JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks


Advertising


Australian Speakers Agency



GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper



Archives

George Pell, George Pell, Catholic, Climate Skeptic, Old White Man, vilified, demonized, finally walks free

George Pell

Cardinal George Pell

George Pell was on the wrong side of every fashionable cause: An old white man, a christian, and a climate skeptic. He threatened the religion of political correctness in every way, and a witch hunt made him target number one. Despite his position of power and influence, the best evidence the pogrom could find was the word of one boy, decades later, with no corroborating evidence. The irrational groupthink fashion swept through juries, judges and even the Victorian Court of Appeal. But today in Australia the High Court, the final last chance for justice, freed George Pell from jail 7-0.

Great news, Australia still has a justice system.

He was convicted and imprisoned over the most heinous of all crimes on the word of one anonymous complainant, whose testimony was unsupported by any other witnesses, or any forensic evidence. The same fate could befall any Victorian.

The media lynch mob and the entire Victorian legal system stand condemned. The unanimous decision of the High Court is a conclusive repudiation of everyone involved in the false imprisonment of Cardinal George Pell, every politician, every cop, every lawyer, every journalist, every coward…

— Miranda Devine, The Daily Telegraph

It seems distant and forgotten but in 2011, Pell was not just a little bit skeptical, he was a well informed and outspoken skeptic (see his impeccable reasoning carefully stated in a GWPF speech below). He was also at one point third highest ranking Cardinal at the Vatican.

Pell would have been a target no matter whether he was a climate skeptic, but imagine he had embraced the climate scare wholeheartedly. Would it have protected him? Would that have meant the witchhunt would have picked a different high ranking Catholic?

In his first statement since his conviction Cardinal Pell, 78, said he had no ill-will towards his accuser, whose story was rejected 7-0 by the High Court.

And if being a climate believer can hold off the wolves, would that mean those who are guilty of real crimes are more likely to wear the believer cloak?

Those who used real victims of sexual assault as mascots in their political pogrom have done so much damage to that cause. The ghost of repressed memories still haunt the quest for justice.

Pell is brave and intelligent and powerful, and he had to be cut down:

The irony is that a man calling for climate change to be decided on evidence was jailed and demonized for years, based on no evidence, bar the word of one.

Cardinal George Pell in The Australian, October 2011

Be Prudent with Climate Claims

This is an edited extract of a speech given yesterday at the Global Warming Policy Forum in London. Watch the whole speech.

I first became interested in the question in the 1990s when studying the anti-human claims of the “deep greens”. Mine is not an appeal to the authority of any religious truth in the face of contrary scientific evidence. Neither is it even remotely tinged by a postmodernist hostility to rationality.

My appeal is to reason and evidence, and in my view the evidence is insufficient to achieve practical certainty on many of these scientific issues.

The basic issue is not whether the science is settled but whether the evidence and explanations are adequate in that paradigm.

I fear, too, that many politicians have never investigated the primary evidence.

Much is opaque to non-specialists, but persistent inquiry and study can produce useful clarifications, similar to the nine errors identified by the British High Court in Al Gore’s propaganda film, An Inconvenient Truth.

The complacent appeal to scientific consensus is simply one more appeal to authority, quite inappropriate in science or philosophy.

It is not generally realised that in 2001 at least, one of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report’s workinggroups agreed: “In climate research and modelling, we are dealing with a coupled, non-linear, chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

Claims of atmospheric warming often appear to conflict and depend upon the period of time under consideration.

► The earth has cooled during the past 10,000 years since the Holocene climate optimum.

► The earth has cooled since 1000 years ago, not yet achieving the temperatures of the Medieval Warm Period.

► The earth has warmed since 400 years ago after the Little Ice Age three centuries ago.

► The earth warmed between 1979 and 1998 and has cooled slightly since 2001.

The following facts are additional reasons for scepticism.

► In many places, most of the 11,700 years since the end of the last ice age were warmer than the present by up to 2C.

► Between 1695 and 1730, the temperature in England rose by 2.2C. That rapid warming, unparalleled since, occurred long before the Industrial Revolution.

► From 1976 to 2001, “the global warming rate was 0.16C per decade”, as it was from 1860 to 1880 and again from 1910 to 1940.

My suspicions have been deepened through the years by the climate movement’s totalitarian approach to opposing views. Those secure in their explanations do not need to be abusive.

The term “climate change denier”, however expedient as an insult or propaganda weapon, with its deliberate overtones of comparison with Holocaust denial, is not a useful description of any significant participant in the discussion.

The real crime here is what Victorian politicians did to the justice system.

Miranda Devine:  The onus of proof has been turned on its head in Victoria

His false conviction raises urgent questions about the jury system, for so long the bedrock of our criminal justice. But that system was perverted by politicians pursuing ideological outcomes, who created legislation in Victoria that altered the balance of justice, so that defendants in sex trials now have to prove their innocence, turning the onus of proof on its head.

h/t Eric Worrall.

Image: Kerry Myers

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.6/10 (118 votes cast)
George Pell, George Pell, Catholic, Climate Skeptic, Old White Man, vilified, demonized, finally walks free, 9.6 out of 10 based on 118 ratings

154 comments to George Pell, George Pell, Catholic, Climate Skeptic, Old White Man, vilified, demonized, finally walks free

  • #

    Note that the decision was unanimous, seven nothing.

    I wonder if the ABC will get off his case now.

    Tony.

    580

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Tony.

      My bet…He will be vilified forever by those who cannot stand the sunlight of the truth.

      Nowhere throughout history has intolerance been any worse than it has been in the Roman Catholic Church. It has persisted as we see, right up to our very doorstep. I’m thankful that it has affected as few to the extent it has affected Cardinal Pell.

      If you’re Roman Catholic, please, this is not an indictment of you. You personally are not responsible for the problem.

      Let the red thumbs begin.

      262

      • #
        Ted O'Brien.

        Roy the greatest mystery for me is how could child molestation ever be tolerated in any Christian church when this is the only crime for which I can remember Christ called for capital punishment.

        It is another factor in Cardinal Pell’s case that in standing up to address this problem he became a target.

        My thanks to Jo and the people she quotes for this concise and accurate publication.

        130

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          I wish I knew, Ted. Evil is where you find it.

          10

          • #

            But when an evil agenda is hidden behind a cloak of false benevolence, for example, destroying successful economies to save the plant, the evil is tacitly accepted as necessary.

            20

        • #
          R.B.

          It’s what I suspect. He was a target because he took action to stop the Catholic Church from being a buffet for pedophiles.

          Another Catholic Archbishop had his conviction overturned for covering up crimes. Very flimsy evidence based only on one person’s testimony. That archbishop had pestered police in SA for over a year to investigate a bus driver who was later convicted.

          60

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            …buffer for pedophiles.

            Do you suppose the celibacy could have something to do with pedophilia in the Catholic church? I have suspected the answer is yes for a long time.

            36

            • #
              Ted O’Brien.

              Roy you would have to think so, but not to a very great extent. Plenty of offenders are not celibate.

              One of our notorious cases, which brought down a Governor General, involved a married clergyman. The great crime there was the failure of the superior to recognise the gravity of the breach of trust. The offender was promoted to high office.

