Posted on 04/14/2019 11:43:09 AM PDT by BlessedBeGod
Full Title: Cardinal Pell’s Accuser Copied Testimony from Old Rolling Stone Report, Journalist Claims
BALMAIN, New South Wales, Australia, April 12, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – Australia’s top Catholic prelate was convicted of sexual abuse based on the testimony of his accuser, a testimony that bears a striking resemblance to a case published in Rolling Stone magazine, an Australian magazine editor has found.
Keith Windschuttle, an Australian historian and journalist, compared the sexual assault allegations first made against Cardinal Pell in 2015 to a description of assault allegations made against an American priest published in the September 2011 of the Rolling Stone magazine.
“What is the difference between this account of child sex abuse in a Catholic church in Philadelphia and the evidence given by the sole accuser in the Victorian court case that convicted Cardinal George Pell of sexually abusing a 13-year-old choir boy at St. Patrick’s Cathedral, Melbourne, in 1996?” Windschuttle asked.
“Not much,” he replied.
In his testimony against Philadelphia priest Charles Englehart, former altar boy Daniel Gallagher stated that the priest had caught him drinking altar wine in the church sacristy after serving Mass. Instead of being angry, Englehart gave him more wine and showed him pornographic magazines. A week later, the priest sexually abused Gallagher after Mass.
In Rolling Stone account, written by activist-journalist Sabrina Rubin Erdely, the victim was referred to as “Billy.”
In his testimony against Pell, the still unnamed witness said the future cardinal caught him and his (now deceased) friend drinking altar wine in the church sacristy after Mass. Pell then sexually abused one boy and then the other.
In the testimony published in the updated version of Cardinal: The Rise and Fall of George Pell, written by Louise Milligan, the alleged victims were referred to as “the Choirboy” and “the Kid.”
Calling the similarities “uncanny,” Windschuttle laid them out:
Both cases of sexual abuse occurred in the sacristy after Sunday Mass.
In both cases, the victims had been drinking wine they found in the sacristy.
Both boys assisted in the celebration of the Mass.
The priest fondled both boys’ genitals.
Both boys were made to kneel before the priest.
Both boys were made to perform fellatio on the priest.
Both the alleged victims were the only witnesses who testified for the prosecution in court; it was their word against that of the priests.
Windschuttle stated that the two stories were so “close to being identical that the likelihood of the Australian version being original is most implausible.” He also suggested that there were too many similarities for the likeness to be dismissed as “coincidence.”
The journalist concluded, therefore, that Pell’s surviving accuser (“the Kid”) had simply repeated a story he or someone else had found in the Australian edition of the Rolling Stone.
“In short, the testimony that convicted George Pell was a sham,” Windschuttle wrote.
“This does not mean the accuser was deliberately making it up. He might have come to persuade himself the events actually happened, or some therapist might have helped him ‘recover’ his memory,” he continued.
“But no matter how sincere the accuser’s beliefs were, that does not make them true, especially when there is so much other evidence against them.”
Pell, the former archbishop of Melbourne, was convicted in December 2018 of the sexual abuse of a minor. He was sentenced last month to six years in prison. The Cardinal has steadfastly maintained his innocence.
Windschuttle believes that until now no one in Australia who has either covered or investigated the Pell case has mentioned the Gallagher testimony against Fr. Englehart in the American case because of slipshod research (Milligan) or a desire to have Pell convicted (the police of the Australian state of Victoria).
There is an even older story that resembles the plaintiffs’ testimony against Fr. Engelhart and Cardinal Pell in one respect: the theme of stolen altar wine. In the 2008 film Doubt, Fr. Brendan Flynn (Philip Seymour Hoffman) is accused of having given an altar server wine to drink. When confronted, the priest says he caught the lad drinking altar wine.
The film, which left the priest’s guilt or innocence uncertain, was a critical success, receiving four Academy Award nominations. Including worldwide receipts, it has made more than $50 million to date.
Ping
I’m calling this TRUTH WEEK - first, Pope Benedict’s very thoughtful letter released a few days ago, naming hidden things, calling out many who know. He writes as an academician, not as a flame-throwing general, but he was very clear and the lefties are so upset. That was Truth Day # 1.
Then Julian Assange’s arrest, which frees him in many respects and gives him the advantage of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ and the opportunity to stand trial. Confusing but still good.
Now THIS - In the right hands, this could get the good Cardinal a re-trial, could it not? There is nothing as secret-shattering as the bold truth.
So I’m now calling it Truth Week. Full speed ahead, Lord - it is in your good hands.
Well, now ...
Or, he might be a bald faced liar.
There is no caucus designation in the title. You might want to ask a mod to correct that unless you didn’t intend this to be a closed thread.
Dorothy Cummings McLean’s article claims that in the Pell court case the victim’s testimony bears a striking resemblance to victim testimony in a 2011 case against an American priest. Thus McLean suggests the witness testimony in the Pell case is a sham.
Yet what are the striking resemblences? Essentially,
1. The victims were caught drinking altar wine in the sacristy (where the wine is usually kept);
2. The victims were then forced into performing homosexual acts with the accused.
So, how many times do altar boys get into the altar wine? How many times do they get caught doing so? Also what is the probability that a pedophile priest would set up a scenario in which altar boys were given ready access to the wine with no one apparently around?
And if the altar boys are caught by pedophile priest, what percentage of those times would the pedophile force or pressure their victims into performing those similar homosexual acts?
A Bayesian network analysis might be of use here before trying to throw out the testimony in the Pell case because of the resemblance alone.
To me, there are too many Catholic caucus threads these days but FR is the only place I know for a nice mix of news.
And there's more.
It all adds up to "this allegation lacks proof (period) and unquestionably lacks proof to the standard of 'beyond reasonable doubt.' "
I am not a fan of the knee jerk slapping of “caucus” designations on religion threads. But I can also remember even back when I was a long time lurker, that the Religion Forum was a pretty hostile environment. I don’t use the word “troll” lightly, but there were a number of editors who did in fact troll any articles that even remotely touched on the Catholic Church and were deliberately disruptive. It got so bad that JimRob had to ban a bunch of them. Mormons were another popular target and I think the aggressive trolling drove a lot of Mormon Freepers away.
Thanks so much for pointing that out. I did have it, and then added the dots. That must have been when it got zapped.
Amen!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.