Friday Flash Poll: George Pell – has justice been served?

George Pell has been sentenced to six years jail, but has justice really been served?

Friday Flash Poll: George Pell – has justice been served?

George Pell’s sentence handed down earlier this week has polarised the nation, and some say, the world, with many saying the decision is fair and others calling it ‘soft’.

Mr Pell was given a six-year sentence, eligible for parole in just over three years. He’ll turn 78 in protective custody, where he’ll remain relatively safe from many other inmates who were victims of paedophilia, child sex abuse and friends of those who may have also fallen afoul of the corrosive cancer eating away the Catholic Church.

He may die in prison, but his accuser – in his own words – will not rest.

It’s easy to be angry about this whole affair, but as Waleed Aly sagely points out, that is why justice is not put into the hands of victims. Mr Aly praised the judge for his handling of the sentence, writing:

“We’re in an era where anger dominates our sense of morality. To be angry is to be righteous, while to temper that anger is to be somehow morally complacent, apologetic, complicit even. Of course, there’s nothing new – or wrong – in anger as a moral response. It’s a crucial part of our moral vocabulary, particularly in the face of something heinous.

“But there is something new – and wrong – in it being our only moral resource, our only way of demonstrating moral seriousness. That’s why the phenomenon of outrage culture is so runaway: we find precious few alternatives for expressing our moral agency, so we get angry at the minor and the momentous alike. The result is that we’re forgetting how to hold our anger in tension with anything else, especially in serious cases.”

During Mr Pell’s sentencing, County Court chief judge Peter Kidd highlighted the heinous deeds committed by the former cardinal, but also intimated that part of Mr Pell’s punishment would have been, and will be, his public vilification.

Many are satisfied with the length of the sentence, but others say it is not reflective of the crimes committed which could have put Mr Pell away for a maximum of 50 years.

One wonders if his position saved him from such a sentence. Let’s not forget that it would have been more a symbolic sentencing – regardless of his standing in the church and in the eyes of the ‘big man’ upstairs, he will not live that long.

In an article on ABC News, Louise Milligan, author of Cardinal, The Rise and Fall of George Pell and a witness in the case, said when she saw Mr Pell in the sentencing hearing, he looked as if he’d aged years in a matter of weeks. He was no longer the man of power, but a feeble, greying man in a beige jacket and black shirt – sans collar and Order of Australia pin.

A sentence has been handed down, but this whole affair isn’t over. Mr Pell still maintains his innocence and intends to appeal his conviction. If it happened that his conviction was overturned, we will no doubt see a public parade of pitchforks and firesticks. This case has become a litmus test for what many would like to see happen to a plethora of priests accused of the same inexcusable crimes.

Many are disgusted with the church, but is it a fair assumption that all people leading or involved in the church are bad? No. The church, with all its failures, has helped millions throughout history. It’s still helping millions today. There are phenomenal people of faith who are doing wonderful things in the community.

And while that doesn’t excuse past atrocities and ongoing acts of sexual abuse, we shouldn’t paint all people of faith with the same brush. Church is separate from faith. The same goes for all religions. Everyone has the right to believe.

Still, if Mr Pell has committed these crimes, he should be put away for life – however long that may be. He should receive the same treatment as those on the lowest rung found guilty of the same crimes. If guilty, his public vilification is not punishment enough.

We just shouldn’t forget that until he is truly found guilty, he should be treated like a human.

What do you think of Mr Pell’s sentence? Was is just? Do you think there’s a chance that his conviction overturned? Tell us what you think in our Friday Flash Poll.

Loading...

And, of course, we welcome your opinion in the comments section below.





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    Alan
    15th Mar 2019
    10:54am
    For a first offender, totally free of any previous convictins I can't help but wonder what the sentance would have been for anyone not wearing a clerical collar. Would it have been less or would it have been more? He is continuing to deny guilt and has appealed the conviction so it is unrealistic to expect a show of remorse at this stage. If there were no appeal then remorse would be appropriate.
    jackie
    15th Mar 2019
    11:47am
    Alan....There have been rumours circulating about the pedophile for years. The cunning evil prick got caught for two. All pedophiles never stop at one let alone two. Wake up.

    As far as I am concerned pedophiles should be castrated and sentenced a lot more. I bet he is protected and pampered in prison because he has money. There are different laws for the rich and poor.

    It makes me sick how Liberals can sympathise with rich pedophiles, but not their victims.

    That's because they are all money worshipping demons. Other people's children mean nothing to them because they are not rich.

    It's about time all religious organisations were thrown off trhe gravy train and paid tax. They no longer Govern countries as they had originially done. They all are just evil business that sell lies.
    Charlie
    15th Mar 2019
    2:05pm
    Well for comparison there's the entertainment industry..Rolf Harris. He got 5 years and 9 mths but he's 10 years older at 88yo. Sentencing old men is really quite silly but there's a public expectation they should at least face trial.

    Uncoming generations will be so conditioned to pornography, they will be less outraged by these things.
    Anonymous
    15th Mar 2019
    4:49pm
    @ Jackie "It's about time all religious organisations were thrown off trhe gravy train and paid tax."

    They effectively pay tax by running the largest charities in the country.
    Anonymous
    17th Mar 2019
    5:28pm
    Not so sure about their charity, Knows-a-lot. The Catholic Church claimed 'charity' by running orphanages. In reality, they made massive profits by taking in children and providing far less material comfort than the allowances they took from the State should have provided. No doubt the same is true of other religions. The State paid an allowance for every child 'in care', but only a tiny portion of that allowance was spent on the children the nuns referred to as 'dirty little urchins who didn't deserve to be alive and would come to no good anyway'.

    They also accepted donated clothing, fruit, cakes, bread, meat, etc that was never passed on to the children - who were dressed in rags and half-starved. Those donated goods were used to feed nuns and priests or given to other parishioners - often in exchange for favours. A relative worked at a Catholic Orphanage and reported that nuns regularly said donated clothing was 'too good for this filthy scum'.

    For every child housed in an orphanage, the taxpayer was unwittingly and unwillingly making a huge donation to the Catholic Church.
    maxchugg
    18th Mar 2019
    9:19am
    Knows-a-lot, in wanting to make churches pay tax also volunteers to declare every item received for any reason - wedding presents, birthday gifts, handouts from parents, etc. and pay tax on the annual value, because all of these items have been purchased with money on which tax has already been paid. Church income is no different, it is also sourced from gifts provided by the parishioners from money which has already been taxed.

    Church owned businesses should be subject to the same taxation laws as all other businesses.
    maxchugg
    18th Mar 2019
    9:19am
    Knows-a-lot, in wanting to make churches pay tax also volunteers to declare every item received for any reason - wedding presents, birthday gifts, handouts from parents, etc. and pay tax on the annual value, because all of these items have been purchased with money on which tax has already been paid. Church income is no different, it is also sourced from gifts provided by the parishioners from money which has already been taxed.

    Church owned businesses should be subject to the same taxation laws as all other businesses.
    Hoohoo
    20th Mar 2019
    5:52pm
    Income, from whatever source, is still income Max. Do you walk into a shop to order coffee, & tell the cashier they don't have to pay tax on that $4 because you earned all the money in your wallet & you've already paid the tax? That's madness!

    One is taxed on one's income, unless you are very rich & your high-charging accountant (don't worry - it's tax deductible) arranges your affairs so you don't pay your fair share.
    Hoohoo
    20th Mar 2019
    5:55pm
    The Church is a business (actually, the Catholic Church is a very big business) that invests in the stock markets of the world. They should pay tax as do other businesses.
    maxchugg
    21st Mar 2019
    10:37am
    Hoo hoo, you clearly don't understand the difference between a gift and payment for a purchase or service. A gift is a payment for which you neither expect nor obtain a benefit. Money paid to a coffee shop is a purchase - you receive something in return for the money you have paid to the shop- I really can't make it simpler than that.

    And do tell us your attitude to charities - should they pay tax? If you think they should, you will be massively reducing the amount of welfare support that is currently available to the disadvantaged and if the shortfall then needs to be subsidized by - guess who - the taxpayer perhaps!. It would appear that your irrational hatred of the churches who are the major operators of charities, would trump any concerns that you might have for the poor in our society,

    Finally, what about my suggestion that if you want to tax gifts given to churches, you should also be willing to declare the value of every single gift you receive each year, birthday presents? Christmas presents, etc. thereby increasing your taxable income and hence your tax liability.
    maxchugg
    21st Mar 2019
    10:37am
    Hoo hoo, you clearly don't understand the difference between a gift and payment for a purchase or service. A gift is a payment for which you neither expect nor obtain a benefit. Money paid to a coffee shop is a purchase - you receive something in return for the money you have paid to the shop- I really can't make it simpler than that.

    And do tell us your attitude to charities - should they pay tax? If you think they should, you will be massively reducing the amount of welfare support that is currently available to the disadvantaged and if the shortfall then needs to be subsidized by - guess who - the taxpayer perhaps!. It would appear that your irrational hatred of the churches who are the major operators of charities, would trump any concerns that you might have for the poor in our society,

    Finally, what about my suggestion that if you want to tax gifts given to churches, you should also be willing to declare the value of every single gift you receive each year, birthday presents? Christmas presents, etc. thereby increasing your taxable income and hence your tax liability.
    Hoohoo
    21st Mar 2019
    5:33pm
    The church shouldn't run institutions they have no expertise in, like orphanages for example. The church is a big contributor to the number of children in orphanages, by denying access to contraception. By not allowing divorce so that women can't leave bad marriages (where they are obliged to keep having unwanted babies) they are also adding to the need for more welfare. What does the church know about married relationships & raising children? Why do priests think they're the best ones to be giving such people guidance?

    The church has lost its mandate to care for children. Priests shouldn't be let anywhere near children. If the church allowed for women priests & for all priests to be allowed normal sexual relationships with consenting adult partners, only THEN might they be ready to be allowed near children again. The old patriarchy has become a den of pedophiles & hypocrites who have totally betrayed the trust of the people. It doesn't deserve any State backing, in my opinion.

    That said, many good catholic people do tremendous work in their communities, not because they want the money (as the church does), but because they are genuinely sincere people who live by Jesus' message of doing unto others,... I myself have volunteered delivering food to homeless men & offering accommodation at Matthew Talbot House.

    The people are great but the church stinks. It needs to be de-powered. Stop giving it a leg-up. Stop giving private schools extra funding beyond set teachers' wages. If they want to brainwash children, let them do it at their own expense & stop sucking off the State.

    Maxchugg, did you know the catholic church owns a contraceptive-making factory in Italy? They have no integrity in this - it's just so hypocritical! The church is just another big corporation, making money where ever they can. They are VERY rich.
    maxchugg
    21st Mar 2019
    6:44pm
    Hoohoo, you seem to be seeing me as an apologist for the Catholic Church, which is as wrong as it could be. My concern is that the legal system in Australia has the appearance of corruption. I gave two examples from the many available, there are others.

    I think you are being self-contradictory when you say that the church shouldn't run institutions where they have no expertise, then comment that the church has lost its mandate, thus admitting that it was acknowledged as competent to care for orphans. It is hardly appropriate to condemn the entire organization because of the actions of a few prominent members.

    With regard to the funding of church schools, I would probably share your views. Private schools have an enormous advantage in that they can select the children they deem to be sufficiently who are seen as likely to ensure that the school fares well when performance is assessed. State schools have to accept all applicants. My personal view is that private schools should be funded at a per capita rate slightly less than the cost of educating a child in a state school.

    But we are straying from the subject - the faulty administration of justice in this country which is now a threat to the liberty of every citizen who does not have the same access to free legal aid as is provided for some on the basis of their race.
    maxchugg
    21st Mar 2019
    6:44pm
    Hoohoo, you seem to be seeing me as an apologist for the Catholic Church, which is as wrong as it could be. My concern is that the legal system in Australia has the appearance of corruption. I gave two examples from the many available, there are others.

    I think you are being self-contradictory when you say that the church shouldn't run institutions where they have no expertise, then comment that the church has lost its mandate, thus admitting that it was acknowledged as competent to care for orphans. It is hardly appropriate to condemn the entire organization because of the actions of a few prominent members.

    With regard to the funding of church schools, I would probably share your views. Private schools have an enormous advantage in that they can select the children they deem to be sufficiently who are seen as likely to ensure that the school fares well when performance is assessed. State schools have to accept all applicants. My personal view is that private schools should be funded at a per capita rate slightly less than the cost of educating a child in a state school.

    But we are straying from the subject - the faulty administration of justice in this country which is now a threat to the liberty of every citizen who does not have the same access to free legal aid as is provided for some on the basis of their race.
    maxchugg
    21st Mar 2019
    6:48pm
    Hoohoo, if you are wondering why each time I post my comments appear twice, you are not alone -I'm wondering the same thing. I take great care to only hit the "Post Reply" tab once, yet the outcome is always the same.
    maxchugg
    21st Mar 2019
    6:48pm
    Hoohoo, if you are wondering why each time I post my comments appear twice, you are not alone -I'm wondering the same thing. I take great care to only hit the "Post Reply" tab once, yet the outcome is always the same.
    Hoohoo
    22nd Mar 2019
    9:43pm
    It seems you are doubting our legal system in preference for a convicted pedophile.

    I, too, have serious doubts for both institutions, but at least our legal system is as good as it can be & transparent. But the church gets all sorts of advantages & if it lived up to to its hype, that it is driven by Christian values, then we'd accept it given State money (our taxes). But it is run by a strictly male-only hierarchy, so will never be representative of its followers. & now it appears that male hierarchy is a haven for pedophiles. It's too much. The church should be given back to the people - sans priests, monsignors, bishops, cardinals & Pope. In 18 years of sermons, 52+ weeks per year, I never heard something I could relate to or learn from. They are like a government department made up of managers - a waste of money & value.

    I truly feel for the real Christians who are sincere & genuine. The rug has been pulled out from under them. Maybe it's time people just did their thing with God in a quiet, personal manner. You don't need a priest to intercede for you. You don't need to sign outside people up, either.

    Regarding gifts & donations, how would you classify a tip on that cup of coffee? Tax-free?
    maxchugg
    24th Mar 2019
    7:18pm
    Hoohoo, at the risk of doing you an injustice, you do seem to have a very strong anti-male prejudice, the reverse of which Julia Gillard called misogyny. Surely if your church is as bad as you suggest, maybe it is up to the members to bring about reform from within or, alternatively find another church which meets your needs.

    How would I classify a gift on a cup of coffee? I'm sure that you would find that the law would regard the tip as something received as a reward for services rendered and would be taxable.
    maxchugg
    24th Mar 2019
    7:18pm
    Hoohoo, at the risk of doing you an injustice, you do seem to have a very strong anti-male prejudice, the reverse of which Julia Gillard called misogyny. Surely if your church is as bad as you suggest, maybe it is up to the members to bring about reform from within or, alternatively find another church which meets your needs.

    How would I classify a gift on a cup of coffee? I'm sure that you would find that the law would regard the tip as something received as a reward for services rendered and would be taxable.
    Hoohoo
    25th Mar 2019
    8:22pm
    I've never heard of that happening. The tips are usually added together & split by all the serving staff, (unless someone has used a card for the tip, so it must be registered on the books). It's a cashy, as intended by the tipper. There's the law & then there's reality. You seem to be saying a tip (donation) should be counted as incone?

    You have completely misconstrued my dislike for the all-male hierarchy of the church as misandry. This type of patriarchy has proved to be venomous, as far as a pedophile ring is concerned. I am sorry for all the people & all the good priests - they should break from the church if the church won't change. As for me, I'll never belong to any sort of church. What do I want or need from a church? I'll never allow myself to be brainwashed by anyone who seeks to convince me about their god. It's personal, if it's real at all.