              10

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                Ted,

                The Roman Catholic Church is a dictatorship run from the top where the chief priest sits in magnificent splendor int Vatican City. That Church is so powerful that it has long ago become a nation of it’s own with a capitol city of it’s own. It is indisputable that it is a nation separate from all others because the United States sends an ambassador to the Vatican in recognition of it’s nation status.

                It dictates every aspect of faith, worship, what to believe and what not to believe to the parishioners in the pews on Sunday morning. This goes so far as to dictate tho the most intimate aspect the husband and wife relationship, whether to practice reliable birth control or not.

                The Catholic in the pews has no say and no oversight in the running of the church. The priesthood is therefor free to do as it pleases. It amazes me that there has not been more corruption than thee has been. And it has been bad. During the child molestation scandal of not that long ago I learned that the Church encouraged parents who discovered abuse of their sons to report it to the parish priest, not the police. Of course that priest might well be the abuser.

                Whenever any group of people is allowed to be law unto itself it is never to be trusted, never. And all these things are a matter of observable fact. If anyone wants to dispute them with me, go ahead and try.

                There! Ted, you pushed me to say what I think. There is corruption everywhere but in the Catholic Church they can hide it easily, just sweep it under the rug by moving the offending priest on to another post. And it worked for a long time until one parent woke up.

                It will happen again. The very nature of the church encourages it, in fact, guarantees it.

                It’s an attitude problem, “You can’t hold us accountable for anything,” And they preserve this by indoctrinating children of Catholic parents until, as the saying goes, “Bring up the child in the way he should go and all his life he will not depart from that way.” There’s a lot to say in favor of providing rites of passage for our children. And we have taken all that away. And above all, don’t do it by indoctrinating them into a dictatorship.

                02

            • #
              R.B.

              No. There was a case in South Australia a few years ago while the Catholic Church was being put under the spot light, along with other non-government institutions response to accusations (A Royal Commission). A government worker was investigated and cleared until a police investigation in another state unearthed photographs of him offending (Google McCoole). The problem is pedophiles get these jobs and everybody ignores blatant signs of abuse. The Catholic, and other institutions, were guilty of this decades ago but it’s happening now in government institutions. Read up on how slack his superiors were. It’s shocking and nobody was held to account, initially. Definitely, nobody was framed as punishment.

              10

        • #
          PeterW

          Something that should be said.

          The Catholic Church is not owned by the Clergy.
          The Catholic Church is millions of ordinary Australian…. Australians who have never abused, condoned abuse or protected abusers.

          Australians whose children were to most likely victims of abuse within the Church.

          The slandering and abuse of these people by those looking for any excuse to vilify “The Church”, is disgusting.

          80

      • #
        ColA

        Ted,

        The mud is stuck and dried HARD!

        20

    • #
      Sceptical Sam

      I doubt it Tony.

      Their ABC will be out hunting for some other person to make allegations.

      Personally, I hold that that somebody needs to be pursued for perjury. Either the coppers or the so-called victim.

      400

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        Pell had been given the job of cleaning up the vatican bank, long known for its “interesting” past…who knows what funds were sent where and for what purpose….maybe to keep certain priests forever “on the move” amongst other things.

        While Im no fan of Pell, I suspect he was close to getting to the core of the bank, so was conveniently in the frame for something to stop it…..

        Its often said if the Devil had an earthly profession it would be in banking.

        Perhaps Pell was close to stopping the cash flow that aids all sorts of things they have fables and nightmares warning us about.

        202

      • #
        neil

        I agree Sam, it is obvious from the unchallenged evidence that “J’s” account was a pure fabrication. We must assume he has a pathological hatred of the Catholic church and just wanted to inflict as much damage as possible. Sociopaths are very convincing liers and he was good enough to convince a jury.

        30

    • #
      Deano

      The ABC can’t accept the results of democratic elections, even those held overseas, so I doubt they will respect the final verdict of the High Court of Australia either.

      410

    • #
      James Poulos

      The case only started after the ABC began promoting the book written by one of its own journalists accusing Cardinal Pell of these crimes.

      The ABC then ran another hit piece last week attempting to prop up the discredited evidence of two previous complainants as new victims.

      Cardinal Pell is the only victim in all of this and the ABC is the perpetrator.

      460

    • #
      Dean

      The really disturbing thing is the number of people who think that you can “be mostly guilty but we just could not get you”.

      The concept that you are innocent until you are proven guilty is totally foreign to these totalitarians.

      120

    • #
      Greebo

      Not a chance. They are already hinting at new accusers, and saying that he got off on a ‘technicality’. I guess lack of any evidence is a technicality in their eyes.

      50

      • #
        TedM

        And that technicality was that there was no evidence against him, just the statement of a complainant.

        40

  • #
    ColA

    I followed this case after it raised the hairs on the back of my neck!

    Quadrant did a few detailed reviews of the case. One in particular where they did a minuite by minuite breakdown of where everyone was after the Mass finished and what they were doing, once I saw that it was obvious there was more than reasonable doubt, Victoriastan will be fumming, do you think he will get any sort of appology from Aunty??

    490

  • #
    Maptram

    A comment on George Pell’s article “Be Prudent with Climate Claims”

    An article in the Guardian a couple of weeks ago had the headline something like “In two months of the most recent Arctic summer 60000 billion tonnes of ice melted causing sea levels to rise 1 mm.”

    Of course none of the Guardian reporters thought to ask the scientists, or if they did ask, the results weren’t published, what happened in the same two months of the Antarctic winter. If Antarctic water froze into 60000 billion tonnes of ice, sea levels would stay the same. But of course that doesn’t suit the climate change agenda, so we don’t hear about it

    270

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      I would not even give this the time of day. Floating ice may melt all it wants to and it cannot change sea level by so much as a micrometer — properties of gasses 101.

      290

      • #
        Speedy

        Morning Roy. I think Mr. Archimedes was onto this a bit over 2000 years ago when he had his “Eureka” moment. Principle of buoyancy etc. Icebergs float because they displace their mass in water. Mind you, ice melting off the top of land masses and flowing to the sea would increase sea level, but we’ve been living with that ever since the end of the last ice age anyway…
        Trust you’re all fit and well.
        Cheers,
        Mike

        120

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Hello there Speedy. Haven’t heard from you in quite a while.

          You are, of course, quite right. But for me it was reading this blog that drove home the point. I would have been uncertain about the matter until somewhere in my education by Joanne Nova and her readers. This was in spite of the fact that I passed all the physics courses required of an engineer. So the lesson is pretty clear, the finer points of physics are not all appreciated just from gong through thee course.

          I invented propertied of gasses 101 for emphasis rather than deal with our friend Mr. Archimedes.

          I wonder how much of all that education I could remember now.

          Anyway, I’m fine for the moment but the future is still unclear.

          70

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            And the Greenland ice sheet is reported to be melting. Quick! Sell your waterfront property before all the buyers get wise. ;-)

            60

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          By the way, the principle is obvious just from thinking about the problem, never mind high powered physics or Archimedes. A given volume of water freezes into ice. When it melts it has only that original volume of water to give back. So where is the sea level rise. And you are hung out to dry with no answer.

          60

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      I didnt realize the Guardian was a newspaper…..

      Silly me…

      130

    • #
      Ted O'Brien.

