Castlepollard Exclusion From Commission on Mother and Baby Homes INQUIRY. (Second Thread)


StarryPlough01

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2010
Messages
14,616
I was inspired by Elizabeth Collier's comments about George Pell to start a new thread on the price of eternal vigilance.


Wonderful women who are keepers of the Flame of Truth are leading the way ...


https://www.******************/threads/cardinal-george-pell-found-guilty-of-child-sexual-abuse.29362/post-372009

'The Pell issue is much larger than the man himself'

Mar 11, 2019

Crikey comments: the Pell issue is much larger than the man himself


Elizabeth Collier writes:


"…. There is something really wrong about a society that enables this conduct to continue; we should be asking questions about the foundations of democracy, freedom and the right to be protected."


The price of eternal vigilance / Safeguarding your human rights (worldwide)


https://www.******************/threads/the-price-of-eternal-vigilance-safeguarding-your-human-rights-worldwide.29613/post-372011

Apologies, my attention has been divided. Cardinal Pell will be sentenced on Wednesday 13th. It will be broadcast live around the world.


They aren't done yet with Pell, there is more to follow.
 

StirCharles

Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2019
Messages
36
I was inspired by Elizabeth Collier's comments about George Pell to start a new thread on the price of eternal vigilance.


Wonderful women who are keepers of the Flame of Truth are leading the way ...


https://www.******************/threads/cardinal-george-pell-found-guilty-of-child-sexual-abuse.29362/post-372009

'The Pell issue is much larger than the man himself'

Mar 11, 2019

Crikey comments: the Pell issue is much larger than the man himself


Elizabeth Collier writes:






The price of eternal vigilance / Safeguarding your human rights (worldwide)


https://www.******************/threads/the-price-of-eternal-vigilance-safeguarding-your-human-rights-worldwide.29613/post-372011

Apologies, my attention has been divided. Cardinal Pell will be sentenced on Wednesday 13th. It will be broadcast live around the world.


They aren't done yet with Pell, there is more to follow.
Your link does not work, I guess you are not allowed to link to a competing site
 

StarryPlough01

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2010
Messages
14,616
Stir Charles,


No matter. The new Main Page thread is about safeguarding your human rights (worldwide). The George Pell thread there has had over 9K views and caused quite a "stir" among some right wing censors wanting to curtail my freedom of expression. After Pell is sentenced tomorrow, all hell is likely to break loose. I'm ready! :D


Can someone else here _please_ start a new thread on Pell's sentence and link in with his appeal in June. Pell is Australia's most famous home bred paedophile convict. He was born in Ballarat, Victoria, on 8 June 1941. His mother was of Irish descent. I'll keep the site up-to-date with breaking news.




Yahoo news

Australia's Cardinal Pell faces sentencing for abusing two choir boys

12 March 2019

Australia's Cardinal Pell faces sentencing for abusing two choir boys


"Pell's lawyer, Robert Richter, argued for a light sentence, based on Pell's age, heart problems, no prior history of offending, no physical injuries to the victims and the fact the duration of the offences was short.

Starry: You are utterly misguided Robert Richter QC. The offences destroyed the victims lives. Within a year of the offence one 13 year old victim's life spiralled out of control. He committed suicide 10 years ago. 'Dead at 31'



HEAR YE… Hear Ye… READ BELOW...



Victim's father speaks out (VIDEO CLIP) herein ~


https://www.smh.com.au/national/pell-case-confronts-us-with-the-workings-of-justice-and-truth-20190311-p5138h.html


Father of DECEASED Victim: [SCROLL TO 2:00]



"He suffered tremendously, and he suffered tremendously for the rest of his life."


The victim's father wrote a Victim Statement (approximately 2 pages):


'Dead at 31'


My Notes are Below (First Listening) ~





"… the effects the crime had on the family, on me and how it's manifested itself, which the Defence Lawyer had objected to. Felt that I wasn't the victim and it shouldn't be presented to the court. Whereas Chief Justice Kidd pointed out the families are victims as well. To me, it's like a slap in the face, how dare he [Richter QC] . It's the families out there of children of sexual abuse that are the victims. They have to live with themselves, the guilt and the child as they watched them growing up in such a shocking world.



"When I was told by SANO Taskforce that my son had been abused and they said something like his drug taking was contributed by George Pell's assault on my son.



"When my son joined the choir in the choir boys inauguration for new boys they were given a contract to sign. And in that contract it said:


[ THE CHOIR BOYS CONTRACT STATED: ]



THE CHOIR COMES UNDER __THE PROTECTION__ OF THE * ARCHIBISHOP OF MELBOURNE *


"I mean that's huge for a kid who is 13 to be treated in that way. Have things done to him that he can't even imagine. It would be shocking. It would be awful. It would be a most heinous crime that you can imagine on your child.



"And really I do blame George Pell. [VICTIM'S FATHER THEN TAKES A DEEP SIGH HERE…]



"I FEEL THAT HE'S TAKEN MY SON AWAY FROM ME. AND IT'S NOT ONLY ME. BUT HIS SISTER, HIS MOTHER.



"We all missed out on him. Why? Why? For a few minutes."



Starry: YOUR SON'S LIFE WAS DESTROYED 'FOR A FEW MINUTES' OF PERVERSE PLEASURE BY A MONSTER ABUSING HIS POWER ... TOTAL DEGENERACY..



I feel heartbroken for you. I can't imagine your pain at the loss of your beautiful son. To know that he suffered tremendously in his childhood and that he kept his pain locked inside and ULTIMATELY took it out on himself is unbearable.



March 11, 2019 — 11.47pm

By Warwick McFadyen

Pell case confronts us with the workings of justice and truth

https://www.smh.com.au/national/pell-case-confronts-us-with-the-workings-of-justice-and-truth-20190311-p5138h.html
 

StarryPlough01

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2010
Messages
14,616
Victims treated with CONTEMPT by heartless GEORGE PELL



‘Did you like it?’ Cardinal Pell accused of heartless response to Church abuse victims


By Luke Mortimer A Current Affair Producer 7:42 pm Mar 12, 2019



Video Clip - SCROLL TO 1:40 ON A CURRENT AFFAIR TV PROGRAMME)



:devilish: IN 1996 WHEN GEORGE PELL WAS ARCHBISHOP OF MELBOURNE , PELL ASKED A MAN WHO HAD BEEN A VICTIM OF A PAEDOPHILE ORDAINED PRIEST WHEN HE WAS A PUPIL AT A CATHOLIC SCHOOL DURING '70s :



:devilish: PELL: DID YOU LIKE IT?




Raymond Newton was left shocked when in 1996 he detailed to Pell the sickening sexual abuse he suffered at a Melbourne Catholic school in the early 1970s.

Cardinal Pell looked at me and said, ‘Did you like it?’” Mr Newton told A Current Affair.


...


Mr Newton took reporter Martin King on a harrowing journey to the basement below the primary school’s church where he was repeatedly abused by a priest.


“(He would say) it’s God’s way. God’s teachings,” he said.

