps a delay of a few days or a week, for the HC to then come down with a 7-0 finding in favor of acquittal. Virtually an instant release – yet what is on the telly?’

    But the ABC is utterly disgracing itself with the bias of it’s coverage.

    The actual transcript is very good

    Day 2 is apparently an excellent sign for Pell but we have to wait.

    The ABC indicating it will probably be months is utter tosh!
    and note…
    Sarah Farnsworth

    Pell High Court appeal Day 2: Questions go straight to why victim’s videotaped evidence being played to the COA. DPP Kerri Judd is being peppered with far more questions in the first 20 minutes than Pell’s lawyer was day 1. @abcmelbourne

  7. 7 Steve Owens

    I was sitting in court and the prosecution was asked to make a phone call. The judge asked them how long will you need and they said 4 weeks to which the judge said no no no thats too long I will give you 2 weeks. Im still shaking my head these people live in another world where time means nothing.
    I thought that Pell would not be convicted, I thought that he would win his appeal. I make no predictions about what will happen in this court as I have said before court processes are a mystery to me.

  8. 8 patrickm

    I can’t dispute the ‘wisdom’ of your current stand this is how the paper looks at this point and it is refined to what is known by the in crowd

    The court didn’t even hear argument as to if they ought to hear the case! They just heard the case and will determine for themselves later if they ought to hear it! That is very clever to get the matter before the full court this soon. Perhaps I ought not think of what ought to be done once one has determined that a man is to be acquitted and consider the politics of their august positions! From that POV they may want to bring everyone on board (for example) and take some months for the purpose! and perhaps they would be right to do so. It would be far better obviously if the vote was 7-0 rather than 6-1 etc

    Personally I’m looking forward to reading the day 2 transcript. I ought to be reading up on virology issues or economics or Turkey the world has entered some very strangetimes.

  9. 9 patrickm

    I’ve just been reading Judd…
    that is one sorry prosecution!!
    In the words of Mr Cash
    ‘I hear that train a-comen…

  10. 10 Steve Owens

    This is my take on the matter. The defense argues that there was no opportunity because the routine following mass doesnt allow for an opportunity. The prosecution argues that the routines wernt always followed therefore there is the possibility of opportunity.
    Seeing that the defense only has to raise reasonable doubt I can’t see how Pell was ever convicted but he was so therefor we have to look for other reasons and the prosecution will argue that the testimony of the accuser was so compelling that it over rode reasonable doubt. The defense will have to believe that it is the witch hunt effect and here they maybe closer to the truth. Now by witch hunt I don’t mean comedians and journalists because they wield zero power I mean police and judges. Clearly Pell has upset the police and judges are turning on him. I think that the police were stung by their previous lack of action against pedophile priests, they the police were made to look stupid in their inaction and police don’t like to look stupid. The judges I’m sure have read the transcripts from the Royal Commission and these transcripts are damning to Pell as I’m sure we will see when the redacted parts are revealed. Just to remind people when Pell was giving evidence he stated that he had heard rumors of pedophilia and when a child approach him about it as he says in his evidence he took no action because the child hadn’t asked him to take any action. That admission by Pell is gob smacking and just the sort of information that might sway a judge into going one way with a decision rather that the other way.
    So I think the high court decision will go either way depending whether the judges go strictly by the law (as I understand it) or are swayed by their prejudice against a man who has admitted that he could have stopped a pedophile but instead chose to do nothing.

  11. 11 Rae

    I can’t find any story about last week’s HC case (11 and 12 March) in today’s SMH. However, there is a 2 page spread regarding the journalist Sarah Ferguson and her upcoming ABC Revelations program. We can read about her childhood, school days and what she ate at a fashionable restaurant recently! And no news in Oz regarding the UK Carl Beech case and the report released 13 March “Met Police criticised for response to VIP abuse inquiry review” Why aren’t we hearing about this?

