Pell and the Jury

Pell and the Jury Frank Brennan has raised a doubt as to whether truth and justice was served in an Australian court.i In the evidence that is available to the publicii Brennan tends to agree with Cardinal Pell’s lawyer who “criticised inherent contradictions and the improbabilities of many details [in the complainant’s narrative].” Besides the publicly available evidence, however, is the witness statement cross-examined by the defence, and screened for the jury alone. Brennan infers that they must have “disregarded many of the criticisms so tellingly made by [Robert] Richter [QC] … the jurors must have judged the complainant to be honest and reliable, even though many of the details he gave were improbable if not impossible.”iii Those of the public who are commenting on the trial, then, have a bounded rationality: we have not seen the video of how the complainant responded under cross-examination. Certainly, it does not seem inappropriate to inquire as to how the narrative of the events alleged to have taken place in St. Patrick’s Cathedral have shifted over the relevant timeframe (2014-19),iv but since we cannot know about what the jury saw in camera perhaps the best course in silence? I concede that this factor tends to qualify any judgement we might make, but this does not mean that we should not try to understand. Understanding is a matter of attempting to answer the question, “Why?” Obviously, it does not rule out a second phase of reflection in which we pose the question, “Is it really so?”, for we desire correct understanding. But the first step is to try to formulate hypotheses as to what was going on even though certainty lies out of reach. v A problem here is that we are dealing with a “word on word case.” On the face of it, either Pell or his accuser is lying,vi so when we raise the question of those involved we are not simply engaged in an intellectual exercise, but casting aspersions on their integrity. This is inevitable, and moreover, in this case we cannot help casting aspersions on venerable institutions: the Church, the police, the media, and even the jury which may have become biased in an atmosphere of scapegoating. The question of this man’s innocence or guilt ineluctably draws us into questioning the meanings and values of this community’s way of life. An analogy here, one that anti-Pellards will find tendentious, is the notorious remarks of the Lord Denning in the case of the Birmingham Six. The appeal judge opined: Just consider the course of events if their action were to proceed to trial … If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous … That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, ‘It cannot be right that these actions should go any further.’” But as we now know, the British police were complicit in a grievous miscarriage of justice and six men were jailed for sixteen years for terrorism offences they did not commit. It is the meanings and values of “every sensible person” that were ultimately weighed in the balance and found wanting.vii 1 Is the analogy fair? The point here is that the jury seems to have made a judgement on the credibility of the witness. Arguably, such a judgement cannot be ruled out in advance, and it has been said that judges may wish to defer to a jury’s opinion on what counts as credible (rather than the opinion of a bench of judges). For example, we may decide to trust a confused child rather than the accused.viii But such a judgement admits a degree of subjectivity. I mean, and in general, suppose someone says, “My mother assures me of the fact, and I can certainly trust my mother,” we feel that, “Yes, potentially, on the face of it, a person can safely trust their own mother.” But that does not give us the same guarantee that would hold if our mother were to assure us of that fact.ix The truth regarding the alleged fact is not so easily transferred. In the Pell case the intuition that the accuser was honest and reliable is not something transferable. After all, how would we respond if someone assures us that by watching Pell’s denials we intuit his innocence? Or by listening to the public statements of his accuser we intuit his guilt?x Certainly, the jury had information. They were supplied with an alb, the significance being that the complainant made the claim that Pell exposed himself by parting the alb (overlaid by a chasuble), something arguably impossible. This information is “transferrable” in that it is possible to bring further points to the discussion (“Might it have been a soutaine that unbuttons?”). But the judgement of credibility based on the complainant’s demeanour admits a degree of subjectivity even as the notion of “every sensible person” does. The judge in this trial was clearly aware of the potential for such bias because he urged the jury to listen to their intellects not their feelings and warned against scapegoating. But if the jury made their judgement on what might be termed an “apprehension of values in feelings,” something we are not inclined to dismiss out of hand, but which nonetheless involves a mysterious subjectivity, a subjectivity that may well be authentic in that somehow the jury are able to penetrate into the heart of the victim (and so believe his testimony) - or there again may fall into inauthenticity by succumbing to the biases that are hinted at in Brennan’s article, is there anything we can say about such judgement, which to repeat, was made on the basis of evidence that we have not seen?xi This question seems difficult to answer, but we can address, perhaps the question that is most nearly pertinent. We can ask about Louise Milligan.xii For Milligan was a witness to the case and was cross-examined by Richter for six and a half hours. From all accounts, the charges against Pell (which are available from the judge’s verdict) are substantially those presented in Milligan’s book (withdrawn when it was learned that Pell was going to be charged). Perhaps that mysterious judgement regarding the “apprehension of values in feelings” was in effect a willingness to trust this journalist. Maybe the jurors felt that every sensible Australian could trust Louise. At this point I have to make an admission of ignorance. I write from what is literally the other side of the world, and before the verdict I had never heard of Milligan and her 7.30 show. For me the ABC is just the BBC down-under, and in Britain we call the BBC “Auntie.” I don’t know whether “every sensible Australian” feels the same way. My knowledge is both limited and recent, and so the reader will have to forgive any impertinence or lack of filial 2 piety to the Auntie of Oz. For it seems to me that the jury must have felt that the reason why the complainant was credible is because they trusted the @4Corners reporter. Perhaps the jurors felt they had to choose between Milligan and Pell and opted for the person they trusted most. Of course, the question of trust as applied to Milligan is not quite the same as that with respect to the sole witness to Pell’s alleged crime. Milligan is an investigative journalist and as such one expects to find a critical inquirer concerned about what actually happened. An investigator attempting to “lift the lid” will be interested in conspiracy theories (in the reasonable sense of that word),xiii and as we shall see, Milligan does hint at a conspiracy. However, when one recalls the context of her writing, Milligan appears somewhat naïve.xiv For one year after Milligan’s book was published, as the defence learned at Pell’s March 2018 committal, we discovered that Operation Tethering was set up to investigate the Cardinal even before any complainants had come forward.xv The trawling expedition was created in March 2013.xvi Apparently, the complainant in this case provided a police statement 18 June 2015.xvii However, rather than immediately charge Pell (who might potentially seek diplomatic immunity in the Vatican) the police waited a couple of years. This coincided with the Royal Commission into institutional abuse examining not only the Church but the police - who would clearly benefit if attention was redirected. Pell was due to give evidence to the Commission in February 2016, but shortly before that two events emerged that might suggest that the police were indeed implementing a strategy of distraction. Firstly, on 17th February the comedian Tim Minchin released the scurrilous Come Home Cardinal Pell, which though not referencing Pell’s abuse, called for his return to give evidence in person to the Commission.xviii Then, a couple of days later, Lucie Morris-Marr reported in the Herald Sun that Pell was under investigation.xix Brennan was quick to note the conflict of interest here,xx and Pell called for the leak to be investigated.xxi Milligan says that she was highly sceptical and at this time had an open mind on the allegations (which were not yet specified).xxii Clearly, this would be an appropriate response from an investigative journalist given that very plausibly the police might have been engaged in trying to undermine Pell. However, when we turn to Milligan’s book published in 2017 we get a very different impression. Milligan records that in May 2016 when she first met with the complainant whom she calls the “Kid” she had “scant” knowledge of his case - which would indicate that she had not (yet) seen the police report. Indeed, on Twitter she takes Brennan to task for his “allegation” that she had been tipped-off by the police, though I do not think that that was quite what Brennan said. Brennan is rebuked, actually, for not checking the allegation with herself or the police – though how she knew that Brennan