I’m not sure it is meant that way though. I think he is saying if he is guilty of the crimes then they involved a violent act. However, he is still maintaining his innocence. He is saying he did not do the offence. However, the fact the ‘story’ does involve a violent act. I am not sure of the tactic from Pell or the lawyers. I haven’t seen this before. And to be honest I am not sure the judge likes the tactic either. The judge wants to hand down a big sentence by the looks of things.



But Hadley still admires them.


It’s standard despite the appallingly poor choice of words by Richter. He needs to acknowledge the court has found his client guilty at this stage and do his best to reduce the sentence. Won’t affect any appeals unless they also appeal the sentence, which is unlikely as they’re appealing the conviction.


Apology for using the words “Plain vanilla sexual penetration case” in court yesterday.


I can’t recall a lawyer having done that before. He must be worried about how that might damage the appeal.



Pell’s lawyer has quit the appeal.


Seems a bit strange.


Sees it’s not unusual for the trial barrister not to do the appeal, however, despite Galbally’s sounds like there’s a little more to this.


Oh we already knew he wasn’t doing the appeal though. This was revealed last week.


So it’s much ado about a standard legal procedure is there more to it?


Who knows probably the media trying to keep the case in the spotlight.


Not sure if anyone here has picked this up yet but some of you may be interested.


The likes of Bolt deserve condemnation for perpetuating the attacks on victims who dare to report the pedophile priests who attack children.

It’s a disgusting abuse of their platforms to further attack the victims by implying they’re lying, further hurting those who have suffered so much.

Pell has been convicted; he had a fair trial, with the best possible defence, and so please stop saying things like ‘if he’s guilty’. If an appeal overturns a conviction then we accept that, but just the same we must accept the verdict which has been handed down.

The police, prosecutors and jurors have an awful job dealing with such appalling crimes, so let’s also not tarnish them with concocted doubts.

Perhaps (as has been suggested) the trial which was dropped may also have been made more difficult because of the violations of the suppression order (primarily but not just on social media)?


I agree. Its not fair to call anyone a liar. And you just have to accept the verdict at face value at this stage. And it needs to be stated that if the conviction is overturned it still does not mean the victim was lying.



How old were the trainee priests?


I’d say they’d be early 20s, after they’ve completed their degree at uni.


Were they complaints of rape? The article isn’t very clear.