Tag Archives: Cardinal Pell

Remember David Ridsdale?

Remember David Ridsdale going to Channel 9’s ’60 Mins’ and feeding them a story about Cardinal Pell trying to bribe him? It was a wonderful trick for Ridsdale and his gay mates. And ’60 Mins’ lapped it up.

That was around the time that Archbishop Pell refused to give communion to the members of the Raindbow Sash movement. It was around the time that they stood outside St Patrick’s Cathedral yelling they would get Pell in the end. And they did.

Were you surprised to learn Ridsdale was gay? Were you surprised that he turned out to be a paedophile – using the same terms applied to Cardinal Pell? I wasn’t. Something stank about that fellow. The odour wafted from the UK where he went to hide. Here’s part of the story courtesy of ABC News who supported Ridsdale in his 60 mins gambol.

David Ridsdale: Child sex abuse survivor accused of not being open about his own past as an abuser

[Victim Coery Artz] was 12 years old when Mr [David] Ridsdale, then a leader at the local YMCA, befriended his family.

“When you’ve got a lad 18 years old come into your life, they’re almost like a hero to you,” Mr Artz said.

Mr Artz was intrigued when Mr Ridsdale offered to teach him magic one night on the way home from the video store.

“David pulled the car over and proceeded to pull his pants down and pulled out his penis and started to masturbate and told me I had to do the same thing as well,” he said.

“I vividly remember him grabbing my penis and I had to grab his and it just didn’t feel cool. I hated it.”

Confused and scared, Mr Artz was instructed not to tell anyone.

“Afterward was the threats of ‘The devil will kill your mum and dad if you ever say anything to anyone’,” he said.

Mr Artz says the abuse happened three times, then his family moved interstate.

It would be 10 years before he reported what had happened to the Ballarat police.

Read the rest…

What does this say about the sort of people accusing Cardinal Pell of sexual abuse?

Two ignored aspects of Cardinal Pell’s case

Martin Burger’s report Prayers start for Cdl Pell 9 days before high court hears final appeal on LifeSiteNews website raises two interesting points either not covered or rarely referred to. The first is Phil Lawler’s worry about the quality of the Australian legal system and the courage of the Australian government. It’s not only the courage of the government. The courage of the legal people administering justice is a huge worry. Will they dare to depart from the ideology and social attitudes (let’s say bigotry) responsible for Cardinal Pell’s incarceration?

Phil Lawler, the editor of Catholic World Newscalled the verdict “a shock and a black mark against the Australian justice system.”

He questioned the willingness of the Australian government to support a fair judgment.

“In Australia today, the government — specifically the justice system — is now also heavily invested in the conviction of Cardinal Pell. To admit an error would be to admit an unreasonable verdict, brought about by an unreasonable prosecution, and now buttressed by an unreasonable appeals-court decision,” Lawler commented.

“To say that Cardinal Pell is not guilty is to imply that the judicial system is guilty in its treatment of his case. Will the country’s top court have the courage to reach that verdict?”

The second aspect is the possible role of Cardinal Pell’s Vatican enemies in the lynch mob action against him. Make no mistake, some nasty individuals have wormed their way into Vatican power positions. When great sums of money are at stake, murder is the least of it. This part of the Pell affair needs a lot more investigation. Who will have the courage to do it?

As prefect of the Vatican’s Secretariat for the Economy, the Australian cardinal “was openly loathed by many of the other curial leaders,” Ed Condon wrote in an analysis piece published by the Catholic News Agency.

“The Australian cardinal’s efforts to deliver financial transparency and accountability to the curia in the first years of the Francis pontificate met with internal curial resistance — in one famous incident, the Secretariat of State maneuvered without Pell’s knowledge to cancel an announced independent audit,” Condon continued.

“Since his return to Australia, Pell’s reforms have largely been reversed by those who would take the closest interest in his case in Rome.”

Some observers, including Robert Royal of The Catholic Thing, have speculated that there might be a connection between people in the Vatican trying to protect certain secrets and Cardinal Pell’s trial in Australia.

Pell Accuser – contradicting male sexual biology

So (following from the previous post) we have Archbishop Pell struggling under the awkwardness and weight of garments at waist level, his pants and underpants at his knees, on the verge of sexual assault. In other words, he is in a state of arousal ready to go into action. This is despite the gargantuan effort to hold all his clothes in the right place and the thought that any number of people could without warning enter the sacristy and catch him in a criminal act.

