It was a very strange comment to make about the judicial system.
1 Like
This is why I was asking earlier about the legal weight of testimony in a Royal Commission.
Pell flat out said that the systematic rape of children in his organisation was “of very little interest to me”.
Granted, that opinion has absolutely no legal relation to the crimes he has been convicted of, but it sure as hell says a lot about his “character”.
Don’t know about rape charge durations, but if you can’t be arsed reading that (it’s 150 pages, but Is interesting) this quick vid sums up how and why so many indigenous people are imprisoned on traffic offences in WA.
Yeah. The number for the ATO whistleblower was derived from a stupid clickbait article that totaled up all the potential maximum sentences from the charges they were potentially facing (all to do with consent around recording conversations I think, or something like that), whereas the Pell number was based on the sentence handed down in a criminal trial.
1 Like
Yep. This comment (more than anything else) made my blood boil the most, along with his comments to the parents/victims/community regarding Ridsdale. Completely disinterested & lacking empathy & now we know why - because he WAS ONE OF THEM!!!
3 Likes
IIRC, he did say that it was of little interest AT THAT TIME.
In a way that’s worse, as he was putting his career above pastoral care ( he had educational responsibilities at the time) and also possible breaches of canon law.
2 Likes
I wonder if his brain was trying to formulate some response that distanced him from any interest in the kiddy fiddling activity personally and so he was subconsciously defending himself rather than addressing the issue. And it came out terribly. Would be consistent with his guilt of something not directly being talked about messing up his response to what was being talked about.
1 Like
The judge make reference to Pell’s authority as the Archbishop, and how that would have intimidated the kids.
Presumably these kids believed in the same god as Pell does, and they would have seen Pell as a direct authority not only as a church representative, but as their god’s representative also. Wouldn’t that be even more of an intimidating factor?
They would have been thinking; “This man of god is raping me and god is letting it happen…!!”
It’s not as if Pell was the boss of some other organisation. Pell had a multi layered position. So to me that makes his offence twice as bad.
Was the “god” factor ever discussed??
The track record of the Catholic Church would seem to indicate that God is pretty cool with the whole child-rapist priest thing. It’s kind of being going on for a while now…
1 Like
Pell’s unempathetic response at the time was more likely an attempt to hide his own guilt. He was part of the cabal & he knew it (I am aware of the dates - so read into that what you will). And the Melbourne Response was concocted by the lawyers he had engaged. He chose a legalistic, rather than pastoral care approach. In other words, he wanted to silence the victims with cash payments. He is scum.
Swift movement by the courts.
Also a bit of pre-emptive legal cover. He said there were rumours in Ballarat at the time.Bacchus would know whether any complaints were put to him directly, but to note that former Archbishop Wilson was acquitted on appeal, because he did not believe the accusers.
As noted by Kidd, accusers are now given more credibility than in 1996.
Kidd’s statement is a model of the order of analysis and clarity. He avoided legal jargon, but was able to explain legal concepts/principles such as gravity of offence and cumulative/concurrent sentencing to a general audience. My only objection was his use of emotive terms such as arrogant and brazen, but perhaps that is standard in sentencing .
Pell did not wear a clerical collar for the sentencing . Nor did he wear his Cardinal’s ring given by the Pope. Does he have the option to retire?
1 Like
Yes if the Melbourne Response was all about care and compensating victims rather than defensively protecting the brand, why demand silence by victims for money. Capped at the cost of a good car - for a wrecked life, with the threat of stoushing with the legal resources that the inexhaustible church funds could pay for. Should have been called the Bully Response.
2 Likes
Why? Judge Kidd could have been referring to Pell’s lack of remorse or the manner in which he answered the detective’s questions. Arrogant is one of the first adjectives that comes to mind when thinking about Pell. So, I reckon he nailed that one.
Brazen - given the supposed small window of time he had to commit the offences (along with those in the vicinity) his acts were most definitely brazen.
Apart from that, it is widely acknowledged that he ran a tight courtroom.
Spot on.
Has he got 6 without parole?
6 years with 3 years and 8 months non-parole period.
So essentially about 4 years if they let him out.
He may not have got a huge sentence but he’s been whacked all up.
Lost his job
Lost his power
Hopefully gets defrocked as a cardinal
Lost his reputation and standing in the community and history books.
It’s a huge fall from grace. You can argue he deserves more, but I’m comfortable knowing he’s been screwed pretty hard.
I would be a lot more comfortable with it if the victims were comfortable with it.
10 Likes
I don’t know about sentencing, but the same guys who gave Pell positive character assessments, sent the military into indigenous communities on the basis of suggestions of child abuse
7 Likes