It’s taken my life. It’s taken my dignity. It’s taken who I am, away from me.”




Heartless degenerates. 'God here on Earth' (ontologically changed at the time of their ordination) is #1 BS about Roman Catholic priests.
 

StarryPlough01

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2010
Messages
14,616
Historic Day...

'Breathtaking abuse of power'... George Pell has been sentenced to 6 years in prison for CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE OF 2 CHOIR BOYS


TOTAL 6 YEARS IN PRISON… GEORGE PELL MUST SERVE 3 YEARS 8 MONTHS BEHIND BARS BEFORE PAROLE...


Pell's age (77 years) and health were taken into account in a shorter parole period
.


Minimum 3 years 8 months non-parole period.


Abuse of power featured strongly in Judge Peter Kidd's full reasoned decision.



Here's The Age ~

https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/george-pell-sentencing-live-cardinal-set-to-be-jailed-for-child-sex-abuse-20190313-p513q4.html



My opinion: * This sentence will stick. * Justice Peter Kidd went easy on Pell.


I wonder what Pope Francis will say?
 

StarryPlough01

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2010
Messages
14,616
BELOW IS A STATEMENT FROM THE COMPLAINANT ISSUED VIA HIS SOLICITOR VIV WALLER MINUTES AFTER GEORGE PELL'S SENTENCING



New York Times



Judge Peter Kidd spoke directly to Pell:




I would characterize these breaches and abuses as grave" and he added “Your conduct was permeated by
staggering arrogance
.”​


March 12, 2019


Cardinal George Pell of Australia Sentenced to Six Years in Prison


By Livia Albeck-Ripka and Damien Cave



The main complainant in the case
, who is unnamed in accordance with Australian laws that aim to protect sexual abuse survivors, also made clear that his pain and frustration would linger. He issued a statement through his lawyer, Vivian Waller, who read it aloud to reporters just minutes after the sentencing.



It is hard for me, for the time being, to take comfort in this outcome,” his statement said. “I appreciate that the court has acknowledged what was inflicted upon me as a child. However, there is no rest for me.”



You made a difference! I thank you for your courage and integrity.

Personally, I will be forever grateful. Children will be safer because of your service to the community.
 

StarryPlough01

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2010
Messages
14,616
* Breach of Trust and Abuse of Power *


Full Sentencing Video

Channel 7 News

Facebook Channel 7 News Melbourne

Extract from Justice Peter Kidd's Sentencing ~ DPP ~ v ~ Pell


[SCROLL TO 28:00]

I now turn to my assessment of the contextual circumstances, and in particular to the issues of breach of trust and abuse of power. These are all relevant to my assessment of the gravity of your offending, including to your moral culpability.

As Archbishop, it is true, as the defence submitted, that you did not have a direct, formal or standing role of supervision in relation to the victims, like that of a boarding master and boarder, regular teacher and pupil, or babysitter and child. Other adults were charged with directly supervising the choristers when they attended at St Patrick’s Cathedral, most notably the Choir Marshall, who was a teacher.

In my view, the concept of breach of trust in sentencing law cannot be confined to the narrow circumstances of formal supervision.

Adults working at institutions no longer stand as mere strangers in relation to children who attend those institutions. This is because the institutional setting affords these adults with an opportunity to interact with children within that setting; an opportunity they would not have as a mere stranger.

It is the opportunity of unsupervised interaction, implicitly granted by parents or guardians, which is the point of a child’s vulnerability. The child no longer has the immediate protection of his or her parents or guardians. The power imbalance between adult and child is usually amplified within an institutional setting. Indeed, that disparity of power makes children vulnerable and may in fact deter them from bringing forward a complaint.

The opportunity of interaction with children within an institutional setting must come with the responsibility not to act to the detriment of the child.

If the opportunity to interact with the child within the institutional setting does not depend upon the adult being placed in an explicit or official supervisory role with respect to the child, then the relationship of trust surely cannot be conditioned upon this.

No direct authority on point has been brought to my attention, but I think the position which I have stated above is supported by the general principles as to when the law recognises a relationship of trust within the sentencing context.



[I should indicate in my settled remarks all the footnotes will appear]



It has been said by our Court of Appeal that, and I quote:



The exposure over recent years of the extent of the incidence of abuse of children in our community by persons entrusted with their care has created much distrust at all levels and threatened the very capacity of adults to interact in a normal healthy fashion with them.


The level of trust, and the corresponding degree of any breach, will often vary; but this should not distract from an acceptance of a fundamental relationship of trust between adults and children within institutional settings.

Where the adult occupies a senior position within the institution, exercising power, authority and influence, any breach of this relationship of trust should be seen as grave.

I consider this fundamental trust is an expectation which every parent is entitled to have when their child attends any institution ... sporting, social, educational, cultural, religious or otherwise.

This was as true at the time of your offending, as it is today.

(y) In any event, Cardinal Pell, I find, beyond reasonable doubt, that on the specific facts of your case, there was a clear relationship of trust with the victims and you breached that trust, and abused your position to facilitate this offending.



The following matters when taken together drive me to these conclusions ~~~



*First, as Archbishop, you occupied the most senior leadership, official and religious position at St Patrick’s Cathedral on the days in question.


*Second, there was a large body of evidence that the environment at St Patrick’s Cathedral was hierarchical, structured, and subject to strict discipline. Authority mattered within the Cathedral, and was very largely respected. You were a pillar of St Patrick’s community by virtue of your role as Archbishop. Victim J gave evidence that the choir boys were expected to show reverence in your presence. The evidence shows that you were profoundly revered, Cardinal Pell, which imbued you with, and legitimised your, authority. As Archbishop, you did have a relationship of approval in relation to the choirboys. In part, the choirboys were performing to please you as Archbishop. There was evidence that you would from time to time visit the robing room to congratulate the boys on their singing. The choir boys were the least powerful and the most subordinate individuals at the Cathedral. The victims themselves were 13 years of age. The power imbalance between the victims and all the senior church leaders or officials, yourself included, was stark.


(y)Third, the victims’ presence and role within the choir at the Cathedral were intimately connected to their schooling. They were required to attend choir as part of their scholarship conditions.* Their role within the choir was effectively an extension of their schooling. You understood this link, as did every cathedral official.



*Fourth, in both the first and second episodes, you came into contact with the victims because you were present at St Patrick’s Cathedral performing official duties, as were the victims. The victims would have seen you presiding over or delivering mass immediately prior to the offending. The victims, themselves, had just performed choir duties during these masses. In both episodes, you were still officially dressed, as were the victims. According to the evidence, your role in mass did not officially conclude until you had divested. In both episodes, the offending occurred in areas which were off limits to the public. In relation to the second episode, the offending actually occurred during the recession from the mass. The full weight of your authority and position of power must have been very obvious to your victims, and to you.