      Nobody can measure the sea level to within a single millimetre. Not even a statistician.

      110

    • #
      Dean

      I read that article too.

      It was 600Bt of Greenland ice melting in 2 months causing 2.2mm sea level rise.

      The numbers seemed a bit dodgy so I did the calculation and sure enough it could raise the sea level by the claimed 2.2mm.

      Then I thought that it would clearly show up in the NOAA sea level data set, being equivalent to about 1 years worth of sea level rise.

      But alas no jump in sea level was apparent in any of the measuring stations.

      Seemed like another model land fantasy.

      Why don’t journalists have even the slightest bit of curiosity and think critically about what they report?

      20

      • #
        StephenP

        And surely while the ice is melting in the Northern hemisphere summer, there is a lot of ice being formed in the Southern hemisphere winter?

        40

      • #
        StephenP

        And surely while the ice is melting in the Northern hemisphere summer, there is a lot of ice being formed in the Southern hemisphere winter?

        10

    • #
      Henning Nielsen

      Such a use of numbers sounds a bit like the Nazi propaganda from ww2 (although this was a joke):

      “Enemy bombers attacked several German cities last night. 35 planes were shot down by our heroic air defense, while only one German city is missing.”

      11

  • #
    tonyb

    “An old white man, a christian, and a climate skeptic”

    I don’t know anything about this case but without needing to know the details he was obviously GUILTY!

    Seriously, what a sad state the West has got itself into where this case was not dismissed much earlier.

    361

  • #
    PeterS

    This is a good result for all of us since mass hysteria about him was overwhelming and ludicrous. It reminds me of what happened in the Chamberlain case. I don’t have any attraction to Roman Catholicism but he was treated unfairly under the eyes of the law and the High Court proved it. I would hate to think what would happen if the High Court didn’t overturn the Victorian decision. The Victorian legal system is broken and if the state court decision wasn’t overturned it might have set a precedent and a lot more people could end up in prison based on flimsy evidence.

    410

    • #
      Ian Hill

      I was thinking the same thing Peter. A little known fact is that the Crown had Lindy Chamberlain having to run a world record in order to bury the baby’s clothes near the rock and then get back to camp in time. If I were on that jury I would have screamed blue murder!

      270

    • #
      Yonniestone

      Lindy and Michael Chamberlain were Seven Day Adventists and much of the malicious rumours and allusions surrounding their “religion” came straight from the media and was akin to the Salem witch trials, I don’t know in journalism school if there’s a subject on “becoming a hard left atheist” and “how to hate Christianity” but whatever it is its working, well done soulless vassals well done.

      Oh as any good journalist will know how to fact check *cough cough* studies show teachers abuse kids at least 100 times more than priests so before you lefties start putting well paid people up on a pedestal and scream Gonski to fill your union coffers be careful of who you support and who you condemn……….or it just doesn’t matter any more?

      Means to an end and that’s that.

      221

    • #
      Another Ian

      Peter S

      Apologies??? Is this the start of “impeachment 2″?

      “Victorian Premier Andrews releases provocative statement saying he believes sexual assault accusers”

      https://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2020/04/victorian-premier-andrews-releases-provocative-statement-saying-he-believes-sexual-assault-accusers.html

      180

    • #
      Ted O'Brien.

      Lindy Chamberlain was convicted of murdering her baby because some people believe that sacred dogs don’t bite. Including a scientist on the far side of the world.

      In both cases you have to wonder how it is possible to assemble at random twelve citizens who have so little comprehension of the concepts of presumption of innocence and burden of proof.

      40

      • #
        TedM

        And it was a scientist on the other side of the world that thought that rust proofing was foetal blood.

        20

  • #
    nb

    ABC, enemy of justice.
    Paid for by you.

    300

    • #
      PeterS

      Far more than that. The ABC is an enemy of Australia, paid by us and supported by both major parties. Go figure.

      300

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        Its interesting, as time goes on and the ABC shows its true colours and nails them to the mast of the SS Communist Plague, I sense but welcome a shift in the winds , as we go about, our boom swings quickly and the sail sets, the rigging groans under a hard wind, for a fast down wind run.

        Now, in a decisive tack across her bow with our boarding hooks and ropes at the ready, itching for the inevitable fight that must come…but no quarter shall be given…

        Wait until you see the whites of thier eyes, lads…..ahar….!! Bring it on!

        121

  • #
    Peter C

    I am So Happy to see George Pell freed and his verdict reversed.

    The spite of the anti Pell crowd is both hateful and threatening to anyone who believes in the Rule of Law and Democracy and Freedom of Speech (or just Freedom).

    The previous decision of the Court of Appeal did shake my faith in our legal system and the independence of judges. There are 2 judges on that court that should not be there IMHO.

    I hope he is on a private jet right now on his way to the Vatican City. He is not safe in this country.

    310

    • #

      A shameful witch hunt has been quashed. The prosecutions case was full of hole, a major one, that that the second alleged victim and witness said nothing happened, and the claim only went to court because he died. How can it be legal that after a witness dies can change what he said while he was alive?

      290

      • #

        Edit, ‘holes’ not just one.

        70

      • #
        Strop

        It’s not out of the ordinary for victims to deny something happened. It’s also common for victims to stay silent for many years. (I haven’t used the phrase “alleged victim” because I’m talking about victims unrelated to Pell’s case)

        In Pell’s case, the denial by the other alleged victim obviously adds to other elements of doubt. But it also wouldn’t discount other strong evidence, if there was some. The denial is not a major piece of evidence or hole in the prosecutions case.

        00

    • #
      Yonniestone

      I’ve been on two juries and one of the main instructions we were given was REASONABLE DOUBT, I simply cannot believe that jury with the evidence available could not have anything but reasonable doubt, unless they were strongly influenced in a direction which at this stage is not beyond possibility.

      Actually the fact the case even made it to court is an absolute disgrace, now in Victoria if the state and its cohorts want to destroy an individuals life they can simply construct a case against them based on false Hearsay and drag them through years of courts and imprisonment, they have behaved like a PC version of the Stasi.

      270

      • #
        Sceptical Sam

        That’s how the left operates.

        Why the incredulity?

        81

        • #
          Greg Cavanagh

          It’s not the left.

          I’m going through exactly the same thing atm. And my inside experience with the system reflects the events of Pell. The problem lies soley with the Police. They are school-yard bullies that grew up and continue to do exactly the same thing as a career. They are drunk with their own authority, and they clearly have no oversight. I wish I could go on, but to help you believe me, watch this video all the way through and consider the consequences of what is said.

          Don’t Talk to the Police
          https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE

          20

      • #
        Ted O'Brien.

        I was only ever on one jury. It was a child molestation case. We were shunted in and out of the court room while the lawyers discussed matters, and we were not given enough evidence to warrant a committal, let alone a conviction.

        10

    • #
      Salome

      He is safely locked up with some enclosed nuns. In this time of coronavirus, for a man of his age with his heart condition, it’s a good place to be. He’ll have nuns waiting on him hand and foot and chanting the offices, and he’ll have access to an altar.

      63

  • #
    truth

    A great article Jo…absolutely excellent.

    One thing Miranda Devine left out…possibly because she’s labelled those of us who railed against the 2015 coup as ‘deplorables ‘… and other epithets…is that Pell was also seen as being not just on the wrong side of history but as an expendable human being …by the haters on the Left who have the same view of us…because Pell was a friend of their reviled bete noir Tony Abbott.

