Cardinal Pell calls for investigation into police over sex abuse ‘smear’

[Warren Stupidity]

Australia’s most senior Catholic cleric, Cardinal George Pell, has for a second time called for an investigation into Victoria police to determine whether there has been a “conspiracy to pervert the course of justice”.

But the force’s top police officer denies any leaks by his officers, saying it’s “clear” the sources of sexual abuse complaints against Pell are the complainants.

The cardinal’s concerns stem from a report aired by ABC television’s 7.30 program on Wednesday canvassing allegations made by two men who have accused him of inappropriate behaviour involving children going as far back as the 1970s.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/jul/28/cardinal-pell-calls-for-investigation-into-police-over-sex-abuse-smear

Cardinal Pell is an example for all of us of why religion is so important.

[Cartoonist]

1. That's rich

I thought you had written a satircal post in your typical humorous style. But sometimes you just can't make this stuff up. Pell should be in seclusion somewhere hiding his holy face while this investigation proceeds.

[trotsky]

3. I'm sure the Vatican will end up providing him a nice comfy place to hide...

oh wait I mean, "live the rest of his life in penitence and prayer."

[MichiganVote]

26. Yup. Just like that SOB Cardinal Law.

[rug]

2. This is an example for all of us why evidence is so important.

Two men reportedly told Victoria police they were allegedly abused as children by the cardinal when he was a priest in Ballarat in the 1970s. They allege they were groped while swimming at the city’s Eureka pool during the summer of 1978-79.

Do you have any further evidence of this occurring nearly 40 years ago, warren? I'm sure you didn't post this just to beat a drum.

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. Yes, more evidence, from the link in #8:

LOUISE MILLIGAN: Les Tyack says he was disturbed that a naked man had stood there for 10 minutes facing the boys.

LES TYACK: I thought that was not on. Very strange situation for an adult to be full frontal to three young boys. I said to the young boys, "Finish doing what you're doing, off you go." When they left, I then said to George Pell, "I know what you're up to. Piss off. Get out of here. If I see you back in this club again, I'll call the police."
...
In 2002, George Pell became Archbishop of Sydney. He was at the height of his powers when a bombshell dropped. A man came forward to the Catholic Church to allege that George Pell abused him when he, the complainant, was 12 years old.

REPORTER: The alleged victim claims Dr Pell abused him in 1961. He says it happened at a camp on Victoria's Phillip Island when Dr Pell was a trainee priest.

LOUISE MILLIGAN: The complainant alleged that on several occasions the man known to him as "Big George" put his hands down his pants and, quote, "Got a good handful of his penis and testicles." He says George Pell molested him on several occasions in a tent and once under his bathers when they were in the water jumping in the waves.

[rug]

10. Did you mean to say allegations?

We can reveal that investigation has been going for more than a year and involves a number of complainants spanning decades. 7.30 understands that file has been sent to the Office of Public Prosecutions for advice. The Cardinal has issued a statement saying he emphatically and unequivocally rejects any allegations of sexual abuse against him. 7.30 acknowledges the Cardinal is entitled to a presumption of innocence and that the allegations are yet to be tested by any court

This half-century old uncorroborated allegation is the weakest of allegations.

TONY JONES, JOURNALIST: The Archbishop has stood aside from his position, saying he welcomes an investigation of the complaint as an opportunity to clear his name.

GEORGE PELL: These allegations against me are lies and I deny them utterly and totally.

JOHN HOWARD, THEN PRIME MINISTER: I believe completely George Pell's denial.

LOUISE MILLIGAN: The Catholic Church held an internal inquiry, heard by retired Supreme Court Justice Alex Southwell. After the complaint was made, a file was compiled on the complainant, who had been a wharfie, a convicted criminal and an alcoholic. The details of the man's criminal history then appeared in the media.

ALEX SOUTHWELL, RET. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE (male voiceover): "... the complainant's credibility was subjected to a forceful attack."

LOUISE MILLIGAN: Nonetheless, Justice Southwell still found that the complainant's evidence was truthful, but the judge found the same of George Pell, so he didn't find against Pell.

ALEX SOUTHWELL (male voiceover): I, "... find that I am not satisfied that the complaint has been established."

Now I know this has been posted in this Group for the sole purpose of reinforcing in some members' minds that the Catholic Church is, has been, and will continue to be composed of the scum of the earth. But the truth is I would say the same about these allegations if they were directed towards you, muriel. Or towards the OP, for that matter.

[muriel_volestrangler]

11. You didn't say anything about Rolf Harris

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014697351

From the same time, roughly. He was found guilty, by the way, and is now in jail, facing another trial for other sex offences: http://www.9news.com.au/world/2016/07/30/08/51/rolf-harris-in-court-ahead-of-trial . But when it's another Australian, but a Catholic archbishop, you leap to his defence, saying ItWasAllALongtimeAgo.

And no, I meant to say 'evidence', because it is evidence. You quoted it yourself: " the complainant's evidence was truthful". See? A judge considered it evidence.

[rug]

12. Could it be because the OP is about an Australian Cardinal and not a London priest?

Or does that not matter to you because it concerns a Catholic priest?