Utter nonsense.

Being a married man with children, I don’t believe any man could maintain an erection in such circumstances. An erection is the sign of male arousal and arousal can be maintained only in conducive circumstances. Apart from the environmental circumstances, layers of clothes don’t cooperate in maintaining arousal. There’s a good reason why films show couples flinging their clothes everywhere in the process of getting down to action.

The whole proposition is utter nonsense.

Say, now, that the lumbering, 56-year-old, 6-foot-3 archbishop has achieved what a slim nimble 18-year-old would have trouble with. The superhuman effort is now to maintain arousal while staggering after two 13-year-olds with a load of clothes and pants to his knees.

Utter nonsense.

To proceed to yet more incomprehensible behaviour, we are to believe that the two 13-year-olds have not done what the normal boy of that age would do. Recoiling in horror and disgust they would have easily evaded the tied-up archbishop and run from the sacristy into the arms of the many adults in the vicinity.

The scenario is utter nonsense.

Now we come to the truly incomprehensible. Once again, sorry to be indelicate. An erect penis once in action is looking for a climax. It doesn’t have a mind of its own. So, we are to believe that the archbishop put his erect penis into the mouth of one boy (he couldn’t do it without an erection), then into the other, and then fondled the unresisting boy while he had both hands engaged in holding his clothes in place and massaging a still erect penis. You see the problem? You would have to be a very stupid man not to. I won’g go further into the tawdry detail, but a normal man would see that the accuser’s claims are a total fantasy.

It is all a bare-faced lie.

The charges are so incredible as to be practically impossible

Regretfully, I have to repeat the accuser’s distasteful charges to make my point.

The anonymous accuser claimed that the then Archbishop Pell exposed his penis, grabbed the two boys, forced his penis into their mouths one after the other and finished by fondling one of the boys while he masturbated. This scenario is so incredible as to be practically impossible. First, the archbishop’s robes or vestments.

One can view a video of an archbishop vesting for a Solemn High Mass here. In this video, the archbishop is wearing a cassock before he begins vesting. It’s probable he has shirt and trousers on underneath the cassock. He has at least underpants on. But let’s count that as two layers.

He puts on the Amice and ties it tightly in front of him. I will count that as a restriction to movement. Next comes the Alb, a long white robe reaching to the floor. Three layers.

Continue reading The charges are so incredible as to be practically impossible

More about the liar

One Facebook page supporting Cardinal Pell began with this:

‘According to Cardinal Pell’s Biographer Tess Livingstone, in her article, ‘George Pell: This saga has a long way to go yet’, published in the Australian on March 1, 2019, Pell’s accuser has also in the past accused another Melbourne Priest of abuse.

If this is true, why is this not being spoken about? The secrecy of this accuser and his past are warranting of investigation.

Indeed, why is it not being talked about? The prosecutors have done everything they could to hide the identity of the person concocting the charges. Is their case so weak? But the unfairness and absurdity of the state’s actions does not concern me here. What is significant is that another piece of information about the accuser has slipped into the public realm despite the furious efforts.

In addition to psychological deficits, Cardinal Pell’s accuser has an inclination to pick on Catholic clergy. Nothing about this liar would surprise me. Indeed, the determined efforts to keep him hidden suggest there are other embarrassing (for the prosecution) things about him. For example, is he gay, is he a member of a gay activist group, has he a record of political activism of the leftist sort? What has the state prosecution to hide?

One thing is sure. The answers to these questions and many others will be revealed one day. Many of us will never let this affair rest. It is not just about the person of Cardinal Pell. It’s about what sort of people Australians are, what sort of country we live in. We will continue to work at tearing the skin from the onion piece by piece, even if it takes years.

If the choirboy was ‘believable’, what does that say about Pell’s police interview?

The appeal majority said Cardinal Pell’s accuser “came across as someone telling the truth” and rejected the appeal. They kept the Cardinal in solitary confinement. So, in a vital criminal case, it comes down to the accuser’s believable appearance. This for most clear-headed unprejudiced people must be outrageous.

How weak and fragile the legal system in Australia must be when criminal cases are decided on mere appearance. I refer to the previous post where Chris Friel destroyed the supposed corroborative evidence of the accuser ‘accurately’ describing the priests’ sacristy. He did not. It was a lie that befits the talents of the best hoaxers and con artists.