    The righteous compassionistas of the Left also couldn’t abide the fact that Pell wasn’t cloistered enough for their liking…that he was interested and concerned with matters of the real world and expressed his views without the unctuous piety pose of their preferred Socialist clergy….that he had the temerity to be factual and to the point …without all the preachy palaver….as in his views here on climate change…more reasoned measured and factually-based that those of 99% of the politicians who have all their public service minions to write their drivel.

    IMO all Australians should heave a sigh of relief today …in the knowledge that as of now we still have some black-letter lawyers at the highest levels who can save Australians from being railroaded and ruined by social[ist] activist lawyers ..for whom their own subjective feelings…the vibe…the urge to polish their own ‘compassionate’ images …trumps the objective law of the land as legislated…. every time.

    WE should all be relieved…even the Left….because all of us and our loved ones …especially men…could be victims of the mobocracy and the dingbat Labor lawyers who facilitate them… at any time.

    This is not to to diminish the damage done to lives by many others in many of the churches and elsewhere.

    340

  • #
    TdeF

    On the numbers today, it just crept over 100 new cases. South Korea has cracked 50, but it was slower by 18 days. We might be the holders of the record for pulling an exponential infection curve back. That beats being top at the Tokyo Olympics!

    On Pell, it was outrageous that he was even charged without any evidence. And his accuser has had decades to practice his story and adjusted it as he went, supported by many.

    In the second trial, he did not even have to appear? The jury decided that Cardinal Pell was more guilty than his sole accuser who gave his testimony on television by prerecorded video? I have never heard of such a thing and the idea that he is a victim and therefore too traumatised to appear must be extremely prejudicial. I thought that was a basic principle of law, when it’s one man’s word against another? Besides, as Homer Simpsons says, television would not lie to us and the victim was on TV, like a documentary. And the guilty man was in the dock. Case closed.

    At what point does a conviction start to really smell?

    And isn’t the test of proof beyond reasonable doubt? Who could really say there was no reasonable doubt? I found the whole thing completely irrational, impossible, ridiculous. Pell would have had to be not only completely mad, but an incredible athlete with timing to the second and knowledge aforethought It made Mission Impossible seem plausible. All on impulse in an alleged crime of opportunity?

    The second trial should not have happened, let alone gone ahead when one ABC reported published a book on Pell’s guilt during the trial, the police called his accuser a victim and all of the defence witnesses were ignored. It was all about the accuser who was clearly too distressed to even appear in court. Why? What possible reason could he have had not to appear? Did anyone explain or justify this? Don’t they realise this defeated the whole purpose of a jury trial?

    And at what point was Pell treated as an innocent man and given any benefit of the doubt. The trial was redundant. The ABC had already decided his guilt. So had the police. And the jury. Who needs evidence? As Daniel Andrews says even now, he believes every accuser, which means in this case.

    So the rule of law does not matter. Even the Premier does not care for it.

    380

    • #
      Deplorable Lord Kek

      “Daniel Andrews says even now, he believes every accuser”

      So, if someone were to accuse him, he would believe them?

      Doubtful.

      301

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        But the Soviets loved kangaroo courts…people were always found guilty.

        Nothing has changed….

        Boris got the pox, I wonder if Andrews will too?

        60

      • #
        Ted O'Brien.

        My interpretation of the published response by Daniel Andrews is that it displays contempt.

        Did he really say that?

        50

      • #
        William

        “Daniel Andrews says even now, he believes every accuser”

        So, if someone were to accuse him, he would believe them?

        Doubtful.

        M’Lord, the left never really think things through to their ultimate conclusion. It is why they are continually caught out by the law of unintended consequences.

        20

    • #
      TdeF

      And I was amazed that the judges repeatedly said they were impressed by the alleged victims description of the area. Now I would have a real problem describing any room in detail,let alone forty years later. Had they not considered the real likelihood that the ‘victim’refreshed his memory with the help of others? And then the tacit point was made that the accuser had an excellent memory, despite the years. How much coaching was involved in those years? But the judges did show a skerrick of suspicion. Either gullible or prejudiced.

      320

      • #
        Salome

        But the room that he described was not the room as it was at the time of the alleged offending. It was as it was following further renovations about 5 years later.

        230

        • #
          Kalm Keith

          Interesting.

          60

        • #
          me@home

          And that has been known publicly for months at least but did not feature in the HC decision. That fact alone should have seen the case thrown out at the earliest possible moment.

          30

      • #
        John

        More importantly how does knowing a room prove you were abused there?

        I can describe places I snuck into. Doesn’t mean I was abused there.

        100

  • #
    nb

    There is also the theory that there were some in the Vatican with a less than sympathetic attitude to Pell as he was exposing, or might expose, dubious financial practices. Those people, so the theory goes, influenced key personnel in Victoria. Is this true? Who knows? One thing we can trust is that the Victoriastan regime cannot be trusted, just as our ABC cannot be trusted, just as any left organisation cannot be trusted. We can trust them only to further the interests of their fellow communists, including China.

    271

  • #
    thingadonta

    There are many holes in the prosecutions case, not the least being that one of the major reasons it got to court in the first place is because the other alleged victim and witness-who said nothing happened-tragically died. If two witnesses fundamentally disagree whilst both are alive, the case doesn’t get to court. Form a legal perspective, I simply can’t understand how what one of the victims says before they die, somehow changes after they die.

    260

    • #
      TdeF

      Yes, it must be a first. Being convicted of doing something when the alleged victim denied it happened. And on the evidence of another party who clearly disagreed with both as to the facts.

      200

      • #
        Sceptical Sam

        Well, what didn’t surprise me about that is the way the lefties interpreted that denial.

        He didn’t want to upset his mother, so he lied. was their explicit interpretation.

        That’s demonstrates just how low they are.

        90

      • #
        sophocles

        Yes, it must be a first. …

        Not really. We had a case in NZ where the hysteria won. It was around the end of the 1980s when all sorts of New Age Phenomena and hysteria was rampant such as the hysterical “Satanic Ritual Child Abuse” and lots of other surprising nonsense such as `recovered memories,’ reached a peak.

        An accusation was levelled at a Peter Ellis, a staff member of the Christchurch Civic Creche. It went into history as the Christchurch Civic Creche Case. I vaguely remember evidence which wasn’t and should have been thrown a mile but wasn’t.

        Mr Ellis was tried and, IMHO wrongly, convicted about 1992 and some years ago he had exhausted all means available to clear his name. It all happened around 1988 – 1992. It happens. I pity the victims. #MeToo doesn’t.

        30

  • #
    TdeF

    What the case against Cardinal Pell and man made Global warming have is that they are extremely unlikely wild conjecture without evidence and supported by the usual suspects.

    200

  • #
    Sunni Bakchat

    Delighted to see Pell released. Believed he was innocent all along. Justice has prevailed and the witch hunt is over.
    For anyone who has been before the High Court of Australia and had a 7-0 victory, the feeling is not only one of relief, it is one of affirmation in every way that has any consequence.
    For Pell it also meant freedom of his body. I very much doubt his mind was ever not free.