had not checked with the police Milligan does not say.xxiii In her account Milligan travels to an RSL where the Kid works in the bar and he confirms that he is indeed the one – presumably in light of the Herald Sun’s revelation meaning the subject of the police investigation. She also meets with his mother and her partner who arrive later at the same meeting. But the inference is that Milligan has not been tipped-off by the police, or by anyone who has details of the police statement - at least, they cannot 3 have passed them on to Milligan. She relates that she told the Kid at that time that all she knows is that another boy was involved – the one who died of a Heroin addiction in 2014 and was the subject of the other charges against Pell. This comes as a shock to the Kid who wants to know Milligan’s source.xxiv The clear implication of the account is that Milligan has a source who was neither connected to the policexxv nor someone with the police report (for example a family member or a victim’s advocate), and of course, she was certainly not previously in cahoots with the Kid. But it is difficult to think that Milligan’s book is a purely factual account that can inform us “what really happened.” Milligan makes no attempt to disguise the fact that whatever her official response to the Herald Sun story just three months earlier she is partisan. We learn that this slim-built boy with chocolate drop eyes and curling lashes (who Milligan hugs on their first meeting) is a “decent person” (as she tells him) with whom she builds an instant rapport. It transpires that the Kid is a fan of her programme, and admires Milligan, but it seems as though some other figure lurks in the shadows – he is not Pell though. A deeper conspiracy is hinted at, which is why the Kid urges Milligan to keep investigating. On the other hand, so her story goes, the boy has trust issues, and Milligan never goes as far as saying that it is he who tells her what happened in the sacristy. In fact, Milligan writes also of being in touch with the mother of the deceased man (the “Choirboy” at St. Kevin’s) whom she calls Mary, and her other child, the Choirboy’s sister.xxvi We are told that it is from the Kid that they learn of the assault in Melbourne Cathedral in 1996/7, for actually, it transpires that the Choirboy had (twice) denied that such an assault ever happened.xxvii Mary tells Milligan: The Kid gently told her what he says happened with the archbishop. “He told me that himself and [my son] used to play in the back of the church in the closed-off rooms,” she says. In the cathedral? I ask her.“ In the cathedral, yep. And um, they got sprung by Archbishop Pell and he locked the door and he made them perform oral sex.” This revelation raises more questions than it answers. In the first place, we are given no clue as to when this conversation took place, or the context of other conversations – how Milligan had got in touch with Mary, for example. Second, regarding the details of the crime no locale is specified,xxviii indeed, we do not learn that the event took place after Sunday Mass.xxix Again, the vague details don’t actually indicate who had oral sex with whom. Moreover, the detail about the “locked” door are not consistent with the trial evidence.xxx Nor do I think that anything was made of the habit that the boys had of playing in these rooms (it seems that the complainant could give correct details of the panelling of the room where wine was kept – though not of the colour of the wine). And the detail about the Kid staring out of the car window after being picked up by his parents (as Milligan has Mary relate) does not seem consistent with the boys immediately making a Christmas record (which seems to be what happened on the relevant dates). Moreover, according to Mary the Kid still remembered the incident well, a claim that clashes with the prosecution position that the traumatic event was buried in the “dark recesses” of his mind – something needed to explain why the complainant had not told anyone about his ordeal in the two subsequent decades.xxxi However, perhaps the key point we can pick up from Milligan’s 4 narrative is that Mary trusted the Kid, and therefore we should too. For it seems as though the Kid, who had attended the Choirboy’s funeral, had, despite drifting apart from his childhood friend, managed from time to time to let Mary know that her son was “struggling” in some unspecified way. Mary put her trust in him even though her own son had told him that he had never been abused. Here, and to be charitable, we are inclined to say that Milligan’s book does not belong to that genre of historical writing that attempts to tell us “what really happened,” rather, it is the sort of history that tries to get to the heart of the human event. In a word, Milligan is providing a character witness for the Kid. She is trying to communicate to us why we should trust him. We understand – better, feel – that this person who works hard for his university degree, serves the community (and loves doing so) is “one of the good guys,” trusted by all who know, and yes, love him. He is, though, traumatised. His chocolate drop eyes (we learn three times from the second paragraph) are PTSD eyes about which Milligan claims some familiarity. We are not only to trust but empathise. So, anyone attempting to track down dates – when the Kid met with Mary to tell of the abuse, when he told his own mother, when they agreed to go to the police with a victim’s advocate, when the police contacted Mary about the abuse, when this was denied, and so on – finds it impossible to use Milligan to set down a record.xxxii The tracks are covered up. All we have is that the first meeting took place in May 2016. But why should we be given this privileged fact? Those overly suspicious might suppose that we are told this fact only because it wasn’t true. However, let us assume that Milligan is telling the truth.xxxiii In just two months’ time she will reveal more details of the police allegation in her 7.30 programme, and on this occasion the police will admit for the first time that they are, indeed, investigating Pell.xxxiv By this stage Milligan will claim to have 8 police statements – I do not think we know whether the Kid’s is one of them.xxxv Since it seems implausible that Milligan has managed to independently track down 8 complainants’ details without the police helping in any way we are back with the Brennan hypothesis, the one that led her to take everything that the Jesuit says with a “grain of salt.” Moreover, the suspicious will note that ABC colleague Madeleine Morris congratulates Milligan (with Andy Burns) on their months of work,xxxvi which hardly suggests that Milligan started out with a blank slate in May just a couple of months back. This fact may be explained, however, by the fact that Milligan was researching other complainants from all stages of Pell’s career starting from his time in Ballarat. Perhaps she only came to what turned out to be the really significant case late on, in the last two months of what was a longer investigation – one beginning in February, perhaps, and lasting five months.xxxvii However, to indulge the anti-Milligan conspiracy theory a moment, we might consider the following scenario. Suppose that early on the police were primarily interested in a smokescreen. They get their “catch” who has the desired attribute: he will persevere and give evidence should it come to it when the time comes (retaining anonymity, as is his right, and testifying via video-link). True, the evidence is weak: the complainant has only recently recalled the trauma, and the other boy in question had inconveniently denied that he was ever abused (though he is 5 conveniently deadxxxviii). Still, the issue is not so much winning the court case, indeed, with Pell prisoner in the Vatican it might never come to that. No, the court in law is merely an instrument of the trial by media (though obviously, winning it would be a bonus). What matters is that by a drip, drip, drip approach, and through various avenues, the momentum is maintained. Interest must be cajoled and sustained by raising questions that will find answers at a later stage. Thus the conductor plays his or her instruments in turn: Minchin, Morris-Marr, Milligan. The symphony is no minute waltz. For as indicated, it will be two full years after the police statement that Pell is charged, after which Milligan’s book can be pulled (it is now sub judice). One value of the book, of course, has been to sow the seeds of the “no smoke without fire”xxxix argument that gets an airing from the multiple allegations that never make it to trial (and presumably never had the long-term backing necessary). These allegations, of course, might also have been intended as an encouragement for the main candidate. Were the spurious allegations like horses entered by the trainer, not because they ever had a hope of winning, but in order to make the pace hotter for the favourite? From the prominence of the Kid’s story in Milligan’s book (at beginning and end) we might guess where Milligan’s money was invested.xl xli Another virtue of the strategy is that sufficient time is made available to edit the narrative to make it fit for purpose. We are drawn into the Huckleberry scene at the back of the cathedral of boys behaving badly, a story ending in tragedy as one of them will die - so serious are Pell’s misdeeds. We witness a degree of heroism, though, for the survivor will eventually conquer his fears and so bring solace to the mother of his dead friend by avenging the crime. The abuse itself is graphic, and produces an unforgettable image that