Cardinal Pell charged and must return

[JimG]

And you can’t explain to a six-year-old, “this is why I can’t hug you when you’re sad,” or “this is why you can’t hold my hand when we’re walking to the cafeteria,” which they will sometimes try to do. How could you possibly explain?
The little ones really do have very big hearts. Whenever I work with them, my heart grows just a little bit bigger.

Disregarding for a moment the subject of Cardinal Pell, what you describe is indeed sad and is increasingly common. Adults are afaid to show any affection to kids. A friend of mine was asked to coach a middle school girls soccer team, which he did. The girls learned a lot and they liked their coach. But when they were injured, they ran to him for a hug, which he could not give. He could only comfor them with words.

 

[JimG]

From First Things:

The Case Against Cardinal Pell

 

[Irishmom2]

Funny about that…anyone remember the Da Vinci Code movie…all those with a beef against the Catholic church fell for that hook…line…and sinker

Once again, The Keepers is a documentary.

Da Vinci Code was fiction.

 

[chris62]

It’s a documentary.

Never said it wasn’t.

 

[pianistclare]

Never said it wasn’t.

You implication was different.

 

[abucs]

Oh come on, the herald sun is all about subscribed sensationalism. A few days ago you claim d the ABC was also inaccurately reporting.

What’s left? The Northern Territory news

The article quotes other media sources comments about Pell and asks about the influence this might have with a jury.

What in this article is an inaccurate report?

 

[Roseeurekacross]

The article quotes other media sources comments about Pell and asks about the influence this might have with a jury.

What in this article is an inaccurate report?

Who would know what it says. The herald sun is subscribed sensationalism. Are you going to let us into your subscription?

And their focus now is will he get a fair trial. Perhaps if they are that concerned, being in Melbourne, they could do what other papers are doing and not whip up reports.

The herald sun should stick to the footy reporting.

Why don’t you believe the ABC is a good news source? Without using political words like left or right.

Brokenrites on Cardinal Pell is still up. Unbelievably.

The herald sun has a vested interest in this

“”""Police investigation
Pell’s non-appearance in Australia also prompted the Australian media to wonder if any alleged victims had made complaints to Australian civil authorities about any actions allegedly involving George Pell (that is, not about other clergy). As explained earlier in this article, the Royal Commission’s role is to examine the general issue of cover-ups, leaving the police to investigate a particular crime.

In February 2016, a journalist from the Melbourne Herald Sun sent some questions to Cardinal George Pell in Rome, seeking to find out if there had been any such complaints about Pell and, if so, whether these complainrs are being examined by Victoria Police. (The police are obliged to examine any such complaint from an alleged victim if the victim requests this.).

Pell responded to the Herald Sun by issuing a written statement, objecting to any such “police investigation”. Pell’s media statement attacked the Victoria Police (instead of criticising the Herald Sun or the Royal Commission).

Pell’s media statement was available not only to the Herald Sun but also, simultaneously, to all other media outlets in Australia and around the world. Thus, in February 2016, Pell’s own media-crisis strategists had a hand in bringing this “police investigation” story to the whole world.

In late 2016, George Pell agreed to be interviewed by the Victoria Police in Rome, so three Sano Taskforce detectives flew from Melbourne to Rome to see him to hear his response to the complaints of the alleged victims. The detectives’ trip to Rome became a worldwide news story, thanks largely to George Pell criticising the police for investigating the statements of the alleged victims.""""

Pretty sure that website will be in contempt of court

 

[abucs]

Originally Posted by Roseeurekacross
Oh come on, the herald sun is all about subscribed sensationalism. A few days ago you claimed the ABC was also inaccurately reporting.

I’ll ask again.

What in that article that I quoted is an inaccurate report?

 

[Roseeurekacross]

I’ll ask again.

What in that article that I quoted is an inaccurate report?

I repeat, it’s a subscribed article… you gotta pay money to see it. Subscribed sensationalism.

And they do have that vested interest given they started this process.