BTW, the retired Supreme Court Justice also said, as I'm sure you read but chose not to quote, that "Justice Southwell still found that the complainant's evidence was truthful, but the judge found the same of George Pell, so he didn't find against Pell."

Thanks for demonstrating the purpose of the OP.

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. What I'm saying it that it's only when it's a priest that's accused that you moan about how old

the evidence is. Harris was an entertainer, and you made no objection to to his arrest, or conviction. Jerry Sansdusky has also been accused of abusing children in the 1970s, but you didn't leap up with ItWasAllALongimeAgo for that. Indeed, you found his trial "gripping".

I find sexual abuse bad, whoever does it, and however long ago it was. You try to cover it up if it's by a Catholic priest.

[rug]

14. I don't moan, muriel. Show me a thread in this Group about Sandusky. Or Cosby.

You know what's worse than trying "to cover it up"? Using child abuse to promote an anti-religious bias. Especially when done by people screaming for evidence except when it involves a priest.

[muriel_volestrangler]

15. You really think drawing attention to a cover-up of child abuse is worse than the cover-up?

Wow, rug. That's lower than whale shit.

Threads about Sandusky wouldn't be in this group, because that wasn't about a religious cover-up - it was by a university. You posted in Sandusky threads, but didn't complain then that it all happened a long time ago.

Are you saying you did complain on DU that the evidence against Cosby was too old? I really can't be bother to check. But if you didn't, then why would you bring him up as if that excuses your conduct?

Who are these people "screaming for evidence except when it involves a priest"?

[rug]

16. I see you have trouble with my words so you need to use your own.

Just don't have the temerity to put them in my mouth.

Tell me, muriel. Do you think warren's motive - and yours - is simply to draw "attention to a cover-up of child abuse"? It couldn't possibly have a thing to do with despising religion in general and Catholicism in particular, would it?

And while we're on the subject, you still have not wiggled away from the fact that these are decades-old allegations without corroboration. And as to Pell, specifically, who's been covering up in the 14 years since the allegations were brought to the police?

But, don't let facts stand in the way of the lust to feed a bias.

[muriel_volestrangler]

17. Yes, this is to draw attention to a cover-up of child abuse

I don't need to wiggle away from anything. You are the one who is wiggling, by trying to cover up the evidence when you say "doesn't count, it's too old for my taste". The allegations come from several people; there's your corroboration.

Who's been covering up? Well, you're trying to, right now. You're trying to get people to ignore the evidence. Pell has been covering it up, and is accusing other of smears. And we can see how seriously he takes such allegations:

Cardinal George Pell, the Vatican's treasurer, said he did nothing when a boy at a Christian Brothers school in rural Victoria state mentioned the behaviour "casually in conversation" in the mid-1970s.

"With the experience of 40 years later, certainly I would agree that I should have done more," Pell said while giving evidence via video link from Rome to Australia's Royal Commission into Institutional Response to Child Sexual Abuse.

Pell's four-day questioning over cases involving hundreds of children in Australia from the 1960s to the 1990s has taken on wider implications about the accountability of church leaders, given his high rank within the church.

There were audible gasps when, during a testy exchange earlier in the week, Pell said of abuse by a priest who was later convicted of 138 offences against 53 victims: "It's a sad story and it wasn't of much interest to me."

http://www.the-star.co.ke/news/2016/03/03/vatican-cardinal-george-pell-denies-attempts-to-cover-up-child-sex_c1306006

[rug]

18. Simply?

You didn't answer the second question: "It couldn't possibly have a thing to do with despising religion in general and Catholicism in particular, would it?" The answer is not disingenous as your previous one was.

Can you do it?

[muriel_volestrangler]

19. You asked me a question about someone else's motive. You ignored my questions to you

as you frequently do. There's no reason I should speculate on someone else's motive; but, as I said, my own reason for posting was to draw attention to an attempt at a cover-up of child abuse - your attempt, in post #2. Also, to your unbelievable claim that you'd object to accusations of child abuse from many years ago against people other that priests. The reason I don't believe that is that you've had that chance, and never taken it. You have no credibility, rug. You've pissed it all away with your incessant defence of child molesting priests.

So, I'll ask the questions again to which you can easily provide answers, since their about your own claims:

Are you saying you did complain on DU that the evidence against Cosby was too old?

Who are these people "screaming for evidence except when it involves a priest"?

[rug]

21. "- and yours -"

Unfortunately, in anticipation of your response, it was necessary to add.

And the second question, "It couldn't possibly have a thing to do with despising religion in general and Catholicism in particular, would it?", remains unanswered by you.

Your credulity aside, muriel, which is of no moment to me, I have indeed represented - in actual courtrooms in two states -a half dozen defendants accused of these crimes. None of those accusations, however, were a half century old.

While I've read some of the Cosby threads on DU, I can't specifically remember if I jumped in on them. But I will tell you this: many of the acccusers' statements are indeed too old, and some flat out incredible. Not all, but I'm content to let a judge, jury and lawyers prove or fail to prove those charges.