stays with the reader, and when one adds the crying and whimpering of the boys (a detail that Melissa Davey tells us we only learned from the judge’s opinionxlii) we can empathise with the suffering – as a Twitter search for “Pell” and “tears” will amply demonstrate. However, should it be countered that the so-called victim actually twice denied the abuse we have another crime ready to which the survivor was the sole witness, a crime that makes Pell a serial offender.xliii If the narrative has to adapt so be it. What must be fixed, however, are the dates consistent with the Choirboy’s (brief?) tenure at St. Kevin’s, hence Milligan’s vague “1996/7.”xliv However, the prosecution would have to concede that that the assault could only have happened on December 15th/22nd because from evidence extrinsic to the testimony we learn that Pell only celebrated Mass twice at that time (the cathedral was being renovated). But at that time the choir was recording a Christmas record immediately after Mass. How does this fit with the claim that after the assault the boys tried to re-join the procession, hung up their robes,xlv and, in the complainant’s case, were driven home? Or again, how does one square the assertion that Pell locked the boys in a room (so that, amidst tears, they pleaded to be released) with the later claim that the space was not locked but opened up to a corridor? And how is it that the complainant could testify that Pell parted his alb until it was shown to be impossible – whereupon the testimony shifted? Or the red wine transformed into white under cross-examination? 6 These shifts ought to raise questions concerning the complainant’s memory, but they tend to get brushed aside on the grounds that abuse victims sometimes get the details wrong. Nevertheless, the question can be put to the complainant about the condition of that memory: was it still fresh as Milligan has Mary report, or was it, as the prosecution has it, obscure because the traumatic incident was buried in the “dark recesses” of the mind? Suffice to say, investigative reporter Milligan has scarcely travelled to the four corners to answer these questions. Like the Australian government the ABC seems to have declared, “We believe you.” But this is the stuff that screens are made on. It will be countered that the very idea that the Victorian police deliberately created a distraction is just a conspiracy theory. It’s true that it is merely a hypothesis, one based on circumstantial evidence, and I would not argue that it is proven beyond reasonable doubt. But it does fit the facts,xlvi and so provide a reason to doubt whether the complainant is telling the truth beyond reasonable doubt. That strong claim is what the jury found. Is the reader of Milligan of the same mind that what she wrote is beyond reasonable doubt? As to the issue of “conspiracy,” we recall that Milligan herself hints at one: for according to the Kid Pell is not the only menace; some unnamed and dangerous man (a priest) is searching for the informant, and that is why he pleads with the journalist that she should continue her investigation. It remains to be seen whether this variant will remain extant in the later editions of the narrative. To conclude, then, I do not find it surprising that Brennan has his doubts about truth and justice in the Australian court. He concedes that the jury may move in a mysterious way, and though he never puts it in such terms, he allows that the jury has its reasons that our reasons cannot know. Of course, were you or I to view the complainant’s testimony, or discuss with the jurors their reasoning, then we might see beyond doubt what happened in the sacristy. But this possibility is ruled out for us, and as a result, the verdict lacks transparency.xlvii That said, some courses are open to the general public. We can attempt to get clarity on just how the complainant’s narrative has shifted over the relevant period with a view to understanding the forces causing it to adapt. And although we cannot dialogue with the jury, we do have the next best thing. For it seems to me that the jurors “must have thought … must have judged … must have believed” not only the complainant (as Brennan argued) but the winner of the Walkley Book Award. And at the very least the ipsissima verba of Milligan’s Cardinal is something that is a matter of ongoing debate. Quite plainly, my guesses are something that Milligan has every right to take with a grain of salt, and she is clearly someone trusted by people I would be inclined to trust.xlviii But insofar as the jury came to their verdict through trusting Milligan, and insofar as we come to our verdict by examining Milligan’s book, I do not see how the jury’s verdict can be safe. 7 i https://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article/truth-and-justice-after-the-pell-verdict At the appeal Bret Walker SC published for the media a written case for the applicant (Pell) that may be found embedded in this linked article. It references the transcript of the trial clearly, and can be referred to in order to correct any mistakes I made in this very early article: https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/george-pell-appeal-bid-to-overturn-sex-offence-convictions/newsstory/a693868555ce87a9f45a08e7c23fdf04#U621083385700w5B iii This paper will not focus on the “improbable if not impossible” details referenced by Brennan (as per Richter’s summing up), but on the mentality of the jury insofar as we can speculate. Those details, of course, include: the long time lapse before a complaint was made (at a time of fierce hostility to the Cardinal); the denials of the only other witness; the absence of other witnesses or forensic evidence in support of the complaint; the presence of many alibis testifying that Pell would stay behind after Mass to greet those leaving the Cathedral; the improbability of a detour of the Cardinal to the priest’s sacristy (rather than the bishop’s) unattended, and for no reason; the improbability of the boys leaving the choir, finding altar wine available in an unlocked space, remaining in an unlocked room while being assaulted, and then returning after the assault to the choir without raising pertinent questions; the impossibility of initiating (by parting his alb overlain by a chasuble) and continuation (using both hands) of the sexual assault; the improbability of such an assault being executed in public view (as opposed to the locked doors of Pell’s office); the shifts in narrative concerning the dating of the assault, its duration, the parting of the alb (after it was ascertained that it could not be parted), the colour of the wine, the unlocked nature of the room and so on. At the appeal Bret Walker (see above) referred to 13 “solid obstacles” that the prosecution would need to surmount. The catalogue was listed as: (a) the timing of the alleged assaults was impossible, (b) it was not possible for Pell to be alone in the sacristies only a few minutes after mass, (c) it was not possible for Pell to be robed and alone in the priests’ sacristy after mass, (d) it was not possible for two choir boys to be sexually assaulted in the priests’ sacristy after mass undetected, (e) it was not possible for two robed sopranos to leave an external procession without being noticed, (f) officials near the sacristy corridor door at the time did not see the complainant or the other boy, (g) it was not possible for the complainant or the other boy to be absent from the choir room unnoticed, (h) it was not possible for the complainant and the other boy to re-enter the choir room unnoticed, (i) the criminal acts attributed to Pell were physically impossible, (j) the Crown case that the second incident occurred in 1997 was contrary to the complainant’s evidence, (k) no one corroborated the second incident though the complainant said it happened in the midst of a 50 person choir, (l) it was not possible for Pell to be in that part of the sacristy corridor at the time of the second incident. (This note extended in June 2019). Peter Westmore is one person who attended this unusual trial: https://www.catholicweekly.com.au/peterwestmore-pell-conviction-a-most-unusual-case/ iv https://www.academia.edu/38515327/A_Methodological_Suggestion_regarding_the_Pell_Case v Beyond these questions of intelligence and of reasonableness is a third of responsibility that asks, “Is this worthwhile?” Some people may wonder whether it is disrespectful to raise awkward questions of the jury. But citizens who don’t ask questions of their juries are liable to find themselves tried by juries who don’t ask questions. vi Phillip L Forgione has pointed out to me a third possibility, the phenomenon of false, in particular, “recovered” memories. “Some experts have opined that such memories may be no more reliable indicators of reality than dreams” In the mechanisms and effects of what clinical psychology refers to as “confabulation” a false memory is created where a real memory has been lost. Forgione adds that the confabulated memory can be as “healthy” as a real one and that it may have convinced the jurors: some unknown real event suffered by the victim may have been replaced by a memory associated with Pell. This is a possibility the defence ought to have explored. vii The experience of Chris Mullin MP who helped campaign for the Birmingham Six is described here: https://www.lrb.co.uk/v41/n04/chris-mullin/diary. viii We can imagine an appellant judge thinking to him or herself, “The sole evidence here relies on the emotional intelligence of the jurors, all of whom have come to a guilty verdict. I don’t see it myself, but then, in general I tend to be over-cerebral, and past experience shows that in these sorts of cases the ordinary person makes better judgements than I do. I guess that on the balance of probabilities they must be right and I am wrong (again).” Can we imagine that judge concluding instead, “Well, then, that settles it. Guilty beyond all reasonable doubt!”