*Fifth, during the first episode, when you found the victims in the priests’ sacristy you said words to the effect that ‘you’re in a lot of trouble’. Whilst being offended against, R (?) pleaded that you let them go. Your admonishment of the victims was an explicit expression of your authority over them. The victims were rebuked by you because they had breached a rule in their capacity as choir boys. The very pretext through which you committed this offending had to do with the strict discipline of the choir boys at the Cathedral.



*Sixth, the brazenness of your conduct is indicative of your sense of authority and power in relation to the victims. In the case of the first episode you did not seek to secure the door of the priests’ sacristy before you commenced the offending. You offended against two victims, despite the fact that the door was unlocked and despite the risk that either victim could have run from the room or later complained. I think you did give thought or reflection to this offending and the only reasonable inference from the brazen circumstances of your offending is that you had a degree of confidence that the victims would not complain either immediately or by running out at some later stage. The second episode was also redolent of your absolute dominance over J, and control of the choir boys more generally. In my view, you did not say anything to your victims by way of threats to secure their silence because you clearly felt that you did not need to.



*Seventh, while I consider that your offending was intimately connected with your duties and role as Archbishop and the victims’ duties and roles as choir boys, on any view, you seized upon the opportunity presented to you to interact with the victims within the Cathedral setting to abuse them.


To conclude on this issue, the authority you carried within the Cathedral setting in relation to the choir boys, carried with it a significant responsibility of trust, not to do anything to the detriment of the boys.

(y)The argument of your counsel that this offending was committed by you George Pell - the man - and not by you George Pell - the Archbishop - must be roundly rejected. I do so without hesitation. Your obvious status as Archbishop cast a powerful shadow over this offending. Not only do I consider that you offended in breach of your relationship of trust, and in abuse of your power and authority, I would characterise these breaches and abuses as * grave. *

You were the Archbishop of St Patrick’s Cathedral - no less - and you sexually abused two choir boys within that Cathedral. This connection and the depth of the breaches and abuses is self-evident.

(y)I am conscious that the breaches of trust and abuse of power overlap here and that one informs the other. Trust may be abused by the misuse of a position of authority. The conferral of authority and power can give rise to relationship of trust. They interrelate in this way in your case. I am mindful that I must not punish you twice. [37:20 approx]
 

StarryPlough01

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2010
Messages
14,616
Full Sentencing Video

Channel 7 News

Facebook

Extract of Justice Peter Kidd's Sentencing ~ DPP v Pell


[SCROLL TO 10:00]


I now turn to the facts of this case.

You fall to be sentenced on a basis consistent with the jury verdict on your trial.

It was common ground at the plea that this effectively means that you are to be sentenced on the basis of the account of the victim J, who gave evidence at trial. Your counsel accepts this.

I must at law give full effect to the jury’s verdict. It is not for me to second guess the verdict. What this means is that I am required to accept, and act upon, J’s account. That's what the law requires of me and that is what I will do.

In the latter part of 1996 and into 1997, whilst Archbishop of Melbourne, you conducted Sunday Solemn Mass at St Patrick’s Cathedral in East Melbourne. The two victims, one of whom is now deceased were choristers or choir boys who performed singing duties during Mass. They sang in furtherance of a singing scholarship each had with a private Catholic high school. I have anonymised my sentencing remarks so that the identities of the victims are not published. And n these anonymised remarks, I shall refer to the victims as ‘J’ and ‘R’.

The matter involves two episodes of offending.

Turning to the first episode.

In the latter part of 1996, at the conclusion of one Sunday Solemn Mass, which was delivered by you, the victims formed part of a procession, outside of the Cathedral, walking back towards their choir room. The victims were still wearing their chorister’s robes. During this time, without asking permission, the victims separated themselves from the procession. They made their way, via the priests’ sacristy corridor, to the priests’ sacristy. This area was off limits to the public. The priests’ sacristy was also customarily off limits to choristers.

Once inside the priests’ sacristy, each of them drank some sacramental wine kept in an alcove within the priests’ sacristy.
After Mass, you entered the priests’ sacristy alone, you were still robed. The priests’ sacristy was the area you used for disrobing at that time. When you entered the priests’ sacristy you planted yourself in the doorway and said something like ‘you’re in trouble’ to the victims. You and the victims sort of froze at that moment. Then you started to move something underneath your robes, like your trousers or belt.

Shortly after this you committed an indecent act upon R, who is now deceased. This involved pulling R aside, pulling out your penis, grabbing R by the back of his head with one hand and placing R’s head and face in close proximity to your genital region. This occurred while R was crouched in front of you and you were standing. R was squirming, struggling and flailing while this was occurring. J saw R’s face - R was terrified. At that point, R said to you ‘can’t you let us go, we didn’t do anything?’ R also called out ‘no’ and ‘help’. This incident with R lasted about a minute or two. This is charge 1 on the Indictment, Indecent Act.

A short time after this you turned your attention to J. You then sexually penetrated J. This involved pushing your erect penis into J’s mouth. You pushed J’s mouth onto your penis for a short period of time, in the order of about two minutes. J was, to use his words, ‘freaking out’ when this happened. You were standing and J was pushed down, crouching or kneeling. This is charge 2 on the Indictment, Sexual Penetration.

You then committed further indecent acts with J. You told J to take off his pants and you started touching his genitalia with your hands. This is charge 3 on the Indictment. While this was occurring, you began touching your own genital area with your other hand. These acts occurred over a minute or two. This is charge 4 on the Indictment. Both charges 3 and 4 are Indecent Act charges.

Once you stopped, J put clothes back on, and J and R left the room. They eventually rejoined the choir.

Both J and R were present together in the priests’ sacristy during the whole of the offending.

At this time, both J and R were aged 13 years of age.

During the incident J and R were crying and sobbing. J and R called out, but it was at a level of whimpering and whispering. At some point you told J and R to be quiet because they were crying.

Now turning to the second episode of offending.

Over a month later, following Sunday Solemn Mass at St Patrick’s Cathedral, J was walking along the back corridor that leads past the priests’ sacristy. You were also walking in that same area. You had either just presided over or delivered Sunday Solemn Mass. You were in official robes. J was in his chorister robes. You pushed yourself up against J against a wall and then squeezed J’s genitals for a brief period (for approximately 1 to 3 seconds). You then desisted and kept walking. This is charge 5 on the Indictment, another Indecent Act charge.

I now turn to the impact on the victims in this matter. [15:40]
 

StarryPlough01

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2010
Messages
14,616
DPP v Pell

Case No. CR-18-01133

*Gravity of offending *


https://content.countycourt.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2019-03/dpp-v-pell-sentence-2019-vcc-260.pdf

Gravity of offending

I now turn to an assessment of the gravity of your offending.

Objective assessment of offending conduct

This first involves an assessment of the conduct itself.

Your offending encompassed two distinct episodes, over a month apart.

In my view, the first episode n the priests’sacristy involved a brazen and forcible sexual attack upon the two victims. The acts were sexually graphic.

Both victims were visibly and audibly distressed during this offending. The obvious distress and objections of your victims is relevant to my assessment of the impact of your offending on J and R.14

There is an added layer of degradation and humiliation that each of your victims must have felt in knowing that their abuse had been witnessed by the other.

