Cardinal George Pell Charged With Diddling Kids - Australia's most senior Catholic will return from Rome to face charges

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-29/cardinal-george-pell-charged-sexual-assault-offences/8547668

Cardinal George Pell says he is looking forward to his day in court after being charged with historical sexual assault offences.

Key points:
  • Charges involve multiple complainants
  • Pell has always maintained his innocence and strenuously denied any wrongdoing
  • Victoria Police says charging process has involved "common and standard practice"
DDc96YCVoAAeAbs.jpg

Australia's most senior Catholic cleric has been ordered to appear in the Melbourne Magistrates' Court on July 18, after Victoria Police served charges on his legal representatives.

"Cardinal Pell will return to Australia, as soon as possible, to clear his name following advice and approval by his doctors, who will also advise on his travel arrangements," a statement released by the Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney said.

"He has again strenuously denied all allegations."

He is expected to make a further statement in Rome at 4:30pm AEST.

Victoria Police Deputy Commissioner Shane Patton earlier told reporters the charges involved multiple complainants.

A magistrate will decide next week whether to release the details and the nature of the charges. A hearing will take place on July 6.

Last July, police confirmed they were formally investigating complaints about offences alleged to have occurred in Ballarat in the 1970s.

Pell has always maintained his innocence and denied any wrongdoing.

Deputy Commissioner Patton said the "process and procedures" being followed had been the same as those applied "in a whole range of historical sex offences, whenever we investigate them".

"The fact that he has been charged on summons — we have used advice from the Office of Public Prosecutions and also we have engaged with his legal representatives, which is common and standard practice."

As head of the Vatican's finances, Pell is considered number three in the Catholic hierarchy behind the Pope.

In July, Pell said the allegations were part of a smear campaign by the media.

"The allegations are untrue, I deny them absolutely," Pell said.

"I'm like any other Australian — I'm entitled to a fair go."

However, he said he was "quite prepared to co-operate" with the process.

Cardinal's rise in the ranks

Cardinal George Pell has long been one of the most prominent and controversial figures in the Australian Catholic Church.


In October, three Victoria Police detectives flew to Rome to interview Pell.

A Victoria Police statement issued at the time said: "Cardinal George Pell voluntarily participated in an interview regarding allegations of sexual assault."

Australia does not have an extradition treaty with the Vatican, even though it does with Italy.

Child sexual assault survivor advocate Chrissie Foster said it was right that the allegations would now be heard in the courts.

"I've been waiting to see what happens with this investigation for a long time," she said.

Ms Foster's daughters Emma and Katie were raped by Melbourne paedophile priest Father Kevin O'Donnell when they were in primary school in the 1980s.

VIDEO: ABC journalist Paul Kennedy speaks about the decision to charge George Pell (ABC News)

Conservative cardinal's road to Vatican
Pell was the son of a Ballarat publican, a head prefect at school and a talented Australian Rules footballer, who was signed as a ruckman by the Richmond Football Club.

We're in uncharted territory now

Now Victoria Police are charging Cardinal Archbishop George Pell with multiple sexual offences we are in an unprecedented historical position, writes Noel Debien.

His studies took him to Rome and then Oxford.

In 1971 he returned to Victoria as an ordained priest, and rose through the ranks to eventually become Archbishop of Melbourne.

He rankled progressive Catholics with his resistance to reform.

He opposed the ordination of female priests, was anti-divorce and anti-abortion and also refused communion to gay activists at one of his masses.

In 1990 he said: "Homosexuality — we're aware that it does exist. We believe such activity is wrong and we believe for the good of society it should not be encouraged."

His hardline conservatism caught the attention of Rome, and he was chosen to join a Vatican congregation dedicated to enforcing orthodoxy.

"There are many smorgasbord Catholics who choose a bit of this and that ... my business as bishop is to proclaim the whole of the message," he said.

In 1996, then-Archbishop Pell was the first Catholic leader to address the child sexual abuse that has plagued the church.

PHOTO: George Pell was made Archbishop of Sydney in 2002 where he later became a cardinal. (Reuters: Mark Baker [file photo])


He instigated a redress scheme called the Melbourne Response.

When announcing the scheme he said: "It's a matter of regret that the Catholic Church has taken some time to come to grips with the sex abuse issue adequately."

But the Melbourne Response, which capped compensation for victims at $50,000, was widely criticised as being legalistic and not offering enough support to victims.

He then became Archbishop of Sydney and was made a cardinal.

In 2014, he was chosen by the Pope to get the Vatican's finances in order and he moved to Rome.