? Very tangentially, and as epistemologists considering the problem of “internalism/externalism” are wont to note, some people are trained to determine the sex of chickens, and can do this accurately with a high probability of success, but they cannot tell those who are not chicken-sexers how they do it. Building on this ii 8 analogy we may ask: If jury of chicken-sexers gives their verdict, must we agree beyond reasonable doubt? Suppose that an earlier jury was hung, and that the later one took three days to decide: do we retain this level of confidence? Suppose (as happens when the chickens grow older) it becomes obvious that the chickensexing jury had judged correctly: Were those inclined to think that the sex had been established beyond reasonable doubt vindicated? Suppose instead that the jury got it wrong: Would those closed to the possibility of doubt justify themselves by pointing out that the chicken-sexers are usually correct? If so, how does “usually correct” constitute “correct beyond reasonable doubt”? ix Of course, the jury had no such insight into the complainant, and even if it did, in a trial by jury a child of the accused would be disqualified by serving. This is obvious, the point being that while we accept the authenticity of someone who trusts their mother we do not privilege such faith in a juror. x For many participants of social media the statement issued after the verdict, “We trusted someone we should have feared and we fear those genuine relationships that we should trust,” seemed “powerful.” https://twitter.com/TheNewDailyAu/status/1100315280847310849. But what if it is countered that the slick epigram looks as though it was lifted from a greetings card, and seems quite insincere? Whose intuition should we trust? Can we support our option beyond reasonable doubt? For what reason? In general, the issue regards the faith that we place in feelings that are beyond question. xi Tangentially, we may recall Tennyson’s poem Oenone. Paris must choose between the goddess of wisdom and the goddess of love. Pallas Athene “somewhat apart … snow-cold breast and angry cheek … [with] full and earnest eye” made reply to Paris: "Self-reverence, self-knowledge, self-control/ These three alone lead life to sovereign power.” Oenone cries to her lover “O Paris, Give it to Pallas,” but we have little doubt that he will give the apple of discord to Aphrodite. More distant from the Pell case (but relevant to the Lonerganian “apprehension of values in feeling”): https://www.academia.edu/33012222/Faith_and_Feeling_in_Lonergan xii I confine myself to just two chapters of Cardinal the first of which can be accessed here https://www.amazon.co.uk/Cardinal-Rise-Fall-George-Pellebook/dp/B071VRGJC4/ref=sr_1_1_twi_kin_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1552072468&sr=8-1&keywords=louise+milligane while the other significant chapter can be accessed here: https://www.theguardian.com/australianews/2019/feb/28/the-kid-and-the-choirboy-the-harrowing-story-of-george-pells-victims xiii https://www.academia.edu/37442104/Reason_and_Investigative_Journalism xiv Some chronology: https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2019/03/12/world/asia/ap-as-australia-cardinalcharged-chronology.html xv This link refers to Task Force Sano: https://www.9news.com.au/national/police-probe-child-sex-assaultallegations/1a3ed8bf-7e4e-49c6-bef3-08ca98985e57 xvi https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2019/03/george-pell-and-the-jury/ xvii https://www.apnews.com/64a648eb46be4763898663ca6ec14e04 xviii Come Home, Cardinal Pell which calls for Pell to come home and face the Royal Commission to answer questions about Pell’s knowledge of other abusers was released shortly before Lucie Morris-Marr, in the Herald Sun reported the yet unconfirmed story that the police was investigating Pell: https://www.abc.net.au/7.30/australian-comedians-supercharge-an-online/7178654 xix https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria-police-investigating-cardinal-pell/newsxx https://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article/pell-abuse-saga-reeks-of-incompetentpolicinghttps://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/feb/22/george-pell-leaks-could-undermine-royalcommission-says-frank-brennan See also: https://www.americamagazine.org/content/all-things/frank-brennan-sj-sex-abuse-scandal-australia xxi http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/cardinal-pell-repudiates-allegations-of-child-abuse xxii https://www.abc.net.au/news/about/backstory/investigative-journalism/2019-03-04/how-louise-milliganinvestigated-the-george-pell-case/10867884 Milligan even claims that she was angry with the editor for having to cover the story because she believed Pell was innocent: https://www.theguardian.com/australianews/2018/mar/27/george-pell-hearing-abc-journalist-defends-sources-in-book-about-cardinal Has the editor confirmed Milligan’s account? xxiii https://twitter.com/Milliganreports/status/1100723488166309888 xxiv Milligan tells the Kid that an investigative journalist who revealed her sources would not last long in the job. But the suspicious will find the dialogue contrived, and constructed for the sake of the reader to excuse the lack of transparency. For they will reason that the “source” will either be friendly, unfriendly, or neutral to the Kid. If a friend, then why not offer some reassurance to someone who fears he is being pursued? If unfriendly, then why should an enemy choose Milligan, someone reputed to be antipathetic to Catholicism? If neutral, then why jeopardise a fair trial? Again, the partial information that the source provides (another boy was 9 involved in some yet to be defined activity) will appear artificial to the suspicious, a literary device that permits the investigative reporter to present herself as someone gradually accumulating clues that will overcome her natural scepticism. But how to explain this partial knowledge that comes not from a police statement, not from those close to the complainant, nor from the family of the deceased (given that, at some stage, according to Milligan, it is from Mary she learns what the crime was), and presumably, not from a chorister of the time given that Milligan tracks these down (in May) with a view to confirming her hunches regarding the Choirboy? The Kid’s response to “discovering” that a source has tipped-off Milligan also raises questions. If the source was unfriendly then that source would already know where he worked, and would hardly want to tell Milligan. If friendly, why not go to the Kid directly? And why does the complainant beg Milligan (rather than the police) to keep investigating? Has Milligan informed the police of the Kid’s fears? Is she expecting her readers to do that? Are the police taking the conspiracy theory seriously? Will they testify to that? xxv Milligan insists that, while she made “multiple requests,” the police did not help her. https://www.afr.com/news/that-could-have-been-me-says-author-of-george-pell-book-20190408-p51c55 xxvi I do not think we learn from Milligan’s book how she made contact with Mary, or whether she was in touch with Mary before or after she got in touch with the complainant. If before, how explain her “scant” knowledge of the crime when meeting the complainant? If after, are we to think that the complainant tipped Milligan off about his deceased friend’s mother? So that the complainant told Milligan of Mary who he had told about the abuse so that she could tell Milligan what the complainant was reluctant to tell Milligan about? But if so, why such roundaboutness? xxvii The “strangetimes” blogger (who I have just read, 28th March) makes the point (awkward for the prosecution) that the Choirboy denied the assault despite the fact that another witness (the Kid, the future complainant) would have known that denial was false! http://strangetimes.lastsuperpower.net/ xxviii But later we are told that it was the priests’ (not the bishop’s) sacristy: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-04/george-pell-abuse-victims-family-police-speak-to-4corners/10856998 xxix Milligan (2019, page 358) explains that Mary “did not know the entire story.” The natural inference here is that Milligan (2017) did not know either, presumably because she was relying then on Mary, not on a police statement (if that gave details) nor on the Kid – with whom she presumably consulted about Mary’s account post-2017. xxx The gobbet above is taken from the 2017 edition, but I am told that the 2019 version has, not “locked,” but “blocked” [the door]. This is far more satisfactory. For the awkwardness of 2017 is as follows. The boys go in search of adventure and discover wine, such is the Kid’s testimony. But from extrinsic evidence we learn that the wine was not in a locked room, but the priest’s sacristy (or in an alcove by the sacristy – I am unclear as to the detail here). So that was where the assault must have happened. That room cannot have been locked. Still, that word is easy to mishear. In fact, the testimony was that Pell blocked the room. Moreover, 2019 has it that the Kid remembers the incident well. So his testimony is shown to be consistent with the facts as we know it. 2019 certainly solves some problems. When one imagines the Archbishop leaving his crozier with his Master of