    I love some men - I reckon they are equal to women. I've loved one particular man so much that we've lived together happily for over 35 years - he's a real gem.
    maxchugg
    26th Mar 2019
    10:34am
    Hoohoo, irrespective of how they are handled, tips are income and are taxable under Australian law. the fact that the law is ignored changes nothing.

    If I have misconstrued your comments about all male hierarchies, I apologise, but if you read over your comments you did give the impression that you are an unhappy Catholic because of your knowledge of the structure of the management of the church.

    After reminding you that the subject under discussion, my objective in making my comments has been that I do not believe that Pell received a fair trial. It would be pointless to attempt to deny that paedophilia is rife in the Catholic church as well as in many others. In my opinion the matter of celibacy in Catholic churches is a contributing factor to this problem.

    At least you have earned considerable respect from me with you last paragraph.
    maxchugg
    26th Mar 2019
    10:34am
    Hoohoo, irrespective of how they are handled, tips are income and are taxable under Australian law. the fact that the law is ignored changes nothing.

    If I have misconstrued your comments about all male hierarchies, I apologise, but if you read over your comments you did give the impression that you are an unhappy Catholic because of your knowledge of the structure of the management of the church.

    After reminding you that the subject under discussion, my objective in making my comments has been that I do not believe that Pell received a fair trial. It would be pointless to attempt to deny that paedophilia is rife in the Catholic church as well as in many others. In my opinion the matter of celibacy in Catholic churches is a contributing factor to this problem.

    At least you have earned considerable respect from me with you last paragraph.
    Hoohoo
    26th Mar 2019
    4:07pm
    Have I earned your respect because I've revealed I'm not a lesbian? Please tell me why, exactly.

    You don't believe Pell got a fair trial, but you didn't hear all the evidence the jury heard. Perhaps there were some very embarrassing details the accuser had to reveal? We have no right to hear these details - only the jury. If we can't trust the law, who can we trust? I'm not saying it's perfect (far from it) but it's the best we have. Your "belief" is simply that, just as some people believe in God & others believe the Earth is flat. Your belief or disbelief doesn't matter to reality.

    So tips at the cafe are considered income by law, you said. How then, are cash donations to the church not considered taxable income?
    maxchugg
    26th Mar 2019
    8:29pm
    Hoohoo, the reason why I said that you had my respect was because you identified as not being one of the radical feminists whose hatred of men is self evident. You mentioned lesbianism, the thought did not even enter my head.

    I am at a loss to understand why you continue to argue about whether or not tips are taxable . If you take the trouble to check the tax laws you will find that, your opinion notwithstanding, tips are assessable as taxable income. If you want to persist with this side issue, please check the tax laws where, you will find that I am correct. I have already explained why income received by churches is not taxable, I do not intend to waste my time by restating something you obviously don's want to hear.

    You want to argue that if we can't trust the law, who can we trust? Well, I judge the law by its performance, and in recent tines we have witnessed people like the Chamberlains convicted on circumstantial evidence, a woman in Hobart jailed under what appear to be similar circumstances., and to me, the Pell case falls into the same category. What do you suggest we do when we see the legal system apparently failing to observe the maxim that it is better for a hundred guilty people to be acquitted than for one innocent person to be convicted.

    Never forget, the last thing the Chamberlains expected was to be charged with murder when they knew that they had done nothing wrong. It happened to them, Hoohoo, and as things stand, it could also happen to anyone else, you included.
    maxchugg
    26th Mar 2019
    8:29pm
    Hoohoo, the reason why I said that you had my respect was because you identified as not being one of the radical feminists whose hatred of men is self evident. You mentioned lesbianism, the thought did not even enter my head.

    I am at a loss to understand why you continue to argue about whether or not tips are taxable . If you take the trouble to check the tax laws you will find that, your opinion notwithstanding, tips are assessable as taxable income. If you want to persist with this side issue, please check the tax laws where, you will find that I am correct. I have already explained why income received by churches is not taxable, I do not intend to waste my time by restating something you obviously don's want to hear.

    You want to argue that if we can't trust the law, who can we trust? Well, I judge the law by its performance, and in recent tines we have witnessed people like the Chamberlains convicted on circumstantial evidence, a woman in Hobart jailed under what appear to be similar circumstances., and to me, the Pell case falls into the same category. What do you suggest we do when we see the legal system apparently failing to observe the maxim that it is better for a hundred guilty people to be acquitted than for one innocent person to be convicted.

    Never forget, the last thing the Chamberlains expected was to be charged with murder when they knew that they had done nothing wrong. It happened to them, Hoohoo, and as things stand, it could also happen to anyone else, you included.
    Hoohoo
    28th Mar 2019
    12:21am
    In regard to the Chamberlains, I never believed they were guilty. This was because they had no motive, in my opinion. It was absolutely surprising & outrageous that they were ever charged.

    In regard to pedophilia, the motive is obvious, so I'm much more open to consider it's a possibility that Pell is guilty. Like you, I don't know the truth, nor did we hear the evidence that convicted him on 5 counts.

    BTW I'm not disputing your summary about the ATO considering tips to be taxable income. You are correct. I thought you said the reason the church shouldn't be taxed on donations was because tax had already been paid by the donator? But isn't all money people donate (whether to the church or a tip at a cafe) already been taxed?
    maxchugg
    28th Mar 2019
    10:50am
    Hoohoo, you previously posted a question, if we can't trust the law then who can we trust? Now you have indicated that you never believed the Chamberlains were guilty, so you obviously also have had reason to distrust the operation of the law. I also lack faith in the administration of the law but all I can do is protest when I see that someone has not received a fair trial, as happened with the Chamberlaines, in my opinion, with Sue Neill-Fraser in Hobart, George Pell, and no doubt many others. I am at a total loss to comprehend your willingness to accept that Pell was convicted beyond reasonable doubt.

    Tips form part of earnings - a reward for good service, and are taxable. Money received as a gift to a church or a registered charity is not payment for a service and is not taxable. If you wish to argue that unconditional gifts received by a church should be taxable, then each year, when you complete your tax return, you should include the value of all gifts you have received, wedding presents, birthday presents, frequent flyer points, etc. Even children would need to complete an annual tax return and declare their pocket money and any other payments paid by their parents on their behalf including school costs, food, clothing and accommodation either as income or fringe benefits which would become taxable once the tax free limit for individuals had been reached.
    maxchugg
    28th Mar 2019
    10:50am
    Hoohoo, you previously posted a question, if we can't trust the law then who can we trust? Now you have indicated that you never believed the Chamberlains were guilty, so you obviously also have had reason to distrust the operation of the law. I also lack faith in the administration of the law but all I can do is protest when I see that someone has not received a fair trial, as happened with the Chamberlaines, in my opinion, with Sue Neill-Fraser in Hobart, George Pell, and no doubt many others. I am at a total loss to comprehend your willingness to accept that Pell was convicted beyond reasonable doubt.

    Tips form part of earnings - a reward for good service, and are taxable. Money received as a gift to a church or a registered charity is not payment for a service and is not taxable. If you wish to argue that unconditional gifts received by a church should be taxable, then each year, when you complete your tax return, you should include the value of all gifts you have received, wedding presents, birthday presents, frequent flyer points, etc. Even children would need to complete an annual tax return and declare their pocket money and any other payments paid by their parents on their behalf including school costs, food, clothing and accommodation either as income or fringe benefits which would become taxable once the tax free limit for individuals had been reached.
    JAID
    15th Mar 2019
    11:01am
    If I were not satisfied with the sentence I would ask that politicians deliberate on and balance available sentencing appropriately. Further I would see it as an interim thing. no absolute proof of guilt until the whole process allowed for by our system has been played out.

    Clearly, even as it stands, trading eye for eye for the less barbaric, with the availability of defence for all and access to long and several appeals, the law makes mistakes but it is the tool we use to get us peacefully through the mistakes we individually make. It is a tool we have a means to help fashion through time.

    We should face up to our general ignorance by comparison with the detailed knowledge the Courts gain...and pull our heads in. That is, hold our ignorant opinions.
    JAID
    16th Mar 2019
    5:56pm
    Hold our ignorant opinions. The presumption of guilt is a technical one until the appeal process has run its course. Even then, we could have sufficient respect for others to hold open the possibility of innocence, however remote that may turn seem on the evidence eventually available. At the moment, you and I have next to no evidence...the obvious response is not to have an opinion.
    Anonymous
    18th Mar 2019
    7:07am
    On the case in question, Jaid, I agree completely. On the worst crimes - those for which he'll never stand trial - his guilt is clearly evident. He abused his power to devise schemes to deny victims of abuse any hope of justice and to protect the Churches finances. That's a matter of record.
    maxchugg
    18th Mar 2019
    9:03am
    Jaid, I completely agree. I am by no means a fan of Pell or his church, but I am at a total loss to understand how he was convicted beyond reasonable doubt when previous charges against him had him acquitted by a very large margin of jurors who voted not guilty.

    Media reports said that one of the alleged victims who, unfortunately, has since died, told his mother that he had not been assaulted by Pell so the case amounted to the word of one person against another in relation to an incident claimed to have taken place. Also the evidence that Pell's clothing would have made the offence impossible has the appearance of credibility.

    Haters of Pell and his church happy with the outcome of this case would do well to reflect upon the possibility that trial by media is a threat to the liberty, not only of themselves, but of everyone.
    maxchugg
    18th Mar 2019
    9:03am
    Jaid, I completely agree. I am by no means a fan of Pell or his church, but I am at a total loss to understand how he was convicted beyond reasonable doubt when previous charges against him had him acquitted by a very large margin of jurors who voted not guilty.

    Media reports said that one of the alleged victims who, unfortunately, has since died, told his mother that he had not been assaulted by Pell so the case amounted to the word of one person against another in relation to an incident claimed to have taken place. Also the evidence that Pell's clothing would have made the offence impossible has the appearance of credibility.

    Haters of Pell and his church happy with the outcome of this case would do well to reflect upon the possibility that trial by media is a threat to the liberty, not only of themselves, but of everyone.
    JAID
    18th Mar 2019
    10:22am
    Max Chugg:

    "...Haters of Pell and his church happy with the outcome of this case would do well to reflect upon the possibility that trial by media is a threat to the liberty, not only of themselves, but of everyone..."

    Well said Max. Our legal system is clearly not perfect but it is the current state of an evolving vital tool in our quest to uphold the liberty of the owners of this society.

    It helps keep us from each others throats, live and enrich lives in peace.

    Seems slow to evolve to me but that may be understandable in the light of the enormous sway US style media and popularity affected "justice" has built here there is a lot to contend with.

    PS: Neither am I in any way connected with Cardinal Pell or the church.
    Hoohoo
    21st Mar 2019
    5:50pm
    I agree about the danger of trial by media (think Lindy Chamberlain), but Pell has been found guilty in a court of law. There appears to be a trial by media happening in Pell's favour, where many catholic people just can't believe he could do such terrible things. Personally, I was very surprised he was found guilty, for the same reason. And if he did do these things, I thought the church would be too powerful to allow it to go to trial. We must remember that money buys "justice" to the extent that he could afford VERY EXPENSIVE lawyers.

    He seems to have wriggled out of all the other charges, despite enabling horrific abuse by other truly evil priests, but this one charge has stuck (so far). As OlderandWiser says, he protected the church by denying justice & ongoing abuse to poor little kids who were the victims of rape.
    Agnes
    15th Mar 2019
    11:13am
    I am an atheist and have o positive regard for the Catholic Church (or indeed ay of them). But this is a dangerous flawed conviction, and therefore I hope the appeal is upheld or we are all in trouble. To have a court case let alone a conviction on the uncorroborated testimony of one accuser,with out any evidence or proof, is very unusual ,as many commentators (e.g. John Silvester) have pointed out. And for the court to find, the other deceased boy was also abused, even though he denied it all his life, is bizarre to my way way of thinking. If this conviction stands then they can come for any of us, and find us guilty and imprison us, on the say so of one accuser, with any evidence or proof. However, I am the first to admit I was not present in the Court to listen to proceedings.
    Knight Templar
    15th Mar 2019
    11:30am
    Well said Digby. I have no brief for Pell or the Church, however, from what I have read and heard (admittedly not being in court to hear all the evidence) I find it difficult to believe that his guilt "was beyond reasonable doubt".

    I accept that he was found guilty but it does appear problematic (although not necessarily relevant) when you also consider that the first trial resulted in a hung jury.
    Grateful
    15th Mar 2019
    11:40am
    I cannot agree more Digby. This is nothing to do with religion, it is ALL about our "justice" system. And this case failed miserably on the most fundamental tenet, "reasonable doubt".
    There is NO way that that decision would pass the "pub test" which is often the guide we use. The "evidence" was most certainly lacking in the basic requirement for sentencing, "reasonable doubt"!!
    And that article from Leon Della Bosca is a disgrace and. George Pell is STILL Cardinal Pell, not Mr Pell, at least until after the Appeal is concluded.
    And he should read all Judge Kidd's summary when Della Bosca states that "he highlights the heinous crimes that Cardinal Pell committed. Judge Kidd clearly stated that his judgement had to be based upon the conviction and, rightly or wrongly, that's what Cardinal Pell was convicetd of.
    One wonders if Judge Kidd himself, a most experienced and intelligent legal person, Chief Judge, in fact, after having heard all the prosecutor's "evidence" and the counter arguments from the defence, even really believes that Cardinal Pell committed any of those offences?? Let's see what the Appeal Court brings down before we start drawing ANY conclusions on Cardinal Pell.

    And that "survey" is an absolute joke and gives grossly insufficient options from which to choose, it implies that the decision was correct, which, I'm certain, very many Australian's do not accept.
    BigAl
    15th Mar 2019
    11:46am
    Have to agree with Digby's conclusions. The appeal will be held by 3 or more judges. I would think Pell will verbally testify this time. In the end it will his word against anothers. On points of law it must be proved that he did the acts 'beyond all reasonable doubt'.
    Tom Tank
    15th Mar 2019
    11:53am
    These comments all call into question the finding of his guilt which given the fact that none of those commenting here have heard all the evidence presented in the court and how it was presented.
    Word alone are an insufficient means of communication as they are only a part of the whole communication process.
    The jury at the trial did hear all the evidence and how it was presented so were privy to the full communication process and one can take from that they were satisfied to reach their verdict.
    The various commentators, politicians and journalists, should have known better than to rush out with hasty condemnation, or praise for that matter, and accepted the verdict and awaited the appeal.
    Our legal system, while not perfect, should be allowed to follow its processes without undue pressure being exerted through ill informed comment.
    Tom Tank
    15th Mar 2019
    11:53am
    These comments all call into question the finding of his guilt which given the fact that none of those commenting here have heard all the evidence presented in the court and how it was presented.
    Word alone are an insufficient means of communication as they are only a part of the whole communication process.
    The jury at the trial did hear all the evidence and how it was presented so were privy to the full communication process and one can take from that they were satisfied to reach their verdict.
    The various commentators, politicians and journalists, should have known better than to rush out with hasty condemnation, or praise for that matter, and accepted the verdict and awaited the appeal.
    Our legal system, while not perfect, should be allowed to follow its processes without undue pressure being exerted through ill informed comment.
    Triss
    15th Mar 2019
    12:54pm
    You’ve just pointed out, Digby, why many victims didn’t complain about their abuse. Their complaint would have been from one accuser without any evidence or proof. No witnesses, no photographic evidence...but it still happened.
    Polly Esther
    15th Mar 2019
    2:01pm
    Digby. Thank you very much for your comment and well said indeed. It needed to be said by someone.
    GregH
    15th Mar 2019
    2:37pm
    Cardinal Pell is still a cardinal until he is defrocked which he won't be. There is no way such a flawed verdict will be upheld on appeal. How anyone can be convicted on the accusation of one person who claims such ridiculous things is beyond me. The Attourney-General should step in and have this conviction struck out immediately. The jury quite obviously did NOT decide upon only the evidence before them - that is - only the evidence presented in court. I do wonder if Pell did himself a disservice by not testifying. The man is intelligent - way too sensible to attempt to do anything questionable in a sacristy with the door open, in a Cathedral 5 minutes after a major service when there are perhaps 40 other people milling around and going into sacristies to get changed out of their robes. To attack one person in the presence of a second person and not expect them to corroborate each other's evidence is stupid in the extreme and out of character for Cardinal Pell. The jury has assumed that the pool case (dropped for LACK OF EVIDENCE) contributes further evidence of Pell's guilt and they have assumed that the second boy would have testified against Pell even though he spent his whole life denying anything happened. Why would Cardinal Pell show any contrition if he is innocent?
    The accuser no doubt sounded earnest and as we have now heard, is suing the Catholic Church. Maybe he was abused by someone but under the influence of very strong fortified wine, is mistaken about who it actually was. Maybe he thinks he can get more money out the Church if he accused the Cardinal and not some ordinary priest who is now dead.
    see all.Maryakate
    15th Mar 2019
    3:51pm
    It is hard to believe that a person can be convicted of a serious crime on evidence of one child so long ago. At that time there were two boys, but only one could give evidence. So on evidence of a child, so long ago, with a hazy memory, or a selective memory, concerning a priest, who he assumed was Cardinal Pell,but could have been a choir master, or an Acolyte. If indeed there was a molester hanging around, it would not have been a cardinal or a bishop, or even a priest who would break the line of the procession after mass. Now this molester hanging around and the child was able to name him, hung around, to be restrained by his head, while the 'cardinal/bishop' place his Crozier aside, lifted his garments , which normally another person has to do because of the weight and awkwardness, still while another boy looked on, when he could have hotfooted it out through the Church. So while I think the witness has, over time selected bits to suit his evidence, it surely could be used if it was a murder trial, or any serious crime. I also wonder what instruction the jury was given about circumstantial evidence.
    Anonymous
    15th Mar 2019
    7:03pm
    unless you were there you cannot know the full weight of the evidence. for the jury to believe one person his evidence must have been very compelling and to put yourself though that if it was a lie I find inconcievable! No one would do that surely!

