CathNews reported today a brief summary of the grounds for Cardinal Pell’s appeal to the High Court of Australia. Those grounds as summarised by the Cardinal’s lawyers amount to the charge that Justices Ferguson and Maxwell of the majority opinion rejected the basic rules of reason.
[Cardinal Pell’s] lawyers argue that the Victoria’s Court of Appeal mistakenly reversed the onus of proof when hearing his case, forcing him to prove it was impossible for him to sexually assault two choirboys in a cathedral.
In their application, Cardinal Pell’s barristers, Bret Walker SC and Ruth Shann, said the two judges who upheld Cardinal Pell’s convictions “erred by finding their belief in the complainant required (Pell) to establish the offending was impossible in order to raise and leave a doubt”.
I have set up a section on my website which is devoted to Cardinal Pell. My intention is cover all aspects of the Cardinal’s life, not only his conviction for sexual abuse. It is a long term project. My mission statement is as follows:
Most people will see this photo as representative either of a corrupt Church harbouring a despicable paedophile who with justice should be given over to the lynch mob that has relentlessly stalked him. Or they will see reflected in the humiliated handcuffed cardinal a screaming injustice, the collapse of reason, the trashing of the justice system, and the degradation of Australian society. It is especially the collapse of reason that should alarm the ordinary Australian.
The judges of the majority judgement rejecting Cardinal Pell’s appeal seem to know nothing about the rules of reason. They seem not to know that abstractly speaking matters of fact could always be otherwise, that nothing is impossible except a contradiction, that judgements about reliability and trustworthiness are based on the empirical evidence. No rational person trusts someone without convincing evidence. The more critical the trust, the greater the need for sound concrete evidence.
When I examine the empirical evidence surrounding the accuser’s
charges (so lucidly discussed by the dissenting judge), I cannot but
conclude that this hidden anonymous man has concocted and acted out a
story to fool the gullible, buoy the bigot, and serve the aims of the
Cardinal’s political enemies, including those in his Church.
The accuser’s project is of such extraordinary daring that I further conclude he has the help and backing of political groups who have hatched a long term plan to destroy Cardinal Pell. Whatever happens regarding a High Court appeal, they have succeeded. Cardinal Pell has been become a martyr to the religious and political beliefs he has so forcefully defended.
A final conclusion is that no religious or political conservative in Australia is safe.
In this section of my website, I will continue to examine the evidence, critique the conviction and attempt to get behind what is known or claimed.
I do not encourage anyone to break the law, but I appeal to those
with knowledge about the Pell Affair that has not been made public to
contact me. Confidentiality is assured.
George Cardinal Pell was charged last week with multiple counts of sexual abuse of children. He currently resides in Rome, tasked with cleaning up the Vatican finances. In the coming weeks he will fly to his native Australia, where he vows to fight all charges. His successor in the see of Sydney, Archbishop Anthony Fisher, advises letting the justice system take its course.
Australian civil authorities have yet to announce the number and nature of the offenses with which Pell is charged. But allegations against Pell have been accumulating for years. He stands publicly accused of complicity in a sex abuse coverup in the diocese of Ballarat in the 1970s and early 1980s; complicity in a sex abuse coverup in the archdiocese of Melbourne in the late 1980s and 1990s; and various counts of child molestation, assault, and indecent exposure, from 1961 through 1997.
Peter Saunders, forced to resign as head of Britain’s leading charity for survivors of child sexual abuse, was among the first to support liar and fantasist Carl Beech who brought concocted, difficult-to-believe charges against prominent British figures. Beech was convicted for perverting the course of justice and sentenced to 18 years jail. The Beech case has stunning parallels with the Pell case in Victoria. The Pell case has stunning parallels with the Newsweek report:Catholic Guilt? The lying, scheming altar boy behind a lurid rape case. A postscript: Saunders was himself arrested for the abuse of a woman abused as a minor. See below.
Well, it’s over. What should be seen as one of the most significant criminal prosecutions of the decade has finally ended with the conviction of Carl Beech, aka ‘Nick’, on 12 charges of perverting the course of justice and one charge of fraud. He has been found guilty as charged by a jury of his peers and now faces the prospect of what should be a very substantial prison sentence, given the seriousness of his vile offences…
Was it mere coincidence that my website suffered a vicious hack directly after I had made a series of critical and mocking comments on twitter about Cardinal George Pell’s failed appeal?