Ceremonies (the forgetful Charles Portelli – he gave Pell his alibi) and equipping himself with the keys to one of the closed rooms, presumably to help out the Sacristan (the lax Max Potter - not only did he leave the wine out where in any case it isn’t kept but he left the room unlocked) or for no ascertainable reason - one senses a soupçon of the surd. Nevertheless, 2019 faces some difficulties. For 2017 was a report of the actual words of Mary (hence the “um”). And in the gobbet she also mentions the “closed-off” rooms – which is hard to square with the facts as dictated by the location of the wine. Perhaps she is simply embellishing the story that she has received from the Kid. But then, she is not trying her best to be faithful to the sense datum as she perceived it (his “blocked” perceived by her as “locked”). Of course, Milligan might be invoking poetic licence: these were not Mary’s actual words, and the “um” was a gesture to the embarrassed horror that the mother felt in relating the episode. But then, the “locked” is of Milligan’s making, and she could hardly have misheard her own fiction. In the context, actually, “blocked” is a little awkward: better is, “And um, they got sprung by Archbishop Pell who blocked the door and made them …” for the verb to block connotes an action that one may perform unintentionally (the tree blocked the sun) whereas the verb to lock puts a greater accent on what the Archbishop was trying to do. But in any case, and writing under correction, as I understand it the space of the priest’s sacristy would still be open even if the Archbishop blocked one exit. The more natural sense of Mary’s words according to Milligan 2017 is that the boys were in a place where there was wine and where they could not escape. But this is what is so problematic, for the priest’s sacristy is not such a place. 10 Besides, Milligan still faces some problems, for the natural reading of 2017 presents us with an untenable account, one that Milligan ought to have scrutinised more closely – by checking with the source, the Kid, who Milligan seems so careful to portray as not actually telling her anything. That she accepts Mary’s story uncritically is unprofessional. But later it seems that she did consult with the Kid. We may infer an insight has occurred: the sentences with the word “locked” is re-presented to him, a moment of confusion, then the tension is released, “Oh, no. I said blocked, not locked.” But when did this happen? And how does this recall from the Kid of what – perhaps four years earlier - he said to Mary (with attendant discovery of what she misheard) fit within the context of other events? His reading of Milligan’s book, the discovery of the whereabouts of the wine, Richter’s cross-examination? We want to know how Milligan is “retaining the integrity of the original book” https://twitter.com/Milliganreports/status/1113535623585890304. But it is difficult to resist those overly suspicious who find in Milligan a mind on the move. For they will suppose that the shifts in the narrative are not governed by a gradual appreciation of what really happened. Rather, a picture created by a deranged imagination is forced to accommodate itself to the rigours of cross-examination. Thus, because the original image is served up with wine it follows that the event must have taken place in the sacristy, and so the word must have been “blocked” not “locked.” And once suspicions take root the urge to generalise will be hard to resist. For it will be suspected that the original image was of an Archbishop dressed in ecclesiastical attire, and so the event must have taken place after Mass – with a six minute window of opportunity. But in the beginning there is no mention of Mass – which, of course, is the real reason why Milligan isn’t taxed with taking on the difficulties that this would entail. And so it goes on. Because the event happened after Mass it transpires that it must have happened in 1996. Therefore the boys did not actually leave school as soon as possible, but rather stayed on another year. And so on. xxxi https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2019/03/03/the-pell-diaries-part-five-the-closing-statementsbegin/. xxxii This is remiss for any investigator who wishes to examine Milligan’s work critically. For example, on the account that Milligan provides we are faced with seemingly unresolvable questions. Did the Kid tell Mary about the abuse before or after he made the police statement in June 2015? If before, then why does Mary speak as if she was surprised when the police contacted her? If after, then why does Mary speak as if it was the conversations at the funeral (thirteen months prior to the police statement) that led to the Kid informing Mary of the abuse? Milligan’s book does not seem overly concerned to account for such difficulties, but three years later it seems as though Milligan affirms the second alternative, namely that Mary learned from the police about the abuse just after June 2015: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-04/george-pell-abusevictims-family-police-speak-to-4-corners/10856998 xxxiii Milligan also claims that during May 2016 she contacted up to 35 “choristers of the time,” and presumably, some of those will be able to verify this fact, which may lend some credibility to her claim that the Kid was also contacted at that time. Of course, supposing her statement about meeting the Kid for the first time in May to be a lie, the reason why she chose that month rather than others becomes apparent. Her sub-text seems to be that her inquiry proceeded in stages, first she happened on the tip-off about the choir, and from this she managed to find out the identity of the Kid. In this theory we might also assume that the past members of the choir were identifiable from a source such as a 1990s year-book from St Kevin’s. This, then, was how her award-winning detective work made progress. Along these lines we can also consider the possibility that Milligan was being used by those connected with the Victorian police who would obviously not wish their leaks to come to light. Then, perhaps, we have an All the President’s Men scenario whereby a Melbourne Deep Throat provides the journalist with tips that she must follow up for herself according to the maxim, “follow the choir” (so to speak, rather than “follow the money”). Such exculpatory hypotheses, however, run into difficulties. For we still need to explain Milligan’s initial tip-off that concerned (a) the choir, (b) the information that the two particular boys were involved together, and also perhaps (c) the contact details of the Kid. Of course, that last piece of information might not have been supplied, and this might have been deduced in Milligan’s May detective work, possibly with the chorister who noted the Choirboy’s anger, presumably Andrew La Greca. I am not sure whether the public domain is appraised of whether La Greca stayed in contact with the Kid, though it is not impossible that he knew who he was and that he worked in the North Melbourne area (as Milligan tells us) given that Reservoir is in that area: https://www.google.com/maps/dir/North+Melbourne+VIC,+Australia/Reservoir+VIC+3073,+Australia/@37.7427387,144.8881527,12z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x6ad65d283acb6965:0x5045675218 ce760!2m2!1d144.946667!2d37.799167!1m5!1m1!1s0x6ad64583e8b67cc7:0x5045675218cd200!2m2!1d145.011944!2d-37.713056!3e0 For it seems that La Greca works in Reservoir: https://www.mbav.com.au/sites/default/files/Green%20Living%20Builders%20List%20for%20Web.pdf 11 And possibly, the Kid does too: https://www.reservoirrsl.com.au/ But, as indicated there are difficulties, for as Milligan explains: the chorister, who can hardly recall the Choirboy’s name, is nevertheless able to remember it when Milligan offers a list in which the Choirboy is included. Among other things, this would suggest that Milligan is contacting the 35 choristers merely to confirm what she knows or guesses about the Choirboy. So the artifice (if that is what it is) of Milligan finding out all about the Kid through plodding detective work seems just that: artificial. Of course, the supposition that the police were somehow involved makes everything much easier to explain, for they might have supplied the details directly. After all, they were looking into mis-deeds in the Cathedral from 2013, and would presumably have had the time and resources to compile a list of former choristers (and their contact details), and would have got in touch with them prior to Milligan’s frenetic phoning that May. But then, (to come to the difficulty) they would presumably have contacted the chorister (La Greca?) about the Choirboy too. This, however, would make it difficult to explain why the chorister, who is being contacted again about the incident is so hazy. Worse, this seems to be an incident La Greca will continue to be prominently involved in, (more than any other so far as I can see) and yet with Milligan he forgets “one of those little boys I knew all those years ago” https://twitter.com/Andrew_la_greca/status/1105983896242413568 whose tragedy “effect[s]” him with a feeling of “emptiness” https://twitter.com/Andrew_la_greca/status/1105689570799083522 (as La Greca tells Milligan) https://twitter.com/Andrew_la_greca/status/1105689570799083522 . For La Greca speaks as one who has been “touched” by that boy who had a “cheeky smile” https://twitter.com/Andrew_la_greca/status/1105636155570044928. Moreover, in Milligan’s programme Guilty broadcast this March (in which La Greca features) the former Choirboy is clearly partisan (“we believed that justice wouldn’t