    also Pell did not take the witness stand and give evidence and be "cross examined" under oath. if I was innocent I would certainly do so!
    KSS
    15th Mar 2019
    9:56pm
    I have to agree GregH. Looking at the description of the events in the Sacristy on which this entire case is predicated, it is wholly implausible that the events unfolded the way it was claimed. For one thing the description of how Mr Pell was described as conducting the abuse has already been shown to be impossible if, as is claimed, Mr Pell was wearing the holy vestments.

    In my view Mr Pell was certainly found guilty of representing the Catholic Church more than any abuse he was actually accused of. People just don't like Mr Pell, but that does not make him guilty as charged.

    Previous 'stories' against Mr Pell have likewise been refuted and found to be unsubstantiated or indeed completely false. I suspect that some of the accusers may well have been abused as children, however, it is highly doubtful it was by Mr Pell. Mr Pell cannot and must not be held accountable for all ills in the Catholic church.

    Whether Mr Pell knew of abuse by other ministers or not and whether he turned a blind eye or not does not make him guilty of child abuse himself. Before condemning him out of hand, just wait until the case has run its course, and that means waiting until the appeal process is complete.
    Hoohoo
    21st Mar 2019
    6:02pm
    This is why so many victims didn't report the abuse they endured for years & years. Adults would always believe the priest over the child, especially when that child starts acting up as a result of the abuse.

    The power imbalance is immense. I feel crushed when I hear you people saying "only a child's word". You are enabling abusers by not believing the child's word. This is exactly what pedophiles rely on - that the child won't be believed.

    Why would someone make it up? Something so embarrassing & humiliating that was perpetrated on them? Something they've tried to forget all their lives?
    Hoohoo
    24th Mar 2019
    2:29am
    Digby, you say with some authority that the conviction is dangerous & flawed, but then "... I am the first to admit I was not present in the Court to listen to proceedings."

    So it's just your opinion. You don't know. None of us here know. Stop making such statements as if you do know. You don't.
    VJ
    15th Mar 2019
    11:16am
    The length of the sentence is not an issue for me. the fact that such a senior person in the Catholic church has been sentenced is enough.
    Jenny
    15th Mar 2019
    11:17am
    Very mixed feelings about this. Many "first" offenders get lesser sentences than this, often because prior complaints are not allowed to be counted in pre-sentencing. I think Pell's enormous loss of status and power will mean far more to him than the prison time. This is not to say that I disregard in any way the harm he has done to so many people - my opinion of him as a man and a representative of his church were irretrievably damaged when I saw and heard his attitude and responses at the Royal Commission .
    Flipsout
    15th Mar 2019
    11:19am
    If his appeal is not upheld I believe his sentence of 6 years should be served in full. If it is upheld, his reputation will forever be tarnished. However, I believe our justice system is excellent and the final outcome should be accepted one way or the other. Only ex Cardinal Pell and God know the details.
    Rod63
    15th Mar 2019
    1:40pm
    And the child he molested.
    Anonymous
    15th Mar 2019
    4:55pm
    ALLEGEDLY molested, Rod63.
    maxchugg
    21st Mar 2019
    1:59pm
    Flipsout, you believe our justice system is excellent? Lindy and the late Michael Chamberlain would beg to differ.

    In this case the first jury was deadlocked in a 10 to 2 decision of not guilty. The obvious question is what happened that the same evidence which caused the vast majority of the first jury to acquit allowed the second jury to convict beyond reasonable doubt?

    In reality there are many reasons why reasonable doubt should have protected Pell, the greatest being the time difference between the alleged committing of the offense until the trial. The fact that one of the alleged victims was reported to have told his mother that he was not molested by Pell should itself raised have doubts in the eyes of any reasonable juror. To convict beyond reasonable doubt appears to be as impossible as it was in the Chamberlain case, and look how that one turned out - an innocent woman spent many years in jail, a family destroyed and finally millions of taxpayer dollars paid out in compensation.
    maxchugg
    21st Mar 2019
    1:59pm
    Flipsout, you believe our justice system is excellent? Lindy and the late Michael Chamberlain would beg to differ.

    In this case the first jury was deadlocked in a 10 to 2 decision of not guilty. The obvious question is what happened that the same evidence which caused the vast majority of the first jury to acquit allowed the second jury to convict beyond reasonable doubt?

    In reality there are many reasons why reasonable doubt should have protected Pell, the greatest being the time difference between the alleged committing of the offense until the trial. The fact that one of the alleged victims was reported to have told his mother that he was not molested by Pell should itself raised have doubts in the eyes of any reasonable juror. To convict beyond reasonable doubt appears to be as impossible as it was in the Chamberlain case, and look how that one turned out - an innocent woman spent many years in jail, a family destroyed and finally millions of taxpayer dollars paid out in compensation.
    Hoohoo
    24th Mar 2019
    2:47am
    Knows-a-lot, Pell has been convicted in a court of law, so you can't keep saying "allegedly" any more. Let's hope the appeal is fair & reasonable, & that justice is served.

    There are some here who I would describe as God/Church blind, who don't even count the abused child in their equations. So thanks Rod63 for reminding us - this man knows the truth, too.

    There are two Australian cases where I recall justice getting it totally wrong - the Lindy Chamberlain case & Pauline Hanson, who was sent to gaol by John Howard's hand. As much as I'm totally opposed to Pauline on most issues, what happened to her was truly a travesty of justice. She should never have gone to gaol for what was basically an admin error & her below average intelligence. Gaol should be for people who hurt others & are likely to keep on hurting others unless they're locked up.
    Belle
    15th Mar 2019
    11:27am
    Of course I did not hear all the evidence but if what is in the papers is an adequate summary, then I certainly would have had reasonable doubt and not convicted.I’m not a Catholic and would probably be described as agnostic
    Daryl
    15th Mar 2019
    11:27am
    I was speaking to 2 lawyers on Wednesday, both believed that he will be acquitted on appeal due to the lack of corroborating evidence so it's too early to comment on the sentence when the legal process is still continuing.
    The Sheriff
    15th Mar 2019
    11:58am
    Chief Judge Kidd was meticulous in his handling of Pell's trial and in his summing up of it, so any points of law contention by Pell's defence team should be minimal. On top of this the jury found Pell guilty on all five charges. On these counts one would think that any Appeal would be unsuccessful.
    The Sheriff
    15th Mar 2019
    11:58am
    Chief Judge Kidd was meticulous in his handling of Pell's trial and in his summing up of it, so any points of law contention by Pell's defence team should be minimal. On top of this the jury found Pell guilty on all five charges. On these counts one would think that any Appeal would be unsuccessful.
    Daryl
    15th Mar 2019
    12:52pm
    I was just commenting on what 2 very experienced lawyers said, they have many years of experience in such things and I doubt they would make the comments they did if they didn't believe what they said to be true, time will tell.
    Paddington
    15th Mar 2019
    11:32am
    The judge went through very carefully his rationale for the sentence he imposed. The fact that he has been found guilty is sufficient with the term imposed. He is old. If he had been say 60 then he would have received more time.
    I think there could be more to come like his allowing priests to continue when he knew that they had harmed children. If that is the case there will be more in the future and he may face court again.
    Nothing can repair the damage done to the victims but I believe money should be awarded to the individual and the family such as in the case of the family of the boy who died of an overdose in the Pell case.
    None of this is addressing the real issue and that is pedophilia itself. To protect children this should be looked into and how to stop the offending. The guy from Ballarat talked about this on tv a few weeks ago and he himself was a victim. He said there was a desperate need to discover what it is, what causes it, how to treat and hopefully cure it. If a victim can realise this then so should everyone else. Maybe recognise it before offences occur!
    Hoohoo
    28th Mar 2019
    12:58am
    From what others have said on this forum, Pell has never been prosecuted for his role in letting known pedophile priests go to other unsuspecting Parishes, when he knew there were numerous complaints against that priest. Even when the next Parish complained, they just moved him on to another one. So many children were savagely abused & so many lives changed forever.
    Farside (below) said he was never charged on that count because him being unlikable, naive & gullible wasn't a reason to prosecute him for his role of enabling pedophiles to continue their disgusting offending against children. Unlikable, yes. But naive & gullible? Is it really possible he didn't know what Risdale was actually doing? Or that Risdale had changed his ways, even after proving time & again that he hadn't?
    Oldie84
    15th Mar 2019
    11:34am
    Pell is not a warm person and I have no idea if he offended but as an ex-altarboy so many years ago I have grave doubts on the sequence of the alleged offence. I feel he has been made the fall guy for the horrible things that have occurred so many years ago.
    BTBB
    15th Mar 2019
    11:37am
    I think some very important points have been missed here ... a crime has been committed against children and covered up for years by a member of the church, who children are meant to trust and turn to in their hour of need ... an abhorrent sin has been committed ... I wonder how it is seen through the eyes of God - no doubt full of tears ... no amount of penalty can justify taking away the innocence of a child and the torment they have to face throughout their lives ... my heart breaks for them.
    see all.Maryakate
    15th Mar 2019
    4:28pm
    Yes BTBB, but the evidence as shown could not convict a guilty person or an innocent one. How would your memory be after so many years even of happy times? How would a child remember such a dastardly act being committed. Even though there were two children involved, and one can't speak up due to circumstances, but if you examine the evidence of one person, and he 'remember' there were two in the sacristy, stealing, on that alone there are serious questions. Make the priest the fall guy, if it makes you happy, but if the person concerned was not the molester, what about being found guilty if innocent?
    And as you say a crime has been covered up for years by a church member, I can't see where that evidence was given or acted upon.
    It's a pity that people are quick to judge, before the outcome is reached.
    Misty
    15th Mar 2019
    9:11pm
    see all.Maryakate if you had been abused at the age these 2 victims say they were, you would be scarred for life and you would never forget it, also don't forget, all you doubting the one persons evidence, in those days this sort of thing was unheard of and even if the boys had told anyone they probably would not have been believed. Priests, Clergy and Nuns were considered so godlike the thought of them doing anything so terrible would be dismissed by parents and teachers.
    nan
    17th Mar 2019
    9:11pm
    all.Maryak " How would your memory be after so many years even of happy times? How would a child remember such a dastardly act being committed. " Of course you'd remember that. These two boys weren't babies.They'd remember it for the rest of their lives. Many children don't tell their parents. Fear, humiliation? These boys because they were being naughty. It only takes a couple of minutes to do what George Pell did. My goodness one teacher raped a student in front of the whole class. He was a politician when you got found out years later. Pell simply blocked the door behind him.
    People find it so hard to believe a priest could do such a thing, they just won't accept it. The child must be lying. I've heard some pretty nasty things about nuns lately. Glad I'm not catholic
    Eileen
    15th Mar 2019
    11:37am
    It is not for us to decide guilt or innocence because we were not at the trial to hear all the evidence we have only heard media reports that we are all know can be very inaccurate, the jury (and the Judge) were present to hear every detail and found him guilty that is our Justice system, unfortunately the law is sometimes a lot more complicated than this thus the appeal which may not reflect the truth, only George Pell knows this and has confessed and ask for absolution as per his faith so we may never know what he has done.
    GregH
    15th Mar 2019
    2:42pm
    if he has done anything at all!
    Misty
    16th Mar 2019
    10:01am
    Well GregH, he, along with other church officials, turned a blind eye to what was going on in the Catholic Church in regards to sexual abuse, surely that is a crime in itself?, or do you condone that sort of behaviour?.
    Anonymous
    17th Mar 2019
    6:00pm
    He did worse than that, actually. He abused his power and that of the Catholic Church to manipulate the law to ensure that victims of abuse had no reasonable right of redress and to protect the ill-gotten gains of the Church. But that's not what he was on trial for. Nor should he be tried for the alleged sins of the Church or other priests.

    I think he's a contemptible piece of garbage, but our legal system fails if we accept prosecution for some crime other than that for which the accused is on trial. We do not 'condone', nor do we offend the victims, by questioning a process that appears, on face value, to have failed.

    The law is complex, and we don't know all the facts. It is not for us to judge his guilt or innocence. We merely have to rely on the process and hope it works as it should. Whatever Pell may have done aside from the crimes he was on trial for have no relevance to his guilt or innocence in this case and should not influence his punishment (as much as I'd love to see him rot in hell for the crimes I believe he unquestionably DID commit).
    Anonymous
    17th Mar 2019
    6:00pm
    He did worse than that, actually. He abused his power and that of the Catholic Church to manipulate the law to ensure that victims of abuse had no reasonable right of redress and to protect the ill-gotten gains of the Church. But that's not what he was on trial for. Nor should he be tried for the alleged sins of the Church or other priests.

    I think he's a contemptible piece of garbage, but our legal system fails if we accept prosecution for some crime other than that for which the accused is on trial. We do not 'condone', nor do we offend the victims, by questioning a process that appears, on face value, to have failed.

    The law is complex, and we don't know all the facts. It is not for us to judge his guilt or innocence. We merely have to rely on the process and hope it works as it should. Whatever Pell may have done aside from the crimes he was on trial for have no relevance to his guilt or innocence in this case and should not influence his punishment (as much as I'd love to see him rot in hell for the crimes I believe he unquestionably DID commit).
    Hoohoo
    24th Mar 2019
    2:59am
    If Pell is guilty, do you think he would have confessed it (to another priest in a Confessional)?

    Is this why the church is so adamant about priests not reporting crimes that have been confessed to them?
    gravy
    15th Mar 2019
    11:38am
    It is very difficult to get witnesses to what is done secretively. I think this is why in the past even when complaints were made to family, churches, police and so on that many people were dismissed as having been liars. The difficulty for the person in this case to come forward and let's be honest to have again been subjected to reliving what had occurred in the past must have been extremely hard. Then to have people say it was at the lowest level of offending. Hmm just in case anyone missed this they (his lawyer) seems to have admitted it was offending but then sought to dismiss it as just vanilla makes it so denigrating of the victim in whom many have forgotten was the one who suffered the retelling and the offending.

