George Pell, rot in hell

[Nungali]

He is finally in jail . For many here, this a cause of celebration.

It would have been so horrible if he had got away with it again. And frustration of that level may have triggered some long term victims suicide.

Its a big issue, to big to go through now. I am just happy he is caught, disgraced, excommunicated and jailed.

Its a giant blunder for the church and will make history ; the highest ranking member ever (so far) to be found guilty of child sex offences


George Pell: cardinal found guilty of child sexual assault

Vatican treasurer, the third most senior Catholic in the world, convicted on five charges in Australian court case
• LATEST: Cardinal Pell set to go straight to jail as bail application withdrawn
• Five times guilty: how Pell’s past caught up with him

[ The thing is Australia had a superssion order on the findings, but the rest of the world was publishing it ... actually some stories cannot be accessed still ( " google cant find that article " ) ... ; ]

Journalists accused of breaking suppression order may face jail

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/feb/26/cardinal-george-pell-vatican-treasurer-found-guilty-of-child-sexual-assault

 

And also someone who had been covering it up for the church

Most senior Roman Catholic cleric to be convicted of covering up child sex abuse, sentenced to 12 months in jail

 

 

New #2

... also, what about his 'defense' ... his lawyer 'pleaded' to the court ;

" Richter tried to argue there were “no aggravating circumstances” to one of the offences. It was “no more than a plain vanilla sexual penetration case where the child is not actively participating,” he told the court.

 

'plain vanilla penetration '

What the hell is THAT supposed to mean !

 

The chief judge, Peter Kidd, responded: “. Looking at your points here – so what?”

 

Pell was taken to a maximum security facility where he will be kept in protective custody and remain alone for up to 23 hours a day.

 

Looks like his days of callous indifference, hand waving away issues and  clerical superiority complex and protection from the church are over.

[kondensation]

Good.

[Stosh]

Yknow,,,Plain vanilla,,, vs banana fudge.;)

[Nungali]

That thought kept trying to surface in mind ... but it cant be ... can it ?

 

A lawyer said that defending his client who claimed he was innocent  ?     

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 3, 2019 by Nungali

[Bindi]

To use 'plain vanilla penetration ' as a defence is beyond disgraceful.

[Nungali]

Here he is

 

 

 

Robert Richter

 

Now, of course, the 'back peddle' ;

 

“In seeking to mitigate sentence I used a wholly inappropriate phrase for which I apologise profusely to all who interpreted it in a way it was never intended: it was in no way meant to belittle or minimise the suffering and hurt of victims of sex abuse, and in retrospect I can see why it caused great offence to many,” he wrote in a statement.

 

“I hope my apology is accepted as sincerely as it is meant and I will never repeat such carelessness in my choice of words which might offend.”

 

“I accept that the media chose to report it because it sells but it was never intended for them,” Richter wrote. “In retrospect, I regret using a term well understood by lawyers and judges which is open to misinterpretation by those who do not understand the process of plea making after a conviction when the accused still maintains innocence; I was after all conceding that the conduct required imprisonment rather than arguing for a non-custodial sentence. "

 

......   " those who do not understand the process of plea making after a conviction when the accused still maintains innocence "

 

No , I dont understand that  -  you say  "I didnt do it", the judge says yes you did and your lawyer responds "  No, he didnt do it, but if you are saying he did it, it wasnt   THAT  serious  an offence because of the way he did it  .... I mean, the way he DIDN'T do it .... I mean , what you found he did wasn't that serious, even if he did do it ... which he didnt  ...  "

 

No Mr Richter , us non- lawyers do NOT understand such 'complex' legal processes.

 

( a term 'well understood by lawyers "   ?  )

 

-  Sydney barrister Bret Walker SC will represent Pell at the Court of Appeal.    Heaven knows what the appeal could be .

 

During my Supreme Court case, which we won, but it went to appeal, the Chief judge ( there where 3 sitting on the case) castigated the prosecutor ;  " Ms Sharpe,  an appeal is  usually lodged when new information or evidence has come to light ."

 

( Their only new evidence was some person they dug up that was present, supposedly, for the events in dispute 20 years ago. This just goes to show how stupid a court case can be  - even though  this next part might cost $10,000

 

'Call the new witness'

Our lawyer questions him first; "  Sir, would you honestly   say you have an  accurate and clear memory of events  more than 30 years ago ?"

'Well, not entirely accurate and clear, no . "

" Thank you, no more questions your Honour. "  He goes back to his seat, the idiot prosecutor ( who is the Attorney general, supposedly the States legal expert ! ) looks confused, but we are laughing .

She gets up with a huge folder of papers, adjusts them, adjusts her glasses and begins ; " Mr  Conroy, now, when this deed was made  do you remember .... "

Judge " Stop there please Ms Sharpe ."

' Oh .... ? "

' Ms Sharpe !  Your witness just swore under oath that he does not have an accurate and clear memory of events back then . "

" Oh ?  ..... Oh !  .... I ... um ...... "  

Judge ; " Thank you Ms Sharpe ..... thank you Mr Conroy, you may step down . "

 

Laughable !   ... if so much money was not being wasted on it .

 

 

 

Edited March 3, 2019 by Nungali

[Stosh]

On 3/2/2019 at 8:44 PM, Nungali said:

That thought kept trying to surface in mind ... but it cant be ... can it ?

 

A lawyer said that defending his client who claimed he was innocent  ?     

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agreed, It doesn't really make sense. I think it's a case of jumbling his words. The sentiment being to play down the seriousness of the event, which a lawyer is supposed to do. Our courts are adversarial in nature, and everyone gets a defense. Plain and simple.