Vatican Licks Bottom Of Australia’s Injustice System

After Victoria's Supreme Court, Australia, rejected Martyr Cardinal George Pell's appeal, the Vatican reiterated submissively its "respect” for the Australian [in]justice system.

In an August 21 statement, the Vatican's press office stressed that Pell has always maintained his innocence and that it is Pell's right to appeal to the High Court.

In a second statement, Vatican spokesman Matteo Bruni added that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is awaiting the outcome of the ongoing proceedings prior to taking up the case for investigation.

The Vatican disregarded the fact that the charges against Pell are implausible and impossible.

The prosecution claimed that Pell left the recessional procession without anybody noticing it in order to abuse a boy in the very public sacristy of the cathedral.

A forensically diagnosed liar used the same allegations against an American priest who was convicted and died in prison.

Unlike the Vatican, English deacon Nick Donelly understood, “Police, prosecutors, judges and media are eager to believe these allegation no matter how absurd. They hate us.”

Picture: George Pell, © Mazur/catholicnews.org.uk, CC BY-NC-SA, #newsYizzokrwgf

2LikeShare

Eva

Aug 22, 2019

Nick Donelly, Twitter: "On the 300 page judgement of the Victoria Supreme Court 200 pages were written by Justice Mark Weinberg arguing why Cardinal Pell's convictions are unsafe & complainant A's uncorroborated allegations are unreliable Leaving 50 pages each from Justices Ferguson & Maxwell"

BrotherBeowulf

Aug 21, 2019

If @Raff or anyone else cares to learn more about Cardinal Pell and his sordid past involving pederasty and child-abuse cover-up, including direct past allegations against the Cardinal himself, please see the following exposes from 2002 and 2015. He knwoingly moved predators, and didn't care about the subsequent innocent victims. That is criminal, apart from what he was vconvicted of but related and corroborative.
www.youtube.com/watch
www.youtube.com/watch
Eyewitness testimony is evidence. The judge jury and appellate judges heard the evidence and found it compelling. None of the critics or George-the-Martyr crowd have actually heard the witnesses, both for and against. The former were found credible; the latter in the Cardinals defense were not.

BrotherBeowulf

Aug 21, 2019

And he was dogged by credible claims of knowing coverup throughout his career. See Aussie 60-Minutes if you care to know more. Here’s one example:
www.youtube.com/watch

One more comment from BrotherBeowulf

BrotherBeowulf

Aug 21, 2019

@Raff—I didn’t convict him—May God forgive him his sins and me mine.
Three points for your consideration. 1. a jury of his peers convicted him, and an appellate court affirmed.
2. Pell was the public face Down Under because as primate he bought off and silenced victims. As bishop he was party to shielding protecting and moving around known pederasts.
3. He was a close friend housemate and defender …More

@Raff—I didn’t convict him—May God forgive him his sins and me mine.

Three points for your consideration. 1. a jury of his peers convicted him, and an appellate court affirmed.

2. Pell was the public face Down Under because as primate he bought off and silenced victims. As bishop he was party to shielding protecting and moving around known pederasts.

3. He was a close friend housemate and defender of the most notorious abuser in Aussie history Gerald Ridsdale.

BrotherBeowulf

Aug 21, 2019

Your continued defense of the non-martyr George Pell is unjustifiable in light of the appellate decision.

The cardinal is (and was) the public face of clerical child molestation in Australia. Not as notorious as McCarrick. The saddest thing is that where he is going he will know most of the men already there. A prominent Australian columnist limns the final image of the man departing court—

“...the cardinal in a van being taken back to the Melbourne city jail. He will soon be shifted to one of those country jails where Victoria houses its paedophiles. He will know so many of the priests and brothers there.”

Doesn’t that final point speak volumes of this tragedy of the Homosexual Network Strangling the Church.

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us! Our Lady of Knock, pray for us.

Lion IRC

Aug 21, 2019

I believe he is innocent and yet being expected to prove his innocence. But how can you prove your innocence when the accusation is entirely one person's word versus another's?

BrotherBeowulf

Aug 21, 2019

Pell didn’t deny the accusation in court. He did not testify. Under the law that may not be an admission but it’s a rather weak denial from the horse’s mouth, if it is a denial at all.
The jury judged the credibility of the witnesses for the State (or Crown)—there were more than one—as well as the witnesses for the defense. The latter were found not credible.
As VoxCantoris just asked today—“…More

Pell didn’t deny the accusation in court. He did not testify. Under the law that may not be an admission but it’s a rather weak denial from the horse’s mouth, if it is a denial at all.

The jury judged the credibility of the witnesses for the State (or Crown)—there were more than one—as well as the witnesses for the defense. The latter were found not credible.

As VoxCantoris just asked today—“What if Pell is guilty?”

Lion IRC

Aug 22, 2019

You are wrong. Cardinal Pell has emphatically denied the accusation in court, just as he has outside court. (Most pedophiles plead guilty).
And every legal expert in Australia has agreed that Pell would have been instructed by his barristers NOT to take the stand.
One of the reasons that delayed accusations...decades old child sex abuse cases... are hard to prosecute, is because child victims typically can't remember sufficient detail (under cross examination) to attain the burden of proof beyond all reasonable doubt. The passage of time generally leaves victims with recall of only the sex act trauma itself - not day, date, time, what color were the curtains, etc etc.
But in the Pell case the accuser had an extraordinarily uncharacteristic level of recall - in vivid detail.
So the uneducated juror mistakes this for "credible testimony" when what they should have realised is that something is not quite right here.