In relation to charge 1, which is the indecent act against R has, in my view, a nasty element to it - holding him by the head, whilst placing your penis in close proximity to R’s head. While there was no sexual physical contact, the conduct here must have been particularly confronting and debasing. Judging by R’s reaction, it clearly was so.

Charge 2 on the Indictment is a charge involving sexual penetration of J and it is rightly characterised as an act of violence. Additional force was used by you to offend over and above the penetration, in that your grabbed hold of J’s head and pushed your penis inside his mouth. You held his head down for a period.

One of the indecent acts against J, being charge 3, involved direct physical contact with his genitals, which sets it apart from touching that occurs on the outside of clothing.

I accept that the first episode involved opportunistic and spontaneous offending, rather than pre-planned or premeditated conduct. It is on that basis that you must be sentenced and I take this into account. Had it been pre-planned or involved grooming, it would have been more serious.

Turning now to the second episode of offending. While the indecent act in the second episode in the corridor was very brief and spontaneous and involved contact over clothes, it is, however, coloured by the fact that you had sexually assaulted J a month or so before. This squeezing of his genitals in the corridor cannot be viewed as an isolated lapse on your part. You had had ample time to reflect upon your previous abuse of J. Yet despite this you still indecently acted against J and did so with what I consider to be a degree of physical aggression and venom. It was by no means a minor indecent act.

In supplementary submissions, your counsel submitted that the only inference that can be drawn from your offending in both episodes is that you were not, for whatever reason, acting rationally. It was submitted that the fact that you are an otherwise intelligent person, who had never previously or subsequently offended, just highlights that you must not have been in your right mind at the time of this offending. In particular, your counsel emphasised that no person thinking rationally would engage in the conduct of the first episode, with the door open and with people nearby and where there were accessible private lockable rooms nearby. It was submitted that I should therefore proceed upon the basis that you did not reflect in a reasoned way upon your offending.

I reject this submission for a number of reasons.

First, there is no medical or psychological evidence before me of any kind, which supports any inference that your mental functioning was impaired or diminished in any way at the time of either episode. I note your counsel did not seek to engage the principles of mental impairment under the case of Verdins.

Second, there is no evidence before me from any witness at the trial that you were other than a fully functioning, competent, lucid and intelligent man, during the relevant period of time. To the contrary, there is evidence that on the day of the first episode, you had successfully delivered Sunday Solemn Mass, as Archbishop, this being a public role requiring discipline and focus.

Third, in relation to the first episode, you offended over a period of minutes, where there was ample opportunity for you to both reflect, and to stop. On the evidence of J, you told the boys they were in trouble. J says you all then just froze. You then started moving underneath your robes. You then exposed your penis. There was time for reflection even at the beginning of this offending. What then occurred was sustained offending. Your sexual abuse involved multiple different activities and actions. You moved from one victim to the other. Your dialogue with the two victims during the first episode was both purposeful and responsive. You continued to offend, with callous indifference to the victims’ obvious distress and objections. At some point during this episode, you even told your victims to be quiet because they were crying.

Fourth, what you did was so egregious that it is fanciful to suggest that you may not have fully appreciated this. Your graphic sexual misconduct was not of a kind where you may have misjudged its gravity.

Fifth, the fact that you offended twice against J further undermines the explanation that your offending was but an irrational, unthinking moment of lunacy.

As to what drove you to offend in such a risky and brazen manner, I infer that, for whatever reason, you were in fact prepared to take on such risks.

I conclude that your decision to offend was a reasoned, albeit perverted, one and I reach that conclusion to the criminal standard.

To accept the argument of your counsel would mean that every offender who commits an offence which is brazen, out of character, and spontaneous, must be considered to have some form of mental impairment, or some lapse in a capacity to reason or to think rationally. There is no basis in law or in principle for this proposition and I reject it.

Certainly you were confident your victims would not complain. I will return to this later.

In any event, I reject your counsel’s submission that the only inference available is that you were not acting as a rational, thinking person.

If I am required to identify other explanations as to why you were prepared to take on the risk of somebody walking in on you into the priests’ sacristy, then I do so.

By the jury’s verdict, this offending occurred, and no one walked into the priests’ sacristy whilst you were offending. These are facts which I must act upon. You may at the time have been sufficiently confident that other Church officials would not walk in during this period of time. You would have had some knowledge as to their activities and whereabouts at the time. Moments before you had walked from the Cathedral into the priests’ sacristy corridors. You would have had some opportunity to interact with others and observe their movements.

Another possible reasonable explanation for your preparedness to take on the risk of somebody walking into the sacristy, is that you may also have subjectively believed that, had this occurred, you could control the situation. You may have thought you could control the situation by reason of your authority as Archbishop, whether or not that belief was well founded. Such a state of mind would have been extraordinarily arrogant, but the offending which the jury has found you have engaged in, was on any view, breathtakingly arrogant.

These are all reasonable inferences available once it is assumed, as I must, that this offending actually occurred. I do not aggravate your sentence on the basis that you held any of these states of mind as to why you were prepared to take on the risk of somebody walking in. I simply highlight them as reasonable possibilities to further rebuff your counsels’ submission that the only inference available is that you could not have been acting in a rational, thinking way.
 

StarryPlough01

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2010
Messages
14,616
UPDATE ~ NOW PELL'S BEEN CONVICTED AND SENTENCED, THERE'S A PUSH TO RELEASE THE 2017 REPORT FINDINGS FROM ROYAL COMMIISSION INTO PAEDOPHILE PRIESTS IN BALLARAT, VICTORIA, WHERE PELL WORKED AS A PARISH PRIEST


Channel 9 short video clip herein (it will be replaced, so watch it double-quick!)

George Pell’s first night as an inmate after child sex abuse sentence


'Now George Pell has been convicted and sentenced, there's a push to RELEASE 2017 REPORT FINDINGS from Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.'


"That report focuses on what the Church knew about allegations of paedophile priests in the Ballarat area. We know that George Pell grew up in Ballarat, he worked as a parish priest there and he even lived with a paedophile priest Gerald Ridsdale. But Pell has always denied that he knew anything about Ridsdale's offending. "​
"Based on the evidence presented at that hearing relating to George Pell's trial on historical sex abuse the three judge court appeal will decide if George Pell's convictions stand or if the conviction is quashed. That then means that Pell could be acquitted on all or some of the charges. Or he could go back to the County Court for a retrial."​
 

StirCharles

Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2019
Messages
36
UPDATE ~ NOW PELL'S BEEN CONVICTED AND SENTENCED, THERE'S A PUSH TO RELEASE THE 2017 REPORT FINDINGS FROM ROYAL COMMIISSION INTO PAEDOPHILE PRIESTS IN BALLARAT, VICTORIA, WHERE PELL WORKED AS A PARISH PRIEST


Channel 9 short video clip herein (it will be replaced, so watch it double-quick!)

George Pell’s first night as an inmate after child sex abuse sentence


'Now George Pell has been convicted and sentenced, there's a push to RELEASE 2017 REPORT FINDINGS from Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.'