be served”) which stands in tension with the thesis that his involvement was initiated by Milligan (as indicated in La Greca’s December 12th tweet). Worse, he seems to have had a closer knowledge of the deceased Choirboy than would appear from his May 2016 dealings with Milligan (if it was indeed him) for he recalls speaking to him on the train and reflecting on the roots of his rebellion. Again, what are we to make of the fact that La Greca (it seems) was one of the “older boys,” a few years older than the Choirboy? https://www.abc.net.au/4corners/guilty:-the-conviction-ofcardinal-pell/10869116 Again, when one follows up the following links https://www.hotfrog.com.au/business/fowcon http://oxsc.com.au/oxsc-squads-060512/ http://www.fowcon.com.au/contact.html - one may speculate that La Greca was, in fact, an Old Xavierian, that is, an alumnus of St Kevin’s long-standing rival, situated 4 miles north of Toorak in Kew: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xavier_College. Maybe this anomaly can be reconciled: perhaps both schools served the Cathedral choir? In any case, it would be interesting to know whether La Greca can recall where he used to spot the younger boy with a cheeky smile (bound, presumably to Kooyong Station): https://www.google.com/maps/dir/St+Kevin's+College,+Moonga+Road,+Toorak+VIC,+Australia/Xavier+Colleg e,+135+Barkers+Road,+Kew+VIC+3101,+Australia/@37.8259874,145.0137075,14z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x6ad6426b02863ea3:0xc4e2def43ec 4ff82!2m2!1d145.0250305!2d37.8360022!1m5!1m1!1s0x6ad643ceb58e3ac9:0x78c61a2266185b07!2m2!1d145.0316451!2d37.8124081!3e3 Or perhaps, the boy had transferred from St Kevin’s to St Xavier’s? Supposing La Greca’s testimony that he noticed a change in the boy, it would be interesting to know whether both were at the same school. But if so the cause of the change at the new school could not be the same as that which caused him to change schools. Yet again, I do not think we are yet clear as to when the various communications with Bernard Barrett (of Broken Rites) took place. La Greca gave evidence at the trial (though on one occasion he was sick and was not cross-examined). (Note that it was claimed at the committal by Barrett that “a complainant’s mother” emailed him late 2014: https://www.centralnews.com.au/@breaking-news/2018/03/14/96725/george-pells-courtcase-opens-to-public). We have not been able to ascertain that the business name “Fowcon.com” is a registered business – after performing some checks, it seems that it is not. Using the same phone number (and for “Justin and Andrew”) we found J.A.I Paving: https://www.truelocal.com.au/business/j-a-i-paving/reservoir?target=details. A small classified ad for P.A.I Paving can be found on page 23: https://issuu.com/mcnews/docs/mcn_september10_final_web. Needless to say, it is speculative in the extreme to suppose that this Justin was the very same as the complainant simply because in the trial the complainant is referred to as “J.” Still, those interested in transparency will want to pursue the inconsistencies 12 thrown up by Milligan’s account of her own detective-work, and perhaps, to fill in a few gaps regarding the intriguing La Greca. Having now seen Milligan’s 2019 edition, we see that La Greca is indeed the chorister contacted: see pages 348-57, 366-7. xxxiv https://web.archive.org/web/20160728235521/http:/www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-27/victoria-policeinvestigating-george-pell-over-abuse-complaints/7664674 xxxv For in the 7.30 programme we are told simply that: “7.30 understands that the Pell case has been referred by Victoria Police to the Office of Public Prosecutions for advice. 7.30 has obtained eight police statements from complainants, witnesses and family members who are helping the taskforce with their investigation.” Naturally, most readers will take it that the Kid’s police statement is one of those 8. If it was not we ought to seek an explanation of why it was not given that the Kid was keen that Milligan should work on his case, and moreover, the fact that Milligan is misleading here (without actually making untrue statements) also demands explanation. But if she did know, either the Kid’s statement makes mention of Mass or it does not. If it does not we require an explanation since we are told that the Kid remembered the details clearly. If it does we require an explanation (a) of Mary’s garbled knowledge and (b) Milligan’s omission given that she was not relying exclusively on Mary. To repeat: the significance of the assault taking place after Mass is that only then would an Archbishop be dressed as imagined, so that anyone imagining such memorable picture finds themselves logically compelled to situate the event in a liturgical setting, as awkward as such a thesis is. Obviously, supposing the “assault” relates to reality only as imagined by the complainant Milligan’s deliberate cloudiness becomes intelligible. xxxvi https://twitter.com/Mad_Morris/status/758249320248320001 xxxvii Incidentally, Morris-Marr puts the duration of her Herald Sun investigation at ten months which seems to imply that it started one month before the June police statement of the complainant. https://luciemorrismarrmedia.com/the-pell-scoop-legal-proceedings/ xxxviii To repeat the point made by PatrickM (at strangetimes, above) the Choirboy denied the offence knowing that his lie (if that was what it was) could be contradicted by the other witness, while the Kid affirmed the offence knowing that his lie (if that was what it was) could not be contradicted by the other witness. xxxix Although the point is obvious, it may be worth recalling that the Judge issued a media suppression order regarding the verdict of the Cathedral trial because if that verdict became known it might influence the Swimming Pool trial (which never actually concluded): the jury might assume that Pell was guilty of one because he was guilty of the other. But the influence may also have worked the other way. The Jury of the Cathedral trial may have been influenced by the allegations concerning the Swimming Pool, allegations that had been “found guilty” in Milligan’s trial by media. xl Even if we suppose Pell guilty on all (or most) charges, it remains that the police/and or Milligan (and others) may have lacked sincerity in the way that they attempted to soften up public opinion. Here we may suppose that the stratagem relies on an understanding possessed by the conspirators but not shared by the public whereby allegations are gradually revealed strip-tease-wise climaxing ultimately with what we only learned from the judge, of how the crying and whimpering boys pleaded to be released from Pell’s clutches. In this scenario what is truly significant only comes to be appreciated gradually by those who have undergone the “curriculum” constructed by the media. In fact, what we the “students” learn first is for the sake of what we learn last, even as what the “teachers” teach first is for the sake of what is taught last. But of course, what the teachers teach last is the end of the teachers’ teaching, and this is what the teachers think of first when they plan their lessons. I mean, in the “order of intention” I think of eating some sweets and choose to walk to the corner shop (the end is thought of before the means) but in the “order of execution” I walk to the corner shop and eventually eat some sweets (the means are chosen before the end is attained). This is what “planning” means. So (consistent with the supposition of prior planning) we see that around July 2016 (if we sample the news items from around the time of Milligan’s original 7.30 programme) the attention and emphasis falls on the Swimming Pool allegations, and the public are left quite vague regarding the Sacristy allegations – which suggests an order of learning matched by Milligan’s own ex officio account of her journey of discovery (which, of course, would be inconsistent with the hypothesis that she was involved in prior planning). But if we are to attempt to establish whether the conspiracy theory can be verified we need to examine the cogency of Milligan’s official account of how she came to know of the allegations that everyone now knows. So we need to piece together the stages, according to Milligan, of what she knew when and how, and what she told others when (and how). Investigative journalism is in need a Milligan time-line with a view to ascertaining whether what Milligan has told us about her accumulating knowledge is consistent, hence the pertinence of what Milligan knew in May 2016 (and of course, before that), in particular, we need to get an insight into the 13 strange mix of ignorance and knowledge that Milligan’s source possesses. An informed public makes such a demand on investigative journalism, a demand that can be met by raising questions of Milligan herself. And should any given investigative journalist be reluctant to press Milligan in this way that lack of due diligence also becomes a pertinent fact requiring explanation. As Melissa Davey (after Helen Thomas) puts it: “I don’t think a tough question is disrespectful.” https://www.melissaldavey.com/. This is precisely what we need if we are to obtain a “definitive forensic examination of the trial that echoed around the world.” xli Seven months after mooting this theory it has occurred us that Detectives Reed and Sheridan are quite unconcerned about the other cases in their Rome interview. They only discuss the sacristy incident. xlii https://twitter.com/MelissaLDavey/status/1105607592171048960 xliii After speculating on the too-convenient-to-be-true nature of the narrative I learned