Are you in Australia, abucs?

 

[abucs]

I repeat, it’s a subscribed article… you gotta pay money to see it. Subscribed sensationalism.

And they do have that vested interest given they started this process.

Are you in Australia, abucs?

You dismissed the linked article, calling the publication sensationalist and implicitly described it as inaccurate reporting and you did not read the article?

Is that correct?

Is there anything in the lead in commentary which you believe is inaccurate reporting?

The media commentary suggests there’s little chance Cardinal George Pell can get a fair trial.*
Over the past few days we’ve been told it was “important” Pell was last week charged with historical sexual offences.
People in Pell’s home town had been “hurt” and “the world will be watching”.
A report in The Age even claimed this seemed “the inevitable last act in the drama of a man who authored his own tragedy”.
Pardon? Is Pell, Australia’s most senior Catholic churchman, on trial for his own alleged offences or the sins of other priests?
Is this to be a show trial? With the implication he is guilty already?

I’ve been in Asia for the last 3 months.

I was in Australia for the 5 months before that including the ABC’s live broadcast of Pell’s hours long testimony from the Vatican to the Royal Commission.

That could be described as sensationism.

I was also in Australia during the screening on ‘The Project’ of the disgusting anti-Pell song broadcast on live TV.

Song

That was definitely sensationalism.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

You dismissed the linked article, calling the publication sensationalist and implicitly described it as inaccurate reporting and you did not read the article?

Is that correct?

Is there anything in the lead in commentary which you believe is inaccurate reporting?

I’ve been in Asia for the last 3 months.

I was in Australia for the 5 months before that including the ABC’s live broadcast of Pell’s hours long testimony from the Vatican to the Royal Commission.

That could be described as sensationism.

I was also in Australia the previous year during the screening of the disgusting anti-Pell song broadcast on live TV.

Song

Do you understand that the herald sun article is a subscribed article? So if one wants to see it, beyond that little paragraph, they have to pay.

Yes the herald sun is subscribed sensationalism. And show me where I said the article was either accurate or inaccurate.

I said it was subscribed sensationalism!

The herald sun is subscribed sensationalism at its worst. And yes, as per what I pasted, the herald sun has a vested interest in this. After all didnt their reporter write the letters to Cardinal Pell.

This trial has nothing to do with the Royal Commission. It’s entirely seperate. Don’t conflate the two. But the live broadcasting of the Royal Commission, all of it, all testimony, can’t be called sensationalism when cameras were allowed into the Commission.

You didnt have to listen to, or refer to any songs. My advice is turn off the TV. I never heard any song, and had no idea one was in existence till you mentioned it.

 

[Lion_IRC]

I have no idea what Cardinal Pell did or did not do. But here is a contrasting view.

The media’s Cardinal Pell disinformation campaign.

Great article. Amazing!
Thanks

1. The alleged “abuse” so far does not maintain any explicit sexual acts. After an investigation that went on for nearly two years, two men so far accuse Cardinal Pell of touching them “inappropriately” while splashing and playing games in a swimming pool 40 years ago.

1. One of the accusers, Lyndon Monument, is an admitted drug addict and has served almost a year in prison for violently assaulting a man and a woman over a drug debt. Monument has also accused a boyhood teacher of forcing him to perform sex acts. What an unlucky guy.

1. The other accuser, Damian Dignan, also has a criminal history for assault and drunk driving. He has also accused a female teacher of beating him during class when he was a youth. He says he lives alone, suffers from leukemia, and has “lost everything” due to alcohol abuse. In other words, this dude has nothing to lose at all.

 

[Rau]

From First Things:

The Case Against Cardinal Pell

A very good effort to test the substance of the known allegations against Pell. And the substance does look a little lacking.

 

[abucs]

Do you understand that the herald sun article is a subscribed article? So if one wants to see it, beyond that little paragraph, they have to pay.

Yes the herald sun is subscribed sensationalism. And show me where I said the article was either accurate or inaccurate.