The blatant difference between those threads and these in here is that they lack the religious bigotry behind those in here. Prove me wrong, muriel. Answer the second question.

[muriel_volestrangler]

23. I answered you. Answer my question about "screaming for evidence except when it involves a priest"

Who are you accusing of that?

If you are "content to let a judge, jury and lawyers prove or fail to prove those charges", then why are you complaining that the evidence is too old to pay any attention to? If you were content, you'd just shut up and see what happens. You wouldn't call for a time limit that would prevent this comign to a jury, like you did here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/121884709 and here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218211938 and here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218229845 and here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218231431

[rug]

24. No you didn't.

Answer this: "It couldn't possibly have a thing to do with despising religion in general and Catholicism in particular, would it?" It's only the third time you've avoided it.

The problem you fail to grasp about Pell is that he has not been charged with anything. Instead, there is a virtual mob chanting, "Get the priest!" If and when there are charges, a judge, jury and lawyers will indeed reach a verdict. One based on evidence, or lack thereof.

(If you can't control yourself, step away from the keyboard and tell me to shut up instead of posting that crap.)

As to your googlefu, what do you have against the statutes of limitations? Do you have an inkling of their history and purpose? Or do you prefer to abandon them because . . . . Catholic Church!

Now, look at who's repetitively posting those OPs. Then have some integrity and answer the question I put to you.

[muriel_volestrangler]

28. This is to draw attention to a cover-up of child abuse (nt)

[rug]

29. And nothing more.

[muriel_volestrangler]

30. Rolling your eyes doesn't answer my question.

Is your professional behaviour anything like your behaviour on DU - ignoring people's questions, asking leading questions, paying no attention to people's answers, rolling your eyes? I can't think other people would stand for that.

[rug]

31. Batting your eyes demurely doesn't answer mine.

Don't you worry about my professional beahavior, muriel. Worry about your own integrity.

[muriel_volestrangler]

32. Who are these people "screaming for evidence except when it involves a priest"?

[rug]

33. The ones who proclaim there is no evidence of a deity.

Usually without defining the evidence that could define an infinite god.

Sound familiar, muriel?

Lo and behold, this strict skepticism vanishes when the topic is allegations of abuse by clergy.

Now answer my question: ""It couldn't possibly have a thing to do with despising religion in general and Catholicism in particular, would it?"

[muriel_volestrangler]

34. Fuck me, what a waste of time. You're trying to equate a philosophical discussion

about the existence of a god with your whines about when you should ignore evidence of child abuse?

To answer your question yet again: no.

I thought you had the ability to work out the implied 'no' that answering "this is to draw attention to a cover-up of child abuse" contained, but it seems you're incapable.

[rug]

35. No thanks.

You have an elastic view of evidence. Beginning with the difference between an allegation and proof. You are the one equating them.

The question is why?

You are quick to demand evidence when the topic is God. You are perfectly content to run with decades old allegations if it involves religion. The word for that is hypocrisy. Another phrase is intellectual dishonesty. Use your ability to work out the implied next word.

Don't worry. muriel, I'm more than capable of winnowing out "implied" answers. In your case, it's quite easy.

[Warren Stupidity]

4. I'm sure somebody will show up soon to splain it.

Oh wait, it's already happened.

[cleanhippie]

6. Right you are. Anyone with any sense of reason can see that the plausibility of this is high.

Yet shysters continue to try and obfuscate in any way possible.

[rug]

7. First they ignore you, then they talk about you.

[muriel_volestrangler]

20. Shorter version of the apologist's moan: It was all a long time ago

and how come no one complains about Bill Cosby in the Religion Group? That must be anti-Catholic bias right there, huh? Huh?

[rug]

22. Shorter vision of a bigot's glee: "It was a Catholic priest!"

[trotsky]

36. SMH

Figures.

[Brettongarcia]

5. One point: Pell thought the police were leaking stuff?

But Pell was mistaken? The two complaintants themselves had independently gone to the press.

If thats the problem, Pell made an interpretive mistake. In addition to all the rest.

[SwissTony]

8. A link to the program

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2016/s4508646.htm

[Lordquinton]

25. Looking at actual statistics of sexual abuse

The allegations are true, and there are many more that Haven't come forward because of everything being stacked against them, like being told it's been too long.

[rug]

27. Statistical Arguments

Statistical arguments use statistics in their premises.

Premise:

Four out of five dentists recommend Superdent toothpaste to their patients.

Conclusion:

Use Superdent.

Statistical arguments are often invalid because they use samples that are too small or are not representative of the group the conclusion focuses on. Be especially wary of arguments that make conclusions about the whole based on the attributes of its parts, or vice versa.

http://home.ku.edu.tr/~doregan/Argumentation/argument.html

[trotsky]

37. Well c'mon, it's not like the RCC has a proven history of this, right?

I mean that institution has definitely earned the benefit of the doubt on sex abuse issues. Fer sure.

[Lordquinton]

38. Let's ignore literally every flashing arrow pointing the way

cause obviously it's everyone else that's wrong and is bigoted.

[rug]

39. Head toward the light.

Disregard evidence.

Just follow the light and you will be free.