"That report focuses on what the Church knew about allegations of paedophile priests in the Ballarat area. We know that George Pell grew up in Ballarat, he worked as a parish priest there and he even lived with a paedophile priest Gerald Ridsdale. But Pell has always denied that he knew anything about Ridsdale's offending. "​
"Based on the evidence presented at that hearing relating to George Pell's trial on historical sex abuse the three judge court appeal will decide if George Pell's convictions stand or if the conviction is quashed. That then means that Pell could be acquitted on all or some of the charges. Or he could go back to the County Court for a retrial."​
Where do you get the time, have I seen you elsewhere as well?
 

StarryPlough01

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2010
Messages
14,616
'Lawyers are calling for more high-profile court hearings to be broadcast live so the public can better understand how judgments are reached…'


Live broadcast of George Pell's sentencing sparks calls for more cameras in court


Arthur Moses SC, the president of the Law Council of Australia, said the broadcast gave the public access to what was going on in the court, and an insight into the complex factors involved in sentencing

"The broadcast allows the public to examine the demeanour of the judge as she or he is dealing with the matter, the tone of their voice and the carefully constructed considerations that go into delivering a judgment," he told the ABC.


Live Broadcast of George Pell

Balance of the Scales of Justice


Starry: The sentencing of George Pell was a matter of public interest. A County Court of Victoria spokesperson announced it "was committed to the principles of open justice," when it was decided to broadcast live Judge Peter Kidd's sentencing remarks. It allows the public to better understand the decision made than to be given a mere selective summary (excerpts) through the media outlets.


DPP v Pell

Case No. CR-18-01133

*Gravity of offending *

https://content.countycourt.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2019-03/dpp-v-pell-sentence-2019-vcc-260.pdf


Gravity of offending

I now turn to an assessment of the gravity of your offending.

Objective assessment of offending conduct

This first involves an assessment of the conduct itself.

Your offending encompassed two distinct episodes, over a month apart.

In my view, the first episode n the priests’sacristy involved a brazen and forcible sexual attack upon the two victims. The acts were sexually graphic.

Both victims were visibly and audibly distressed during this offending. The obvious distress and objections of your victims is relevant to my assessment of the impact of your offending on J and R.14

There is an added layer of degradation and humiliation that each of your victims must have felt in knowing that their abuse had been witnessed by the other.

In relation to charge 1, which is the indecent act against R has, in my view, a nasty element to it - holding him by the head, whilst placing your penis in close proximity to R’s head. While there was no sexual physical contact, the conduct here must have been particularly confronting and debasing. Judging by R’s reaction, it clearly was so.

Charge 2 on the Indictment is a charge involving sexual penetration of J and it is rightly characterised as an act of violence. Additional force was used by you to offend over and above the penetration, in that your grabbed hold of J’s head and pushed your penis inside his mouth. You held his head down for a period.

One of the indecent acts against J, being charge 3, involved direct physical contact with his genitals, which sets it apart from touching that occurs on the outside of clothing.

I accept that the first episode involved opportunistic and spontaneous offending, rather than pre-planned or premeditated conduct. It is on that basis that you must be sentenced and I take this into account. Had it been pre-planned or involved grooming, it would have been more serious.

Turning now to the second episode of offending. While the indecent act in the second episode in the corridor was very brief and spontaneous and involved contact over clothes, it is, however, coloured by the fact that you had sexually assaulted J a month or so before. This squeezing of his genitals in the corridor cannot be viewed as an isolated lapse on your part. You had had ample time to reflect upon your previous abuse of J. Yet despite this you still indecently acted against J and did so with what I consider to be a degree of physical aggression and venom. It was by no means a minor indecent act.

In supplementary submissions, your counsel submitted that the only inference that can be drawn from your offending in both episodes is that you were not, for whatever reason, acting rationally. It was submitted that the fact that you are an otherwise intelligent person, who had never previously or subsequently offended, just highlights that you must not have been in your right mind at the time of this offending. In particular, your counsel emphasised that no person thinking rationally would engage in the conduct of the first episode, with the door open and with people nearby and where there were accessible private lockable rooms nearby. It was submitted that I should therefore proceed upon the basis that you did not reflect in a reasoned way upon your offending.

I reject this submission for a number of reasons.

First, there is no medical or psychological evidence before me of any kind, which supports any inference that your mental functioning was impaired or diminished in any way at the time of either episode. I note your counsel did not seek to engage the principles of mental impairment under the case of Verdins.

Second, there is no evidence before me from any witness at the trial that you were other than a fully functioning, competent, lucid and intelligent man, during the relevant period of time. To the contrary, there is evidence that on the day of the first episode, you had successfully delivered Sunday Solemn Mass, as Archbishop, this being a public role requiring discipline and focus.

Third, in relation to the first episode, you offended over a period of minutes, where there was ample opportunity for you to both reflect, and to stop. On the evidence of J, you told the boys they were in trouble. J says you all then just froze. You then started moving underneath your robes. You then exposed your penis. There was time for reflection even at the beginning of this offending. What then occurred was sustained offending. Your sexual abuse involved multiple different activities and actions. You moved from one victim to the other. Your dialogue with the two victims during the first episode was both purposeful and responsive. You continued to offend, with callous indifference to the victims’ obvious distress and objections. At some point during this episode, you even told your victims to be quiet because they were crying.

Fourth, what you did was so egregious that it is fanciful to suggest that you may not have fully appreciated this. Your graphic sexual misconduct was not of a kind where you may have misjudged its gravity.

Fifth, the fact that you offended twice against J further undermines the explanation that your offending was but an irrational, unthinking moment of lunacy.

As to what drove you to offend in such a risky and brazen manner, I infer that, for whatever reason, you were in fact prepared to take on such risks.

I conclude that your decision to offend was a reasoned, albeit perverted, one and I reach that conclusion to the criminal standard.

To accept the argument of your counsel would mean that every offender who commits an offence which is brazen, out of character, and spontaneous, must be considered to have some form of mental impairment, or some lapse in a capacity to reason or to think rationally. There is no basis in law or in principle for this proposition and I reject it.

Certainly you were confident your victims would not complain. I will return to this later.

In any event, I reject your counsel’s submission that the only inference available is that you were not acting as a rational, thinking person.

If I am required to identify other explanations as to why you were prepared to take on the risk of somebody walking in on you into the priests’ sacristy, then I do so.

By the jury’s verdict, this offending occurred, and no one walked into the priests’ sacristy whilst you were offending. These are facts which I must act upon. You may at the time have been sufficiently confident that other Church officials would not walk in during this period of time. You would have had some knowledge as to their activities and whereabouts at the time. Moments before you had walked from the Cathedral into the priests’ sacristy corridors. You would have had some opportunity to interact with others and observe their movements.