I said it was subscribed sensationalism!

The herald sun is subscribed sensationalism at its worst. And yes, as per what I pasted, the herald sun has a vested interest in this. After all didnt their reporter write the letters to Cardinal Pell.

This trial has nothing to do with the Royal Commission. It’s entirely seperate. Don’t conflate the two. But the live broadcasting of the Royal Commission, all of it, all testimony, can’t be called sensationalism when cameras were allowed into the Commission.

You didnt have to listen to, or refer to any songs. My advice is turn off the TV. I never heard any song, and had no idea one was in existence till you mentioned it.

I am not conflating the two I am linking to a Herald Sun article which points to biased reporting in the media and questions whether Pell can get a fair trial. That could well include the ABC’s reporting of Pell’s testimony to the Royal Commission and the broadcast on one of the networks of the anti-Pell song among many other cases. These are directly related to the topic of the media treatment of Pell and the affect on justice.

It is not a question of whether or not I am upset by the song but whether the members of the jury have been influenced in general by anti Pell media or in fact other people they come in natural contact with have been affected in such a way.

I know that only those who have subscribed can read the full article that I linked to. I mentioned that you implicitly called this article (or the free lead in) inaccurate reporting by replying to the post with the link with your words :

Oh come on, the herald sun is all about subscribed sensationalism. A few days ago you claimed the ABC was ALSO inaccurately reporting.

 

[Lion_IRC]

From First Things:

The Case Against Cardinal Pell

Thanks again JimG

“…There is no eyewitness evidence, no physical evidence, no circumstantial evidence, no cogency, and no contemporary report. Scott lodged his claim four decades after the alleged assaults—enough time for memories and evidence, if there had been any, to perish;”

 

[abucs]

Note : the song was even in the running for the APRA song of the year awards.

It is quite valid for the ‘sensationalist’ Herald Sun to ask such questions regarding the chances of a fair trial by jury for Cardinal Pell IMHO.

 

[pnewton]

Questions about a rush to judgement by some hostile sections of the Australian press and the chances pf Pell receiving a fair trial.

Herald Sun article.

I think it too early to tell this. Maybe the prosecutor does have some evidence that has not been made public. However, if he is just relying on testimony, he hasn’t a chance, or if he is just relying on testimony from decades ago, then he should not have even brought this to trial.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

I am not conflating the two I am linking to a Herald Sun article which points to biased reporting in the media and questions whether Pell can get a fair trial. That could well include the ABC’s reporting of Pell’s testimony to the Royal Commission and the broadcast on one of the networks of the anti-Pell song among many other cases. These are directly related to the topic of the media treatment of Pell and the affect on justice.

It is not a question of whether or not I am upset by the song but whether the members of the jury have been influenced in general by anti Pell media or in fact other people they come in natural contact with have been affected in such a way.

I know that only those who have subscribed can read the full article that I linked to. I mentioned that you implicitly called this article (or the free lead in) inaccurate reporting by replying to the post with the link with your words :

Ok, I implied no such thing. You did, when you were discussing the leftist ABC!
I stated straight out that the herald sun is subscribed sensationalism. It’s sister paper, the weekly times is actually quite good and popular in rural areas.

The herald sun and the ABC are very different networks. One is owned and run by the government. The other is a Murdoch publication.

Forget about the song, it really didn’t become that significant.

How can anyone judge an entire article or the sources it quotes or refers to if one can’t see the entire article. Even you don’t know what the thing has to say because you cant see it all!

Yes appointing a jury will be complicated but we must trust in our legal system. Have you ever been called up for Australian Jury Duty?

And you might be surprised to know there is quite a lot of support for Cardinal Pell here in Aus. Even in his old stomping grounds. Have a look at some of the local rags in Diocese Cardinal Pell used to serve in.

But please, don’t link an article no one can access. We all know one or two paragraphs can be quite misleading.