  12. 12 Steve Owens

    I think that Pell has been served very poorly by the legal system in that his legal team has concentrated on winning the case rather than finding the truth. This can be seen in the interaction in the High Court where Brett Walker (Pell’s lawyer) starts talking about father Egan and the judges stop him because Egan wasn’t a witness. Judge Nettle says that if he was important the defense should have called him as a witness to which Walker says “There is no duty or obligation of any kind for an accused to assist in the assembly of a case.” and that’s Pell’s problem his defense team didn’t want to afford the court any assistance. That’s why Pell didn’t take the stand. That’s why the co celebrating priests wern’t called as witnesses. They just played stone wall and the wall fell on George.
    Its a poor situation where in the high court a lawyer wants to rely on a witness who was never called because prosecution and defense are playing legal tactics rather than playing whats the truth.

  13. 13 patrickm

    In reply to Rae, I think the overwhelming numbers in the MSM are pseudoleft or simply the obviously rightist reactionary types so in both instances they have bought the Pell is a Pedo story that has come straight from the publicly funded ABC. They are lazy and herd like and they are also on average not willing to speak up even when they know the truth because it will do them no good! In short back self interest because you know he is always trying. At the same time the Catholics are silent because they think it is the right thing to do in Pells interest. I don’t think that is true any longer if it ever was.

    War is won on the offence not the defense. In this case Pell’s enemies want nothing more than the mud to stick. They only want to say that ‘there was not enough evidence to convict’ and that is job done! They want this rubbish to stay with Pell and the church for all time. That is their game and an inquiry is required to really smash them. If the supporters of Pell walk away satisfied with his acquittal the enemy of democracy will have won.

    For the sake of all democrats the ‘unholy’ Police – ABC connection has to be exposed and this is a very good place to start. This case is classic insane rubbish that open honest and above board people can prove Pell did not do.

    This is only just starting! The ABC in-crowd are very powerful.

  14. 14 Steve Owens

    I don’t think that it’s correct to characterise the Pell witch hunt as being an ABC thing because it was also a Chanel 9 thing. 60 Minutes ran anti Pell stories Feb 26/2019 March 13/2019 May 16 2017 June 6/2015 and Dec 7/2015
    Here 60 minutes call him a liar and his Melbourne Response a sham

  15. 15 patrickm

    I accept what you are saying, I was simply speaking in short hand. The MSM have been piling on as a pack response. Divine, Bolt and a few others notable exceptions of course. The anti Pell stand is right across the industry. Anyway we get to watch part 1 tonight. I saw the interview on the Breakfast program and the triumphant smirking was right up front. We will have to see what this ‘stunning’ 3 parts are really all about. I still think that Pell will be out in the middle of this. But then the HC might think that is too soon for a good look. They do play a political game as well…

  16. 16 patrickm
  17. 17 patrickm

    Unsurprisingly I’m not impressed with ABC ‘Revelations’ that there are convicted pedophiles who have spent 14 years in jail that are now in their 80’s who do not practice as public priests but are still permitted by the Pope to carry on saying mumbo-jumbo to themselves in their room as some form of ‘redemption penance’! Sarah wants the man ‘defrocked’ so that he is not permitted to say mumbo-jumbo; how very important that government funding be directed at her so that she can reveal this ‘revelation’. I can see how this serves the interest of Tony Jones and Sarah Ferguson but I’m at a loss to see past that; at a stretch I could see about 10 minutes on a 7.30 report, the rest of the show is filler from a case that goes back decades. How religious effort to redeem oneself after having sinned is best achieved I had best leave that to the reverend Sarah; not being a sinner I wouldn’t know! I can’t imagine any other logic than being compelled to say your prayers to yourself endlessly after all god would not be forgiving to the good now would he!

    Meanwhile Pell has a fight on his hands to get past their ABC. Pell was obviously central to the plan of this show, as was the timing of it going to air. This is just typical gutter ‘journalism’ and what to expect from the publicly funded parasites of the pseudoleft ABC. It will however despite it being an obvious hatchet job, comfort Andrews. Democrats and Catholics will have to focus on him and going big like the Chamberlain film. They have to keep remembering that it is Pell who is the victim and their whole church that is under attack. The blockbuster film to expose the madness like what was done for Lindy is the way to go.

    Why the courts became part of the circus for the ABC is beyond me except the usual show pony judge interested in furthering her own ‘fame’ and importance. The actual show was a typical mush that was deliberately trying to confuse people rather than reveal! Consider the way it roamed around quite pointlessly. The important point was to drag in Pell and it did that! The important point was to attack the Church itself. ‘The Children have been used by the Devil!’