    150

    • #
      Ian Hill

      Same with Lindy Chamberlain. I recall from her book that all the prisoners in the jail in Darwin knew straight away that she was innocent simply by her demeanour. The good Cardinal had said that knowing he was innocent made it easier to be in jail.

      60

  • #
    Raymond

    We’re back again on a topic that has a more positive twist to it?

    PLEASE SHARE and EDUCATE
    The two links below are a series of educational charts on CO2 and Climate Change. These charts are as unbiased as you can make them.

    The world of CO2

    https://www.ric-communications.ch/referenzen/simple-science-1.html
    – N° 1 Earth’s atmospheric composition
    – N° 2 Natural sources of CO2 emissions
    – N° 3 Global anthropogenic CO2 emissions
    – N° 4 CO2 – Carbon dioxide molecule
    – N° 5 The global carbon cycle
    – N° 6 Carbon and plant respiration
    – N° 7 Plant categories and abundance (C3, C4 & CAM Plants)
    – N° 8 Photosynthesis, the C3 vs C4 gap
    – N° 9 Plant respiration and CO2
    – N° 10 The logarithmic temperature rise of higher CO2 levels.
    – N° 11 Earth’s atmospheric composition in relationship to CO2
    – N° 12 Human respiration and CO2 concentrations.
    – N° 13 600 million years of temperature change and atmospheric CO2

    The World of Climate Change
    http://www.ric-communications.ch/referenzen/simple-science-2.html
    – N° 1 600 million years of global temperature change
    – N° 2 Earth‘s temperature record for the last 400,000 years
    – N° 3 Holocene period and average northern hemispheric temperatures
    – N° 4 140 years of global mean temperature
    – N° 5 120 m of sea level rise over the past 20‘000 years
    – N° 6 Eastern European alpine glacier history during the Holocene period.

    I would think that most visitors to JoNova site understand the importance of CO2 and all its benefits. I therefore don’t think these charts are of interest since the opinion here is clear, CO2 is good and not evil. However we live in our bubble and the rest of the world isn’t so informed.

    So if you need some helpful charts to better explain what CO2 is, this is the place to go. These step by step guides start at the beginning and are ideal for beginners. No propaganda, no tricks, only facts. The data is drawn from Scientists and institutions like NASA, GISS, NOAA and IPCC. YES the IPCC also provides data that is correct.
    This is my small contribution in helping to put a more balanced view the hysteria over Climate Change.

    Ray
    P.S. Sorry for reposting my charts yet again on your blog. It’s still the best place for me to post and get some attention. THANKS

    10

  • #
    Geoffrey Williams

    Up to this point George Pell’s conviction was a total miscarriage of justice.
    Our high court has reversed this miscarriage and Pell is rightfully exonerated.
    GeoffW

    170

    • #
      toorightmate

      The same government and police force who had Pell in gaol decided there were no cases of misappropriation of monies for Gillard or rape for Shorten.

      90

  • #
    Geoff Sherrington

    One memorable day I spent in a room crowded with lawyers and those paying them, before a panel of 3 High Court judges who received about 50 times in a row, words like “In the matter of (Case), leave is sought by (Party) to appeal the decision of a lower Court, before the High Court. Leave is denied.”
    My employer was one such Party. We had spent $$$millions getting this far, having already fronted the Full Bench for preliminaries, when I counted five Q.C.s up front and realised we would be paying for all of them if we lost. Then it ended with those few, unappealable final words.
    So, I can imagine the way one would feel with a 7-0 decision in favour. Geoff S

    170

    • #
      Peter C

      “In the matter of (Case), leave is sought by (Party) to appeal the decision of a lower Court, before the High Court. Leave is denied.”

      So, I can imagine the way one would feel with a 7-0 decision in favour.

      Ecstatic!

      90

  • #
    peterg

    In the Australian, this was reported:

    Blue Knot Foundation president Cathy Kezelman said: “For many survivors, this decision will be crushing as the immense courage it takes to stand up and be seen and heard is enormous. “Pell now has his freedom, but many abuse victims have never been free – trapped in the horror of the crimes which decimated their lives.” Victim advocate Chrissie Foster, whose now-deceased daughters were abused by a pedophile priest, also said the court’s decision was devastating. “It’s tragic because it says to victims don’t bother coming forward,” she told 3AW.

    I find this absolutely incredible. No hesitation as to whether Pell was wrongly jailed or not. Every fantasist must be believed.

    320

    • #

      Peter
      I was also sickened when I heard this.

      This is the central issue here. We have the lefties deciding who is guilty and who is innocent, without even entering a court room.

      Daniel Andrews disgusting remarks show that he is still incapable of understanding how our justice system works. The ABC likewise.

      Having come off worse in a minor court matter many years ago, when the facts supported me, I had to move on. These guys never move on.

      30

  • #

    Flouts the whole judicial process of whether an individual on a charge committed a specified crime. It’s an emotional appeal to the mob to convict the witch because the crop failed or the cattle died so she/he must be responsible and be punished.

    200

    • #
      Salome

      Next thing, they’ll be blaming him for the coronavirus.

      70

      • #
        Sceptical Sam

        No. That can’t possibly be the case.

        Even the lefties know it couldn’t be Cardinal Pell who did that.

        Why?

        Because, they know it was President Donald Trump.

        150

  • #
    PeterS

    Given the ABC is refusing to accept the decision of the High Court in spite of the unanimous decision of the High Court and their scathing attacks on all those responsible for convicting someone who allegedly committed a crime purely based on contradictory and flimsy evidence, PM Morrison should step in stop giving them OUR money until the ABC is dragged out of the cessp00l and cleaned up.

    310

  • #
    Salome

    Are you saying that the luvvies are having a meltdown?

    50

  • #
    Geoff Sherrington

    On the topic of luvvies having a meltdown, Christopher Akehurst has just penned a delightful essay in Quadrant. Geoff S
    https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2020/04/deconstructing-the-calendar/

    50

    • #
      Sceptical Sam

      tenebrous

      Ah. Now that got me searching.

      :-)

      10

    • #
      Kalm Keith

      Thanks for putting that up Geoff.

      Brilliant.

      KK

      10

    • #
      Ian Hill

      Remember Commonwealth Day (May 24th) and Guy Fawkes Night (November 5th)? What about April Fools Day (April 1st)? Didn’t seem appropriate this year! Halloween (October 31st) may survive this year but it shouldn’t. Gough Whitlam’s trilogy of days – yes, bring it on. My birthday is the same as his! :)

      00

  • #
    Bill In Oz

    The Victorian court of appeal’s ‘Wise Wizards’
    Decided two to one against George Pell’s appeal.

    Now that they have been so conclusively told by the High Court
    To deliver justice based on the normal rules of law & evidence
    Rather than a witch hunt,
    Surely it’s time for those two appeal judges to resign.

    210

    • #
      Serp

      It’s a recently developed entertaining ritual of the High Court to overturn Victorian Supreme Court of Appeal decisions; the Victorian justices are used to it and won’t be resigning.

