- 1. Pell actually denied charges:
Cardinal George Pell’s furious denial of child abuse allegations
news.com.auFebruary 26, 20191:35pm | Natalie Wolfe
https://www.news.com.au/national/victoria/news/cardinal-george-pells-furious-denial-of-child-abuse-allegations/news-story/fa0c0d7a762225c6e180ba48b71fb0ee
- 2. His lawyer, by contrast, affirmed them.
In court, he made a "vanilla" statement, which shocked (I would be shocked too at someone describing sodomy as vanilla). By this statement he was seemingly defending Pell (as he ought to do, as his lawyer).
Then he withdrew the "vanilla" statement, however, without changing the defense from "vanilla" to "didn't do it" (which was Pell's own line of defense).
George Pell's lawyer Robert Richter apologises for 'plain vanilla' offending comments
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-28/george-pells-lawyer-robert-richter-apologises-vanilla-comments/10859414
The use of the phrase was described as "outrageous" by Chrissie Foster, the mother of two girls abused by a Catholic priest and child protection advocate Hetty Johnston said the words would have come as a "slap" to abuse survivors.
What did she have to do with a trial concerning two boys?
As to her two girls, was it even perverted? Or did they have normal, actual vanilla sex, apart from incest by same priest being with two siblings?
What do we know of the justice of Chrissie Foster's case and her daughters'?
But that is an aside, it seems the accused and his lawyer were not agreed on the line of defense, since he had himself claimed innocence and his lawyer pleaded guilty for him.
I have been betrayed by a lawyer too. In my case, the act - shooting at a policeman with his own pistol, whereby a bullet struck his hip superficially - was admitted, but my line of defense was, it was legitimate self defense against psychiatry.
My lawyer in both trials manipulated it so this defense of mine would NOT be heard. While I was in gaol after second trial (I had been acquitted in first, but alas only for putative defense, sth which I myself made impossible in second trial by saying I was perfectly aware that the man I had shot at was a policeman), I tried to appeal to Supreme Court, but gaolers manipulated so I was not able to send it off in time (one "not now, later" and one "no, now it is too late").
In other words, my effort to show psychiatry as the real culprit, as my agressor via the police officer, was foiled twice and even a third time, first by one and same lawyer, then by gaolers. I was then transferred to prison, as not having appealed.
So, I know what it means to be betrayed by a lawyer.
- 3. One secularist blogger describes the lawyer's words as a moral failure of the Catholic Church:
In yet another demonstration of the complete moral failure of the Catholic Church, Robert Richter, the lawyer for Cardinal Pell, who was recently convicted of raping two choir boys, asked for leniency during Pell’s sentencing hearing by trying to minimize the sexual assault and rape of two 13-year-old choir boys in the 1990’s.
Lawyer For Cardinal Pell Minimizes Child Rape As ‘Plain Vanilla Sexual Penetration’
February 28, 2019 by Michael Stone on Progressive Secular Humanist
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2019/02/lawyer-for-cardinal-pell-minimizes-child-rape-as-plain-vanilla-sexual-penetration/
OK, Robert Richter asks for leniency, and this is a "moral failure of the Catholic Church"?
As it seems, Pell denied and Richter affirmed one and same act. Pell can be described as "Catholic" with some hesitation (I'd describe him as obeying under Vatican II Counter-Church), but since the statement was not Pell's but Richer's - what about Richter?
- 4. Is Richter Catholic? No, he could probably be described rather accurately by the general title of the entire blog, "Progressive Secular Humanist". More precisely:
Richter was born c 1946 in the then Kirghiz Republic, a federal state of the former Soviet Union.[1] His father, Berek, was a Polish Jew, and his mother, Sofia, was Ukrainian; they had met there after being displaced during World War II. After living for ten years in Israel, Richter's family moved to Melbourne, Australia, following an uncle who had already established business in the Rag Trade. Along with the rest of his family, the 13-year-old Richter arrived in Australia with little or no English. It has been reported that he taught himself English with the aid of television programs and dictionaries.[1]
Richter's son Louis is a rock musician who has been a member of Australian indie pop bands Mid-State Orange and The Lucksmiths.[1]
Richter has been described as a "progressive atheist".[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Richter_(lawyer)
So, let this sink in, a progressive atheist of Jewish background is allowed to represent one Pell (on Richter's page it is said Pell had retained him, but from my experience I am not sure if Pell had a choice, I was not allowed to confront second trial without same lawyer whom I had ample reason to distrust).