of the speculations of Richard Mullins who points out the similarities with the case of “Billy Doe,” a former altar boy who fabricated evidence against a priest in Philadelphia who was then convicted while the complainant received millions of dollars in compensation. https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2019/04/the-fanciful-testimony-thatconvicted-george-pell/ Mullins lists the convergences with the Pell case leading Keith Windshuttle to raise the question as to whether the police in Victoria “borrowed” the details (written up in Rolling Stone 2011). Clearly, this circumstantial evidence is less than probative. Milligan herself points out some differences (no pornography or grooming) https://twitter.com/Milliganreports/status/1115201296707932161 and Jeremy Gans concurs that the degree of convergence is not perfect. https://twitter.com/jeremy_gans/status/1115195115285307393. However, Gans goes on to add a couple of unmentioned convergences, namely, the deterioration in the boy’s behaviour and the association with drugs. I would mention also that, as per the Newsweek article by Ralph Cipriano we find the “trope” of the locked room: https://www.newsweek.com/2016/01/29/billy-doe-altar-boy-sends-four-men-prison-philadelphia-rapecase-417565.html. This trope, however, is not present in Erdely’s article. More pertinently, Cipriano records the shifts of narrative from initial police statement to evidence given in trial: http://www.bigtrial.net/2018/03/a-prosecutors-lost-notes-and-pack-of.html. Here we note that the “direction” of narrative-shift in the Doe case was away from the more fanciful to the more credible, thus, at first Billy had to endure a five hour “ramming” session in a locked room, but later, as per Rolling Stone, Billy was groomed (with pornography) which led to just one more session, after which Billy refused further sessions. Discrepancies regarding the “locked” room are also related here: http://www.bishopaccountability.org/news2013/03_04/2013_03_01_Cipriano_TheSplit.htm. On the topic of narrative shifts, “grooming” seems to have now dropped out of the Pell discourse. While conceding the speculative nature of the “conspiracy theory,” it is not impossible that those police on a trawling expedition may have been encouraged by such narratives to provide a sense of what they were fishing for (and of what a jury might believe). There again, the tale of priests, wine, and locked-up altar boys has a lurid dimension to it that could easily be imagined without needing any precedent – which is what actually happened in the case of Billy Doe. But at least it is worth inquiring whether any such cases formed part of any Operation Tethering training manuals, say. After all, much of Sabrina Erdely’s long Rolling Stone article (https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/the-catholic-churchs-secret-sex-crime-files-243513/) was concerned with the institutional culture of cover-ups – so that as the author explains, it is the Catholic Church that is on trial. Again, the Wikipedia article on Catholic Church sexual abuse cases mentions Msgr. Lynn, the priest in Philadelphia convicted of “covering up” the alleged abuse, so it was not totally obscure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases. Erdely’s eight-page article may also be found here: http://www.sabrinaerdely.com/docs/CatholicChurch.pdf Equally significant, we can ask why when in 2016 the falsehood was exposed no questions were raised in Australia as to whether the complainant was another Billy Doe. The case was certainly known to, say: http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2015/01_02/2015_01_05_Pierre_PleaseUnderstand.htm It remains, of course, that those insisting on the intuition of jurors as to the demeanour of the complainant have a difficulty. For the American jury got it wrong, and we have no reason to think the Australian jury were less fallible. They could and should have asked about the honesty of the complainant. They needed reasons for believing that he was not dissembling. In principle, these reasons ought to be communicable to us. Finally, this line of inquiry poses a challenge to investigative journalists who would brush aside such “juvenile” conspiracy theories only on pain of obscurantism (hoping that others do not “share links”): https://twitter.com/Milliganreports/status/1115233156779495424. However, given that Billy Doe and the Pell Case both exhibit narrative shifts, I think scrutiny, indeed, critical comparison, is warranted. Milligan, at least, has tweeted on the magazine (objecting to its soft-porn in 2015) https://twitter.com/Milliganreports/status/654959627688284160. And Nick Lord writing on the Pell case after the verdict is clearly indebted to Milligan (she “tells Rolling Stone …”): 14 https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/george-pell-cardinal-australia-sexual-abuse-childrenrape-807780/. That article (as Dr Jeremy Gans noted), however, made no mention of Pell’s appeal, prompting the parliamentary advisor on human rights and professor of Melbourne Law School to point out that you would think @RollingStone would know the dangers: https://twitter.com/jeremy_gans/status/1107813894943399937. In fairness, @RollingStone has deleted any reference to “Erdely” in their Twitter feed, and Milligan never mentions Sabrina. I have no evidence that Milligan was directly aware of the Billy Doe case. Intriguing, however, is @LyndsayFarlow. The Twitter feed shows a particular concern with Catholic Sexual Abuse, having tweeted 133 times on the hashtag #Pell alone since July 2012 in a tweet that also references the hashtag #4Corners. https://twitter.com/LyndsayFarlow/status/223299333506871296 Farlow has mentioned @MilliganReports in nearly 30 tweets since May 2015, and @MilliganReports replied 7 times to @LyndsayFarlow that month. @LyndsayFarlow has clearly taken an interest in Milligan’s work, mentioning @4Corners in 40 tweets since 2011: https://twitter.com/LyndsayFarlow/status/26324416338. Farlow’s tweets have mentioned @Peter_Fitz, the original foreword writer of Cardinal, over a score of times since 2014 (“How can Cardinal Pell sleep at night?”) https://twitter.com/search?l=&q=from%3Alyndsayfarlow%20%40peter_fitz&src=typd&lang=en-gb Now @LyndsayFarlow has clearly taken an interest in @RollingStone having mentioned the handle nearly 50 times since 2010. References to @RollingStone, however, terminate with a tweet 28 May 2015: https://twitter.com/LyndsayFarlow/status/604128645133688832. As the clicker of links may verify, this refers to Sabrina Erderly’s Rolling Stone article (of 2011) regarding the abuse of Billy Doe. The hashtag #AllRoadsLeadToRome, actually, picks up a theme of Nick Lord’s article, as this long quote shows: As he falls from such spectacular power, Pell has delivered a deep blow to the church he intended to protect. Though he was once a beacon of the church’s traditional values, he now represents its darkest sin. He exemplifies that clerical child abuse is a global phenomenon, and his history of inaction, complicity, and direct abuse shows how the crisis became so widespread — from small country parishes through to the Vatican. Because of men like Pell, we haven’t yet seen the true extent of the cover-ups, despite being decades in to the child abuse crisis. And as more priests, bishops, archbishops, and cardinals fall as the endemic is exposed, it won’t be so easy for conservatives to doubt the victims, and not the church. “The crisis is now a tipping point I believe for the church,” says Lucie Morris-Marr, author of a forthcoming book about Pell’s trial. “We’ve had all the horrific clergy abuse scandals from Ireland to Boston, Australia and Chile, and now Pell, the third most powerful figure in the Vatican, has also been convicted. What more will it take to make vital changes to the internal culture?” Farlow’s 120 tweets of May 2015 can be found here: https://twitter.com/search?l=&q=from%3Alyndsayfarlow%20since%3A2015-05-01%20until%3A2015-0531&src=typd&lang=en-gb and Milligan’s 40 tweets of May 2015 can be found here: https://twitter.com/search?l=&q=from%3Amilliganreports%20since%3A2015-05-01%20until%3A2015-0531&src=typd&lang=en-gb. The themes are cognate: Catholic abuse both sexual and of authority; crimes in Ballarat; the Royal Commission; Pell’s role in a cover up, and so on. Farlow has mentioned “Broken Rites” in nearly 60 tweets since 2012: https://twitter.com/search?l=&q=rites%20from%3Alyndsayfarlow&src=typd&lang=en-gb and has mentioned Bernard Barrett 4 times since 2012: https://twitter.com/search?l=&q=%22bernard%20barrett%22%20from%3Alyndsayfarlow&src=typd&lang=engb Since her Herald Sun piece, @LyndsayFarlow has been in touch with @LucieMorrisMarr over 40 times: https://twitter.com/search?l=&q=luciemorrismarr%20from%3Alyndsayfarlow&src=typd&lang=en-gb and over 40 times with Melissa Davey since 2014: https://twitter.com/search?l=&q=from%3Alyndsayfarlow%20%40melissaldavey&src=typd&lang=en-gb. @LyndsayFarlow has referred to Task Force Sano under the hashtag #TFSano a dozen times since 2013: https://twitter.com/LyndsayFarlow/status/299693710487199744. @LyndsayFarlow was clued up about St Kevin’s, tweeting about a case of a man aged 60 in 2015 receiving a settlement for abuse: https://twitter.com/LyndsayFarlow/status/596439741844828160 in May 2015. (Also of interest: https://twitter.com/LyndsayFarlow/status/753981105963794432). It can be seen that Milligan replied to Farlow in 4 tweets on May 27 th On May 28th she makes 1 tweet to Farlow (but never again), and later that day Farlow tweets on Billy. The Kid will make a police statement in the next month (that is, one month