    I can hardly wait for next week and the next pedo off the rank that can be associated with Pell! It’s such a revelation!!

  18. 18 patrickm

    I don’t know what has happened to the 3 comments above. I simply have no idea but I have my copies so I will post them again.

    Rae Thanks Patrick M for your reply. I’m watching the AV Day 2 Recording around about the 3 hours point on the High Court of Australia website, but I am confused about the details of where the bottle of wine was in the Priests’ Sacristy. Was it found by the boys in the cupboard to the left of the door (the wood panelled kitchenette area that I have seen in photos in the public domain) or was it found on a surface in the alcove area with shelves which appears to be to be in the far left corner as one would enter the room. The wood panelled area with cupboards resembling a storage kitchenette (to the left of the door as per photos) is mentioned in the Respondent’s Submission dated 31 Jan 2020 on the HCA website. In further submissions by the Respondent filed 26 Feb 2020, I read that a recording of the applicant’s record of interview conducted on 19 October 2016 was played during the police informant’s examination-in-chief. I believe this would be the Rome interview. In this interview, the police officer and Pell have this exchange: “Yep. Okay, they’ve walked in, and there was a wood panelled door – it’s been described to a storage area within the room. To your recollection, does the Sacristy have any area such as that within it? Pell: Well, for vestments and things.
    Police Officer: Ah, I don’t know what was ever held in there.
    Pell: Yeah, well a lot of the vestments were kept there. The archbishop vestments.Police Officer:Yes, okay, immediately on the left as you walk into the room…. Pell: And what was supposed to be in these cupboards? Police Officer:They found some wine in there.”
    So it seems as if the original statement was that the bottle of wine was found in the cupboard to the left of the door. But apparently this cupboard used to store vestments.


    Hi Rae; the following articles from the redoubtable Chris S Friel contain all the important contradictions in the ‘victims’ moving memories re this issue etc.
    84. _just_released_with_commentary

    The short story is that ‘J’ claimed to remember something that was not even built at the time and later the prosecutors fudged this rather than drop the ludicrous case! When the 3 Police went to Rome they went to trap a Pedo not to get at the truth! At that point they clearly had the thought that it was immediately to the left not around the corner and in the far left in an alcove! The police know this and so does ‘J’ so they are guilty not of having delusions but of covering up what was said by ‘J’ when he claimed to remember that which was not yet built!

    This is the material that they ought to have ‘mud map’ sketches etc in their notes and markings on them from ‘J’ from the walk through but apparently there are none as far as I know otherwise it ought to have been handed over to come clean about what the complainant was saying had happened exactly where.

    So ‘but I am confused about the details of where the bottle of wine was in the Priests’ Sacristy. Was it found by the boys in the cupboard to the left of the door (the wood panelled kitchenette area that I have seen in photos in the public domain) or was it found on a surface in the alcove area with shelves which appears to be in the far left corner as one would enter the room.’ is what you are supposed to be!

    ‘…the Rome interview. In this interview, the police officer and Pell have this exchange’

    “Yep. Okay, they’ve walked in, and there was a wood panelled door – it’s been described to a storage area within the room. …
    Pell: And what was supposed to be in these cupboards?
    Police Officer:They found some wine in there.”
    So it seems as if the original statement was that the bottle of wine was found in the cupboard to the left of the door. But apparently this cupboard used to store vestments.’
    We all know this and yet Pell still sits in prison! So feel free to have total contempt for the lot of them!
    That now includes the 7 political players in the High Court! They have known that they were dealing with crap from the end of day 2 yet they have left Pell in while they get around to it! Pathetic. And if that is not the case then we Australian democrats and Catholics have a first rate legal disaster on our hands rather than just the next part of our current fight!
    Rae Thank you for all the links to Chris Friel’s work. One can learn alot from the HCA site too. So much more information has come to light from the Appeal transcripts and recent materials in the public domain.

  19. 19 patrickm

    Now the big news today is that the Pell case will be decided next Tuesday. All I can say is about time.

    The ABC is right in the middle of ‘Revelation’ and tonight is all about Pell! This is a shocker! The ABC news reports are already dripping with the snearing and the line that there was just not enough evidence to convict is ALL they have really got.

