What the cat dragged in

Update 2 March 2019 – some thoughts on George Pell’s pending appeal

Since everyone and anyone in George Pell’s cheer-squad have already weighed-in to the rock-solidness of his acquittal in the wake of his pending appeal (to be heard in mid-2019, I’m guessing), let me make a case for the respondents here.

Commentary that has pointed out the unusualness of Pell’s conviction – based on the uncorroborated testimony of one man – is not without foundation.  However, this is not an ordinary case of one man’s word against another. 

Pell chose not to give evidence in court in his own defence, which of course was his right, and no adverse inference should be drawn from this. 

But Pell also chose (he was not compelled) to give an almost one-hour videotaped interview to Victorian police at a Rome airport hotel, which was apparently played in full to the jury during his trial in late 2018, and excerpts from which were broadcast a day or so after news of his convection became public.

This videotape was presumably adduced by Pell’s defence.  If so, this was a serious tactical error, although in fairness to Robert Richter QC et al (whose bills to Pell and his backers would amount to many millions of dollars), there wasn’t much else to work with.

Here, Richter’s line that “Only a madman [would risk his entire career for a quick sexual thrill]” is laughably easy to disprove.  This is all the more true for high-flying males such as Pell.  While, as recently has been pointed out, the rules of engagement for public disclosure of trysts between  adults changed noticeably between JFK’s time in the early 1960s (when everyone kept schtum) and the 1988 US presidential campaign, Pell was on notice of this sea-change.  The career danger didn’t stop Bill Clinton from thinking with his d*ck when it came to his dealings with Monica Lewinsky in 1995-1996, so in this sense Pell, who doubled-down on the danger-factor by doing it with children, was actually, in 1996, a rather typical high-flying man of his time, rather than a “madman”.  

Going back to the videotaped interview, from the public excerpts I’ve seen, I would guess that this weighed heavily for the jury as a factor for convicting Pell.  God knows what is in its other 50 minutes or so, but in these excerpts, Pell is so shrill – so woodenly ­shrill – that his repeated denials ooze inauthenticity.  He seemingly soon runs out of adjectives that are synonyms of “madness” (in its particular nuance here), and – aware that simply repeating the m-word will get him nowhere – thus can only flounder in loose cliché. 

Pell’s body-language in the excerpts also confirms the impression of a man who has only just that moment found out that his big-guns, hitherto always infallible, have just run out of ammunition mid-discharge.  I do hope that the full videotape becomes public, so that it can be pored over, Zapruder-style, for its gleamings on Pell’s state of mind at the time, in all its glorious, flaccid micro-aggression.

In summary, as far as the jury probably was concerned, this wasn’t a case of one man’s word against another – courtesy of the videotaped interview, Pell’s every adjective was ample corroboration for proving the prosecution’s case beyond reasonable doubt.

   

In all this, today’s unsurprising news is that Pell has now dumped Robert Richter for his appeal, in favour of Bret Walker SC.  No doubt Pell is hoping either that a stiff new broom for the appeal will adumbrate some fresh synonyms for “madness”, or (more likely) that his new main-man will exploit a small technical loophole that will squeeze Pell through the eye of a needle and into a sort of freedom.  If he is freed, I trust that the evidence Pell has given several times under oath in recent years, as to his complete lack of participation in widespread cover-ups of the activities of other paedophile clergy, is comprehensively reviewed – with an eye to charging Pell with perjury (if nothing else).  I have closely studied the relevant testimonies here, and it suffices to say for now that Pell’s form in the Rome videotaped interview, while a career-best, was not a career-first.