The latest on a certain case in Australia that is subject to suppression orders here

  • Thread starter Thread starter Roseeurekacross
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The problem with this is that in the case of Cardinal Pell, If we are to believe the victim in this case he would have had to engage in these acts with two members of the choir while wearing his episcopal vestments in a semi-public in the company of other people without anybody seeing or hearing anything out of the ordinary.
 
Yes, God rest his soul. His accusations against a living person remain on the record.
And Damien can now not defend them. It is wrong to continue discussing Damien’s case, as the courts have ruled it cannot be tried or tested.

You do know that book was revoked don’t you? It was released to time with the committal hearing, caused a whole lot of unsubstantiated cow dung for a day or two, by an ABC Journalist, and was revoked. Melbourne University had a lot to answer for in allowing that to be published. It was timed to achieve maximum damage and pollution of the case from all sides.

Louise MIlligans book won’t be on public record anymore. She was ordered to hand the manuscripts to the courts and said she would keep her sources secret. We won’t know the full extent of this until after everything is done and dusted, if ever.


Please stop pulling up newspaper reports as if they are fact. They are always a he said she said thing especially in this case. I have been at events where the media, the church and survivors and those who did not survive 's families were all gathered and guess what.

What is reported is so very whats the word “fake Media” “fake news”

“Cardinal Pell’s Rome office has labelled the book, published in May, “an exercise in character assassination”.”
 
Last edited:
The problem with this is that in the case of Cardinal Pell, If we are to believe the victim in this case he would have had to engage in these acts with two members of the choir while wearing his episcopal vestments in a semi-public in the company of other people without anybody seeing or hearing anything out of the ordinary.
I’m interested to understand how this was presented to the jury. It would require such a brazen web of lies, planning and execution to have happened.
 
We actually don’t know what charges this public figure was found guilty of. So its a bit pointless to continue to state what news reports outside Australia are stating, when they don’t even state what charges this public figure was found guilty of, if they did, the charges would be listed.

Right now there is a tome of sensationalism out there, hey guess what, this public figure was found guilty. But if pressed to answer what, they can’t answer.
 
Last edited:
I challenge anyone to find a list of the charges this public figure was found guilty of. And if that list cannot be found and verified, all talk on how why who or which is absolutely pointless.
 
Once again, we need to leave in Gods hands and pray for the truth .
 
Jim we Australians don’t have access to that website.

bradski you will!
Which one?

Edit: I see the one you mean. Apart from details that have already been mentioned, specifically claims that it would not have been physically possible for the assaults to have taken place, the only new item is that Pell opted not to take the stand. Which, in one person’s view who attended the case, created a negative impression. The only evidence that Pell actually gave himself was via recorded interviews he did with police before the charges were laid.
 
Last edited:
No use putting up links here, I am Australian and blocked from opening them. And unless they are court documents, they most likely won’t be accurately reported. Having been witness to the media over the issue of historic sex abuse…

5 Charges does not say what the charges are. It only says 5 charges. That reveals no information about which charges were upheld and which were thrown out. We won’t know what he was found guilty of until after the next trial has finished.

Kind of sorry I started this thread now. That will teach me!

But its been interesting to learn the Government here is able to block our internet access.
I wonder if they can block the dark web too
 
Last edited:
Poche again, I cannot open that link. I am in Australia. We have been blocked from links like that here.

The charges are not listed specifically in that link are they.

Ie one count of x, one count of y?
 
In sum, what they are saying is that the cardinal snatched this young person out of the choir in the cathedral at the end of mass and had sex with him in front of everyone without anybody noticing anything amiss.
These accusations do not pass the test of credibility. because of the outrageous nature of the allegations i believe that this is really an attack on the Catholic Church. I would include links with the information but because our friends in Australia cannot access them.
 
That’s well and good poche but it doesn’t answer my question.

The charges he has been found guilty on are NOT listed. So it’s all hearsay. Once the suppression order is lifted, the exact charges will be listed and may well be shown to have absolutely nothing to do with what the media are claiming. And if the media is claiming that’s what the prosecution are claiming, take it from me,

It’s fake news
 
Last edited:
A commentary by Michael Sean Winters…


Edit: The journalist’s reference here "If some reports are to be believed, there is a latent anti-Pell, perhaps even an anti-Catholic, sentiment in many parts of Australian elite culture, and that might extend to judges and lawyers. There is some of that here in the U.S. "

I’m thinking that the US has a more Protestant anti Catholic thing but in Australia, the ‘elite’ anti Catholics have always been the Freemasons who have a long tradition of control in the business, financial and judicial spheres here.
 
Last edited:
There is anti catholic, anti religious sentiment everywhere today, the world is secular and increasingly people believe they don’t need God.

We cannot use this as justification in saying someone found guilty is a scapegoat, until we know what the guilty verdict exactly is
 
We can if the reported circumstance that have been reported are true in this instance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top