      21

  • #
    kevin a

    Sex abuse in the Catholic Church results in $3 billion in settlements
    THE Catholic Church has forked out more than $3 billion in settlements to victims abused by clergy in the United States.
    https://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/sex-abuse-in-the-catholic-church-results-in-3-billion-in-settlements/news-story/1d17c4e00a76bb382a7d80a3fe8dd0a3
    Settlements and bankruptcies in Catholic sex abuse cases
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlements_and_bankruptcies_in_Catholic_sex_abuse_cases

    20

  • #
    RobbertBobbert

    pererg
    Blue Knot is an activist organisation previously known as Survivors of Childhood Abuse which grew out of Casting Agent Liz Mullinars previous organisation…Australian Association for Recovered Memories in 1995. The organization later changed its name to We Remember, then Advocates for Survivors of Child Abuse.[7] now known as the Blue Knot Foundation.
    The Royal Commission into Child Abuse…its Chairman has described its current head Cathy Kezelman as…a friend of the Commission…
    Which is just disgraceful given the huge number of people worldwide who were convicted while this witch hunt of recovered memory ran riot…Kezelman is part of the appointed group that will determine compensation for victims…Also Chair McClellan has expressed support for the research and memory details of this Blue Knot mob…that is the activist theory

    Reference Sydney Institute…
    Kezelman saga timely reminder for McClennan royal commission

    70

    • #
      TedM

      Yes an assumption of guilt even in the light of evidence to the contrary. And might I say the only actual evidence was to the contrary.

      30

  • #
    John

    I’m not a lawyer however it always struck me as absurd that one persons evidence alone could constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt means there is no reasonable alternative to guilt.

    How could the appeal court judges so badly misunderstand something so basic?

    90

    • #
      PeterS

      They were so blinded by their bias against Pell they didn’t care about the evidence and the law. They were clearly negligent in their duties and must resign if not investigated for criminal negligence.

      150

    • #
      me@home

      John, they didn’t just misunderstand it. They deliberately reversed the normal onus of proof and put it o the defendant to prove his innocence.

      40

  • #
    Andrew Wilkins

    Whilst Pell may have been innocent of the sexual assault charges that he was accused of, I really don’t think us sceptics should having anything to with Pell. He was a nasty homophobic bigot.

    Here are just two things he said about homosexuality:
    “Homosexuality—we’re aware that it does exist. We believe such activity is wrong and we believe for the good of society it should not be encouraged”
    “Homosexual activity is a much greater health hazard than smoking”

    Just because someone is a sceptic doesn’t mean we can ignore the rest of their beliefs and thoughts. We should never fall into that trap.

    [Or the "trap" of guilt by association. Please let me elaborate: You say "nasty homophobic bigot" All three words are highly charged, dare I say propaganda? Nothing else you said supports the first two; NASTY or HOMOPHOBIC. The third is in my opinion, your opinion. Lastly your obtuse tie-in to eliminate any other logical opinion that Pell has made is worthy of ridicule. Should this be published?] ED

    02

    • #
      Andrew Wilkins

      “We believe such activity (homosexuality) is wrong”
      If that’s not bigotry with regards to homosexuality, I don’t what more Pell needs to say. Any bigotry is nasty and unwarranted.

      With regards to guilt by association, I said nothing of the sort. Pell being found guilty of rape and his imprisonment was an appalling mis-carriage of justice and he’s quite rightly now been freed and his conviction quashed. However, this does not take away from the fact that Pell holds extremely bigoted views with regards to homosexuality. This cannot be refuted, and I would love to see you try.

      Publish my comment and see what others on the thread have to say. I can take it.

      [I imagine Pell holds Faith compelled views about the subject of homosexuality. To him and many Catholics I'd guess these views are completely warranted. I'm curious why it is "Nasty" to you? This suggests much worse than simple bigotry to you. They are only trying to save their souls after all.

      By the way your opinion of Pell is also by definition bigoted as you stubbornly disagree with his creed, beliefs or opinions.

      If you want to make a point you can do it without the charged language. ]ED

      02

      • #

        Andrew — welcome to free speech.
        A “nasty homophobic bigot” is namecalling. Please try to avoid that here.

        And this is the real trap you might hope is not used against you:

        “Just because someone is a sceptic doesn’t mean we can ignore the rest of their beliefs and thoughts. “

        The thought police say things just like this in order to silence skeptics. It’s the cancel-culture — where any statement deemed unpermitted can cancel anything and everything that same person says on any topic for the rest of their life. In an instant their experience and knowledge on all topics is extinguished. It doesn’t matter if they say something true with evidence and reason, they are “insert insult” and are exiled from public debate. We are not to talk to them or about them.

        Skeptics who use logic and reasoning know that each statement must be assessed on its own merits, not on any ad hominem quality of the person making that statement.

        50

        • #
          Andrew Wilkins

          Everyone should embrace free speech. Pell’s welcome to say all homosexuals will burn in hell if he wants. And I defend his right to say that. Equally, I should be allowed to say that his homophobia is nasty. Freedom of speech, and all that.

          With regards to the cancel culture – I think Pell should be given the oxygen of publicity. He’s welcome to share his homophobia with the world. Then people can make their mind up about him. There’s nothing I hate more than the “no platforming” idiocy. However, I’m surprised to see normally open-minded and inclusive sceptics hitching their wagon to such a man. If Kim Jong-Un declared himself a sceptic, would we celebrate his pronouncements and ignore the concentration camps his population suffer in?

          Here’s a question: do you think “Homosexual activity is a much greater health hazard than smoking” is a nice thing to say? If you don’t, what does that make it? A nasty thing to say, or just a mildly upsetting thing to say? I don’t know about you, but equating a homosexual lifestyle with an activity that can cause cancer is pretty disgusting.

          02

          • #

            Being accused of “hitching my wagon” to Pell is just a rephrasing of your original logical error. I’ve hitched my wagon to free speech, and evidence “beyond reasonable doubt”. Clearly you want me to exile him — never discuss him. “Cancel Culture” it is, then. You want him “deplatformed”. A bit like Scientology and other cults.

            What is the difference between Pell’s “disgusting” as you say, equation, and your own comparison of him with one of the worst dictators alive today? Likening Pell to Kim Jong-Un is another ad hominem slur we both know can’t be substantiated, and trivializes the deadly suffering of North Koreans with hurt feelings.

            Pell is a target of the thought police. He is a very well informed commentator on climate science (knows more about the philosophy of science than Tim Flannery). He has suffered a terrible injustice. As such I am more than happy to point to his injustice as an example of the toxic irrational fashions that consume our society and threaten the pillars of our civilization. If the highest ranking cardinal in Australia could be put in jail because of the word of one boy 20 years later with no corroborating evidence, then anyone could be incarcerated and we are only a slither away from the Gulags of the Soviet Union.

            The irrational hate campaign against him, that extended to Victoria’s Judges and put a man in jail without any evidence was one of the most daunting precedents in Australian legal history.

            What Pell says about homosexuals no doubt hurts some feelings, and is offensive to some, which is regrettable, but a consequence of real free speech. But I don’t see you discussing the medical evidence or putting forward any argument at all, which could repair any offense or increase knowledge. You just want to cancel the man.

            The price of cancelling one high profile target is that thousands of people watch on and then silently censor their opinions on many topics. A thousand conversations are never spoken, topics like health risks in certain lifestyles are never discussed. I don’t see how the cancel culture helps our homosexual friends.