Pell had claimed he did not in fact do any acts of sex with two choir boys. The lawyer undercuts this totally with the vanilla comment and then undercuts the leniency benefits Pell could have had by regretting the vanille comment. Is it just a coincidence that the lawyer is not a (neo-)Catholic, but is from a violently opposed religion, as seen by the bias more openly shown by the blogger Michael Stone?
I don't know. I haven't followed the thing sufficiently to know if Pell actually made (personally, not "via Richter" as in lawyer putting case in defendant's mouth) any confession on it. I think I saw one news (not sure how old it was) on Pell maintaining his innocence.
Now, here is a little one more fact which needs commenting:
The Guardian : Cardinal George Pell’s lawyers denied access to more accusers' medical records
Australian Associated Press | Wed 21 Feb 2018 01.55 GMT
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/feb/21/cardinal-george-pells-lawyers-denied-access-to-more-accusers-medical-records
This implies two things:
- 1) Someone accusing can be found too little reliable for his case to be heard if he has medical records of psychiatry.
- 2) This being of advantage to the accused, nevertheless when the accused was Pell, he was denied the advantage.
The first of these explains why one would definitely want to avoid psychiatry, if one wants to accuse those who put one there previously of calumny and slave hunt (which are not out of proportion), one had better be sufficiently credible as an accuser and not have psychiatric records. This explains why victims of psychiatry have so little chance of getting redressal of the torts suffered and why psychiatrists can go on and on with bad science and worse morals, without risking the victims of their maltreatment actually suing them.
The second explains that right now, a Catholic clergyman in Australia is not enjoying normal advantages that shrinks sometimes give to accused. If accused by their patients.
I am not sure I will see any news Pell admitted "sex" (Clinton was right : that is not sex) with the two choirboys. And I am not sure he was not framed.
This is 18:35, 1.III.2019 and I made a quick overview. One more link:
The Guardian : Brutal and dogmatic, George Pell waged war on sex – even as he abused children
David Marr | Tue 26 Feb 2019 01.56 GMT | Last modified on Wed 27 Feb 2019 11.42 GMT
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/feb/26/brutal-and-dogmatic-george-pell-waged-war-on-sex-even-as-he-abused-children
Oh, you mean there was a motive for framing him? He was outwardly the Catholic? The kind of guy who rubs certain people (including the not so sympathetic David Marr) the wrong way? Wait, David Ewan Marr* seems to have Anglican background and to be the kind of guy who might describe sodomy as "vanilla".
Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
260 Holy Martyrs under Claudius
in Rome
1.III.2019
* Interesting gematria in ASCII:
| D | D | 136 | 130 | |
| R | R | 164 | 290 | 10 |
| A | A | 130 | 420 | |
| V | 086 | 500 | 16 | |
| I | 073 | 570 | ||
| M | 077 | 640 | 26 |
What was 640 and 26 again? 666, which is somewhat apt, considering how he hates Pell's message. A message which can survive Pell's guilt as well as innocence, since it isn't Pell's. But a message Pell might be suffering injustice for.
Btw, what did I say about confessions on Pell's part, and his lawyer:
George Pell guilty of sexually abusing choirboys
By court reporter Emma Younger | Updated 26 Feb 2019, 9:09am | Published 26 Feb 2019, 0:00am
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-26/george-pell-guilty-child-sexual-abuse-court-trial/10837564
No comments:
Post a Comment