I'm way ahead of Australia's chronic media.

Three High Court judges have overthrown Cardinal George Pell's convictions.

I didn't expect it but thank God they stood up to the vicious campaign to convict.

The hate will be immense.

It's been quite depressing watching the national broadcaster this week run a series of damaging shows about Pell at such a crucial time. The ABC more than any media outlet has acted disgracefully.

Trying to explain tho the haters that - whether he is innocent or not- no-one should be convicted on accusation alone.

Big Question now: The Victorian Police are riddled with corruption especially associated with the notorious Calabrian Ndrangheta, an Italian Mafia-type organized crime syndicate.

The Ndrangheta has extensive influence with Vatican finances with powerful allies- a cabal of extreme right wing Cardinals.

Cardinal Pell's job was to root out corruption in Vatican finances. His goose was cooked the day he took the job..a right wing Pell appointed by a "left-wing?" Pope..old friends..as the Pope considered Pell incorruptible.

Voila: The Victorian Police launch an investigation into Cardinal pell despite not one single complaint- and then leak the information to the media.

saint hedda the pious wrote:
no-one should be convicted on accusation alone


The overriding lesson for all jurisdictions...

apologies - that was SEVEN High Court judges to NIL.

The greatest legal minds in the country, uncorrupted and incorruptible, some Conservative and some raging lefties.

However - of the three hearings which gave verdicts:-


- the first had a jury give a unanimous guilty decision

- the first appeal had one of the three judges disagreeing with the guilty verdict of the others

- and, in the final appeal, all judges said not guilty


Some lack of consistency, in the system, at least.

Are jurys less capable of giving accurate verdicts in Australia?

Barney wrote:
However - of the three hearings which gave verdicts:-


- the first had a jury give a unanimous guilty decision

- the first appeal had one of the three judges disagreeing with the guilty verdict of the others

- and, in the final appeal, all judges said not guilty


Some lack of consistency, in the system, at least.

Are jurys less capable of giving accurate verdicts in Australia?





Barney I know your assessment is looking at given verdicts but I would consider the first jury's "non verdict" be included. That is the first jury was a hung jury so in fact there are two hung verdicts the first jury and first appeal (though the appeal allows a majority vote)

I would answer your question as a no. Juries reflect good and bad at the time and from the selection segement.

Basically English law is well over 800 years out of date and a better framework build upon achieving transparency, accountability implementing clear and consistent standards of justice has not been developed. Little allowance in the system of know knowledge such as all people can and do lie is build into every facet of life yet ignored in trials. How could two judges possibly know a witness is a witness of truth from no background of the person at all for starters. The fact is so well established that fraudsters succeed because they always appear as witnesses of fact and not fantasists etc

Of interest the Australian supreme court had 7 judges who looked carefully at a case that most likely would not even be allowed to appeal in the UK

Barney wrote:

Are jurys less capable of giving accurate verdicts in Australia?


Yes, when there has been a large-scale media campaign to convince everyone in the jury pool that a defendant is guilty before trial, and that accusers should be unquestioningly believed over any and all countervailing evidence.

And even a small scale one Randall; many innocent men convicted due to local press coverage.

Initially, a jury of 12 - unanimously found Pell guilty.

Eventually, 7 High Court judges found him not guilty.


Unusual and rare - the Australian High Court only reverses 8% of lower court decisions.

This judgement raises many questions - as to how the judicial system reached it.


Somewhere, someone got something wrong...

No surprise to those of us well aware that the vast majority of allegations are either totally false of hugely exaggerated. No surprise to those of us who know how media plays a huge part in brainwashing the gullible. No surprise to those of us who know how corrupt & incompetent so many police are.

wjlmarsh wrote:
Barney wrote:
However - of the three hearings which gave verdicts:-


- the first had a jury give a unanimous guilty decision

- the first appeal had one of the three judges disagreeing with the guilty verdict of the others

- and, in the final appeal, all judges said not guilty


Some lack of consistency, in the system, at least.

Are jurys less capable of giving accurate verdicts in Australia?





Barney I know your assessment is looking at given verdicts but I would consider the first jury's "non verdict" be included. That is the first jury was a hung jury so in fact there are two hung verdicts the first jury and first appeal (though the appeal allows a majority vote)

I would answer your question as a no. Juries reflect good and bad at the time and from the selection segement.

Basically English law is well over 800 years out of date and a better framework build upon achieving transparency, accountability implementing clear and consistent standards of justice has not been developed. Little allowance in the system of know knowledge such as all people can and do lie is build into every facet of life yet ignored in trials. How could two judges possibly know a witness is a witness of truth from no background of the person at all for starters. The fact is so well established that fraudsters succeed because they always appear as witnesses of fact and not fantasists etc

Of interest the Australian supreme court had 7 judges who looked carefully at a case that most likely would not even be allowed to appeal in the UK

something in what you say wj.

I've been monitoring social media and it;s fascinating. the anti-Pell crowd are almost beside themselves (including several so-called "respected" journalists screaming "Pell supporters are jubilant" etc etc except, they really haven't been.