            50

          • #
            Kalm Keith

            Andrew, the words you quote him having said don’t seem to deserve the label “biggot” and what he said reflects the concepts of his religion that were formulated 1600 to 1700 years ago.

            In contrast, the recent Gay Rights Liberation movement was seriously confronting and obviously out to make political points rather than help the gays. The gay community was not well served by the Rainbow activists.

            KK

            20

        • #
          Hamish Marshall

          Beautifully edited Jo; thanks so much!

          30

          • #
            Kalm Keith

            Yes, it was a work of art on a difficult subject.

            The unfortunate thing about gayism is that the subject has been so politicised and polarised that the reality of being gay is clouded in unnecessary conflict.

            Everyone has the right to enjoy close emotional contact and physical relationships.

            What is disturbing is that the Church and extreme gay rights movement have not faced reality and have left gay people still in limbo.

            KK

            10

  • #
    ferdinand

    For climate alarmists read ‘science deniers’

    30

  • #
    eliza

    The left love persecuting everyone except themselves ask Stalin. On another note Ive posted this elsewhere but I think its important even though Jo may not as its gose completele aginst her feelings about this cheers A must see from one of the top epidemiologists in the world the social distancing will eventually kill more because we are delaying immunity from common but severe flu everybody will get this virus as its a common flu virus like all the other SARS eventually 99% will not even know it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGC5sGdz4kg. Sweden is the successful test. I strongly suggest that people that may be experts in mathematics/physics do not indulge in virus disease butof course its a free country and i will defend thei right to say even if you are 100% wrong (not this post or Dr Spencer unrelated)

    33

    • #
      Kalm Keith

      Eliza,

      Says in part;

      “I strongly suggest that people that may be experts in mathematics/physics do not indulge in virus disease ”

      :-)

      KK

      10

    • #
      TedM

      Sweden successful? CFR 6.3% Serious/critical list that suggests the death rate will quite likely be much higher than 6.3%, and that happens while they are protecting the vulnerable? How does that work?

      50

    • #
      Kalm Keith

      Decided to watch the link.

      Am half way through and am so relieved to find information the seems real.

      After all of the climate alarmism and media focus on wokeism/wokism, and its possible transfer to the CV19 issue, it’s great to find someone actually qualified who is giving an alternate view.

      KK

      21

      • #

        Professor Knut Wittkowski — I am surprised an epidemiologist would make so many mistakes. he is not aware of viral pnumonia? He has the dates wrong? He assumes herd immunity but has zero data? just more junk I need to debunk. Sigh.

        20

  • #
    MCMXLIII

    … one anonymous complainant, whose testimony was unsupported by any other witnesses, or any forensic evidence. The same fate could befall any Victorian …

    Precisely.
    Borrowing from Anatole France (apropos Dreyfus):
    … the reason the case was so strong was that there was no evidence so it couldn’t be disputed.

    130

  • #
    chickenhawk

    Not sure about all of your legal stuff in Australia as compared to the USA. But I’m sure you guys have heard of the Judge Brett Kavanaugh fiasco. He was nominated for the US Supreme Court and then all hail broke loose. This was part of the MeToo Movement which means “we believe all acusers”. Perfect political weapon to take down politicians and potential Supreme Court Justices who are conservatives.

    No evidence yet he was convicted in the court of public opinion. To this very day they refer to him as a sexual predator, as well as another unconvicted man, Justice Thomas, who was accused during his confirmation.

    Lefties and Democrats like to believe the accusers for some reason, even if it means destroying the American system of jurisprudence.

    The left seems to operate with no morals when it comes to politics and power. They have a phrase here, “By Any Means Necessary”.

    50

    • #
      Len

      The Cultural Marxists use the term Liberating Tolerance. This means attacking everything from the Right and supporting everything from the Left.

      00

  • #
    Salome

    My favourite bit of the judgment: Paragraph 118: ‘The likelihood of two choirboys in their gowns being able to slip away from the procession without detection; of finding altar wine in an unlocked cupboard; and of the applicant being able to manoeuvre his vestments to expose his penis are considerations that may be put to one side.’ Let’s not bother that the story was completely far-fetched from the start, let’s just consider the 20-odd contrary witnesses.

    110

  • #
    Steve of Cornubia

    Thank goodness. This is good news because (1) an innocent man has been released and (2) it is an example of ‘pushback’ against the ever-more aggressive attacks by the pitchfork mob, who have been emboldened and fired-up leftist politicians, engaged in their ‘divide and conquer’ tactic.

    It is also a win against the leftist mainstream mislead ‘ya, who were quite rabid in their frothy-mouthed ‘reporting’ on the case.

    A good day all round!

    80

  • #
    thingadonta

    First jury: I think was 2-10 guilty:not guilty-a hung jury.
    Second jury: 12-0 guilty:not guilty.
    First court review: 2-1 guilty:not guilty
    High court:0-7 guilty: not guilty

    That’s 16 guilty, 18 not guilty.

    No reasonable doubt there! (LOL)

    21

    • #

      guilty and not guilty was not judged by the high court.

      25

      • #
        Steve of Cornubia

        You must belong to the 13.729% of people who are pedants.

        30

      • #
        R.B.

        Yes it was. They clearly state that the lower courts erred in not finding Pell ‘not guilty’. Read the whole thing. If you still think it’s was a technicality, you’re well and truly brainwashed.

        61

        • #

          what a strange thing to write.

          The high court found that there were not reasonable grounds to find him guilty. If you think that means they made a decision on his guilt or innocence then that is up to you but it won’t get you a pass in a legal exam.

          13

          • #
            PeterW

            As the presumption of innocence is foundational to our legal system, then it is strange reasoning to argue that “not guilty” does not mean exactly that.

            It is worth noting that the grounds on which the High Court based its decision, would lead any reasonable person in possession of that evidence, to conclude that Pell could not have committed the alleged crime.

            Ergo, that he is innocent.

            Unchallenged evidence that Pell was elsewhere at the time.
            Unchallenged evidence that Pell was never alone during the period in question.
            No corroborating evidence.
            No forensic evidence.
            No established pattern of prior offences.

            If mere accusation is proof of guilt, the you, i and everybody else in the country are “guilty”.

            40

          • #
            AndyG55

            Wrong as always. GA

            If there was not reasonable grounds to find him guilty…

            THEN HE IS INNOCENT.

            50

            • #
              R.B.

              They actually quote a line from another case in the judgement.
              a significant possibility that
              “an innocent person has been convicted because the evidence did not establish guilt to the requisite
              standard of proof”.
              (My bold)

              00

    • #
      Kalm Keith

      ?
      Not sure what’s happening.

      Even without a trial there’s so much evidence to convict the Catholic church.

      But the church wasn’t on trial here.

      This was one man on trial and there was no reliable evidence to convict him and some witnesses whose testimony makes the accusations highly unlikely.

      KK

      11

      • #
        PeterW

        (Sigh)..

        “The Catholic Church” is not some monolith owned by a small gang of senior clergy.

        The Church is millions of ordinary Australians who have never abused,, never condoned abuse and never protected abusers.
        The vast majority of the people who you carelessly declare guilty by association, are actually the victims and the family of victims.

        Historically, the Church has been one of the greatest advocates of the idea that non-consensual sex is WRONG, that sex with children is WRONG.

        It’s not just Pell who is unjustly accused here.