    The other victim died so could not have their day in Court but their written words support the claims made by the remaining one but can't in the way the law requires be tested and so are largely treated as hearsay. In all of this the victims almost/largely become the ones treated more like perpetrators.
    Grateful
    15th Mar 2019
    11:53am
    Gravy. His lawyer did not admit it was offending, he was making a case specifically in relation to the conviction upon which the Judge would determine the sentence.
    He was doing what any good defence lawyer would do for his client, trying to mitigate the "offence" for which his client was convicted and to try to minimize the sentence.
    In no way was he admitting guilt on behalf of his client.
    And he has now stood down and apologized for the massive mis-impression that his comments made, including with you,but, not for having made them.
    MICK
    15th Mar 2019
    11:39am
    Pell will likely go to a retrial and be either let off or serve a few months in the luxury cells being looked after like the royalty the man thinks he is.
    Triss
    15th Mar 2019
    12:29pm
    Sadly, I think you’re right, Mick.
    Rod63
    15th Mar 2019
    4:49pm
    No, there can't be a re-trial.
    mogo51
    15th Mar 2019
    11:40am
    I agree with Digby, the conviction is flawed but there is other evidence if continued cover ups by Pell and others. This amounts to conspiracy to pervert course if justice. Overall the sentence was appropriate and we'll considered. IMO.
    TREBOR
    15th Mar 2019
    4:47pm
    He wasn't tried for those, mogo - there's no 'playing Solomon' in the courts here... you can't can someone because he might have done something else...
    Hoohoo
    24th Mar 2019
    3:19am
    You are right here TREBOR. He can only be found guilty for the charge he is facing. Or was facing, because he has now been found guilty, not just "allegedly". I just hope the Appeal is fair.

    But Pell has treated other victims terribly & has attempted to stop them seeking justice through the courts - that's a fact. He has been shown to protect the church instead of the people (who are the real church). For that he has shown to be arrogant, cruel, calculating & callous. A man of church, not a man of God.

    If Pell is found guilty of further sex abuse offenses, then he deserves to do time for them, just like any other pedophile would have to. I don't think an offender's age should be considered when sentencing. Do the crime, do the time.
    IndyLopos
    15th Mar 2019
    11:47am
    I am not a Roman Catholic but as a fair-minded Australian, I really think that this conviction is flawed. How can it possibly be proven beyond reasonable doubt that he was guilty for an offence committed many years ago and not officially reported much earlier.
    It also seems that certain evidence (which helped support his innocence) was disallowed on some technicality.
    Yes, there is no doubt that the Catholic Church is guilty of covering up too many abuse crimes, but to make an individual the scapegoat when there was not comprehensive proof of his guilt is unjust and unfair and makes a mockery of the Australian justice system.
    The other aspect that is unfair and inexcusable, is that an individual is being judged guilty by the media and by people in general, even though there is an appeal pending.
    Just because a person is initially found guilty by a jury does not mean a person is guilty. I am aware of a number of cases where a person was gaoled and then years later the conviction was overturned.
    This could well be another such example.
    Let me make it clear - if he is actually guilty of the crimes he was convicted of then he deserves a longer sentence but I suspect that even the judge had doubts about his guilt and that is why the sentence appears lenient.
    Triss
    15th Mar 2019
    12:39pm
    He had to have known what was going on, IndyL. It seems to me that child abuse was so rife in the Catholic Church it wouldn’t have been kept secret by the perpetrators. He, apparently, did nothing...aiding and abetting is the same crime.
    Also, because the abuse was so rife the victims would have known/believed that nothing would be done if they complained.
    Anonymous
    15th Mar 2019
    3:25pm
    Quite right Triss, even if he didn't do these 2 boys over the decades he has protected and shunted around known peadophiles like Risdale from parish to parish and for that he needs to pay. He's managed to evade prosecution for decades living the life of Riley and now his number is up.
    KSS
    15th Mar 2019
    10:05pm
    You cannot punish someone for something they have not been tried for trood. But that certainly appears to be what has happened in Mr Pell's case. He is being 'hung' for representing the Catholic church. But it is not OK to say 'well if he didn't abuse children himself, he knew about others doing it' and justify the verdict on that basis.
    Hoohoo
    24th Mar 2019
    3:36am
    True, KSS, but can Pell be charged for aiding & abetting truly evil, cruel pedophiles like Risdale?
    Pell gave him a free pass to unsuspecting Parish to unsuspecting Parish. Hundreds of children were viciously raped by that grub, because Pell didn't stop him.
    I don't see how Pell could say he was totally innocent to knowing what Risdale was doing because there were so many serious complaints.
    I heard a man from Torquay Surf Club say he walked into the changerooms & there was Pell standing naked in front of a row of boys. He knew Pell (called him George) but he knew it wasn't right & he threatened Pell & told him never to come back to the Club again.
    Farside
    25th Mar 2019
    10:46am
    @Hoohoo, you ask "can Pell be charged for aiding & abetting truly evil, cruel pedophiles like Risdale?" – the simple answer is those who have all the evidence decided not to prosecute Pell so the answer at this time is no, so Pell cannot be punished for enabling or turning a blind eye to Ridsdale's crimes.

    You also "don't see how Pell could say he was totally innocent to knowing what Risdale was doing because there were so many serious complaints." - again investigation of these complaints did not conclude Pell may have committed a criminal offence. Did Pell intentionally turn a blind eye to complaints against priests and obstruct investigations, possibly, however it has not been proved and so until then he should receive the benefit of the doubt, being unlikeable, naive and gullible is not an offence.

    The allegation from the man at Torquay Surf Club is anecdotal comment intended to smear character but did not result in an investigation let alone charges. The allegation was not corroborated by any of the boys involved, their parents or any other responsible adult.
    Hoohoo
    26th Mar 2019
    4:21pm
    The story told by the man from Torquay Surf Club is anecdotal, I agree. Were the boys involved even asked to corroborate the allegation? If so, by whom? Do you think the boys would have even told their parents?

    I agree that people should be given the benefit of the doubt, despite being unlikable, naive and gullible. But is Pell naive and gullible?
    Hoohoo
    28th Mar 2019
    1:19am
    Actually, should pedophiles be given the benefit of the doubt? In real life: no.
    I'm quite sure most pedophiles were abused as children & they either reacted by turning to drugs, prostitution or other self-defeating lifestyles, or they empowered themselves to survive by never being a victim again (& so they become perpetrators).
    There is another choice - to survive with dignity & integrity. This is the hardest path with much work & soul-searching to be done. To release their "inner child" (when that child is still screaming in pain, unbelieved, & abandoned by all those who should have protected them) is a very difficult, lifelong task.

    How can pedophilia be prevented? It must be nipped in the bud. Believe a child when they say they've been hurt. You are obliged by law to report it to the police. Prevent the perpetrator from EVER having access to the child. Don't ever give a pedophile the benefit of the doubt - leave that to the Courts.
    Veritas
    15th Mar 2019
    11:48am
    I agree with many of you. I also am not a catholic, but I shudder to think that this man has been convicted on the testimony of one person. Memories get distorted over time, and don't forget the communion wine. Cardinal Pell has not given any testimony in court - yet - he will have to if his appeal is granted, and I sincerely hope it is. I, like you, was not in court and privy to to testimony, however, I am not calling the victim a liar at all, but as I said memories can be distorted, dreams can intervene in those memories and a being a little drunk - possibly. I think there is too much doubt to convict.
    JAID
    15th Mar 2019
    1:02pm
    :-) Veritas,

    Although I have no opinion either way on guilt (and certainly not enough information to rationally think I am making a contribution to our liberty by giving an opinion) your mention of the communion wine is a beauty from left field. (Bet that wouldn't have been put by the defence.)
    Triss
    15th Mar 2019
    1:04pm
    That’s how rapists and abusers walk away scot free, Veritas, because the victim is one person doing the accusing and there was no-one standing in the wings with a tape recorder and camera to support and provide documentary evidence.
    Knight Templar
    15th Mar 2019
    3:17pm
    Triss, whilst your comments are valid, it should be remembered that false claims of rape are not uncommon.

    The UK Crown Prosecution Service was severely criticised and embarrassed last year, over its apparent failure (together with the negligence of respective police forces) to impartially and adequately investigate numerous allegations of rape or to provide 'discovered' mitigating evidence to defence counsel.

    The allegations and scandal involving the CPS and its Director (Alison Saunders) were so serious that the UK Government refused last December 2018, to reappoint her. There had been earlier calls (2017) for her to resign following the scandal of several high-profile rape cases falling apart or convictions being overturned due to police withholding key information regarding the innocence of the accused. It is reported that Saunders will be "the first former head of the Crown Prosecution Service NOT to receive a senior honour after her tenure. All previous Directors had become knights or dames after their departure.

    Dozens of defendants had their cases dismissed in court when it was established from a search of the alleged victim's social media, that the sex was consensual. There were multiple reasons why the accusers claimed they were raped. Broken relationship, jealousy, drunkenness, second thoughts, discovery by a partner that they'd slept with another person etc.

    The situation in Britain was so extreme that in late 2018, the CPS felt duty bound to review over 3,400 rape allegations which prima facie, could lead to an unsafe conviction. Many male defendants had been on bail for up to 2 years, some have spent several months in custody pending trial, having lost their jobs, community respect, broken marriages etc to be subsequently acquitted when it was proved that the charges were based on false testimony.

    This is not to deny genuine cases of rape, but we should be very careful to only accept the word of the accuser!
    TREBOR
    15th Mar 2019
    4:51pm
    That's how the law is supposed to work, Triss - and given that up to one in six prison inmates is not guilty as charged and that in an environment of total bias against the defendant in courts in this nation, and with the 'police culture' still in existence of perjury and backing a mate etc, chances are that anyone convicted is not safely convicted.

    Add to that - when a court offers a lesser sentence after playing with a loaded deck, for an 'early admission of guilt showing remorse' - the stage is set for absolute abuse of anyone wrongfully or falsely convicted.

    Why do you think there is such an outcry over Indigenous imprisonment on charges such as 'assault police' and similar?.. usually when there is no evidence of assault at all.

    I run Australia's Wrongfully Convicted, BTW.
    Veritas
    18th Mar 2019
    11:43am
    I appreciate everything you have so beautifully written Sir Knight. A very interesting read. Wrongful convictions are a worry in all countries, we think it won't happen here - WRONG. I await the outcome of Cardinal Pells' appeal
    Hoohoo
    28th Mar 2019
    1:29am
    That communion wine reference is typical of those looking to blame the victim. "A beauty from left field" JAID? Really?

    I know some here are reluctant to accept Pell's guilt, but everything said is nothing but conjecture because you weren't there to hear all the evidence. We don't know.
    Robbie
    15th Mar 2019
    11:49am
    I am appalled that there was so much made of his otherwise “ good character “ and references by high profile individuals who should have stayed out of it!
    By definition what he was found guilty of beyond reasonable doubt by a jury makes him of the worst character possible!!
    Apart from the charges he was found guilty of it is well documented that he facilitated the movement and protection of priests guilty of the same offences!
    He got off too lightly, I just hope any appeal is unsuccessful as that wine the last straw.
    see all.Maryakate
    15th Mar 2019
    4:51pm
    Robbie, I am glad you were not on the jury, as your preconceived bias would have convicted this person without hearing evidence. You can't lump another crime on at will unless that's what he is charged with 'aiding and abetting'.
    Unfortunately, the Catholic Church has been marred by priests who have been found to be child molesters. This does not mean that the whole Church is tarred with the same crush. But there are many in today's society who are against any church or religion, they become vindictive and fuzzy headed. Even some people try to obtain by making a false claim of being molested. Find that hard to believe?
    While I don't condone any innocent child being groomed by Paedophiles and I can understand they can become damaged, but we must respect the law.
    Most damage takes place close to home (ie in the home).
    As to people providing references, I am sure you would go chasing one from the best of acquaintances, if you were before a judge and jury.
    .
    Country Pete
    15th Mar 2019
    11:56am
    This is such a gross miscarriage of justice it is time the Senate moved to discipline Judges of all ilk. Cardinal Pell has been persecuted because he is a Christian, and the chance of him getting a fair trial in Australia after all the adverse publicity of the Child Abuse Royal Commission and finding an unbiased jury were nil in Australia. The Parliament of the Commonwealth has made two laws outlawing this kind of conduct by Judges. One is S 268:12 Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) which bans ‘imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty,” unless Articles 9, 14 and 15 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are complied with, on pain of 17 years imprisonment, and as a proscribed inhumane Act, S 269:12 Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) enlivens the persecution provisions of S 268:20 Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) which also carries 17 years in prison. The Senate has the power to right this very great wrong, and should call Cardinal Pell, and Senator Rod Culleton before them as early as next Monday, to answer the charges against them in the High Court of Parliament and if found not to have been given a fair trial by failing to be convicted on corroborated testimony, immediately freed from detention. Corroboration of alleged testimony is central to the Magna Carta coming straight out of the Holy Bible in Matthew 18 Verse 16. It is time The Senate stopped State persecution in the name of political correctness. The Australian Newspaper has not made any Comments possible on this story. Two or three witnesses is central to justice, and The Queen should immediately grant a Royal Pardon on the grounds that the Gospels have not been followed. Try the Church not the man.
    Rod63
    15th Mar 2019
    2:05pm
    "Cardinal Pell has been persecuted because he is a Christian"

    That's rubbish. In any case, it is not his "persecution" here that is important but his conviction and that had nothing to do with him being a Christian, of the Roman Catholic stripe, or any other.

    It was simply based on the evidence heard at the trial.

    Often other paedophiles are also persecuted because people are so disgusted with the way paedophiles betray trust and destroy lives.
    Hoohoo
    28th Mar 2019
    1:41am
    Country Pete, don't you think the Judge is well aware of his obligations? You didn't hear the evidence, so who are you to judge?

    This is why so many children were abused. Good people believed the priest before they believed their own child. Good people simply couldn't imagine that a priest could be so wicked & beastly. People should follow Jesus' way before they follow the church's way. Unfortunately, the church has historically bullied their congregations into believing the church is more important than Jesus or God. That's why Pell made it so hard for victims to seek justice - he knew it would harm the church's name & reputation. He acted as a henchman instead of a Christian. The result? Many, many more children were raped on his watch.
    Grumpy
    15th Mar 2019
    12:00pm
    Digby completely disagree with your assessment.

    What if there is only one complainant? Isn't the crime against him/her just a serious as if it were 20? The fact that the jury took 3 days to reach their verdict says that the fullest possible considerqtion of all of the facts was given, and they still reached, I believe, a unanimous guilty verdict. Taking your line of reasoning and that of the top gun criminal defence lawyer of the country anyone convicted of an offence could allege the verdict was unreasonable. I'm sure it is .... from their pint of view.

    What angers me is the sweeping under the carpet of the multiple, knowing offences of perverting the course of justice inherent in Pell's deliberate concealment of offences by other clergy and the consistent abuse of process by the Church in deliberate obstruction of police investigations and development and use of the "Ellis defence", a concept I suggest would be totally unacceptable in defence of any other organisation than a religious one.

    I believe the Judge discharged a very difficult duty excellently, although perhaps a couple of years more might be appropriate in recognition of the concealment which will never be prosecuted. However, in reality I do not really believe Pell will spend any more time in jail than it takes to expedite his appeal. The massed weight of the Catholic Church, Catholic politicians and other powerful Catholics will ensure his stay in jail will be short.
    Ahjay
    15th Mar 2019
    12:19pm
    I must agree Grumpy. Pell moved offenders from parish to parish like a chess game so they could continue to re-offend. He should have reported the offenders to the police.