As annoyinbut there have been very muted responses from Pells' rusted on supporters mainly expressing quiet relief in the High Court's decision, bar Murdoch pundit Andrew Bolt who is understandably very angry as he was right and the others were wrong.

That's totally beside the fact said hacks like Marr were popping champagne corks on Pell's conviction.

Sorry - those pesky numbers.It's yet another raging subject on social media as heads almost explode as hyperventilating anti-Pellettes scream ..
"How dare they defy 12 jurors and only 7 judges have such power" etc

1st trial.. abandoned : 10 not guilty, 2 guilty.
2nd trial: 12 guilty.
Appeal Court : 2 guilty , 1 not guilty
High Court: 7 not guilty.

Which looks like 18 Not Guilty & 16 Guilty. I could be wrong

The bizarre twisting and turning of the Anti-Pell Mob is something to see. Shoot down one angle and another pops up.

The latest : actress Magda Szubanski of Cath & Kim fame in a fabulous Luvvie moment has been tweeting that she is questioning her Catholic upbringing and whether she should abandon the Church because of the Pell acquittal ..why? (I once interview her & she told me how her Czech father used to execute Nazi spies but he was a Good Catholic) ..naturally on twitter. And soon she was invited via Twitter to an afternoon ABC chat show to discuss her religious dilemma

So hard not to laugh at times.

A very brief and stunted reaction, so far, by the Vatican - to the Pell verdict.

Noteworthy too, that there wasn't any verbal support from Rome - during the trials.


It was intended to have a trial in Rome - by the church - following the Australian ones.

We await the Vatican's response and further actions - with interest.

Barney wrote:
A very brief and stunted reaction, so far, by the Vatican - to the Pell verdict.

Noteworthy too, that there wasn't any verbal support from Rome - during the trials.


It was intended to have a trial in Rome - by the church - following the Australian ones.

We await the Vatican's response and further actions - with interest.




very doubtful that would go ahead now that Pell is an innocent man.

From what I hear on the Grapevine- he is going to go into quiet retirement in Sydney. He is 78 with a dodgy ticker.

One matter the Lynch Mob are till fulminating about..who paid for his defense ..$Millions they scream as though the very fact he could afford to go to the High Court implies corruption.

Reality is something else: from a reliable grapevine- Pell has spent every penny he has. Now broke. His family tossed in their savings and a group of 5 friends got together and organised a defence fund and literally $100Ks came in 1000s of small donations presumably from Catholics who believed he was innocent and I know the name of a very rich businessman he said he will pay any outstanding bills but it's all confidential because our beloved ABC was demanding to know how Pell could pay his legal fees.

There hasn't been a single angle they haven't dug into and turned into a storm.

There will be repercussions that will go on for ages.
Pell will go to live with his family. And perhaps party with various groups of Nuns as he did on his release at a Monastery with a box of very fine wine being delivered that again had the reptiles screaming "who is paying for the wine ?"

One funny note: some dill decided to tie a ribbon around the gates of that Monastery..something to do with child abuse victims and then someone brought a brand new teddy Bear & tricycle to tie to the gates which they duly did and media filmed it and then apparently, a passing mother with a child nabbed the trike & Teddy abd were last seen disappearing into the distance. A nice touch,

All talk of more charges..outrageously re-hashed last week by the ABC and then put on hold and now being rushed to our screens this week..are allegations already put to court and tossed out..a fact the ABC fails to mention.

Ambulance lawyers claim they are planning court action..which has the haters whooping for joy that Pell will "spend the rest of his life in court" but I doubt one will ever see the light of day and even if they did..it would be the Church defending them as Pell acted as an agent of THE church.

The real battle is political. The Labor Victorian Government will fight tooth and nail to bury the Pell matter forever as they are seriously exposed and most especially the Victorian Police most likely have acted criminally and were banking on Pell dying in jail.

Ir seems the Victorian DPP sent the Pell brief back to police twice with recommendations the case was too weak to go to court but people were lent on and it went ahead. Just one scandal there awaiting for the fuse to be lit.

The problem here is that Pell was also a scapegoat for the shocking corruption of Victorian Police still unfolding after a damning Royal Commission (all Underbelly related) that has so far seen one convicted gangland murderer having his conviction squashed and likely several more. Now back in the spotlight.

As happens so often and certainly in the UK ( Carl Beech, JK) corrupt police seem like gamblers who take great risks and rely and banging up their victims..I'm sure they thought they had JK Bang to rights.

BUT WHEN IT BACKFIRES ON PLOD..IT'S SPECTACULAR !..although..not one copper has been brought to book over the Carl Beech travesty.

hedda wrote:
I hear on the Grapevine- he is going to go into quiet retirement in Sydney


Perhaps - but an impressive Vatican City apartment is more likely, in line with that given to many controversial predecessors.

Because Pell is articulate and valuable - a classic example of how people/media got it wrong. In falsely accusing an innocent man - just because of his status in the church.

Consequently, we haven't seen the last of him. Post-virus, he'll appear in Rome - with carefully chosen words of wisdom, and a prestigious ancient title.

Barney wrote:
hedda wrote:
I hear on the Grapevine- he is going to go into quiet retirement in Sydney


Perhaps - but an impressive Vatican City apartment is more likely, in line with that given to many controversial predecessors.