Ill health prevented him from returning to Australia in 2016 to give evidence to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.


Holy shit boys, it's about to get interesting.
 
None of the articles actually cover it, can someone bring me up to speed on the actual evidence he's a diddler? I don't want to defend a pedo, but convicting people on he-said she-said accusations is a dark, dark hole.
 
None of the articles actually cover it, can someone bring me up to speed on the actual evidence he's a diddler? I don't want to defend a pedo, but convicting people on he-said she-said accusations is a dark, dark hole.

The victim's testimony was the evidence. Pell did not take the stand in his own defence and the defence witnesses were not persuasive. In a broader context, the charges arose as a result of a couple of Royal Commissions, especially the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.


There was a second trial scheduled to take place in another city (accusations about Pell have been swirling around for decades) but a decision has been made not to proceed with those charges. That means if this verdict gets overturned he'll get off scot free.
 
Papists BTFO!!!
This is massive in Victoria btw, also considering Pell was part of the C9 inner council until recently I wonder if there will be any blow back to Pope Francis as he specifically chose Pell to audit the Vatican's finances.


 
Last edited:
Papists BTFO!!!
This is massive in Victoria btw, also considering Pell was part of the C9 inner council until recently I wonder if there will be any blow back to Pope Francis as he specifically chose Pell to audit the Vatican's finances.

I'm not getting too excited until the appeal is done with. Once that's out of the way the Royal Commission can release the stuff regarding Pell which it redacted due to the impending criminal trials.
 
None of the articles actually cover it, can someone bring me up to speed on the actual evidence he's a diddler? I don't want to defend a pedo, but convicting people on he-said she-said accusations is a dark, dark hole.

Apols for minor sperg but this 'he said-she said' stuff that is roaming round is incorrect.

While it is true that there were only a few witnesses that testified, this is mainly because his defence stipulated most of the facts.

eg. Was Pell at that time and place (bearing in mind there was a cathedral full of witnesses that heard his sermon and could say he was there on that day and time) Yes he was and the police provided evidence so the defence stipulated the facts (ie agreed not to contest them) This is a sound legal tactic as if you try and say 'my man wasn't there' then the prosecution trots through 40 upstanding citizens that say you were, then jury is going to assume your client is a bare faced liar.

In most jurisdictions in Australia, you can also be professionally sanctioned as a lawyer for pulling this kind of shit in the face of overwhelming evidence (including losing your practising certificate (license) ) It may also affect sentencing if your client is found guilty and they tried to spin out the proceedings by trying to argue facts which were clearly never going to fly.

In this case (as I understand it) it was never in dispute that both the boys and Pell were at the same service. It was also not in dispute that there was a time lag of 20-30 minutes which were unaccounted for where no-one saw any of them (the time when the abuse took place - I was going to say alleged but he has been convicted and may he rot in hell)

So the entire trial was about that missing 20-30 minutes. The surviving victim was cross examined and testimony (including cross examination) was around 5 days. For what happened in a 20-30 minute timeframe. Also there was another choirboy who was there on the day who testified plus an investigative journalist had their investigation notes in evidence and had to testify plus police etc.

TLDR - There were multiple witnesses that could have been called for the prosecution but the defence agreed to the facts so as not to call them. Also, Richter (Pell's lawyer) is one of the go to top silks in the country for evil dudes (defended gangland hit men etc and doesn't come cheap. While there is media coverage saying the Vatican left him to fend for himself financially, the gofundme had a ridiculous amounts of money funnelled through anon sources .

For background (but little legal analysis)

 
Well, how interesting. What an interesting time to slip this through, huh?

Cardinal Pell's convictions 'quashed' in shock appeal
07/04/2020|3min


Cardinal George Pell will walk free from jail after all convictions were today quashed by the High Court of Australia in a shock judgement. The court released a statement explaining the decision which renders Pell's earlier convictions of sexually abusing two choir boys in the 1990s null and void. "Today, the High Court granted special leave to appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria and unanimously allowed the appeal," the court wrote. "The High Court found that the jury, acting rationally on the whole of the evidence, ought to have entertained a doubt as to the applicant's guilt with respect to each of the offences for which he was convicted, and ordered that the convictions be quashed and that verdicts of acquittal be entered in their place."



What interesting times we live in!
 
Last edited:
I still don't understand the whole pedo priest thing. Is it really that big? or is it just another way for people to slander the Catholic Church?
 
The lefty media were definitely not wanting Pell to go free. The campaign came from a handful of right-leaning columnists and cable news guys.
 