How is it that two supposedly eminent judges seem not to know that the best hoaxers and liars come across as utterly believable? How is it that two eminent judges seem not to know that abstractly speaking nothing is impossible except a contradiction, and that the accusations of wrongdoing depend on the empirical evidence? It’s mind-blowing.

Now have a look at Cardinal Pell’s police interview in Rome. The least of it is that the Cardinal corrects some police errors or misapprehensions. The significant point is that Cardinal Pell reacts naturally and immediately to the absurdity of the charges. If anyone can project a complete lack of artifice, Cardinal Pell does it in this interview. On the appeal judges’ measures, they have unjustly condemned an innocent man to jail. See the video HERE.

The shifting story of Cardinal pell’s accuser

In his latest essay, Chris Friel shows how the police and Cardinal Pell’s accuser had to desperately patch up his original story to deal with a great gap that became obvious over time. But the fabric of the accuser’s concoction has become so torn and frayed that no patching is possible. Again, this is appalling and explosive stuff. If the High Court does not uphold Cardinal Pell’s appeal in five minutes, they, too, will be the laughing stock of the legal world – here and abroad.


Locating the Wine in the Alcove

Chris S Friel

 In this note I shall assess the evidence regarding the claim that Pell’s complainant had prior knowledge of the Priests’ Sacristy, in particular, that he could locate the place where the wine was stored. On the face of it, the claim has not been challenged, but I shall argue that it is almost certainly false.

Thus, in his recent submission to the High Court Bret Walker acknowledges that “he was correct that the wine was located in a particular corner,”i a point that Walker diminishes on the grounds that he might have gained such knowledge from a tour.

Again, the point had been raised by the Crown in their submission under factual matters of contention (11) that the complainant “described entering the Priests’ Sacristy just before the first incident and finding a wood panelled area containing cupboards and finding a storage kitchenette. It was in this area that he and the other boy found wine.”ii It was further claimed that he had correctly described the layout, and that this was out of view.

The majority, too, had made the same point, something they found striking. They had not actually viewed the initial police statement made in June 2015, but nevertheless they opine:

Read on…

Milligan incites the ABC lynch mob against Andrew Bolt

Malicious delusional Louise Milligan is at it again in her usual one-sided, question-begging, distorting way, inflating a case again Catholic St Kevin’s College to make it appear such things only happen in the Catholic Church and Catholic schools – all run through the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation), Australia’s Anti-Catholic Central. How wonderful it is to have a billion-dollar state enterprise at one’s disposal. Nobody and no institution does bigotry as well as Milligan and the ABC.

Andrew Bolt dared to make a mitigating comment about the St Kevin’s case. That was enough for Milligan to rise in fury and set the lynch mob on him. Bolt can handle himself, but he should know that he has risen high in list of those Milligan and her class are out to destroy. He should remember the mob outside St Patrick’s Cathedral shouting, ‘We’ll get you in the end, Pell.’ They got him.

Here’s Bolt’s answer to Milligan and her lynch mob:


I don’t trust anything that the ABC’s Louise Milligan says in her reports on the Catholic Church or George Pell. Nor should anyone trust her tweets, like this appeal to my boss at Sky to, what, sack me?:

Read on…

Review of Milligan’s Cardinal

Gerard Henderson reviews Louise Milligan’s CARDINAL: THE RISE AND FALL OF GEORGE PELL.

According to Melbourne University Press, Cardinal uncovers “uncomfortable truths about a culture of sexual entitlement, abuse of trust and how ambition can silence evil” in the Catholic Church.  In an email forwarded to me on 30 May 2017, MUP chief executive Louise Adler wrote that Cardinal is an “important contribution to the community’s understanding of the Catholic Church’s response to child abuse”.  Ms Adler was defending Louise Milligan’s refusal to answer questions about Cardinal – despite the fact that her journalistic career has been built on asking questions of others.

In fact, Cardinal: The Rise and Fall of George Pell is neither of the above.  Cardinal  does not uncover “uncomfortable truths” about the Catholic Church.  The scandal of child sexual abuse in the Catholic Church has been known for decades.  Nor is the book a contribution to “the community’s understanding of the Catholic Church’s response to child sexual abuse”. As the author acknowledged when interviewed on the ABC TV News Breakfast program on 17 May 2017, Cardinal was written “from the complainants’ point of view”.

So Cardinal is not an objective analysis of either the Catholic Church or Cardinal George Pell.  Rather, it is the case for the prosecution – primarily researched by ABC journalist Louise Milligan while working for the taxpayer funded public broadcaster.

Read on…