    My own childhood experiences have convinced me that the Roman Catholic church is the world's largest Pedophile Ring on earth. He should rot in jail then burn in hell.
    Triss
    15th Mar 2019
    1:15pm
    You’re right, Ahjay, you only have to look at the so called policies of the Catholic Church to see it was set up for pedophiles.
    Banning contraception which ensured there would always be plenty of children.
    Banned from marriage because Jesus wasn’t married...which would sidestep any concern the community might have with so many unmarried males.
    Theo1943
    15th Mar 2019
    4:16pm
    Grumpy, apparently all these commentators were in the jury room. In the case of a Caardinal one murder would not have been enough to convict in their eyes. maybe not even two.

    Just how many people are usually invited to witness a rape?
    Robbie
    15th Mar 2019
    12:13pm
    I am appalled at the references to his “good character “ by high profile individuals who by their actions are hurting victims yet again.
    By definition a convicted sex offender is not of good character!
    TREBOR
    15th Mar 2019
    4:55pm
    I am appalled at the number of people who quite happily accord full empathy with and value to a complainant's statements, but not to those of the accused.

    We run the very serious risk of people being convicted and imprisoned purely on the unsupported word of one person as accuser - something I warned the Law Reform Commission would begin to permeate out judiciary and judicial system under the false cloud of 'domestic violence laws' that required zero proof.

    I think we are seeing the fruits of this now with guilt by accusation becoming 'normal', and I will remind you all that the 'feminists' are demanding that right now in accusations of rape etc.
    Knight Templar
    16th Mar 2019
    11:08am
    TREBOR, further to your last paragraph, Third Wave feminists are now insisting that a female's "YES" to consensual sex, really means "NO" in cases where a female is under the influence of alcohol or drugs. It is argued that a woman in this situation, is incapable of reasonable or legitimate consent. However, a male in similar circumstances, is deemed to be totally responsible for his actions. This is a view commonly held by authorities in the UK.

    Of equal concern, is the view now being embraced by Third Wave feminists, that 'consensual' sex in marriage is not possible. They argue that a woman will say "YES" to sex because she feels duty bound by her marital relationship when she actually means "NO".

    They are of the view that this should be characterised as rape.
    JJ
    15th Mar 2019
    12:20pm
    When discussing guilt or innocence, and lack of corroborating evidence, it must be remembered that pedophiles always make sure that their activities are conducted under circumstances wherein there is no possibility of witnesses, and no evidence remaining. Also. threats of retribution should any report be made by the victim can be very intimidating to a child. Add to this the probability that the child victim does not really understand what is happening at the time. Awareness occurs much later, when there is a greater awareness and knowledge of sexual activity.
    Speaking personally, having been sexually abused as a young child, the thought of anyone finding out was so appalling to me that I would not be able to tell anyway. To me, the whole responsibility therefore the blame, was all mine as I had allowed it to happen. And there must have been something disgustingly wrong with who or what I was that anyone would even approach me in this manner. It was not until I was in my late 50's that I finally was able, with great difficulty, to relate my story and begin to gain some peace of mind. And this was only because I had been made aware that the offending male had been accused of other instances of abuse against other young females. This awareness caused me to slip into an acute major depressive episode as I contemplated what may have been prevented had I had the courage to report his activities so long ago.
    Paddington
    15th Mar 2019
    12:35pm
    Sorry that this happened to you and hope you can be happy now and feel vindicated knowing you were an innocent child and sadly wronged!
    JJ
    15th Mar 2019
    12:38pm
    Thank you. I only wish that so much of my life hadn't been affected by this person's actions.
    Sen.Cit.90
    15th Mar 2019
    2:08pm
    JJ, I too was approached as a 14-year old by a manager at a garage that I left school to and started work. Whilst I did not submit to his approaches I never mentioned them to anyone; He asked me if I knew what a french kiss was and proceeded to kiss me and poke his tongue in my mouth 'Yuck' then he exposed himself asking me to feel him, I refused. it wasn't too long before I left the employment of that garage...'Quote' from your comment; "the probability that the child victim does not really understand what is happening at the time. Awareness occurs much later when there are greater awareness and knowledge of sexual activity". 'Unquote' Too true JJ I am now fully aware and totally opposed bastard Paedophiles and so-called 'Gays'
    TREBOR
    15th Mar 2019
    4:59pm
    "When discussing guilt or innocence, and lack of corroborating evidence, it must be remembered that pedophiles always make sure that their activities are conducted under circumstances wherein there is no possibility of witnesses, and no evidence remaining. Also. threats of retribution should any report be made by the victim can be very intimidating to a child. Add to this the probability that the child victim does not really understand what is happening at the time. Awareness occurs much later, when there is a greater awareness and knowledge of sexual activity."

    That's a lot of assumptions that presuppose guilt on accusation, JJ. Are you now asking that courts view the lack of any such evidence as proof that a crime occurred?

    It's just not on.. sorry.

    "It is clear the accused covered his tracks, yer 'onnah!"

    "How did he do that, counsellor?"

    "We don't know, yer 'onnah - he covered them too well! That proves guilt - a mens rea.... these are the actions of a guilty man - this total hiding of evidence so that nobody can find any!!"

    Ooooo-kaaaaaay!!!!!
    JJ
    15th Mar 2019
    5:21pm
    I'm not sure what point you are making Trebor, except that in the presence of no evidence or witness then no crime has been committed. In which case there is nothing to be achieved by reporting incidents like this. Is this fair to the young victims, that there is no avenue for them to feel supported by the law?
    Hoohoo
    28th Mar 2019
    6:13pm
    TREBOR, are you questioning the truth of what the above people are saying?
    Why do you state: "That's a lot of assumptions that presuppose guilt on accusation, JJ."? Don't you believe ANYONE when they say they've been sexually abused, if there weren't other witnesses? This is the very reason why so many children & adults don't report their assault(s) to the police. And for the same reason, why these vile scum target small children, who are literally babes in the woods.

    It just horrifies me that the people above are brave enough to tell us some of the hell they endured as a result of being sexually abused as children, & you TREBOR, appear to be questioning their motives. Not a single word of compassion!

    There is evidence to be found, despite your assertion of no proof (beyond reasonable doubt), then no crime. You are totally forgetting that a person is making an accusation. Often the cross-examinations in such cases put the alleged victim through the wringer, questioning their lifestyle & morals, as if THEY are the criminal. Pity the girl who has a healthy & active sex life - she's a slut for sure! Most victims are so traumatised by the police & the court system that they drop their case. Even when the victim has done absolutely everything possible to help convict their rapist (like not washing themselves, going straight to the police to show bruises, etc., & for forensic proof to be obtained), all the rapist has to say then is that he had consent. His word against hers. It's stacked against the victims all the way.

    I have a friend who was gang raped when she was 16 or 17. She went to the police & they just laughed at her. Apparently her father was having an affair with one of the copper's wives. He was the same father who had abused her as a child.
    Omacarla
    15th Mar 2019
    12:28pm
    So how many cases of paedoplilia have witnesses? I was devastated to find my brother in law abused my ( much younger) sister while she was in my care. I knew he was a womaniser and I told my sister, his wife, but had no idea he was abusing my little sister for some 5 years. She did not open up until about 10 years ago, aged in her 50's and it has been a rough road for her as her memories of the abuse have returned. It is a case of the victim being believed or the perpetrator.

    15th Mar 2019
    12:33pm
    As I said yesterday on this same topic, perhaps it should have been left until it is decided if the appeal is allowed.
    Anonymous
    15th Mar 2019
    3:26pm
    Agreed
    TREBOR
    15th Mar 2019
    5:00pm
    Agreed...
    TREBOR
    15th Mar 2019
    5:00pm
    Now - what about that mosque shooting thing in Newzealandia?
    Hoohoo
    28th Mar 2019
    6:18pm
    Please don't try to trivialise a massacre, TREBOR.

    Old Man, when the appeal has been heard, do you think just as many people will question its findings?
    Karl Marx
    15th Mar 2019
    12:34pm
    Hope he dies in jail. His victims has been given a life sentence by Pells & the Church
    Anonymous
    15th Mar 2019
    5:11pm
    Your antichristian bigotry is on full display, OGR. The legal process has not been exhausted, so your hateful condemnation is premature.
    Anonymous
    17th Mar 2019
    9:35pm
    Who is this fraudster creep masquerading as OGR?
    Karl Marx
    17th Mar 2019
    11:46pm
    Who, what creep, don't know what you're talking about
    Paddington
    15th Mar 2019
    12:38pm
    As a former Catholic what utter impostors these pesophile priests are! They know they are in mortal sin and unable to take communion yet they do. They are impostors!
    Bes
    15th Mar 2019
    12:52pm
    Having served on two public juries where the verdict was based upon a circumstantial verdict of Beyond 'Reasonable Doubt' I think that this case has questions remaining.
    And I would surmise that the verdict was expected and the Appeal was already being constructed while the case was being heard.
    Theo1943
    15th Mar 2019
    12:52pm
    I accept the decision of the jury. The previous trial resulted in a hung jury because of one juror holding out. Hardly suggesting innocence.
    Our justice system assumes innocence only until found guilty. Then there is a presumption of guilt until appeal. nobody with an appeal pending is presumed innocent.

    I thought it was quite funny that he arrived in court during the trial in an S series Mercedes, the very expensive luxury model, and arrived at the sentencing in another Mercedes, this one a Sprinter model, more utilitarian than the S, and with padlocks on the doors.
    see all.Maryakate
    15th Mar 2019
    8:31pm
    Theo, don't you have any friends with European cars? Possibly he was driven by well meaning parishioners or even friends. But there is no cause for envy. The law is a funny thing, it can work for you or against you depending on where you sit.
    Bes
    15th Mar 2019
    12:55pm
    I would surmise that the verdict, based upon Beyond Reasonable Doubt will be questioned. I would also surmise that the verdict was expected and that the Appeal case will be of interest.
    mike
    15th Mar 2019
    12:56pm
    Was Pell really guilty, it is estimated the jury gets it wrong 20% of the time, and it all depends on who you believe and how persuasive the prosecutor or defense really is. Also dont forget crucial evidence that would have shown Pell couldnt have physically done it was not allowed. Thousands believe Pell is innocent and he is a scapegoat for public feeling against the Catholic Church. Now compare this to Shorten, who has been shown to be a liar thief and fraudster in his handling of the workers at the Chequita Mushroom Company whilst being their union secretary, and allegations that he raped a young girl at a youth rally in 1986 ( story covered by the Herald Sun) but was not pursued by the police. So its a case of he said she said, similiar to pells case, but pell is in jail and Shorten isnt. Is one more or less guilty than the other. Based on character, Shorten should be in jail instead of Pell. Remember the jury gets it wrong 20% of the time
    Anonymous
    15th Mar 2019
    5:14pm
    Shorten is nowhere as big a scumbag as the lying, thieving corrupt Lieberal-Nazional vermin in government (soon to be in opposition).
    Bes
    15th Mar 2019
    12:57pm
    I now find that I cannot respond to this as I am not allowed to by the editor.
    ashydasher
    15th Mar 2019
    1:04pm
    Your 'poll' question is 'loaded', just like the old saw, "Just answer yes or no, have you stopped beating your wife yet"?
    Either answer ticked in the poll box means the person doing so firmly believes Cardinal Pell is guilty, thus increasing public bias prior to his appeal. The frenzy the media has already beaten up has all but ensured any person selected for the appeal jury will have formed their opinion before listening to appeal evidence.
    The whole thing smacks of already biased people wallowing around in pompous self-righteosnous.
    Rod63
    15th Mar 2019
    1:52pm
    The appeal won't be heard by a jury - just judges.
    JayJay
    15th Mar 2019
    1:06pm
    I do not know whether Cardinal Pell was guilty or not of the charges relevant to this trial, however based on what I have read of the trial I find it difficult to believe he was found guilty. And to those blaming the Catholic Church ( I do not belong to any religion) and baying for blood, Pell cannot be sentenced based on the behaviours of the church as an institution nor the people who are its priests of any rank. No person should be sentenced for the real or perceived actions of others.
    Paddington
    15th Mar 2019
    2:56pm
    The judge covered all that and it was very detailed as well which was good for people to hear. Whether they heard it all or listened selectively is debatable.
    Sundays
    15th Mar 2019
    1:06pm
    We either have a justice system or we don’t. He was found guilty by a jury who had all the evidence. Would we be second guessing any other trial? Pedophilia is a heinous crime. Personally, I’m shocked that he is able to appeal his sentence so quickly.
    Rod63
    15th Mar 2019
    1:54pm
    There won't be another trial.
    see all.Maryakate
    15th Mar 2019
    8:43pm
    So it's best to sit and wait? No legal firm would be worth their salt if they took a wait and see attitude. Memory is a funny thing, and that;s why there are 12 jurors. But being an outsider I can see that there is what is called reasonable doubt. Most people with legal training would/have seen that, and that's what the appeal is about. Also one who was a child, and the years or decades passed can provide the mind with something they thought was true. And to include a person who has died, and who had told family that no abuse had occurred, well we will wait for the appeal.
    Annie
    15th Mar 2019
    1:07pm
    The verdict of guilty, loss of privilege, and nearly four years in jail is fitting ... the full six years would have been better. Also I can understand people being angry with the Catholic Church and many other institutions. Same can be said of fathers, brothers, cousins, grandfathers, uncles, etc who are paedophiles, but don’t let them stand for all good men ... don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. There are many doing good in this world .. many more than the few bad apples ... don’t lose faith.
    Paddington
    15th Mar 2019
    2:59pm
    True! Imagine the good priests and others doing so much for people. One priest in Melbourne comes to mind. Then there is the Scouts and youth groups etc. these pedophiles are in the minority amongst very decent people.

    15th Mar 2019
    1:10pm
    George Pell has now been sentenced rightly so but he didn't rape a16 year old girl like the union thug Bill Shorten has been accoused of. Why arn't the media and authorities hounded him like they did Pell.lt appears that Shorten has paid off the media or got his union thugs to threaten the girl and her family. Bill why dont you have this alledged rape further investigated so you can be aquitted of the alligation or be charged for having sex with a minor
    Anonymous
    15th Mar 2019
    5:16pm
    Oh Gawd. Another desperate Lieberal troll...
    Misty
    15th Mar 2019
    9:24pm
    What rot Fair Dinkum.
    KSS
    15th Mar 2019
    10:20pm
    Fair Dinkum, the legal age of sexual consent is 16. That means that this girl was of legal age for sex and thus not a 'minor' in this circumstance. It is not a crime to have sex with a consenting 16 year old. However, rape is not consensual sex and a person can be charged with that crime no matter what the age of the girl at the time.
    ex PS
    17th Mar 2019
    5:44pm
    And how old was Bill at the time? By the way, it is up to the police to decide how far an investigation goes not politicians, thank god.
    Why don't you get fair dinkum.
    the_Albert
    15th Mar 2019
    1:13pm
    "Church is separate from faith. The same goes for all religions. Everyone has the right to believe."

    Yes, you can believe what you want, even if it is patently absurd. But the Catholic Church is a human institution maintained by centuries of non-verifiable ideology and exemption from taxes and employing people many of whom, under its protection, have exploited human gullibility and acquired riches and committed great crimes. I assume that most church-goers and believers accept the dictates of democracy in secular life. Why do they submit themselves to non-elected officials in the religious realm having control of their souls and administering the great wealth of the Church? Is it that they think God will keep the officials honest, even though we know about the epidemic of sex crimes against children and the way the Chuch as an institution protected and facilitated the continuance of such crimes? What other crimes have been committed within organised religion? It's all a great mystery to me. I don't think people are entitled to believe in the purity of an institution when the failings of it are well-known.
    Hoohoo
    30th Mar 2019
    12:15am
    It'd be near-impossible to police, the_Albert. People believe what people will believe. I don't think anyone still believes in the "purity" of the church. But is that enough to turn their backs on the church? You cannot use logic to change people's beliefs, or their opinions, if they believe in God.