The lefty media were definitely not wanting Pell to go free. The campaign came from a handful of right-leaning columnists and cable news guys.

Yes, I'm talking about the super left media. I took that out of my original post because I realise that normies would think I meant ABC.
I also realise that normal people don't read the super progressive shit that I do. There was campaigning for his release on the grounds that "being a pedo is A.OK".
Certainly NOT the ABC. Yes, Bolt et al wanted him released if he was innocent. If he's innocent, fine. If they're releasing him because of social politics, not fine. I'm undecided. I don't like how this was slipped through in the middle of a plandemic though, regardless of politics.
 
Yes, I'm talking about the super left media. I took that out of my original post because I realise that normies would think I meant ABC.
I also realise that normal people don't read the super progressive shit that I do. There was campaigning for his release on the grounds that "being a pedo is A.OK".
Certainly NOT the ABC. Yes, Bolt et al wanted him released if he was innocent. If he's innocent, fine. If they're releasing him because of social politics, not fine. I'm undecided. I don't like how this was slipped through in the middle of a plandemic though, regardless of politics.
Hasn't this appeal been in progress for months? It's not like he saw the pandemic and thought "now's the chance he he"
 
Hasn't this appeal been in progress for months? It's not like he saw the pandemic and thought "now's the chance he he"

They were talking about delaying it due to the pandemic.
They didn't. Take it as you will. I just don't see it as suitable timing when it's been such a serious issue.
 
I still don't understand the whole pedo priest thing. Is it really that big? or is it just another way for people to slander the Catholic Church?

It's both. There is definitely a presence of pedophiles among priesthood who abused children and the Church dealt with it in the worst manner by hiding it and covering it up.

The numbers are very low in percentage of members of the clergy though. I don't have numbers at hand, but I've read they're low compared to incidences of child sexual abuse by educators. And let's not even discuss the comparison with Muslims. Catholic faith doesn't encourage raping of atheist women. Yet.
 
Well, how interesting. What an interesting time to slip this through, huh?





What interesting times we live in!

This is absolutely not a shock.

For a long time I was pretty ambivalent on the whole thing - sure, a priest doing this kind of thing is certainly plausible, and Pell has been credibly associated with some shady goings-on as far as covering abuse up. But the prosecution's case simply never got beyond 'plausible' - too many inconsistencies and implausibilities weighing against the claim, too little in favour.

It was when Weinberg's dissenting judgment in the Victorian Court of Appeal was much more compelling than the majority that I began to think Pell should probably have been acquitted. The High Court thought so too, obviously.

Should Pell be charged with other crimes relating to the cover-up? Possibly, even probably (if the statute of limitations doesn't bar those claims). But there was not enough that anyone could say with any confidence he was guilty of these particular crimes.

Edit: Also, re timing - the HCA prioritises criminal appeals where people who were possibly wrongly-convicted are cooling their heels in jail. The hearing date had been scheduled since before corona got big. There's nothing at all questionable about why this case was decided now.

Edit 2: here are the irregularities mentioned in the HCA summary:

(i) the applicant's practice of greeting
congregants on or near the Cathedral steps after Sunday solemn Mass; (ii) the established and
historical Catholic church practice that required that the applicant, as an archbishop, always be
accompanied when robed in the Cathedral; and (iii) the continuous traffic in and out of the priests'
sacristy for ten to 15 minutes after the conclusion of the procession that ended Sunday solemn
Mass.

There are a couple of others that could've been brought up:
(i) the complainant says Pell exposed his genitalia through a slit in the robes. Archbishop robes to do no have any slit in them. (ii) the date when the offending was alleged to have occurred, the Cathedral was closed and under renovation. As the matter went to retrial, DPP were able to patch this up by changing the date of the alleged offences.
 
Last edited:
The numbers are very low in percentage of members of the clergy though. I don't have numbers at hand, but I've read they're low compared to incidences of child sexual abuse by educators. And let's not even discuss the comparison with Muslims. Catholic faith doesn't encourage raping of atheist women. Yet.
Googling for clerical sexual abuses almost exclusively brings up catholic ones. Seems to be framed as a catholic problem due to the vow of celibacy.
 
Let's see if the Attorney General is going to release the sealed sections of the Final Report of the Institutional Abuse Royal Commission, which have as yet remained redacted so as not to prejudice Pell's case.

If not, there could very well be additional charges in the pipeline. The AG mentioned that before he came to a decision, he would need to speak to several stakeholders.
 
Back
Top Bottom