    The Catholics should now get ready to do their doco (and block buster film as well) to fight this cabal and their utter tripe will require focus on an inquiry to show where Andrews stands. He will be the blockage and this will take some time but democrats and Catholics have no real choice; it’s a case of first they came for the Catholics…

    To anyone who is worried don’t be!
    Despite the legal game playing and the ABC etc this is not complex.
    What is complex is dealing with the next stage of fighting back against the publicly funded smirkers.

  20. 20 Steve Owens

    The High Court are bastards. They announce on Thursday that they will deliver their judgment on Tuesday. OK say that they have decided on release then what is the point of making this man sit in goal for almost a week when they have decided on release. If they have decided on retain then why leave him wondering and if they have decided on sending it back to the lower court well what can you expect another non decision. Just stupidity from the court if you have made the decision Thursday then tell people Thursday dont be bastards about this.

  21. 21 patrickm

    I could not agree more they are complete bastards!

    At least the crush won’t happen and perhaps some police fines for failure to social distance will be handed out for any media misconduct! I live in hope of a good laugh!

    Only 2 more sleeps! It’s like Christmas but at Easter! God / and the High Court works in mysterious ways that’s for sure!

  22. 22 patrickm

    Just some stuff for the record and for thinking about the next stage…

    ‘Below is an incomplete list of well-known Australians and others who have elected to support Pell over the last few months and years, with many even publicly claiming the guilty findings are wrong, with some insinuating the charges are part of a left-wing conspiracy against the Catholic Church.
    Andrew Bolt. Alan Jones. John Howard. Miranda Devine. Barnaby Joyce. Tony Abbott. Jim Molan.
    Father Frank Brennan. Lyle Shelton. Jeff Kennett. Bettina Arndt. Peta Credlin. Paul Kelly.
    Gerard Henderson. Kevin Donnelly. Rowan Dean. George Brandis. Pope Francis.
    Sydney Archbishop Anthony Fisher. Melbourne Archbishop Peter Comensoli. Rupert Murdoch. ‘
    Also Greg Craven, Tim Fisher, Patrick Muldowney and (even if a bit backhandedly) Arthur Dent
    Hendo re Pell pile on!
    ‘The fact is that no defendant in modern Australia has been subjected to such a media pile-on as Pell. The attack included journalists, commentators and entertainers who were, in fact, Pell antagonists. The list includes (in alphabetical order) Richard Ackland, Paul Bongiorno, Barrie Cassidy, Richard Carleton, Peter FitzSimons, Ray Hadley, Derryn Hinch, David Marr, Melisa Davey, Louise Milligan, Tim Minchin, Lucie Morris-Marr, Jack Waterford, Tony Jones, Sarah Ferguson and many more besides.
    The ABC led the campaign in programs such as 7.30, Four Corners, Lateline (as it then was), Q&A, News Breakfast and Radio National Breakfast.
    There was also Nine’s 60 Minutes, Ten’s The Project, and Nine Entertainment newspapers The Age, and The Sydney Morning Herald, plus Guardian Australia , The New Daily and The Saturday Paper. ‘

    A good summation here with a smooth talking christian!

  23. 23 patrickm Spot on! The ABC is an enemy not just of the Australian working people but of conservative governments. They ought to dismantle this dangerous publicly funded political player. It literally vomits this climate clap trap from morning to night day in and out. Wall to wall inbred political enemies who are interested only in power with zero regard for democracy.
    and this brings on memories
    too funny

  24. 24 patrickm

    Brennan’s important speech summing up the case that he, ‘smelled a rat’ about!

  25. 25 patrickm

    ABC reporting over the Russian troops rushing into Kazakstan to prop up the crumbling tyranny is truly shocking.

    1st they treat the whole affair in a ho-hum manner with a tennis player with visa issues heading the news rather than this deadly suppression of the Kazak masses.

    2nd they repeat the utterly phony Russian narrative of ‘peace keeping’ Imagine Nazis rolling in for a spot of peace-keeping!

    3rd the mass struggle for democracy is not being emphasized rather the trigger issue of increases in the (carbon-based!!) fuel prices have been prominent in reports.

    4th the fightback violence of the rioting masses against the tyranny has been treated as an invalid response to the initial repression of the undemocratic gangster government and their thug police force.