    People believe in an incredible amount of clearly mad stuff, like the Flat Earth Theory, Trump, that Mary was a virgin, that wafer & wine turn into the body & blood of Christ, there was no Holocaust, that the Twin Towers were sabotaged from within, weapons of mass destruction, children overboard, that renewable energy was to blame for blowing down 23 monster power transmission towers in SA, the list goes on & on.

    I think there should be a law to protect children from being brainwashed.
    I don't think that will ever happen, not in my lifetime. And again, very hard to police.

    15th Mar 2019
    1:17pm
    Jackie
    i hope you are thinking the same about the union thug Bill Shorten who has been accoused of raping a 16 year old girl. You should also write an article on him with the same amount of criticism
    Karl Marx
    15th Mar 2019
    1:27pm
    So where is your evidence then Fair Dinkum, All charges were dropped weren't they or have you more inside evidence you are going to hand to the police.
    No of course not, your just a union bashing rightie troll for the LNP. How much per post are you being paid old son.
    Be careful someone doesn't forward your remarks to Bill Shorten's office, you may get a knock on the door by an AFP officer.
    Anonymous
    15th Mar 2019
    3:35pm
    You are correct Fair Dinkum Shorten was accused twice of rape probably paid them off a great example of the left wing bogans that post here.
    Anonymous
    15th Mar 2019
    5:18pm
    Fair Dinkum is an ignorant troll who cannot spell "accused" correctly. Typical dumb Rightard.
    Anonymous
    15th Mar 2019
    5:20pm
    Ditto concerning Robbo - another Rightard drongo.
    Anonymous
    15th Mar 2019
    7:33pm
    Not bad for a paedophile who got kicked out of the University Knows F--K all
    Karl Marx
    15th Mar 2019
    7:39pm
    pay no attention to Robbo the troll. never ever has anything to contribute that's in anyway constructive. Just abuse, name calling & general ignorance with the IQ of a gnat
    Anonymous
    15th Mar 2019
    7:44pm
    Only Genuine Paedophile no doubt a left wing bogan get a life
    Karl Marx
    15th Mar 2019
    7:50pm
    Robbo the pillow biter needs to get a brain. So What's your problem mate, you'll die soon with that much pent up anger lol. Still nothing constructive to say, so your life is trolling for the LNP & abusing people. That's not a life mate, you need to stop biting that pillow & take a long hard look at yourself, not pretty.
    Triss
    15th Mar 2019
    1:27pm
    The Catholic Church must be in panic mode. What percentage of their priests are sexual abusers? If they sack them there won’t be enough left to run the churches. It will be interesting to see how many are whitewashed and keep their jobs and status.
    Arvo
    15th Mar 2019
    1:29pm
    Mr Aly praised the judge for his handling of the sentence, writing:

    I wonder if Mr Aly and other Muslims would appreciate righteous Jews sticking their noses and stating their opinions publicly about the Muslim's practice of child genital mutilation and why the likes of Mr Aly has not condemned this barbaric sexual abuse of children in his forum publicly.
    Clean your own house spotless first Mr Aly before entering someone else's to criticise.
    Pell is an issue for the followers of the Catholic faith, the head of the church -the Pope- the Australian legal system and the Crimes Act.
    Other fanatical denominations shouldn't wade in to publicly praise this, that or the other, it's just sheer arrogance.
    Ahjay
    15th Mar 2019
    1:48pm
    What happened to freedom of speech?

    We don't have to agree with other peoples opinions or beliefs, however, we must respect their right to have them.
    Arvo
    15th Mar 2019
    1:56pm
    Muslims killed the meaning of free speech because you can't say anything adverse about Muhammad the Prophet but they can and do insult Jesus the Son.

    "we must respect their right to have them."
    -Keep preaching this to them maybe one day in future they will learn.-
    Anonymous
    15th Mar 2019
    3:33pm
    Where is the free speech Ahjay for people who want to criticise islam? Anyone doing so is howled down as being 'racists' by the ignorants. Bloody muslims are treated like a protected species when they have much to answer for in their own so called religion and ideology.
    Anonymous
    15th Mar 2019
    3:33pm
    Yes Arvo you are correct however it appears there are few less muslims in New Zealand at the moment somebody is knocking them off oh well are few less left wingers can't be all bad
    Arvo
    15th Mar 2019
    3:57pm
    Robbo- The killing of Muslim worshipers at two Mosques in NZ is a horrible act of terrorism or an act of revenge.
    Anonymous
    15th Mar 2019
    4:16pm
    I think it is an act of revenge maybe this person was thinking its been a one way road for a long time and is trying to even the score
    Karl Marx
    15th Mar 2019
    7:26pm
    Don't pay any attention to Robbo as he's a paid rightie LNP troll twat with the IQ of a gnat.
    one of the many paid LNP trolls on this forum unfortunately.
    Anonymous
    15th Mar 2019
    7:35pm
    Only genuine Rainy another Left wing Paedophile on this sight
    Karl Marx
    15th Mar 2019
    7:41pm
    how wouldn't have a clue Robbo the pillow biter. Can't even spell, oh that's right you have the IQ of a gnat. S**t for brains lol
    Anonymous
    15th Mar 2019
    7:50pm
    You being a well known paedophile rainy won't don' you neck yourself world would be a better place faggot
    Karl Marx
    15th Mar 2019
    7:57pm
    na mate, I'll leave the topping yourself to a miserable little peanut brain like you. I have a wonderful life not like your petty little useless existence.
    Anonymous
    15th Mar 2019
    8:17pm
    HeY Rainy no doubt a freeloader on the pension we need to put paedophiles like you on food stamps
    Arvo
    16th Mar 2019
    5:55am
    This mass murderer, an Australian born is a lunatic just like the radical Islamists. A cowardly act, killing innocent worshipers who were unarmed to fight back in self defense. He's in for a lifetime solitary confinement until he rots to death. Pity they have to allow him oxygen to breathe, A cowardly neo-nazi terrorist pig who has brought great shame to Australia and New Zealand.
    Bes
    15th Mar 2019
    1:39pm
    This case deserves an Appeal as the verdict handed down was not Beyond Reasonable Doubt.
    Bes
    15th Mar 2019
    1:41pm
    SORRY FOR THE REPEATS BUT AT FIRST COUPLE OF TRIES IT WOULD NOT UPLOAD. APOLOGIES.
    Karl Marx
    15th Mar 2019
    1:55pm
    So you where on the jury then, or in the courtroom or are you a lawyer that has read the full transcript.
    If none of the above then your comment holds no value or water for that matter.
    Rod63
    15th Mar 2019
    1:58pm
    Yes it was. It had to be for him to be found guilty.
    ex PS
    20th Mar 2019
    12:48pm
    Let us hope that if he loses his appeal his sentence is expanded.
    Hoohoo
    28th Mar 2019
    6:46pm
    Interesting twist on it, ex PS. I wonder how us common people will accept the verdict from the Appeal, whichever way it goes? If Pell wins the Appeal, will people feel justified in questioning that, too?
    Illuminati
    15th Mar 2019
    1:41pm
    I do not know George Pell, I am not a man of any religeous faith and I am not a lawyer. However, I am shocked that a person can be convicted on the uncorroborated testimony of one witness. Somehow I think the jury was influenced by background publicity rather than the actual evidence lead at the trial. There is so much emotion around this whole topic and emotion has no place in determining whether sufficient evidence exists to convict someone of what is a heinous criminal act. I don't know if Pell did this or didn't but proof to a criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt is very high and I wouldn't be surprised if this conviction is found to be unsafe at the appeal.
    ronloby
    15th Mar 2019
    1:59pm
    Listen people! Let us just get over this Religious Trial and focus on stopping this sort of affending to elimate young children being abused by sick people.
    kamelmusic
    15th Mar 2019
    2:02pm
    Agree with Alan's comments. Read Digby's cautious and reasonable reminders. The emotive and one-sided comments of Jackie sadden me. If Pell is proved guilty on appeal, he should face imprisonment. However, I think there would always be doubts about the justice of a case based on zero evidence, one uncorroborated defendant, and a dismissal of much evidence given about a lack of opportunity for the abuse to occur. But I was not in the court. A serious concern is the frankly hyena-like response of many to rush to crucify. Some people seem to be only showing their political or religious biases. It reminds me so much of the shameful case of an innocent Lindy Chamberlain, who was found guilty by a jury in 1982 of murdering her baby, and was castigated by media and the public for more than 6 years before being fully exonerated. The Australian Government finally had to pay a large compensation amount. We should all be patient and try to maintain Australia's 'sense of fairplay'.
    Triss
    15th Mar 2019
    2:55pm
    What evidence would you require, kamelmusic?
    Abby
    15th Mar 2019
    2:08pm
    As Digby says "To have a court case let alone a conviction on the uncorroborated testimony of one accuser,with out any evidence or proof,"
    Looks as if the Tall poppy syndrome is alive and well
    Wiseowl
    15th Mar 2019
    2:08pm
    The Pell case highlights the importance of transparency and being up front about serious accusations. The Catholic Church needs to change its system of Confession. The current method of confession is hypocritical - to say the least. A priest hearing confession is not allowed to report to the police if the confessor admits to having committed a serious crime against children.
    I converted to Anglicanism after being brought up as a Catholic and living most of my life as a Catholic. One thing that stands out about Anglican ministry is that there is no Confession heard by an Anglican Minister. Instead, churchgoers are invited to privately confess their sins to the Almighty. While this can be seen as inadequate when it comes to reigning in paedophiles, at least it is not hypocritical.
    Paddington
    15th Mar 2019
    3:09pm
    Then they would have to report every other crime as well. They can urge the culprit to turn themselves in but not repeat what was said in the confession. Forgiveness does not happen where there is no remorse and ongoing crime. They can urge the person to seek help and counsel them but not tell another soul what was said in the confessional. People would not go if that was removed from the confession. What could be done is emphasise the need for counselling and help for the person confessing.
    Jimbo
    15th Mar 2019
    2:15pm
    Cardinal Pell has always been a divisive and aloof figure.He has been an ardent defender of unpopular church doctrines and conservative values.In his past there have been unsubstantiated allegations,rumours and coverups.
    With his Melbourne Response approach to ongoing child sex scandals he did himself no favours by making clear that the church would aggressively defend any civil cases brought before the courts. By defending the church at all costs he came to be seen as representing all that was wrong with the church and its many sins against innocent children and their trusting parents.
    I believe his conviction is a miscarriage of justice.On the basis of the evidence presented in the recent trial it is impossible to believe the version of events by this sole surviving witness of 22 years ago with no witnesses. In the hysteria surrounding the case and the baying for revenge it is difficult to escape the conclusion that Pell was convicted for the grave sins of his church and not what was claimed to have occurred in an open sacristy with people in the vicinity wearing those restrictive robes.
    His first trial ended in a hung jury with 10 in favour of acquittal and only 2 finding him guilty of the charges.With the storm of media attention surrounding the case the jury in the recent trial found him unanimously guilty. Guilty of the offence on those 2 boys on the basis of very flimsy and suspect evidence or found guilty for the wider sins of his church.I suspect the latter.
    kamelmusic
    15th Mar 2019
    2:19pm
    Carefully read the wise comments of Alan and Digby, and be saddened by Jackie's hasty and abusive comments. If Pell is still found guilty after Appeal, he should be imprisoned. However, there will be continued argument about 'justice', in a case where there was no actual evidence, one (uncoroborated) accuser, and many witnesses asserting the lack of opportunity. Sadly, Jackie and some others are expressing religious or political biases, rather than contributing to a reasoned and fair-minded discussion. It reminds me of the
    kamelmusic
    15th Mar 2019
    2:31pm
    Carefully read the wise comments of Alan and Digby, and be saddened by Jackie's hasty and abusive comments. If Pell is still found guilty after Appeal, he should be imprisoned. However, there will be continued argument about 'justice', in a case where there was no actual evidence, one (uncorroborated) accuser, and many witnesses asserting the lack of opportunity. Sadly, Jackie is expressing religious or political biases, rather than contributing to a reasoned and fair-minded discussion. It reminds me of the costly and embarassing case of Lindy Chamberlain who was subject to years of judgmental and hateful reaction by the media and many people, was found guilty by a jury in 1982 of murdering her baby, but was fully cleared of any crime and received a large compensation from the Australian Government. Let's maintain a sense of reason and 'Australian fair play'.
    KB
    15th Mar 2019
    2:43pm
    I that the sentence was lenient but the judge had to take into consideration his age and health. He may well die in prison. His real sentence is his loss of privileges and the position he holds.As for the young man who was bused as a child remember that child abuse is a horrible act. He probably denied because he did not want to remember and that is why he took drugs so as not to live with the trauma in his mind. Drugs helped escape from reality of what happened to him. Sadly he died




    A little too lenient. I think as that writer said that the loss of power and money and the high life will mean more to him than a prison sentence,
    KB
    15th Mar 2019
    2:43pm
    I that the sentence was lenient but the judge had to take into consideration his age and health. He may well die in prison. His real sentence is his loss of privileges and the position he holds.As for the young man who was bused as a child remember that child abuse is a horrible act. He probably denied because he did not want to remember and that is why he took drugs so as not to live with the trauma in his mind. Drugs helped escape from reality of what happened to him. Sadly he died




    A little too lenient. I think as that writer said that the loss of power and money and the high life will mean more to him than a prison sentence,
    Charlie
    15th Mar 2019
    2:46pm
    Soon we will see old women on trial, who have caused lifetime emotional damage to children, by smacking their bare bottoms and making them scream uncontrollably. Coming to a convent near you.
    Misty
    15th Mar 2019
    11:18pm
    That has already happened, and worse, just in case you didn't know Charlie, in Ireland especially and also in Australia.
    Anonymous
    18th Mar 2019
    7:04am
    Do you rate sex abuse of children on a par with smacking a bare bottom, Charlie? Well, if it happened in a convent, it was probably NEVER just a smack. Too many nuns were hideously cruel and abusive.
    Hoohoo
    30th Mar 2019
    12:53am
    I've known many, many nuns in my life & I can safely say 90% of them were fabulous, wonderful & inspiring people. 9.9% were dull, unhappy or troubled & a tiny fraction were vicious harpies of the first degree. Probably the same stats as for women in general, & maybe even for men, for that matter.

    My kindergarten teacher was a real sweetie. She was young & gentle & all the little kids loved her. However, I received corporal punishment with a thick stick in my first week of kindergarten, administered by the Principal. She whacked me on numerous occasions during Infants School, sometimes in front of the whole of her classroom (2nd Class). One other infant's teacher whacked me across the back of the legs with a stick because she believed I'd littered with my lunch wrapping (not true) but because I protested my innocence, whacked me extra hard 3 times. My 3rd class (lay) teacher's favourite (& regular) punishment was to make you touch your toes & she'd whack you on the backside with a long stick. Extra humiliating for the girls because her underpants could be seen by some kids (girls weren't allowed to wear trousers, even though it might get to -10*C).

