George Pell has been convicted of abusing a boy (and another) who said he hadn't been abused by Pell.

That man died of a heroin overdose but he told his mother after repeated questioning that he hadn't been abused in the Catholic Church (Pell's name was never even mentioned by this boy/man or Mum).

Now Mum claims she knows why he became a heroin addict..because he was abused by George Pell even though he said he had not been abused by any Catholic priests and during these conversations..Pell's name wasn't even mentioned.

Pell was convicted of abusing this dead man on the strength of the other complainant saying he abused the dead man/boy.

Both these 13 year olds supposedly were made give George Pell (including the one who said he was never abused by a Catholic priest) oral sex in a Vestry of a Cathedral with the door wide open after a service Pell conducted with dozens of people and whilst parishioners were mingling around the Cathedral awaiting Pell as was his wont to stand at the front door chatting to people.

Even though a Verger attended Pell the entire time..he gave evidence to the court..which was normal practice. Pell supposedly forced two boys to give him oral sex while people were mingling about.

The living complainant claimed they had sneaked off from a queue of choir boys marching away even though some of those choir boys..now men..gave evidence that they were puzzled that these boys could sneak away when a teacher was marching them off.

Now Mum who says she knows why her son became a heroin addict..the son who said no-one ever abused him..says she will demand generous compensation (apparently the sums now reach at least $220,000, sue Pell (he has no money like most priests ) and the Catholic Chruch.

Compo is of course entirely incidental in these matters.

## not reported by most outlets was this was the second trial for Pell over these matters when a previous jury was deadlocked.

The mother suing for compensation for her dead son? Or for herself? Either way that's mad.

Jo wrote:
The mother suing for compensation for her dead son? Or for herself? Either way that's mad.

I am sure the compo is a lovely bonus, but maybe in her mind the abuse would excuse her son from being a drug addict, instead of it being just because he was an idiot?

If you can write off all your mistakes in life as being somebody elses fault, plus being considered a hero for coming forward, it is a very good reason to make a false complaint.
So even if compo was banned, I think much of the lies would continue.

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
[quote]Jo wrote:
If you can write off all your mistakes in life as being somebody elses fault, plus being considered a hero for coming forward, it is a very good reason to make a false complaint.
So even if compo was banned, I think much of the lies would continue.
I think these are very good points.

I very much doubt that she would have a legal case.

But it's the thought that counts.