Those who regularly visit my site know that I fully support the Cardinal in his declaration of innocence and am intensely critical of the leftist individuals, organizations and institutions who have been unrelenting in their goal of destroying the cardinal. The Cardinal Pell Affair is political from top to bottom. He is, and has been, a powerful force in defending political and religious conservatives.
Even though the majority judgment in the Appeal sent the Cardinal back to jail, the dissenting judge’s judgement, for all who retain the basic operations of reason, smashed his colleagues’ woeful efforts, causing many to wonder where their worships’ reasoning faculties had gone.
The irrational majority judgment is a powerful basis from which to continue the fight against the destructive Marxist forces in Australia. Make no mistake, the goal of destroying Cardinal Pell, and thus the Catholic Church, is front and centre in the Australian Marxist agenda.
If the hack was as suspected, then the hackers should know I have not finished by a long shot. Stay tuned for my comments and links to commentaries on the Appeal.
Four days ago, coincidentally after I had posted a series of critical and mocking tweets about the appalling result of Cardinal Pell’s appeal, my website suddenly turned crimson, warning about the dangers to be met within. Nobody could access it.
However, due to the actions of a very clever son, the corrupted files were found and annihilated. The website is now back online as safe as it could be.
‘It was left to a BBC Panorama team and Northumbria police to uncover the evidence that Beech was a cunning liar.’
The Met was right to listen to his allegations. Its mistake was not to investigate themSun 28 Jul 2019 04.07 AEST
Carl Beech’s QC, Collingwood Thompson, was faced with a monumentally difficult task when, just before lunch on Friday, he rose to mitigate for the recently convicted serial child abuse accuser. One point he made was that the Metropolitan police policy that “complainants will be believed has had an influence on this whole case. With another approach, Mr Beech’s allegations would have been dismissed.”
There is no harder task in advocacy than mitigating after a jury has convicted your client of every count on the indictment, and I am reluctant to criticise Mr Thompson, but the argument that the police should not have been so stupid as to take Beech seriously was probably best left to others.
Nevertheless, it was entirely correct. Beech would never have achieved such notoriety and caused such damage had many others, who should have known better, not believed him, or at least pretended to do so.
There have been many articles and videos demonstrating the absurdity (and injustice) of Cardinal Pell’s conviction, but none encapsulates that absurdity more succinctly than that by veteran journalist John Sylvester in Melbourne’s Age.
‘Pell was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt on the uncorroborated evidence of one witness, without forensic evidence, a pattern of behaviour or a confession.
‘It is a matter of public record that it is rare to run a case on the word of one witness, let alone gain a conviction.’
Fr Raymond J. d Sousa has demonstrated how corrupt Australian justice has become. Nobody is safe anymore.
Anomalies Abound in Cardinal Pell’s Abuse Trials
COMMENTARY: According to prosecutors, the very implausibility of the cardinal’s alleged crimes is an indication of their truth.
Does the very improbability of an accusation mean that it is more likely to be true?
That is the argument advanced by prosecutors in the case of Cardinal George Pell, and it indicates a dangerous dynamic in trials for some cases of historic sexual abuse. Convincing evidence leads to a guilty verdict; unconvincing evidence also leads to a guilty verdict.
Cardinal George Pell’s appeal of his convictions for sexual abuse was heard last week in Melbourne, and the proceedings illustrated how sex-abuse trials are different from other sorts of criminal trials. Those anomalies had a role in the false convictions of Cardinal Pell, which I have outlined previously in these pages.
The point here is not that there are wrongful convictions. The world learned that about Australian justice decades ago in the “dingo” case, dramatized by Hollywood, where parents were falsely convicted of killing their own child. Those false convictions resulted in part from public frenzy, a frenzy in which the religious beliefs of the family — Seventh Day Adventists — played a role.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a Democrat member of the US House of Representatives. She has achieved a deserved notoriety for her unblushing Green-Left views. Recently she was reported as saying, ‘I think there’s a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right.’
Whether AOC (as she is referred to) was correctly quoted or not is not my concern here. The declaration certainly belongs to the AOC drift of mind. No, whoever said it, it is a recognizable emanation of the Green-Left mind. Being morally right for this mind, is being in line with Green-left dogma.
One does not arrive at Green-Left dogma by way of the operations of reason. Green-Left dogma is handed down from on high, where the swirling emotions of the Green-Left elite make the dogmatic declarations.