    5th Fascist troops ready for deployment into Ukraine have instantly turned up to swallow a country with a 20% Russian minority and reincorporate it into Putin’s greater Russian empire project. The presentation of this dramatic news item does not reflect anything like the gravity of this situation and what it will mean for the democratically-minded masses of Kazakstan or the Region or the implications for all the other countries threatened by the fascist regime of Vlad the Audacious and his mates.

    This from the US NBC is better than the ABC style

    Here is the ABC

  26. 26 patrickm

    An example of the BBC up to no good!

  27. 27 patrickm and the Bolter exposing their woke ABC! ‘as if’

  28. 28 patrickm

    Steve has stated that I have -in his view- but 1 ‘win’ that he is prepared to concede to me. My 1 win is in the curious case of George Pell, but what Steve actually means is only in predicting the HC 7-0 decision! Yet as I recall these events of almost 2 pandemic years back and as the issues unfolded over 7 articles and extensive comments Steve was not able or prepared to openly and actively agree on virtually anything! In the end, Steve just thought I was lucky with 1 prediction that in itself was of no great consequence except for Pell. So I suppose if we lived in Egypt or Russia etc (given their totally corrupt courts) then I would be 100% wrong about that ‘proven pedophile’ Pell! Well, we don’t live in Egypt, Russia or China etc. So I have my one ‘gold medal’ and Pell is not a criminal.

    Yet here am I with a firm belief that -from an initially disinterested position and carrying no torch for either Cardinal Pell or his church- and only as I became informed after Pell’s conviction of what was supposed to have basically happened, I simply called bullshit and from that point independently undertook a more rigorous and detailed deductive investigation.

    I believe this work helps expose the ABC and others in the MSM, the senior Victoria Police involved 2 Victoria Supreme Court Justices who are breathtakingly unfit for their very important work and of course Dan Andrews as a deplorable bigot.

    For the sake of a systemic improvement in our Australian legal system and culture generally, this important case ought to be publicly and widely exposed via a formal inquiry process and in the same way as the Chamberlain case in books and films etc. Dan Andrews and all his woke supporters stand in the way of this important work. Pell’s publicly funded victimization has been revealed as a mad romp of a case that gripped the entire country in a wave of blatant hysteria. Its final conclusion shamed Australia and our legal system. It ought not to be tolerated by any progressive or conservative.

  29. 29 Stephen Owens

    I think that you got the facts about the Pell case correct. I dont think his case changes much as it was rich mans justice. He was represented by the most expensive legal teams. Do you think he would have received a review of the case if he had been poor? Do you think that he would have received a review by the high court if he had been poor? Do you think that a right wing media outfit would have gone into bat for him if he was not an influential member of the right wing establishment. The outcome will discourage rather than encourage people who are victims of childhood sexual abuse to come forward which is a negative for coming to grips with this problem.
    I acknowledge that Pell was a clear win for your argument and you are correct I do think that it is your only clear win.

  30. 30 patrickm

    I have 3 children so I can imagine the suffering inflicted on this poor woman the courts and legal system are well overdue for a review! ‘A friend of Kathleen Folbigg says it’s been ‘surreal’ watching her friend emerge from jail after a long campaign to free her.’ This friend is a real hero! She deserves to be Australian of the year! Unfortunately, Pell is not here to see this. 20 years of struggle to get her totally innocent friend out of this madness!

  31. 31 patrickm

    As soon as the minister was informed of what the findings from this latest inquiry would be he got the Governor to Pardon Kathleen and she was released immediately! That is what the High Court ought to have done in the George Pell case but for the sake of the optics (a political purpose) he was kept in jail till the formal release of their findings! They all knew what they were going to do the day the case ended yet they delayed!

    This poor woman must now appeal to clear her name and be eligible for the compensation she so clearly deserves. I am sure that when she does the prosecution will offer no contest! This case is yet another stain that regularly springs up from our rotten legal system! Our adversarial system is a gambling game, and it is a game that favors the house! Presumption of innocence is utter bullshit. If you are on trial, you have two strikes against you already.

  32. 32 patrickm well Sarah Ferguson jumps on the -this time good- bandwagon. What a creep; but even a creep can do good work!

Leave a Reply