    But wow, they hit the boys much harder than they hit the girls. It was all about shaming & humiliating & trying to break your spirit. The irony is, I wasn't a naughty child.
    don
    15th Mar 2019
    3:02pm
    The court case that was supposed to follow the first was cancelled because of the publicity.! So why did a Judge not hear it then , maybe he would have gotten more jail time. Secondly he was forced by the Vatican to come back to Oz, remember he supposedly had bad heart etc etc , would not come by plane or boat either. When he was forced to come back , he flew , must have had divine healing. When Priests were caught he transferred them . He should never see the outside of a jail ever. Put him in the open prison , justice would be served then.
    bandy
    15th Mar 2019
    3:32pm
    I agree with you Triss how could any young person in that situation accuse a high ranking church person they would most likely not be believed so the result was a life full of despair & a death.I also was not in the courtroom but to me how could somone make up something like that I do not feel anything for Pell other than contempt but I do feel for the victims.
    Jannie
    15th Mar 2019
    3:34pm
    In my opinion all sex offenders should be castrated. But I feel he will be dealt with during his time in prison by other prisoners.
    Anonymous
    15th Mar 2019
    5:24pm
    Wait for the legal appeal process to run its full course.
    Anonymous
    15th Mar 2019
    9:11pm
    Knows F k all would say that because he is the same as George Pell a bloody left wing Paedophile
    Karl Marx
    15th Mar 2019
    9:39pm
    Anything to contribute Robbo potty mouth pillow biter. You are a very very sad piece of gnat brained rubbish. Think it's time for your medication & for your boyfriend to tuck you in. Nighty nights
    Misty
    15th Mar 2019
    11:20pm
    Who are you OGR?, the imposter?
    JAID
    16th Mar 2019
    5:38pm
    May well be Jannie.

    If so, that is a disgraceful indictment on our justice system and in particular upon prison systems. If we wish to promote institutional punishment as a valid response and consequence of action then it should be measured and as equally delivered as we can reasonably manage. Where anyone suffers in our care beyond that which we judicially prescribe we abrogate our responsibility. Worse, we let thugs deliver extra-judicial punishment.

    Our prisons, despite some and occasional attempts at sanity have always insufficiently appreciated the seriousness of their responsibility and that makes us all responsible.
    Hoohoo
    30th Mar 2019
    1:09am
    Good point JAID. But why are our prisons allowed to be like this?

    Is it fair that some rich &/or famous people are kept in protected custody while the common criminal must endure the cruelty & violence of normal prison life?

    I personally think sex offenders & other seriously violent criminals should have their own separate prisons.
    Not Amused
    15th Mar 2019
    3:55pm
    Firstly I wouldn't take a bit of notice of anything Wally Aly has to say. He speaks as if he has a doctorate in psychology. Secondly the public hasn't been able to read the evidence so without that sort of insight how is the public ever to come to terms with any of this? Also, if the verdict is overturned on appeal, that would make the sentencing judge look a bit stupid for how he described Pell's character. Without supporting evidence, the jury convicted this man. Of late, there's a new part to accusations: "Believe me". Police act on alleged domestic violence on the "the complainant has to be believed". This is also called for by the #Me Too" alleged victims. There's a woman who alleges that a very long time ago Bill Shorten assaulted her. So is the "believe me, this happened decades ago" principle only applicable to some complainants, but not others? Obviously the jury believed the complainant in this case but someone here has pointed out that paedophiles are very careful to avoid being caught and carefully plan out their crimes. In the Pell case it seems that the plan was rather odd e.g. open door, heavily robed, witnesses likely to enter the room at any given moment. I feel that child victims who do not report crimes until they are adults should, as mature adults, have their evidence open to the public, as well as their names. IMO this case has unfairly divided the public due to the secrecy surrounding the evidence.
    Not Amused
    15th Mar 2019
    4:02pm
    Further, there's a Tasmanian woman who has done 8 years for killing her elderly partner. No body found, many questions as to how a light-framed woman could dispose of a body over the side of a yacht etc. and now a tragic, drug affected young woman, always known to police, tells that she knows who did this crime. I'm not saying George Pell is innocent or guilty, and he strikes me as a cold, remote and somewhat uncaring individual, but, what if .... ? Who pays the compensation for seriously wrong judicial sentences? Mug taxpayers, of course.
    maxchugg
    26th Mar 2019
    10:46am
    Not Amused, you are 100% correct. Happily the woman in Tasmania has been granted the right to appeal her sentence - after serving around 10 years in jail. If she wins, and I hope she does, poor taxpayer!

    Like you, I have no idea whether or not Pell is guilty as charged, but I am equally convinced that neither does anyone else, jury members who found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The closest it would be possible to come would be to determine guilt by association because it is beyond dispute that he has lived in very bad company.

    The bottom line is that the basic principle of law is that it is better for a hundred guilty people to be acquitted than for one innocent person to be convicted. It's past time that this principle was reinstated in Australia.
    maxchugg
    26th Mar 2019
    10:46am
    Not Amused, you are 100% correct. Happily the woman in Tasmania has been granted the right to appeal her sentence - after serving around 10 years in jail. If she wins, and I hope she does, poor taxpayer!

    Like you, I have no idea whether or not Pell is guilty as charged, but I am equally convinced that neither does anyone else, jury members who found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The closest it would be possible to come would be to determine guilt by association because it is beyond dispute that he has lived in very bad company.

    The bottom line is that the basic principle of law is that it is better for a hundred guilty people to be acquitted than for one innocent person to be convicted. It's past time that this principle was reinstated in Australia.
    Aussie
    15th Mar 2019
    4:07pm
    He should be Kill now ....... dead penalty should be impose to this crimes because has nothing to do with religion or God is a criminal offence as good as killing someone .....

    I was Catholic because my family make me catholic but after 21 years old i decide that there is no religion believes that I may follow ..... this was after I learn all the atrocities that the religious FREAKS done to the people of this world .... just look at USA and there so many religions and all Money money makers ...South America Catholics they introduce the Saint Inquisition in the Incas empire and destroy the civilisation ..... FFFFF them all Religion they are all lies and preaching all kind of stupid thinks and people believe and follow wowowowowo and they give all they can to the religion ..... Money Money look at the Munks ... they receive all free meals everyday they walk around town and people give them food and money What ????? ...what about the Koran wowowowo no much to say just watch TV .....

    Well and more and more I can fill this page with info but I know that some religious Freaks in this forum will crucify me .... they will anyway .....

    So in Summary he jail sentence is almost nothing for this high ranking catholic Cardinal that has been preaching the opposite ........ but lets wait for the appeal maybe some of our religious politician send him free ...... All money money

    This is my believe in religion ..... Religion is Man Made and nothing to do with God .... God is inside yourself and only counts by you and nobody else believes or preaching and when you die you will be respected for what you are and not the religious believes you have
    Anonymous
    15th Mar 2019
    5:26pm
    *YAWN* Yet another semi-literate, antireligious bigot...
    Aussie
    15th Mar 2019
    5:31pm
    I knew that people like you will crucify me ...... and yes I am anti religious .. you may be one of those that follow them and give lots of money he he he he he what an idiot he he he he

    You will go to heavens he he he he and I go to hell he he he he ...Happy ???
    Anonymous
    15th Mar 2019
    7:47pm
    I am not a fan of Ausie but he has a right to say what he likes rather than be a Bludger like you Know F k all
    Karl Marx
    15th Mar 2019
    7:53pm
    Robbo the pillow biting rightard LNP troll, is nothing constructive to contribute. What a miserable little petty life you must have.
    Aussie
    15th Mar 2019
    10:58pm
    Thanks Robbo .... do not worry about OGR he is nothing mate he always do that like all other rubbish people do ....... personal insults all the time.
    PatrickRM
    15th Mar 2019
    4:14pm
    Of course, the DPP could actually appeal the sentence if they believed it was too low. That remains to be seen.
    Leebee
    15th Mar 2019
    4:22pm
    IF this arrogant schmuck never laid a hand on any child he is guilty for shuffling others to greener, fresher, pastures that did. And also guilty of the lack of compassion for the families that endure the pain of raising a child of abuse. Get real people!
    TREBOR
    15th Mar 2019
    4:42pm
    I'm nae a Catholic, but I confess to a feeling of unease about this conviction... I read that twenty or so witnesses said the opposite, but the jury accepted the story of one witness...

    I've already said elsewhere that I think he will win on appeal.
    Aussie
    15th Mar 2019
    5:26pm
    Probably correct but will still on million of peoples mind his original conviction ...... People like him must have a complete clean plane without any doubts of what he is after all he is a Cardinal for god say .....
    Rod63
    15th Mar 2019
    7:18pm
    @ Trebor: " I read that twenty or so witnesses said the opposite" - I am sure that isn't correct.
    How could there be witnesses to him NOT doing it, with credibility. I would be one - I didn't see him do it? Did you?
    Anonymous
    17th Mar 2019
    5:19pm
    Rod63, I think what 'twenty or so witnesses' said was that it simply wasn't possible for events to happen as the alleged victim described. They said the boys could not have left the choir without being missed. They said the place where they alleged the events occurred was a busy place in public view. They said the robes Pell was wearing could not be opened to expose him but had to be completely removed. They didn't claim to witness him NOT doing it!

    Further, I think a witness said that one boy, now deceased, had never claimed it happened and had told his father it did not happen. I appreciate there might be valid reason for him not to tell his father what occurred and there might have been influences keeping him silent, but it still raises questions.
    Anonymous
    17th Mar 2019
    5:19pm
    Rod63, I think what 'twenty or so witnesses' said was that it simply wasn't possible for events to happen as the alleged victim described. They said the boys could not have left the choir without being missed. They said the place where they alleged the events occurred was a busy place in public view. They said the robes Pell was wearing could not be opened to expose him but had to be completely removed. They didn't claim to witness him NOT doing it!

    Further, I think a witness said that one boy, now deceased, had never claimed it happened and had told his father it did not happen. I appreciate there might be valid reason for him not to tell his father what occurred and there might have been influences keeping him silent, but it still raises questions.

    15th Mar 2019
    4:47pm
    Given the appalling level of paedophilia in the Islamic ummah, Waleed Ali is in no position to say anything.

    As for Pell, I have reason to doubt his guilt; let's see what happens with the appeal. In any case, the whole affair is deeply ugly.
    TREBOR
    15th Mar 2019
    6:23pm
    Aleed Wally? Not worth the parchment his religion is written on...
    BURDY
    15th Mar 2019
    8:15pm
    My local pub jury reckons that where there is smoke, there is fire. The catholic church has been smelling of pedophile smoke for decades. Finally, a tall poppy catholic with a cloud of smoke around his head has been brought down on pedophile charges. The pub jury agrees with the tall poppy's jury, and hopes the justice system can get to the seat of the smoke causing fires.
    Franky
    15th Mar 2019
    10:47pm
    I feel that at his age to be sentenced to prison is a bit rough. Times have changed and what was acceptable 30 years ago is no more. I don't think we should drag up ghosts from the past, what's done is done. It would have been enough to strip him of all the honours and positions he holds, as well as any special pension rights. Of course it would have helped if he apologized and accepted responsibility for what happened. So I can't feel sorry for him the way he's been treated now.
    JAID
    16th Mar 2019
    5:23pm
    Yours seems a humane approach Franky. Yes it would be better if he apologised, if he turns out guilty in the end that is.

    Seems to me that at that age, that recognisable and with that delay since alleged offence the assurance of no re-offending could reasonably be the primary goal.
    Anonymous
    17th Mar 2019
    3:15pm
    "Prison a bit rough"? For a man who sentenced his victims to a life of hell? I'm not just referring to those he abused directly - but he abused his power to deny countless thousands of victims of serious abuse any chance of justice or healing. And to ensure abuse could continue with the victims having neither recourse nor protection. Nothing is too rough for someone who does that.
    Anonymous
    17th Mar 2019
    3:15pm
    "Prison a bit rough"? For a man who sentenced his victims to a life of hell? I'm not just referring to those he abused directly - but he abused his power to deny countless thousands of victims of serious abuse any chance of justice or healing. And to ensure abuse could continue with the victims having neither recourse nor protection. Nothing is too rough for someone who does that.
    ex PS
    20th Mar 2019
    1:02pm
    Yes I can remember the good old days, why, thirty years ago young boys were being sexually abused right left and center, it was unusual for a child not to be a target for sexual abuse, in fact if you weren't sexually abused you felt left out.

    I just don't know what world or on what planet you were living thirty years ago. I wonder, if it was you or your child would you be so forgiving?
    I doubt very much that someone who was abusive thirty years ago suddenly gave it up and never did it again, more questions need to be answered. This type of crime has a very high repeat offender rate and a very low rate of complete cessation.
    GeorgeM
    16th Mar 2019
    12:28am
    What a confused mess!
    The article Question "Do you think there’s a chance that his conviction overturned?" was not included in the poll although the article seemed to suggest it is included.
    The overall Question in the article heading "Has justice been served?" was also not included in the poll.
    YLC's article writer and it's poll-designer seem to be out of sync!

    Answer to the 1st Question: Yes, that's why an appeal is being lodged!
    Answer to the 2nd Question: Very difficult to say - firstly, as a Jury decision always has an element of doubt (as in this case with one person's word against the other with no other independent witness or clear evidence) and a Judge's unemotional decision based only on facts would have been more reliable, secondly, till the appeal is decided, this question is irrelevant and premature.

    Even if the appeal is rejected, whatever the sentence, the massive delay in this case coming to court, especially after the death of one of the victims, means that justice truly was never going to be served. Justice massively delayed is justice massively denied!

    I have long maintained that the only apt solution for pedophiles is to send them to a remote island permanently (after they serve their jail sentence) where such monsters can no longer participate in a society where children live.

    BTW, Digby's comments above are spot on.
    phaxer
    16th Mar 2019
    5:34am
    Since one of my ancestors arrived in Australia in 1828 as a convict from Ireland my family have been a long line of Catholics. What has been happening in recent decades has made my faith in the Church being reduced significantly. My faith in God and Jesus has not! Popes in the past have fathered children and It is also believed that one Pope was a woman who was found out when she miscarried. Celebracy is the biggest mistake of the Church and that is the main cause of this almighty horrendous atrocities on children.
    Wake up Vatican if you want to keep the faithful changes have to be made. As this is totally unacceptable.
    JAID
    16th Mar 2019
    5:18pm
    One caution there phaxer, though I am not trying to re-build your faith in the church. It is not reasonable to think that paedophilia is not prevalent outside the churches. Who knows how prevalent? May even be rife also.

    Is "celibacy" a term which could be applied to a female pope? :-) the churches seem to have captured the term as an attempted male thing in my mind.
    Misty
    16th Mar 2019
    9:56am
    Apparently Cardinal Pell signed the Pedophile Register, why would he do that if he is innocent?.
    JAID
    16th Mar 2019
    5:11pm
    Seems odd that they bother having the twisted beggars sign.
    So in answer maybe they are not asked but told to do it. Not signing would not be a reason for non-inclusion.
    RAY
    20th Mar 2019
    10:06pm
    He had no choice but to sign the register. He is a paedophile and deserves to be on it.
    Marten
    16th Mar 2019
    5:56pm
    He has been truly found guilty; of course, he continues to maintain innocence. Most criminals do anyway; often recommended by their lawyers.
    Marten
    16th Mar 2019
    5:56pm
    He has been truly found guilty; of course, he continues to maintain innocence. Most criminals do anyway; often recommended by their lawyers.
    Nerk
    17th Mar 2019
    8:12am
    Why should anyone get off light, their victims suffer the rest of their life a sentence.

    17th Mar 2019
    3:10pm
    I am far less concerned with whether Pell's sentence was adequate than with the massive injustice suffered for so long by all children who suffered abuse - injustice for which Pell was partly responsible as he devised methods of reducing compensation payouts and ensuring victims had minimal recourse and endured hell to make a complaint. The Catholic Church has much to answer for, as do most other religious institutions and the State, but ultimately it was the law of the land that denied children proper protection and - having failed to protect them - silenced their complaints and denied them access to help. And Pell was allowed to manipulate to ensure the law favoured his Church over its victims.

    I know people who have endured decades of hell, and were only recently granted the right to even a minimal hearing and the opportunity to complain about the abuse (and not just sexual) and neglect they were subjected to in childhood.