Another possible reasonable explanation for your preparedness to take on the risk of somebody walking into the sacristy, is that you may also have subjectively believed that, had this occurred, you could control the situation. You may have thought you could control the situation by reason of your authority as Archbishop, whether or not that belief was well founded. Such a state of mind would have been extraordinarily arrogant, but the offending which the jury has found you have engaged in, was on any view, breathtakingly arrogant.

These are all reasonable inferences available once it is assumed, as I must, that this offending actually occurred. I do not aggravate your sentence on the basis that you held any of these states of mind as to why you were prepared to take on the risk of somebody walking in. I simply highlight them as reasonable possibilities to further rebuff your counsels’ submission that the only inference available is that you could not have been acting in a rational, thinking way.
 

StarryPlough01

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2010
Messages
14,616
JOURNALIST MELISSA DAVEY SAID THE * KEY ISSUE * IN SENTENCING OF GEORGE PELL WAS * ABUSE OF POWER *


Why George Pell was sentenced to six years and what happens next – The Reckoning podcast

Judge Kidd's full sentencing remarks here

https://content.countycourt.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2019-03/dpp-v-pell-sentence-2019-vcc-260.pdf



*** ABUSE OF POWER **



Melissa Davey told David Marr:



Kidd [Judge Peter Kidd] said the argument by your Counsel that" this offending was committed by you George Pell - the man - and not by you George Pell - the Archbishop - must be roundly rejected. "


[Kidd] You were a pillar of St Patrick’s community by virtue of your role as Archbishop. The evidence shows that you were profoundly revered, Cardinal Pell, which imbued you with, and legitimised your, authority.

[Kidd] ... during the first episode, when you found the victims in the priests’ sacristy you said words to the effect that ‘you’re in a lot of trouble’.

Kidd] Your admonishment of the victims was an explicit expression of your authority over them. The victims were rebuked by you because they had breached a rule in their capacity as choir boys. The very pretext through which you committed this offending had to do with the strict discipline of the choir boys at the Cathedral.

Melissa Davey:


And that stuck out to me because his status has been used all along as a reason why he is being made a scapegoat. The point that Kidd was making there is it's his status that allowed him to get away with it, and allowed him to get away with it for so long. And I thought that point came up repeatedly throughout the sentencing.


David Marr:


And Kidd's scorn at that point of his sentencing remarks as he went through the excuses that had been delivered by Richter [Defence Barrister] . Pell had just finished mass, he wasn't responsible for the choir boys, he was just a man. Sure a man dressed as an archbishop and actually the archbishop and actually the man with the most prestige in St Patrick's Cathedral that morning. And the choir boys had the least power of anyone in the cathedral the judge remarked. And he talked about the power imbalance between the two as being stark
.


Melissa Davey:


He made the point that power imbalances between adults and children are always amplified in an institutional setting. And it's this disparity of power that makes children particularly vulnerable and it also deters them from bringing forward a complaint. ....



Edit: Pell had just finished mass. {My abject apologies}
 
Last edited:

StarryPlough01

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2010
Messages
14,616
Where do you get the time, have I seen you elsewhere as well?
Yes. I returned to p.ie after the hacking. I had no trouble logging-in here. Once logged-in, I wasn't asked for my previous password.

Prior to logging in safely, I started a thread on George Pell found guilty over there that has over 11,000 views. In normal circumstances, I would have asked someone to start a new thread on Pell here. To be polite, they are trying to' tame' me! I had to argue that the above court document was not copyright material (it's freely available in the public domain). There's a lot of baiting, rather than debating (and this is 3 of their mods!!). I've been reasonable with them.
 

StirCharles

Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2019
Messages
36
Well more power to your elbow even though if I was on the jury I feel I would have found him not guilty. I would have a reasonable doubt. But I am not arguing, just commenting on the amount of passion you yourself put in
 

StarryPlough01

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2010
Messages
14,616
Stir Charles

Thank you.

George Pell was found guilty by 12 men and women of his peers.

A challenge to the "unreasonable" verdict - in essence did the jury get it right? It's been said the Appeal courts place a lot of weight on the ability of 12 men and women to make findings of facts.

The jury saw and heard all the witnesses give evidence. As is Pell's right, he did not give evidence ~ he was not cross-examined during the trial (a tactical forensic decision by his defence barrister Robert Richter QC).

Was Pell able to be alone in the sacristy? I don't think anyone really believes that Pell was not able to. As someone else pointed out, Pell would need to go and relieve himself (toilet). Nobody follows you when you duck off for a quick pee. Fact: He wasn't always accompanied by another person.

Could Pell whip it out? Fact: YES. The jury looked at the robes. The alb, a long white linen under-tunic had two slits to gain access to trouser pockets. A sleeveless chasuble is worn over the tunic to complete the outfit. It would be easy to 'move the chasuble away' and access your trouser zip (as Pell would have to do for a pee).


Pell's chasuble:
View photo of child receiving her confirmation certificate from Archbishop Pell in 1993 (look at the chasuble Pell is wearing) ~ and by 2008 the child was dead ~

https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/just-how-much-did-cardinal-george-pell-know-about-allegations-of-child-sex-abuse-within-the-church-20170511-gw29zq.html


Also Stir Charles, the jury heard from other witnesses. For example, a friend of the deceased choir boy (he was dead at 31). Also a businessman who saw Pell standing stark naked in front of primary school children at Eureka Swimming Pool's change room…

Cardinal Pell's two sexual assault victims had been offered scholarships to an elite independent school ~ St Kevin's College ~ in the affluent inner-Melbourne suburb of Toorak.

A condition of the boys' scholarship to attend St Kevin’s College was being in St Patrick's Cathedral Choir
.

The deceased victim's life went downhill within a year after the sexual assault by Pell.

The other 13 year old victim was able to compartmentalise what happened to him. He threw himself into his academic studies. He did well at university. According to Louise Milligan (Cardinal: The Rise and Fall of Pell) this survivor has a "lovely" relationship with his girlfriend, and is "a pillar of his community in a sort of understated, slightly ironic way and, in that part of his life, he is very happy."

[ Louse Milligan, who is the author of Cardinal: The Rise and Fall of Pell ]


There's more to come out with regard to George Pell from the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse now that Pell's been convicted and sentenced. They aren't done with Pell yet.



'What did Cardinal George Pell know about allegations of child sex abuse within the church?'


'New allegations of alleged conspiracies, cover-ups and broken lives have emerged, with questions about what Pell knew about paedophilia in the Catholic Church before he become Archbishop of Melbourne.'

https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/just-how-much-did-cardinal-george-pell-know-about-allegations-of-child-sex-abuse-within-the-church-20170511-gw29zq.html

When the Most Reverend George Pell was still Auxiliary Bishop of Melbourne, he had the passing acquaintance of a priest in his region called Father Noel Brady. Brady is now parish priest at Resurrection Kings Park, ….

[Father Noel Brady] Brady says he prefers to stick to the facts. And the facts he alleges fly in the face of everything Pell now says about what he knew about paedophilia and how he handled it in the Catholic Church before becoming Archbishop of Melbourne in 1996.
 

StirCharles

Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2019
Messages
36
Stir Charles

Thank you.

