After ranting and raving a bit I think its time for a more fair and balanced assessment. So I had to go and find a more fair and balanced fellow than myself to make that assessment.
Bolt shows that Cardinal Pell cannot be judged to be guilty if the standard is “beyond reasonable doubt.” Bolt shows this very conclusively. So some of us might think he’s guilty and the young fellows memories are hopelessly confused. But reasonable people thinking in a cool-headed way about the matter, have some doubts about the situation. Bolt gives 10 reasons to doubt the matter. One has to suppose that the boy might have been abused by Pell and just confused the time and the date of the matter. But we have to judge the situation on what we have before us. What we have makes it clear that righteous anger against the church has bled into the jury’s decision.
Cardinal Pell certainly has been involved in covering up crimes in the church. This is a real Catholic disease this coverup. In some ways he may be the best of a bad bunch. He’s tried to sort things out somewhat, and tried to cover up to some extent also. Thats the impression one gets at least. So perhaps the best outcome is that he is shamed a bit, gets a bit of jail time … but our system, if it is sound, must let him off on appeal. Because the standard is reasonable doubt. And its very reasonable to doubt this story.
Its not preposterous that there is yet one more child molester in the church. But we have to judge him on the story he’s been convicted on. And its a stupid story. The story is not true because it CANNOT be true.
Here are ten reasons Bolt gives that he thinks cast doubt on the story. He understates the matter. The ten reasons show that the incident did not happen as claimed.
- The dead boy, before he died, denied to his Mother that he had been abused by Pell. This must be coming straight from his mother. Do we really think a grieving Mother would lie about such a thing. That should have been reasonable doubt right there.
- The other boy who is the originator of the allegations didn’t speak of it for many years. This is simply not plausible given that Pell was on our television sets often during that time period. I have a hypothesis that fits why the accuser would feel morally justified in concocting this story. Because I don’t think its a concoction. I think its a transmutation.
- The attack was “supposed to have happened straight after Mass.” When Pell customarily joined the recessional going out of the church after mass. That is to say it would have been odd for him to suddenly duck away for no good reason. People would have noticed such a thing. Why engage in a high risk activity if your very absence would be noticed even prior to any hint of wrongdoing?
- The attack was said to have happened in a high traffic area. Where there was the reasonable expectation of people walking in and out.
- In the story the boys were supposed to have slipped out of the choir, to break into the room, and then came back afterward. Others who were there at the time remember no such thing.
- Pell was normally followed everywhere during and after by the Master Of Ceremonies. This fellow was available to testify that there was no “slipping away” or disappearing act that occurred. The fellow who made up this story didn’t even do a very good job of it.
- The accuser claimed that the door was open during this entire time. Thought in the story to be about ten minutes.
- The accuser said Pell was wearing heavy vestments and he “parted the robes” to somehow induce one of the boys to perform oral sex IN FRONT OF THE OTHER. But this turns out to be impossible. And Pell would have needed to get changed just to take a pee, let alone force himself on anyone.
- No-one there noticed anything suspicious the whole time. Even though the attack would have taken ten minutes according to the story.
- While there is some allegations floating around there isn’t any proven pattern of queer behaviour. When allegations of this sort were made in the past they had a tendency to be proven wrong. This is in stark contrast to the normal situation with queers in the church …. their behaviour is usually well-known. When they are finally hauled in, it is to answer a string of charges, with massive concordance between victims and witnesses.
The problem with the Church is not one of occasional sporadic abuse. So for example in 22 years at work I got in trouble for losing my temper twice. No-one was the least bit hurt on either occasion, and the second time I was fired. The Churches problem is not to do with sporadic loss of control of this nature. But instead the Churches problem is with mad sex addicted fags (and one or two heterosexual abusers) that EVERYONE knows about. And they get moved around all over the place allowing them to re-offend. But what is being alleged here is that George pulled out his dick out of a clear blue sky. Like me losing my temper. Even if he had such tendencies his clothes would tend to stop him long enough to pull himself together.
What Really Happened; My Hypothesis.
If you were abused by clergyman, and you believed George Pell played it down or covered it up, you would be fucking furious. You would feel completely justified in taking the crime that had happened to you, transferring it to a different place and a different person. Thats what I think has happened here. The crime has been transmuted to a different man and place. And perhaps with some understandable feeling of moral justification. The crime simply cannot be taken seriously AS ADVERTISED.
So George has faced this humiliation and will spend time in jail. Perhaps this is karma for earlier being a coverup artist. But he must be let off on appeal. Because this story didn’t happen. This story is ridiculous.
There is just no doubt about this at all. Whatever George has done on other occasions, good, bad or indifferent, he is not guilty of this specific crime on this specific occasion. He must be let loose.