Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Golden Duck

George Cardinal Pell wins High Court appeal

Recommended Posts

 
Piney

:huh:.....wtf......

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye

.... mysterious "ways"

~

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmcom

Yes, another example of evidence outways, stupid, dumb and f....witted comments, (some from here). I have said from the start he was innocent, with some here saying "he was a convicted, blah, blah" and the media going on a bender, and in the end he was not!

And you know what l have also said that Shapelle Corby was and is innocent, same BS, but that wasn't squashed.

Too many go into mental retardation mode, put a label on it and forget it, tuff if it ruins a life, Evidence and Facts show what is real and what is likely real, not institutions, not the media and not so called experts that are bent.

Being emotionally retarded, and listening to every word, about impending doom or other crap, isn't going to make it any realer, reality will.

But anyway, great day for people like me, who went with evidence than going with the herd.

^_^

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats

I would be interested in reading the redacted sections of the inquiry into sexual abuse in religious institutions that were redacted because they involved an active court case (Pell’s).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
3 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

I would be interested in reading the redacted sections of the inquiry into sexual abuse in religious institutions that were redacted because they involved an active court case (Pell’s).

They'll come now.  But, you may as well say Paul Bongiorno is just as guilty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peter B
On 4/10/2020 at 12:36 PM, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

I would be interested in reading the redacted sections of the inquiry into sexual abuse in religious institutions that were redacted because they involved an active court case (Pell’s).

And now they've been released.

This article suggests it doesn't look good for Cardinal Pell: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-05-08/george-pell-royal-commission-findings-revealed/12225690

...it's clear judges presiding over the five-year Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse repeatedly rejected the Cardinal's evidence to them about the extent of his knowledge that other priests were paedophiles.

Pell had always emphatically asserted that he was kept in the dark. The royal commissioners say he wasn't.

While in some cases his evidence about notorious allegations was accepted by the commission, many of his submissions in relation to what he knew about offending in Ballarat and Melbourne were described as "implausible", "inconceivable" or "not tenable".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.