Because Pell is articulate and valuable - a classic example of how people/media got it wrong. In falsely accusing an innocent man - just because of his status in the church.

Consequently, we haven't seen the last of him. Post-virus, he'll appear in Rome - with carefully chosen words of wisdom, and a prestigious ancient title.




may very well as Pell travels on a Vatican passport and has diplomatic immunity.

And that's another gripe I have. i have a list of tweets that includes, naturally a line-up of top ABC current & former presenters who all chorused when Pell for health reasons could not front the Royal Commission, screaming "Coward" "Coward " He'll never come back" and son.

But when told by Victorian Police he was to be charged with serious criminal charges that could see him jailed for life..he got on a plane and returned to his fate.
Not a frigging peep out of the Chorus Line. And that includes the pig ignorant Tim Minchin.

Think of him what they want but the man is not a coward.

I'm trying to plough thru the Judgement but it's wieldy document..well for me. Sometimes easy to read sometimes hard.

But things begin to stand out:

One charge Pell was convicted off alleged to have occurred some weeks after the first. Pell supposedly spotted compliant 'A' in a procession of 30 chorus boys and 20 adults..50 witnesses ..walked over and pushed the boy ( the most senior Cardinal in Australia as the Judgment says "in all full regalia") into a corner and squeezed his testicles.

And yet, the senior investigating police Inspector in the Victorian Police who took this statement didn't seek out one single witness..so easy to do..who was there on the day..

Yet the jury just accepted this as did the 2 Appeal Court judges while the dissenting Appeal judge pointed out how unacceptable this was.

Here are more..my 2 favorite old Tories and Andrew Bolt discussing this with Gerard Henderson.

Andrew Bolt calls out the media who were 'dominant on the Pell pile on'

Bernard Law - another Cardinal, in Boston - was made an Archpriest of a prestigious and famous basilica in Rome, when he had to leave the USA quickly.

This followed the publication, by the Boston Globe, of the details of a massive paedophile ring - amongst the Boston clergy, in 2002.

Law had originally turned a blind eye, and denied any wrong doings by clergy; later, millions were paid in compensation to victims, by the church.

Spotlight - a movie covering the story won an Oscar. And Law was whisked away to luxury in Rome - with a status that made extradition impossible.


Rome and Vatican city is well capable of giving refuge to its friends - when that's deemed to be in the interest of the Catholic church.

Ex-Newark Cardinal McCrirrick (formally defrocked and an acknowledgment paedophile, for decades) is said to be a Vatican City resident.

Pell will probably have a much higher and public profile for the church - in the light of his innocence. Compared to Law, McCrirrick - and others - Pell is a saint.

In his first TV interview - to be aired in Australia; on Sky, in a couple of days - Pell talks of child abuse.

That carried out by Catholic clergy - and says that he was ashamed of the way the church handled it.

As is Francis. If only these senior individuals (and their predecessors) had said this earlier.


Instead of categorically denying - for decades - that the abuse even occurred...

The silence is deafening though, from the Vatican, on Pell. No support - verbal or financial - has been forthcoming during his legal battles.

Friends, family and supporters have paid his legal bills - and there will be more of those to come, when the anticipated civil actions commence.

Pell is an innocent man - and a former top church official; yet Vatican City appears reluctant to celebrate or acknowledge his success.


Or indeed to even mention his name publicly - or pray for him!

For whatever reason...

The way child abuse was or wasn't dealt with in the past can’t be any more shameful to the way it's being dealt with today. The need to find someone to blame, condemn and ostracize is paramount to finding better ways of dealing with it. There's also an unwillingness to view abuse within an historical context and examine exactly what was missing that allowed it to happen.

md wrote:
examine exactly what was missing that allowed it to happen


The reasons are straightforward and well documented, from numerous dioceses worldwide - from Washington to Boston, Dublin to Sao Paulo.

Young (and old) celibate priests, given authority over children, sexually abused them for their own gratification - with impunity.

When they were accused and/or confronted - their Cardinal/Bishop became their advocate, in denying that anything occurred.

Rome, and numerous Popes (not Francis) said nothing - and the abuse continued unabated for decades.

It was only when legal action was taken (or facts made public) - by courts, jurisdictions and newspapers - that some perpetrators were brought to justice.


Never - did the Catholic church instigate action itself, against paedophile clergy.

What realy did happen, what really did not happen. It is all now the past. And so much is really unknown to what the full truth is, and what the truth is not.

That Australia Royal commission and the same with the UK review thingy have been hearing from "all and sundry". Anyone can say anything from the full truth clear and precise to utter nonsense and lies.

The good news is that much more is been done positively to protect the children and in some cases (not enough) protect the adult from themselves and false allegations.

Personally I am interested in what is been done, what will be done. And ensuring good positve approaches for all concerned are continually implemented.

Now we have the George Pell case which is positive as it shines light on one of the current bad sides of "witch hunts", that a jury can not be god and infallible. That measures need to be constantly reviewed and updated with fairness, justice in mind.

Let the past real and imagined go and work for now and the future for all institutions including the Catholic church.

Time to move forward.