Pell lawyer’s words are only part of the fierce debate
George Pell’s lawyer regrets his words as many join the intense public discussion of the churchman’s fate.
Why did Robert Richter QC have to spend a sleepless night before apologising for his disgusting courtroom remark (“Pell’s ‘sleepless’ silk says sorry for ‘careless’ words”, 1/3)? Thirty seconds of reflection should have been more than enough.
When I heard on the ABC news that Robert Richter said the now infamous words “vanilla sexual penetration”, I shook my head in disbelief.
If Richter did not know his “vanilla” comment would be offensive he is past his retirement date.
Another child molester from the Catholic church is jailed, but this is just the tip of the iceberg for this organisation worldwide. For all it grace, ritual, immense wealth and supposed care for those who can’t help themselves, the church has brought this on itself. The failing can be summed up with one word: chastity.
This organisation could be a great institution if it made it a rule that priests and nuns have the right to have partners and marry.
The first letter I ever submitted to this paper’s editor, many years ago, queried how Lindy Chamberlain could be jailed for life for a crime where there was no witness, no weapon, no body, and no motive.
I feel similar unease with the Pell conviction. What it means is that no man is safe from an accusation of sexual interference (and it can be from many years prior) and if he can’t prove he didn’t do it then he is likely to be found guilty.
Are we happy that society’s fathers, husbands and sons are subject to this new measure?
In seeking the sternest possible sentence for George Pell, prosecutor Mark Gibson SC said “The prisoner has shown no remorse or insight into his offending”.
However Pell steadfastly maintains his innocence of all charges. What is Pell to do?
Like Judith Chapman, I am uncomfortable with the Pell verdict (Letters 1/3). This is partly for the reservations expressed by Geoffrey Horgan (Letters, 1/3).
But it is more especially because of the lengthy campaign of public revilement waged throughout the process, exemplified by the attacks on the referees who supported him.
Labor doesn’t have to do much these days — just sit quietly and watch the Liberals fall over themselves. Now that John Howard and TonyAbbott have come to the aid of George Pell, the Liberal party should change its name to the “Lemming” party.
It seems it’s now open season on people whose main failing is loyalty.
Di Andary wonders how two former prime ministers can offer support to a convicted paedophile and asks how they would feel if the victims had been their children (Letters, 1/3).
May I respectfully turn the question around to ask how she would react if the convicted paedophile were her friend or relative? Would she automatically deny her support, irrespective of such factors as the appeal against the conviction and the appellant’s personal history and qualities?
Would our society be more humane for such a denial?
Who really knows whether George Pell should have gone into the witness box or whether the complainant should have been made to give evidence a second time? The appeal may cast some light on these decisions. Pell is guilty: but how anyone can criticise his friends for continuing to provide friendship and moral support at a time when he most needs it – whatever his crimes – appals me .
If George Pell is successful with his appeal, I shudder to think the reaction of the child abuse advocates. Look no further than Lindy Chamberlain.
Even after her pardon, she still receives abusive and hateful calls.
Bid to bring Trump down fails
The Democrats and the Left media need finally to accept the presidential election result
Living wage to make it harder
A person’s first job is not the final destination