 

[abucs]

I think it too early to tell this. Maybe the prosecutor does have some evidence that has not been made public. However, if he is just relying on testimony, he hasn’t a chance, or if he is just relying on testimony from decades ago, then he should not have even brought this to trial.

I agree that we haven’t seen anything that should convict Cardinal Pell and sections of the media have been gunning for him quite blatantly now for years.

It is this last part I am concerned about.

(apparently sensationalist) Herald Sun article 2md July.

THE media commentary suggests there’s little chance Cardinal George Pell can get a fair trial.

Over the past few days we’ve been told it was “important” Pell was last week charged with historical sexual offences. People in Pell’s home town had been “hurt” and “the world will be watching”.

A report in The Age even claimed this seemed “the inevitable last act in the drama of a man who authored his own tragedy”. Pardon? Is Pell, Australia’s most senior Catholic churchman, on trial for his own alleged offences or the sins of other priests?
Is this to be a show trial? With the implication he is guilty already?

To be fair, Deputy Commissioner Shane Patton last Thursday said the right things in announcing Pell was being charged with historical sexual offences. He said Pell had been convicted of nothing yet and asked that the cardinal’s right to a fair trial be respected, even though shops still carry a savagely biased book by ABC journalist Louise Milligan. To “see natural justice is afforded to all the parties involved”, Patton concluded, Victoria Police “won’t be making any further comments in respect of this matter”.

Yet The Australian quoted a former survivor saying the decision to charge Pell was “an important step along the way”. But along the way to what? The report added that charging Pell would bring attention to “what took place all those years ago”, and quoted the victim adding: “The world will be watching this.”

These comments suggest that charging Pell is about far more than trying to establish whether this one priest is guilty of sexual offences. Else why would it matter that the world “will be watching”? Why hail it as the chance to bring to attention what other priests did in Ballarat years ago? These comments were at first mistakenly attributed to Detective Sergeant Kevin Carson. In fact, Carson refused to comment on the charges against Pell, saying he did not want to jeopardise a future trial.

As the (sensationalist - ed) Herald Sun noted, “Detective Sergeant Carson was honoured for his ongoing work in the Ballarat Sexual Offence and Child Abuse Investigation Team which included his investigations into notorious paedophile and Christian Brother Robert Charles Best.”

Again the danger to Pell is clear, although inadvertent in this case: he risks being seen as the man who must be punished for what was done by other priests in Ballarat.
If this mindset takes hold — especially in a jury — then Pell has little hope. He himself may be innocent, yet could be punished as a scapegoat. Already so much has been said that makes Pell’s predicament even worse. In 2012 The Age reported that “confidential police reports” showed at least 40 people had killed themselves after being sexually abused by Catholic priests in Victoria.

The Age went on: “In a damning assessment of the church’s handling of abuse issues, the reports say it appears the church has known about a shockingly high rate of suicides and premature deaths but has ‘chosen to remain silent’.” These reports did much to prompt a Victorian parliamentary inquiry into sexual abuse by clergy. Graham Ashton, now Police Chief Commissioner, then repeated to the inquiry that 43 abuse-related suicides were being investigated for the coroner. But in 2015, reporter John Ferguson of The Australian revealed the truth: a secret police operation had already found there was just one substantiated case in the list of 43.

Several other people who might have suffered abuse by Catholic clergy did kill themselves, but these cases could not be verified. Eighteen of the victims on the list could not even be identified. In short, Victoria Police had vastly overstated the tragedy but for two years did not publicly correct the record. That damaged Pell who, as the reforming Archbishop of Melbourne, set up the first Australian compensation scheme for victims yet was now being savaged by implication as unfeeling — choosing to “stay silent”. Pell was the scapegoat then, but after being charged must not be the scapegoat still. This case is not about making the church pay, healing Ballarat or showing the world anything. The only issue for the courts is whether Pell committed sexual offences and can get a fair trial. Full stop.

 

[ringil]

I wonder if Pope Francis could gently suggest that Pell return to Australia?