after Farlow tweeted about a settlement for sexual abuse at St Kevin’s dating from 15 c. 1970). https://twitter.com/LyndsayFarlow/status/596439741844828160. Finally, we note that on the day before Pell’s accuser made a statement to the police @LyndsayFarlow tweets that “Untouchable pedophile priests were placed on pedestals” repeating a cartoon of a crozier around Pell’s neck dragging him home. https://twitter.com/LyndsayFarlow/status/611355175995899904 I eventually realised who Farlow is: https://www.academia.edu/38859496/Dr_Waller_and_Her_Dummies_and_the_Eyes_of_Billy_Doe xliv Milligan claims that both the Kid and the Choirboy quit choir in 1997 (page 347): http://www.bishopaccountability.org/Australia/Reports/2017_Milligan_Cardinal_Pell_pp_345_to_352.pdf If it is true that the Australian school year at St Kevin’s consisted of 4 terms, each of 3 months, commencing in January each year (as per https://www.australia.gov.au/about-australia/special-dates-and-events/schoolterm-dates) and if the final year of choir for both boys was 1997 so that they helped produced a recording of the Messiah for the centenary celebrations of the Cathedral on September 17th 1997 (as per https://www.cam.org.au/cathedral/Music/Recordings-of-Cathedral-Choir-Cathedral-Singers) – which would correspond to Milligan’s account citing the Hallelujah Chorus – then the boys would have stayed in the choir for 12 more months after the alleged assault in 1996. As I read Milligan, her account indicates that the Choirboy suddenly changed around Easter so that he was sent to a psychiatrist in September 1997. Another chorister to whom Milligan speaks indicates that he had become an angry bully. (We can point out that the hypothesis that this chorister is Milligan’s source runs into difficulties, for when he volunteers that one of the choir had problems at school Milligan supplies a list of names identity-parade-fashion from which he selects the required answer - which is not consistent with the “scant” knowledge supplied by the source that does, nevertheless, link the Kid and the Choirboy). Moreover, if we are to suppose, as becomes apparent from 2019, that former choirboy Andrew La Greca was the chorister in question – see https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-04/george-pell-abuse-victims-familypolice-speak-to-4-corners/10856998 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-04/george-pell-abuse-victims-family-police-speak-to-4corners/10856998 https://www.mbav.com.au/sites/default/files/Green%20Living%20Builders%20List%20for%20Web.pdf https://twitter.com/jstorycarter/status/1102513064933392384 - then it would also appear than La Greca (who was a witness at the trial, although on one occasion he was sick and failed to turn up) had in fact been contacted by Milligan, and not the other way round. This is my reading of a December tweet immediately after the verdict: “It is [thanks to] a phone call [that] I received from this lady [Louise Milligan] many years ago that I can [now] be [content. I am] relieved that justice does catch up to you and that one of those little boys that I knew all those years ago, his voice can finally be heard.” https://twitter.com/Andrew_la_greca/status/1072820831443542017 See also: https://twitter.com/spc2328/status/1072996674417520640 https://twitter.com/bkjeremy/status/1105734751841771520 but note “2006” https://twitter.com/bkjeremy/status/1100197250196598784 . Again, if the Kid’s first assault happened in December, and the second a month later, then the Kid would be in a new school year. Milligan references a detail that would seem difficult to obtain from a third party, namely, that the Kid’s decision to leave was connected with the event of his voice breaking: “That very same year, his friend, The Kid, had also made the same firm decision to get out of the choir as soon as he possibly could. His behaviour at school also became a problem. His voice had broken and, no longer a soprano, his choir days were numbered. He too had gone to another Catholic school, and the families rarely saw each other. The boys drifted apart.” So, it does not seem from these details that the 1996 assault suddenly brought a decision in either boy to leave choir – or that if the boys suddenly decided to leave choir for some reason it was not brought about by the 1996 assault. Needless to say, the shared agreement between defence and prosecution that the sacristy offence took place in 1996 – a conclusion arrived at from considerations extrinsic to the complainant’s testimony, namely, the Cathedral renovations – was not made explicitly (so far as I am aware) at the time when Milligan’s book makes the allegations. xlv See here: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/feb/26/five-times-guilty-how-george-pellschild-abusing-past-caught-up-with-him-in-courtroom-43 xlvi Moreover, the alternative hypothesis can resolve the tensions that arise for those who take Milligan’s account at face value. For example, Milligan’s supposed initial scepticism versus her instant rapport; Milligan’s ability to win the confidence of the complainant versus the absence of information from that witness; Milligan’s independence from the police with the coincidence of her investigation with police confirmation of key facts; Milligan’s critical spirit versus her lack of curiosity in attempting to resolve the many contradictions thrown up; Milligan’s meticulous research (according to her reviewers) versus her emotional advocacy; 16 Milligan’s diligence in pursuing a lengthy investigation versus her lazy vagueness regarding dates; Milligan’s willingness to confide her conspiratorial theories with the reader versus her lack of concern to follow these up with the authorities. Again, one needs to explain the anomalies thrown up regarding the identity of her source, her source’s partial knowledge, her source’s willingness to remain hidden from the Kid and her source’s confused motivation. Subsequently, also, it seems, we need to explain Milligan’s lack of interest in the shifts in the narrative regarding what happened in the cathedral; her insouciance regarding leaks from the police or pressures affecting a fair trial; her willingness to prejudice a fair trial despite having studied the Lindy Chamberlain case: https://twitter.com/Milliganreports/status/1106135502141296640. I speculate on the identity of Milligan’s source here: https://www.academia.edu/38849150/Was_Doug_Smith_Milligans_Source xlvii Not only is it likely that opinions will remain divided even after appeal, but it seems probable that in the future this case will be cited in discussions concerning the validity of the jury system, or at least, as to whether the State of Victoria should allow bench trials by a panel of judges. And note. The chief argument against Pell (as far as I am aware) is the one I have tried to refute here, namely, that the jurors could assess the demeanour of the complainant, and they are surely to be trusted. In the discussions I have seen, the antiPellards bring no evidence extrinsic to this oracle, so in the future they can hardly cite the Pell case in favour of the jury system, for that simply begs the question (argues in a circle). Unless, that is, Pell one day makes a public confession. But even then students will ask: How could they know that at the time? Beyond reasonable doubt? Conversely, at some future date Pell’s innocence might be established beyond reasonable doubt even for antiPellards. Then, along with other notorious cases of miscarriages of justice, we will ask how the jurors could possibly have been taking up the burden of proof entailed by the presumption of innocence as they were instructed to. For the naïve question can be asked: What if the complainant was lying? If we reply, the jury must have felt that he was not, the question returns: Because? Can we say that “beyond reasonable doubt” consistent with such a brush-off “because”? With less naiveté we can ask: What if the complainant was honestly drawing on a false memory? How could the jury find that both the complainant and his memory could be trusted, and that by an intuition that cannot be communicated to us – beyond reasonable doubt? To recur to my earlier digression on externalism in which I compared the intuitions of untrained jurors to chicken-sexers (very roughly, in epistemology externalists are inclined to view knowledge as per those chickensexers who are correct for the most part, though they do not know why, in virtue of thought processes that those of us who are not chicken-sexers cannot access - an equivalent example, incidentally, would be a Native American guide to a Canadian forest in which that guide has lived all his or her life. At a fork in the road he or she knows whether to turn left of right but cannot explain how), I would say that the rather mysterious way in which the chicken-sexer makes his or her judgement (but which nonetheless we rely on) makes for the lack of transparency that we see in the Pell case. My point, of course, has not been to concede that Pell’s jury actually had an expertise such as the chickensexer (for the media campaign may have biased them) but merely to bring home some problems that arise when we “out-source” our judgement. Nor have I taken a pro-externalist position on epistemology, though I think that such insights (for example, with regard to chicken-sexing) do make contributions worthy of consideration. That I do not think this the whole story was indicated at the end of my second paragraph which drew attention to our natural tendency to ask for reasons. xlviii https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=584497731961494&id=100012038172584 17