George Pell was found guilty by 12 men and women of his peers.

A challenge to the "unreasonable" verdict - in essence did the jury get it right? It's been said the Appeal courts place a lot of weight on the ability of 12 men and women to make findings of facts.

The jury saw and heard all the witnesses give evidence. As is Pell's right, he did not give evidence ~ he was not cross-examined during the trial (a tactical forensic decision by his defence barrister Robert Richter QC).

Was Pell able to be alone in the sacristy? I don't think anyone really believes that Pell was not able to. As someone else pointed out, Pell would need to go and relieve himself (toilet). Nobody follows you when you duck off for a quick pee. Fact: He wasn't always accompanied by another person.

Could Pell whip it out? Fact: YES. The jury looked at the robes. The alb, a long white linen under-tunic had two slits to gain access to trouser pockets. A sleeveless chasuble is worn over the tunic to complete the outfit. It would be easy to 'move the chasuble away' and access your trouser zip (as Pell would have to do for a pee).


Pell's chasuble:
View photo of child receiving her confirmation certificate from Archbishop Pell in 1993 (look at the chasuble Pell is wearing) ~ and by 2008 the child was dead ~

https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/just-how-much-did-cardinal-george-pell-know-about-allegations-of-child-sex-abuse-within-the-church-20170511-gw29zq.html


Also Stir Charles, the jury heard from other witnesses. For example, a friend of the deceased choir boy (he was dead at 31). Also a businessman who saw Pell standing stark naked in front of primary school children at Eureka Swimming Pool's change room…

Cardinal Pell's two sexual assault victims had been offered scholarships to an elite independent school ~ St Kevin's College ~ in the affluent inner-Melbourne suburb of Toorak.

A condition of the boys' scholarship to attend St Kevin’s College was being in St Patrick's Cathedral Choir.

The deceased victim's life went downhill within a year after the sexual assault by Pell.

The other 13 year old victim was able to compartmentalise what happened to him. He threw himself into his academic studies. He did well at university. According to Louise Milligan (Cardinal: The Rise and Fall of Pell) this survivor has a "lovely" relationship with his girlfriend, and is "a pillar of his community in a sort of understated, slightly ironic way and, in that part of his life, he is very happy."

[ Louse Milligan, who is the author of Cardinal: The Rise and Fall of Pell ]


There's more to come out with regard to George Pell from the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse now that Pell's been convicted and sentenced. They aren't done with Pell yet.



'What did Cardinal George Pell know about allegations of child sex abuse within the church?'

'New allegations of alleged conspiracies, cover-ups and broken lives have emerged, with questions about what Pell knew about paedophilia in the Catholic Church before he become Archbishop of Melbourne.'

https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/just-how-much-did-cardinal-george-pell-know-about-allegations-of-child-sex-abuse-within-the-church-20170511-gw29zq.html
Well, obviously you have paid closer attention than I and perhaps most. I will follow the Appeal
 

StarryPlough01

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2010
Messages
14,616
Stir Charles

The ABC is the equivalent of the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). It is public funded. Completely different to US ABC.

It was ABC journalist Louise Milligan [author of explosive book Cardinal: The Rise and Fall of Pell] who found and interviewed the witnesses against Pell.

For example, she spoke to the accuser of Pell (in DPP ~ v ~ Pell); and a friend of the victim (deceased) Mr Andrew La Greca, a former St Patrick's Cathedral choirboy, and she interviewed others. Andrew La Greca recounted in below ABC transcript that he was vigorously questioned at Pell's trial.

Journalist Milligan's book had to be withdrawn from bookshelves when George Pell was charged. Now Pell is a convicted paedoophile, Louise Milligan feels vindicated.

Stir Charles, as per your comment, I filtered the descriptions of Pell's criminal sexual acts because I am a mother and Pell's abuse of power of the two 13 year old boys affected me. I wanted to get the facts out quickly. Further, I had to stay focused for my thread Cardinal Pell Found Guilty, whilst walking the tightrope of censorious moderation and a user's bullet threat to my life (his post was belatedly deleted). One of the tag team mods twice spoke very gently to this bullet threatening user about his post, but she did nothing… zilch... about this serious breach of site rules.

The extremes that two right wing mods working in a tag team were allowed while others of moderate views were shut down was an absolute disgrace on an Irish political forum.

For example, One tag team mod repeatedly posted "off topic and irrelevant propaganda in his "signature" that always accompanied his consecutive one line sentences. Therefore the "signature" took up half a webpage or more in total. To clarify, his bolded "signature" would not fit in to the signature setting of the forum software and this mod's floating div (signature) took up as much or even more than the screen area of your last post to me here (Post #158). The floating div (tag) was in large bolded type.

He also had large * proselytising * memes, often with no added comment. I considered this proselytising against the Terms of Use, especially when the Church have asked Catholics to fund Pell's trials. The Vatican has refused to do so.

After I brought up the mod's own breach of rules a couple of days ago, he's now restricted his propagandist "signature" to one per webpage ~ a floating div (tag) dead centre of the webpage. BTW, this is 75+ webpages late !@#$%*!

The tag team continuously harangued me (Off Topic comments and Handbagging). Their posts were allowed to stand, and this encouraged other posters to act badly (without sanction).

I've had posts treated as complaints that were my freedom of expression. My posts were removed.

Lies were made up about me. And despite my rebuttals, he continued to harangue me.

The floating div mod also wanted to ban me from sourcing my own posts from politics.ie, of which I am the copyright owner. See politics.ie Terms and Conditions. This was after I put up the Ellis Defence where Pell gave instructions to his legal team to crush the victim.

Stir Charles, below is ABC 'Four Corners' TV programme of interviews with second victim's (dead at 31) family, two businessmen who witnessed Pell stark naked (one as a young child at Eureka Swimming Pool change room in Ballarat, Victoria), the other as an independent adult at the Torquay Surf Club. change room. This is *Highly Recommended* viewing ~ it expires in June. I can guarantee this will bring you up to speed.


The friend of the deceased victim is Andrew La Greca (former St Pat's choirboy).


WARNING: CONTENT IS DEEPLY DISTRESSING


Guilty: The conviction of Cardinal Pell


Posted Mon 4 Mar 2019, 8:30pm
Updated Thu 7 Mar 2019, 2:19pm
Expires: Sunday 2 June 2019 8:30pm





Continues below with ABC Transcript of video...
 
Last edited:

StarryPlough01

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2010
Messages
14,616
Part 1 of 5..


ABC TRANSCRIPT AVAILABLE HEREIN:

LOUISE MILLIGAN, REPORTER: Last week, the news that had been kept secret for nearly three months finally broke. Australia's highest-ranking Catholic... the man who rose to be the Vatican's third most powerful cleric.. had been convicted of sexual crimes against two 13-year-old boys.

A jury of 12 had found George Pell guilty of five, shocking offences...which all took place inside St Patrick's Cathedral...when Pell was Archbishop of Melbourne.

