George Pell has lost his appeal in the Supreme Court of Victoria today (21/8/19) and will stay in jail for at least a minimum jail term of three years and eight months. He will return to the remand center where he has been staying and be classified if he hasn’t already been and then sent to a jail to serve his sentence.
George Pell lost the appeal decision 2 judges to 1 and it is guaranteed that Pell will appeal to the High Court of Australia. (Click here to read a summary of the judgment)
The dissenting judge who found in George Pell’s favour was Justice Mark Weinberg who also came under scrutiny by this website in 2017 after he suggested that the media shouldn’t report allegations about judicial bribery.
In June 2017 I published an article titled “Australian judges attack political free speech and try to cover-up judicial corruption” (Click here to read more) and said:
Justice Weinberg asked Mr Houghton whether The Australian would have published a story where judges were alleged to have been bribed and corrupt.
“It would depend on the context,” he answered.
“Is that a serious answer?” the judge responded. (Click here to read more)
Why would a judge ask a question about the media reporting judicial bribery and then say, “Is that a serious answer?” when he got a response he didn’t like. Of course, the media should report judicial bribery. Fairfax Media and the ABC’s Four Corners reported in 2015 that the Australian Mafia bribed NSW judges $2.2 million. (Click here to read more) Was Justice Weinberg suggesting judicial bribery like that shouldn’t be reported? From what he said it seems so.
Below is the video of Justice Weinberg talking about the media shouldn’t report allegations of judges taking bribes:
To me, Justice Mark Weinberg isn’t up to the job of being a judge let alone an appeals court judge and he shouldn’t have been hearing George Pell’s appeal. I certainly hope the High Court of Australia allow Pell special leave to appeal and then put him in his place. But there is a fair chance that the High Court won’t allow Pell special leave to appeal as there doesn’t seem to be anything exceptional about the case except that George Pell was previously the 3rd highest ranked official in the world in the Catholic Church.
Convicted Paedophile George Pell, who has lost his appeal, and pictured with fellow paedophile Gerald Ridsdale in 1993 when Ridsdale was walking to court to be sentenced.
I have written many articles about George Pell (click here to read more) but the one that stands out is the article I wrote in March 2014 titled “Alleged paedophile Cardinal George Pell gives perjured evidence at the Royal Commission” (Click here to read more) I was able to refer to Pell then as an “alleged paedophile” because he already had form on the board from a 2002 allegation of child sex abuse and an investigation by the church who swept in under the carpet. The 2014 article was long before the police started investigating Pell in 2015 which led to his current conviction. (Update 21/8/19: The 7.30 Report said tonight that the police started investigating George Pell in 2013).
George Pell’s conviction is a huge win for his victims. It is also a win for the thousands that were abused by fellow priests while Pell and others in the church actively tried to conceal it. His conviction is likely to encourage others to come forward to seek justice.
Please use the Twitter, Facebook and email etc. buttons below and help promote this post.
Kangaroo Court of Australia is an independent website and is reliant on donations to keep publishing. If you would like to support the continuance of this site, please click on the button below to donate via PayPal or go to the donations page for other donation options. (Click here to go to the Donations page)
If you would like to follow this website, you can by email notification at the top right or left of this page and about twice a week you will be notified when there is a new article.
Thank you for your support.
Categories: Cardinal George Pell
Admin: I had a cold over the last few days and that is why I didn’t publish the regular weekend post. Back to 95% now.
Update: Click here to read a summary of the judgment Pell v The Queen: https://kangaroocourtofaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2019/08/pell-v-the-queen-judgment-summary.pdf
The full judgment in Pell v The Queen is here: https://www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-08/pell_v_the_queen_2019_vsca_186_-_web_1.pdf
An observation I make after all that has transpired in this case of mass pedophilia within the catholic church is how hypocritical they are. On one level, the sanctimonious focus on life in the womb is fiercely defended. On the other, the ruined young lives, in some cases destroyed young lives are not viewed with anywhere near the same fixation
Some people just can’t except the truth or the justice that comes with it. Religion across the board is a very rewarding industry financially. Some expect to be placed above the Law as well as the status of the average citizen. Sooner or latter the Rooster will crow.