    I have reservations about Pell's trial and I'll be surprised if he isn't successful on appeal, but he wasn't tried for a hideous crime of which he IS guilty - that of denying countless thousands victims of abuse even a semblance of justice and minimal help to move on with their lives; that of putting the finances and reputation of the Church ahead of the welfare of the people the Church ought to be protecting and helping. For that crime, he should rot forever in the most horrific Hell.
    Misty
    18th Mar 2019
    6:28pm
    Today I re ad a story in one of the Sunday Paper's Magazine about a married couple who had a difficult sex life, this went on for years and the poor woman blamed herself for this but it seems years ago the man had been abused by a priest and never told anyone and that was the cause of his aversion to sex, he is now receiving therapy and the woman is relieved it wasn't her fault, I am sure there are many more stories like this where the abused never told anyone because they thought they wouldn't be believed.
    Rukus
    18th Mar 2019
    1:32pm
    I have just read the book 'Blood on the Rosary'. A very enlightening book. I could not believe the lengths the church goes to to cover the behaviour of its priests.
    mitch1945
    18th Mar 2019
    2:23pm
    Well having read most of the comments. Even though described as "not catholic" or "am an atheist" it seems strange to me that most of these are in favour of Pell being freed. What sort of sick people are these? (probably catholics lying like their hero!) I would suggest that Pell is very, very lucky that there were not a considerable number of more with cases against him. The judge's description of Pell as "arrogant" is a perfect description. Why do they think he is not guilty? Is the one abused plus the one that died unable to handle the abuse producing 5 charges insufficient? It will be a very lousy legal system if Pell escapes his punishment.
    Many say (including Chief Judge Kidd) that it is not the catholic church on trial. Theoretically, that is correct but, based on the current crimes and admissions of paedophilia in the catholic church around the world, what are the chances of our Mr Pell escaping the shadow cast from them?. Are we saying that this does not happen in Australia? Dream on, I'm sure God will look after his own which would be an unfortunate mistake.
    Granny
    19th Mar 2019
    1:35am
    As the mother of a child who was sexually abused by a priest who was also a family friend, may I be permitted to add to the conversation? Since she disclosed ( 2 years after the 1st girl came forward) we have had to listen to people bang on about it in much the same way as they are doing about George Pell. There have been 2 trials for our fellow resulting in a not guilty verdict in each. And before that, the 1st girl's trial was withdrawn due to her poor mental health and suicide ideation but is sitting there waiting should she ever feel brave enough or strong enough to tackle the horror they call a 'Justice' system. Nobody knows that though. It wasn't announced anywhere but in the court so everyone out there thinks she's a liar and the charges have been dropped. He loves that because everyone has bought into what we call 'perpetrator propaganda'. His voice is heard while the victim is silent and/or vilified. Let me enlighten you all on the process one goes through should they muster the courage to take on the powerful perpetrator.
    1. When a victim goes to the police, the police can take months, and sometimes years before they even question the alleged perpetrator, let alone arrest him. So even that early in the process, they have formed a belief he has done the crime but not only that; they believe there is enough evidence to arrest him and there's a strong possibility he'll be convicted. As for the victim, they are put through a gruelling process of formal interviews where their story is taken apart again and again and they're left shattered and retraumatised. In our daughter's case, she became suicidal and was unable to function with the most basic daily tasks. We have paid a fortune in trauma based therapy to get her functioning over a 6 year period. Her physical health as well as her mental health has suffered terribly. She is way better than she was but nowhere near where she should be in life.
    2. Once that happens the police then laboriously go over every piece of evidence they've collected and prepare it for the DPP because the DPP won't proceed until they are sure they have a 50%+ chance of success. So you see on a balance of probability everyone knows he's done this. (Even his lawyer)
    3. In the meantime, he's gone out and got himself a very expensive lawyer (in our case, a $10,000/day QC) while the poor old victim gets a taxpayer funded, resource depleted, common old garden variety lawyer. In our case he met our daughter for the first time on the morning of the trial.
    4. Once the trial begins the victim's family have to sit through a travesty of a trial where the defense challenges absolutely everything; where about 70% of the information/evidence is deemed inadmissable by the court; where the defendant is given last show and sits in the box and perjures himself and the prosecution is not allowed to challenge any of his lies; and then at the end of the process, the judge warns the jury that it would be 'dangerous' or 'unsafe' to convict someone on the evidence of the girls testimony alone, given they were children when the offense took place. That's called the Longman Direction for those who'd like to read about it. It's a law based on a medieval doctrine of hue and cry. And is a completely discredited belief. There is no other evidence than the victim's word in historical sexual abuse. So all we've got to rely on are the jury members knowledge and ability and if we get 12 people who have no idea about sex abuse then we're on a hiding to nowhere. As happened in the two trials with 3 separate victims over 5 years.
    Back to Pell. Please stop and ask yourselves: Who has the most motivation to lie? Does anyone really think that someone who does sexual things to children is going to put his hand up and say 'Yes, I did that? I like touching children and I've been working hard to not get caught but now you've sprung me, here I am? ' Really?? The idea's ludicrous. And as for the victim, ask yourself why someone, anyone, would wake up one day and think 'I might go into the police station today and tell them some cock and bull story about that priest doing sexual things to me 20 years ago. . I'll just make it up as I go along.' The police would have it torn apart in less than a morning.
    And do you really think the police have nothing better to do than chase after a bunch of lies? They're run off their feet so its absolutely insulting when you know the blood sweat and tears these detectives put into the work around child abuse that people think the victims are lying.
    Perpetrators are 100% committed to making sure that everyone thinks they are ethical honest and trustworthy. That's how they are able to do the things they do. Because no one questions their power and position.
    And once they're in the court, everything is set up to protect them. Our court system is based on the premise that it's better that 10 guilty men go free, than that 1 innocent man is hung. In the last trial our perp was defending, a witness who walked in and saw him with the child on his knee and his hands in her genital region was not allowed to give evidence because she came forward too late. The victim had already spoken to the police when the witness contacted the police. He walked free.
    So with all that stacked in favour of the defendant, and decades of rigorous research showing that 98% of complainants are telling the truth, I have no doubt George Pell did what he's accused of. Everyone seems to have forgotten that there has only been one trial, but there's been multiple complainants that haven't proceeded to trial probably for the reasons I've mentioned above.
    In our daughter's case, he was found not guilty in hers as well as a subsequent trial involving a 4th victim, but the church conducted its own civil trial with a Senior Counsel, a child psychologist, and a lawyer turned priest and they heard ALL of the evidence, including his grooming over many years; and they found him guilty and stripped him of his holy orders so we did receive some justice, albeit there was no custodial sentence. And yet there are still stupid people out there in our circle who have known our family for 2 decades and still think our daughter was either lying or somehow got it wrong.
    So next time you hear people questioning the verdict for Pell, remind yourself that the victim has no reason to lie but the defendant has every reason to lie. And no one EVER forgets when an adult puts his hands on you in a sexual way. 96 year olds went to the Royal Commission and told their stories for the first time because they didn't want to die not having told someone. Child sex abuse victims don't lie!!
    mitch1945
    19th Mar 2019
    10:03am
    Granny, that is an excellent article and so true. Thank you for such extensive coverage. So sad to hear what you have gone through, I hope our Pell victims (families in one case) do not have to suffer more.
    Granny
    19th Mar 2019
    10:20am
    Thank you Mitch1945; my husband and I are committed to educating those around us about how power and control keeps victims silent. Dennis McKenna, one of WA's most notorious paedophiles, admitted to some of his crimes involving children in Katanning that he had carried out over decades; and yet there are still people who believe he was 'set up, such was the strength of his grooming. Its unbelievable. I have no doubt that Pell will have more victims come forward over the next few years. Some will be satisfied he's been convicted and they can rest knowing they've been validated but others will be enraged the victim is copping a hiding and will want to come out in support. But they'll be out there, Mark my words.
    Anonymous
    24th Mar 2019
    6:52pm
    no one in their right mind would put themselves through all this just for the hell of it and to get an innocent man convicted and I understand the complainant was entirely believable; a jury thought he was!
    ArtStone
    19th Mar 2019
    4:18pm
    Lets pray the Jury got it right because I would hate to see a repeat performance of the LIndy Chamberlain case! Most people thought she did it !! However, I didn't! I don't know if Pell is guilty (personally I didn't think he was!) but I know two things: one; Juries are notorious for getting it wrong! I did Jury Duty once and most had the attitude "if the cops think he did it he's guilty"! They couldn't even bother to listen to the evidence and come to an objective conclusion themselves. Some didn't even want to be there regarding JD as a waste of their precious time. Two; how someone can be convicted on the say so of one person I don't know? Even if the second accuser had lived to testify in court that's still only two people, one short of what the Bible deems as a minimum before someone can be convicted! Was there a third person? I think he was convicted because he is Catholic, catholic priests are synonymous with paedophilia in most peoples minds and because he was/is a "Tall Poppy" and cutting them down a notch or two is still a favourite pastime of many Aussies! Oh and I should also mention you are automatically guilty if you are not liked; the most people are good at that!! I believe in an afterlife and I believe in G-d so if he is guilty then he has something to answer and pay for in the next life! If he is guilty and the sentence is thought too lenient like I just said above full payment will be made in the next life!
    RAY
    20th Mar 2019
    10:08pm
    Sorry, but I don't have time to wait for anyone's "after life", he did wrong on earth, he should pay for it on earth.
    mitch1945
    19th Mar 2019
    8:34pm
    ArtStone Artstone. What a load of twaddle!
    After such an intelligent discussion from Granny your comments are really catholic. No longer is our legal system decided or ruled by the bible. Thank goodness. You are letting your religion rule your decisions and your life by the sound of it (and I won't make a guess as to what that religion is).
    I will say however that anyone that makes the assumption the religion decides our legal process or anything for that matter should seriously consider getting help.consider
    ex PS
    20th Mar 2019
    12:41pm
    Has justice been done? Not yet, not until this convicted sexual predator has served his full sentence and been excommunicated.
    We also need to start looking for those who added and abetted this foul creature. Maybe we should employ the tactics of those arbiters of moral conscience who oversaw the Spanish Inquisition. For an organisation with a track record like theirs, the Catholic Church has a hide clamoring about justice and fair play.
    ArtStone
    21st Mar 2019
    7:37pm
    Well Mitch how wonderful you are! It must be nice to know you are ABSOLUTELY certain of someones guilt! I have never met a perfect person before does the sun shine out of your proverbial? Have you ever read the Bible Mitch? I doubt it. FYI secular law is heavily BASED on religious law in many aspects. If you think it is right that one persons word or even two is enough to convict I suggest you seriously need help! Please please really consider that! As far as the Bible is concerned it is a mixture of truth, history and allegory so don't dismiss it so easily. Justice is only truly served when the verdict is right. The ancients understood that fact you obviously don't. That is why at least 3 peoples word is required to prevent the chance of an INNOCENT person being convicted falsely!! I'm sure you wouldn't want to be falsely accused and sentenced for a crime you didn't commit? Or is that OK now because it is so modern and with it???
    Misty
    21st Mar 2019
    8:33pm
    Didn't you post this comment before Artstone?.
    ex PS
    22nd Mar 2019
    9:19am
    So you are in a room with a friend, someone you both know comes in and shoots him/her dead. No conviction can be made because there were not three witnesses?

    Criminals around the world rejoice, it will be open slather. If I was accused with such a crime I would take the stand and clear myself. It was not the accusers fault that this man felt that his own testimony would not help him. In effect it was not one mans word against another, one refused to have his say.
    ArtStone
    22nd Mar 2019
    8:18pm
    Look its really quite simple what I'm on about is ensuring an INNOCENT person is not falsely accused and sent to prison! Haven't you heard the saying "Better 99 guilty men go free than one innocent be condemned"? Some of you people are so quick to condemn based on one person's word! I'll say it again (hopefully the penny will drop) you all seem to have no problems when its someone else but I'll bet if it were you you'd want the three!! Even if Pell is guilty (and by the way none of you REALLY know that for sure) he'll get his comeuppance one way or the other its called fate/Karma and that is real. If you think justice can only be dispensed here and now, immediately like a fast food meal, please wake up and grow a heart and please again don't be so quick to condemn!
    ex PS
    23rd Mar 2019
    9:46am
    Are not children innocents, these molesters take their innocence and destroy their lives, you are obsessed with this foolish notion that the word off one person is not to be believed. My heart goes to the victims I would rather see one person imprisoned who probably did a crime than a hundred children suffer to protect them.
    I doubt if this case involved a tradie you would be so forthcoming with support. Twelve people who heard all the evidence and viewed the reactions of the accused and the accuser found that a guilty verdict was called for. If you choose not to believe in their ability to make their decision based on the evidence that is up to you, I and many others choose to back the system of law, not religious dogma. This convicted criminal is not only being locked up as punishment he is being locked up for the protection of other children.

    Do you assert that no criminal should be gaoled, or just clerical criminals, shall we empty the prisons and rely on fate to control the situation? Many innocent people are accused, they have their day in court defend themselves and get dealt with accordingly, this person did not even attempt to offer a personal defense and that was his choice, so it came down to the testimony of the victim, so it was not one persons word against another.
    Misty
    23rd Mar 2019
    11:04am
    No one is being quick to condemn, this case has been a long drawn out affair, time for everyone to be able to make up their minds.
    Granny
    23rd Mar 2019
    2:13pm
    You've made some good points EX ps.
    Child sexual abuse is a unique crime in that it is done in silence and secrecy. So there are almost never witnesses or forensic evidence like DNA, photos, or CCTV. So why does the DPP continue to prosecute these people? Because they know they've done it and the only way to prove beyond reasonable doubt is for the jury to believe the testimony of the complainant. Sadly, juries are far more likely to believe someone who's functioning highly and has their own position in society than someone who's struggling with poverty and mental health issues, even though the abuse has caused those. I have a theory that Pell's complainant is himself a man of authority and possibly famous in Australia. So when he gave his evidence the jury would be hard pressed not to believe him. 'Why would someone in his position make up a story like this? To what end?' This is far from being the end of the story. Perhaps this man will one day go public and then people will see that he had no axe to grind other than to lay his demons to rest .
    gerry
    23rd Mar 2019
    11:56am
    I looked at his photo 20 years ago when parents were trying to tell him about their children's sufferings and he sat there with no compassion in his eyes more like"Get over it" which I believe he said to one parent and I thought ""would you buy a used car from this man ??
    He wasn't a first offender,,,he walked around naked in boys changing rooms,he lived for 30 years with Australias greatest paedophile and spoke up for him in court

    All over the Usa thousands of claims are being made and Boston alone has paid out over a billion dollars

    A pox on Howard and Abbott
    gerry
    23rd Mar 2019
    11:56am
    I looked at his photo 20 years ago when parents were trying to tell him about their children's sufferings and he sat there with no compassion in his eyes more like"Get over it" which I believe he said to one parent and I thought ""would you buy a used car from this man ??
    He wasn't a first offender,,,he walked around naked in boys changing rooms,he lived for 30 years with Australias greatest paedophile and spoke up for him in court

    All over the Usa thousands of claims are being made and Boston alone has paid out over a billion dollars

    A pox on Howard and Abbott

    24th Mar 2019
    5:42pm
    a 13 year old girl in Perth has laid a complaint against a very, very popular priest. Supposedly having sexual relations with her for a few years. He has not been charged but he committed suicide the day he found out about the complaint. People are in disbelief and cannot believe it...so there you go! You just cannot judge a book by its cover.

    https://thewest.com.au/news/wa/perth-priest-father-joseph-tran-faced-accusations-of-child-abuse-before-his-death-ng-b881144883z
    ex PS
    26th Mar 2019
    9:12am
    A priest committing suicide, even he did not believe in the concept of heaven and hell. He did not exactly show a commitment to his own brand of religion.