A suppression order banning publication of those convictions was lifted last week after the Crown decided to drop a second trial against the Cardinal on separate charges.

ANDREW LA GRECA, FORMER ST PATRICK'S CHOIRBOY: He was a man that was so high up in the hierarchy that he believed he was untouchable, but we believed that justice wouldn't be served that, uh, we're just wasting our time and effort.


FRANCIS SULLIVAN, FORMER CEO TRUTH JUSTICE AND HEALING COMMISSION: The credibility of the institutional Church is at an all time low. And this is what is so devastating about this conviction. It just makes it worse."



[STARRY: BUSINESS MAN WHO AS AN *** ADULT *** SAW PELL STANDING STARK NAKED IN FRONT OF 3 YOUNG CHILDREN AT TORQUAY SURF CLUB CHANGE ROOM]



LES TYACK: Watching his progression and he's climbing within the Catholic Church, his name was regularly within the press. And every time Pell's name was there, um, a very clear recollection of what he'd been up to.


LOUISE MILLIGAN, REPORTER: And what did you think?


LES TYACK: You know, you're just that dirty, rotten, sneaky, conniving bastard.


LOUISE MILLIGAN, REPORTER: I have been following this case for three years, since I first met a group of men who broke decades of silence to reveal allegations of how their innocence was stolen by Cardinal George Pell when they were young boys. Tonight on 4 Corners, the inside story of how a prince of the Church was brought to justice.


It was 1996, and George Pell was the newly installed Archbishop of Melbourne.

The Church was grappling with an escalating scandal over clergy sexual abuse of children and the Archdiocese of Melbourne had more paedophile priests than anywhere else in the country.

Archbishop George Pell was in damage control.


GEORGE PELL, ARCHBISHOP OF MELBOURNE (1996): 'One or two lonely voices have suggested that the Catholic Church here is in a state of crisis. They are badly mistaken.'

LOUISE MILLIGAN, REPORTER: In October 1996, Pell launched the Melbourne Response, the Church's new strategy for dealing with sexual abuse victims.


GEORGE PELL, ARCHBISHOP OF MELBOURNE (1996): I do want to stress that this is a genuine attempt to lessen the sufferings of the victims and to lessen the sufferings of their families. I am hopeful that with further improvements and refinements over time these initiatives will go a long way towards addressing this sad and deeply regrettable issue.

LOUISE MILLIGAN, REPORTER: This was the public face of George Pell. But only a few months after that press conference, we now know that the Archbishop was doing exactly what his scheme was set up to address: sexually abusing children. This was the case put by the Crown.


CROWN OPENING STATEMENT (ACTOR'S VOICE): As Your Honour pleases. Members of the jury, it's alleged in this case that on a Sunday morning, in the latter part of 1996, Archbishop George Pell, as he was then known... was saying 11 AM mass at St Patrick's Cathedral here in East Melbourne. As was customary, during Sunday mass, the St Patrick's Cathedral Church choir was singing accompanied by an organist.


LOUISE MILLIGAN, REPORTER: There were 61 boys in the choir. About half of them were sopranos.

ANDREW LA GRECA, FORMER ST PATRICK'S CHOIRBOY So the sopranos were like the younger children and then it was the altos which is when your voice starts to break then you turn into a tenor and a bass. The higher up you get, you look after the little boys, you look after them. And you sort of they're only little kids, so you got to show them a bit of, you know, discipline, "No, don't do that, do this." But at the end of the day you're still a child yourself. But you should always, you know, help them out, look after them.


LOUISE MILLIGAN, REPORTER: The choirboys were all on scholarships to attend the nearby St Kevin's College in wealthy Toorak. Andrew La Greca was one of the older boys in the choir.

ANDREW LA GRECA, FORMER ST PATRICK'S CHOIRBOY It was a big deal, it was a big deal. And for a northern boy to go all the way to Toorak it was prestige and was quite an achievement that your parents were proud of you, you were proud of, and to say that 'I went to school at St Kevin's', which is a prestige school, lots of opportunities.

LOUISE MILLIGAN, REPORTER: He says George Pell was often there when the boys practised.

ANDREW LA GRECA, FORMER ST PATRICK'S CHOIRBOY It was just George Pell, the Archbishop. The priest that lives at the church, he came to visit us. We didn't know if he lived there, lives somewhere else, but we just assume because it's the Archbishop, he lives at the church and used to be around listening to the choir. Coming to pastor, say hello, say thank you. We thought of it as a mark of respect that he's to take notice of us.

LOUISE MILLIGAN, REPORTER: On the day of the incident, the choir had just finished singing and filed out of St Patrick's in procession.

ANDREW LA GRECA, FORMER ST PATRICK'S CHOIRBOY So you're singing, the masses finish, everyone's still standing around just watching you sing and then everyone claps as soon as, as soon as the carol's finished. And it's, it's like playing a game of football and you score the winning goal and everyone's just clapping and cheering you on. It was a sense of achievement, a sense of gratitude.

LOUISE MILLIGAN, REPORTER: Two of the boys left the rest of the group.


CROWN PROSECUTOR (ACTOR VOICE) Both boys took the opportunity to have some fun, to be naughty, mischievous kids. [They] slipped away from the procession once the procession was outside the cathedral and away from the public gaze. Once inside the cathedral, this is after mass, they then entered an unlocked door and walked down a corridor that led down to the sacristy.


ANDREW LA GRECA, FORMER ST PATRICK'S CHOIRBOY: It's a big church, there's lots of space, anyone can get lost. There's 60 kids and there was never ... if someone was missing, you wouldn't be able to tell because everyone will just hurry up, get changed, let's go home.


LOUISE MILLIGAN, REPORTER: The two boys were swigging from the altar wine when George Pell caught them in the act.



CROWN PROSECUTOR VOICED BY ACTOR: Pell asked the boys, "What are you doing here?" And told them that they were in trouble... Pell approached the two boys. He then proceeded to manoeuvre his robes so as to pull out his penis. He pulled the first boy aside and had him crouch in front of him. Pell was standing. At this time, the boy asked to be let go, as they hadn't done anything wrong. Pell had his hand on the back of the boy's head and his other hand at his own genital area. The other boy saw the first boy's head being lowered towards the genital area of Pell.


LOUISE MILLIGAN, REPORTER: When he'd finished with the first boy, George Pell moved on to the second.


CROWN PROSECUTOR (ACTOR VOICE): It's alleged that Pell was standing, and he pushed [the other boy] down to a position where he was crouching or kneeling. [The boy] was then pushed onto Pell's erect penis so that Pell's penis was, in his mouth. This act of fellatio or oral sex lasted for a short period which [the boy] estimates to be a couple of minutes. You will hear that Pell then stopped and told [the boy] to remove his pants. The boy stood upright and pulled down or dropped his pants and his underwear in accordance with the instruction. Pell then lowered his position so as to be almost crouched on his knees Pell then started touching the boy's genitalia. While touching [the boy's] genitalia, Pell was touching his own genitalia... After a couple of minutes, Pell finished and stood up.
 
Last edited:
Top