Was it evidence or testimony which convicted George Pell? There were no witnesses to the “crime”. I’m sure you could find some dirt on the other two justices and if Justice Weinberg hadn’t been a dissenting voice, would you have spent so much time dismantling his credibility and reputation as you have done here?
None living or willing to testify anyway Kathleen. It’s good to be sceptical though, and I’d recommend doing more research on the subject from a variety of sources, testing each for veracity.
Yes, there was a witness, the victim who gave evidence from the witness stand and was cross-examined by Pell’s barrister and a jury of 12 and 2 appeals judges believed him over George Pell who refused to give evidence.
Testimony is evidence. A victim of abuse is legally classified as a witness to the crime committed against them. Often there are no other witnesses such is the nature of sexual assault but is also often committed when other people are in the vicinity to add to the thrill of the crime and make it more difficult for the victim to be believed. It is very rare that vexatious sexual assault claims make it even as far as charges being brought by the police, let alone making it to court, as it is difficult to fabricate the kinds of details and reactions of victims that are typically found in sexual assault cases. The currently accepted percentage of sexual assault claims that are have found to be fabricated is the same for all other types of crime, around two percent.
Also it’s worth noting that many perpetrators of sexual assault also behave in similar ways that are difficult to fabricate accurately by someone making a false sexual assault claim. The police and lawyers have reasonably good knowledge as to how many predators operate. The recent Royal Commission into Institutional Sexual Abuse has done a lot to educate members of the legal profession about the nature of sexual abuse and also greater numbers of the general public through media reporting. It seems that people are starting to understand what sexual abuse is, how it manifests and how witness testimony can be considered compelling and beyond dispute.
This was a trial of Pell and 2 victims. What he and the Church have done elsewhere have nothing to do with this. His judge was biased against him, and for Pell to rush in, remove all that weird clothing in the time would not be possible. A bit like the magic bullet to me.
The 12 members of the jury and judges were given the same robes that Pell wore to try on and see if it was possible and they decided it was possible.
Pell did not refuse to give evidence. His counsel Robert Richter advised him to do so. A stupid decision which went partly to convict him. Anyone of high profile in the community must give evidence, juries want to hear from them. The judge will warn the jury not to take his silence into account but in the real world, jurors do.
Please do not use my name or address me in the comment section. Once one person does then everyone does.
A theory held by the majority is not proof of its veracity
There is probably a good case for investigating George Pell but the trial that put him away was a travesty with evidence so full of conjecture and bias that under normal circumstances it would have been tossed out.
Dark forces at work within the legal system!
How would you know? Were you in court to hear all the evidence?
Geoff if so called dark forces are that powerful that they manage to convince 12 jurors and two senior judges, it’s a wonder this website is able to expose any of the corruption that he does. The dark forces must be weak most of the time or this website must be extraordinary good at its job.
The judge’s response to the lie that the robe would have stopped George Pell from raping the boys: “The alb was neither so heavy nor so immoveable as the evidence of Portelli and Potter had suggested”. Portelli & Potter should possibly face perjury charges.
The full section:
144 The issue of Cardinal Pell’s robes is a good example. As already noted, the contention on the appeal was (as it had been before the jury) that the acts alleged to have been committed by Cardinal Pell in the first incident were ‘physically impossible’. Reliance was placed on categorical statements by Portelli and by Potter that it was not possible to pull the alb to the side while the cincture was tied at the waist.
145 In response, senior counsel for the Crown invited the members of the Court to try on the robes. They were an exhibit at the trial and, we were told, had been available to the jury in the juryroom during their deliberation. Counsel for Cardinal Pell did not demur.
146 In final address, the prosecutor invited the jury to feel the weight of the alb and ‘assess its manoeuvrability as a garment’. This gave the jury the opportunity, counsel submitted, ‘to assess whether what [A] described as having occurred is physically possible or impossible.’ Having taken advantage of that opportunity ourselves, we consider that it was well open to the jury to reject the contention of physical impossibility. The alb was neither so heavy nor so immovable as the evidence of Portelli and Potter had suggested. To our observation, it was well capable of being manoeuvred —while the cincture was firmly tied at the waist — in a way that might be described as being moved or pulled to one side or pulled apart.