        00

        • #
          Kalm Keith

          Sorry Peter,

          I never intended to include the church goers in the guilt.
          I should have made that clearer.
          This is all about the clergy, the administration and upwards within the organisation. As some have suggested here, the corruption possibly extends outside the church to other areas.

          That group are the guilty I speak of.

          From another perspective this has been about the abuse of power and an abuse of the trust of church goers.

          KK

          00

          • #
            Kalm Keith

            My original comment related mainly to thingadonta and his 16, 18. His point wasn’t clear.

            00

          • #
            PeterW

            Kieth….

            Understood and accepted.

            I’d further note that the majority of clergy are equally hurt and betrayed.
            Most of them enter that vocation with a sincere intent to help the church members, and to serve their God…. which includes obeying Church doctrine. Said doctrine being very clear that “wolves in sheep’s clothing” are to be condemned, not tolerated and protected.

            As I wrote in another post, below , the majority of harm has not been caused by Church doctrine, but by the failure of some “company men” within the Church to apply that doctrine when it would have been embarrassing to do so. The problem has not been Catholic doctrine, but those within the Catholic Church who have been less concerned with being Catholic and more so with “worldly” standards.

            10

            • #
              Kalm Keith

              Yes, and that “worldliness” you speak of has sadly been evident in many areas of public life where supervision has been poor.

              The other large religious group in Australia is a prime example and there has been considerable pain for many innocent parties in all churches because of this mess.
              George Pell is just the most public of all those who have been hurt.

              KK

              00

  • #

    Just imagine where we would be now if Cardinal Pell had become Pope.

    30

  • #
    Speedy

    It would appear that Cardinal Pell’s greatest offence was to disagree with Chairman Andrews.
    Cheers,

    Mike

    70

  • #
    R.B.

    My comments on this on Andrew Bolts blog get thrown into pending for over a day, if not rejected. So they have been read and assessed for suitability for publication. One that was rejected was criticism of a paragraph from a News article

    Pell’s surviving victim also released a statement overnight, saying he respected the High Court’s decision. The other boy who alleged he was abused by Pell died from a drug overdose in 2014.

    With the conviction squashed, it’s alleged victim. The author knows this. It’s also well known that the second boy denied that he was assaulted rather than alleged that he was.

    Another commented rejected was pointing out how this comment gets through moderation

    He did not molest the boys in the vestry. He DID cover up many pedophile occurrences over a long time. Soon it will be tried for real

    Even the “far right” Murdoch media has far leftwing activists rather than journalists. Pell never had a chance of a fair trial by jury.

    71

    • #
      TdeF

      In the second trial, he never even faced his accuser. He was in the dock, led in with handcuffs as the villain and the accuser was on TV, prerecorded like a documentary. Why? And of course, the victim was excused the stress of appearing, presumably because he was a victim and had suffered enough at the hands of Pell. How prejudcial can you get?

      What sort of trial is that? It was a total farce and impossible to get a fair trial, but no one wanted to call it off. They wanted their guilty verdict and Pell had to prove his innocence. Now how do you do that?

      40

    • #

      RB. I am surprised they would not publish your comment.

      And even more surprised they made the mistake you caught them out for. Ouch.

      Such is the confirmation bias…

      10

  • #
    sophocles

    Sadly, Dr. Fred Singer has died, at age 95.(April 6th 2020).

    Rest in Peace Dr Singer. You will be missed.
    Our thanks for your efforts on our behalf.

    Marc Marano reports on Wattsupwiththat.
    wattsupwiththat.com/2020/04/07/ip-award-winning-atmospheric-scientist-dr-fred-singer-dies-pioneering-scientist-the-dean-of-climate-skeptical-scientists/

    Unfortunately, we’re going to have to wait a long time for the IPCC to do the decent thing and follow.

    60

  • #
    Marv in Maryland

    OMG https://www.thelocal.dk/20200406/denmark-to-reopen-schools-and-kindergartens-next-week Denmark is reopening their schools! The fools! Laughing…we are all going to die!!!
    [I don't know Marv, May 10 for the larger age groups is still over a month away. Do you suppose that is reckless?] ED

    20

  • #

    Another loss to the world.

    00

  • #
    TdeF

    From America this quote..

    “The doctor noted that the nation’s actions as a whole seriously impacted the models used to project the number of deaths.

    He added that, “those models that were done, they assume only about 50 percent of the American public would pay attention to the recommendations.

    In fact, what we’re seeing is a large majority of the American public is taking the social distancing recommendations to heart.

    And I think that’s the direct consequence of why you’re seeing the numbers are going to be much, much, much lower than would have been predicted by the models.”

    Ditto in Australia. Apart from the losers saying their ‘rights’ are impacted. You cannot police an entire society. 99% of all people are doing this themselves and doing it well.
    The same in America. And it’s working so well.

    As I keep writing, if the virus does not get to infect more people, it is within weeks of vanishing completely. From small geographic areas but also from the entire country.

    What it take is sacrifice and determination. But a war where no buildings are destroyed, no property is damaged and people get to stay home and entertain themselves. Is that so hard?

    If this is a war, it is one of tolerating boredom. And the place can get back to work quickly, because it won’t take long. No worse than the Christmas/New Year break anyway.

    30

  • #
    PeterW

    The ironies in this persecution of Pell just keep piling up.

    One is the numerous critics who condemn him for following a God that they describe as his “imaginary friend”. ….. yet who insist on believing – with even less evidence – in Pell’s imaginary crimes.

    Another is that Pell’s greatest prominence prior to his legal persecution, was due to his public opposition to Homosexual marriage. Pell was venomously attacked for his rational and articulate defence of the Church’s position on homosexuality, including church membership, communion and marriage…… yet it is not Politically Correct to mention in public that homosexuals are vastly over-represented as perpetrators of child-abuse within the Catholic Church.

    According to the Royal Commission, around 75% of such cases are homosexual in nature, despite the fact that homosexuals are a very tiny minority in a Church that has considered the act a sin for over 2000 years.

    ……….aaaaand, no, the involvement of a child does not make same-sex sexual activity somehow heterosexual.

    Personally, I have far more respect for practicing homosexuals who are honest about the fact that Catholic doctrine is inconsistent with their choices and do not seek membership, than those who are deceitful in order to obtain a veneer of “respectability”. What you do in your bedroom is not my business.

    10

  • #
    thingadonta

    The Conversation website has an article which claims Pell was released based on a ‘technicality’. Reaad it if you want to waste a few minutes of your life.

    So when has ‘reasonable doubt’ been a technicality?

    Ive heard people resort to the ‘that’s what a witness would say to hide it’ argument, regarding the other deceased witness saying nothing happened. It’s Monty Python all over again-’only the true Messiah would deny he is the Messiah!’. People who use this argument put the cart before the horse, you have to establish the probability of the offence first before one can dismisses such a statement, not the other way around. I don’t know what the legal term is for this sort of argument, but it’s absolute BS.

    I have come to the opinion over many years, that generally speaking, people are not very good scientists, even otherwise intelligent people. The often don’t use physical evidence when it really comes down to it. Now I also know that generally speaking, people are not very good lawyers either. They frequently make conclusions based on legally incorrrect arguments. So much for ‘wise man’ (homo sapiens).

    00