How David Marr Smeared George Pell

By Andrew Bolt
Herald Sun
November 26, 2016

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/how-david-marr-smeared-george-pell/news-story/9f3057887f9e8d5ac62bc0688c0fa81b

No journalist has tried harder than David Marr to smear Cardinal George Pell as a liar who covered up for pedophile priests and even enabled their crimes. The evidence against Pell is actually melting away.

Now Gerard Henderson exposes 13 of Marr's worst false claims, omissions and baseless smears. Please read it all.

Here are some highlights, so to speak, from Henderson's fact-checking of Marr's most comprehensive smear sheet on Pell - his extended essay The Prince – Faith, Abuse & George Pell (Black Inc, 2014):

The fact is that much of David Marr’s case against Cardinal Pell collapses when reference is made to evidence heard by the Royal Commission and to Counsel-Assisting’s submissions to the Royal Commission.

The essential problem with David Marr’s The Prince turns on the author’s naivety. Put simply, when it comes to critics of George Pell – David Marr assumes that they have excellent memories and are completely rational. Also, David Marr believes virtually everything the police say – when it applies to Cardinal Pell, at least...

Howler Number 1 – Page 8

David Marr writes:

…the pressure on the [Ted] Baillieu government [in Victoria] to hold an inquiry [into clerical child sexual abuse] became irresistible when the Age published a confidential report accusing the Catholic Church of protecting paedophiles and showing little sympathy for their victims. Victoria Police linked forty suicides in the state to abuse by half a dozen priests and brothers alone. Detective Sergeant Kevin Carson wrote: “It would appear that an investigation would uncover many more deaths are a consequence of clergy sexual abuse.” ...

For a man with a self-proclaimed interest in human rights, David Marr has a surprising gullibility when it comes to accepting, at face value and without checking, police evidence. As John Ferguson reported in The Australian on 25 July 2015, Victoria Police has only been able to identify one confirmed suicide with church-related abuse. Leading Senior Constable Tania Siegemund provided the following critique of Sergeant Carson’s claim (which was endorsed uncritically by Marr) in an internal report dated 1 November 2012:

There are significant limitations to the data supplied by Detective Sergeant Carson, which have resulted in a significant number of the nominated premature deaths for review remaining unable to be verified, as the persons of interest are unidentifiable. These include the identifying particulars of individuals such as dates of birth, full names and addresses, details of alleged offences or offenders and years of alleged childhood sexual abuse. It was not possible to identify 18 of the 43 persons in the report, as per the data limitations and intelligence gaps discussed above.

Of course, one suicide related to clerical child sexual abuse is appalling. But the point here is that Victoria Police in 2012 grossly exaggerated the situation. And David Marr accepted Victoria Police’s claims without checking. In short, he did no independent research.

Howler Number 2 – Pages 8-9

David Marr writes:

[George] Pell said he was willing to appear [at the Victorian Parliamentary Inquiry]. As public hearings were about to begin in October 2013, Victoria Police attacked the Catholic Church again, this time accusing the Melbourne archdiocese of hindering investigations, protecting priests, silencing victims and failing to “proactively seek out” offenders. They also attacked the process Pell had put in place in Melbourne in the 1990s to inquire into abuse and compensate victims. [As Victoria Police’s submission to the Victoria Parliamentary Inquiry stated.]:

Victoria Police has serious concerns regarding the terms of this inquiry process and its appearance as a de facto substitute for criminal justice. As noted on its website, the Melbourne Response has made a number of ex-gratia payments to victims. In spite of this, it has not referred a single complaint to Victoria Police.

Once again, David Marr naively accepted – without checking Victoria Police’s claim – that under the Melbourne Response, which was set up by the (then) Archbishop of Melbourne George Pell in 1996, not a “single compliant” was referred to Victoria Police.

This statement was incorrect. As Peter O’Callaghan submitted to the Victorian Parliamentary Inquiry. [Note the punctuation has been altered to facilitate comprehension] :

Of the 304 relevant upheld complaints that have been made to 30 June 2012 (only two of which were made by complainants who were children at the time of their complaints):

(i) 97 [complaints] have been reported to the police (87 were reported prior to and 10 were reported subsequent to a complaint being made through the Melbourne Response). (ii) 115 [complaints] were made in respect of offenders who were already dead at the time of the complaint. (iii) 9 [complaints] were made in respect of offenders who resided overseas at the date of complaint. And (iv) 4 [complaints] were made in respect of offenders whom the complainant could not identify.

Of the remaining 79 complaints: First, 76 complainants were encouraged by me to go to the Police (and at least 25 of these complainants expressed some reluctance to do so). Second, there is no express encouragement to go to the Police located on the file of the remaining 3 complainants. However, one complainant was provided with the Melbourne Response brochure which contained an encouragement to go to the Police; one complainant had their complaint accepted without the need for a hearing; and one complainant made a complaint that was unlikely to constitute criminal assault.

Peter O’Callaghan QC’s submission rebutting Victoria Police’s evidence concerning the Melbourne Response has not been refuted by (now) Commissioner Graham Ashton or anyone else at Victoria Police. In its report, the Victoria Parliamentary Inquiry found that Peter O’Callaghan’s submission was essentially correct...

Howler Number 4 – Page 18

David Marr refers to George Pell’s shared accommodation with the pedophile priest Gerald Ridsdale when he [Pell] returned to Ballarat from Europe in 1973:

When young Father George Pell moved his things into the presbytery in 1973, that corner of Ballarat was one of the most dangerous places in Australia for children. Already living in the presbytery was Father Gerald Ridsdale, chaplain at the little primary school standing on the other side of the church. He was raping the children. All four members of the staff, all Christian Brothers, were abusing the children in the school. They would not be exposed for twenty years. George Pell, back from his studies in Rome and Oxford, noticed nothing.

This is the familiar “I knew nothing” – or “he knew nothing” – smear directed at someone who allegedly is not telling the truth. David Marr was not aware at the time of writing The Prince that fellow journalist Paul Bongiorno (when a priest of the Ballarat diocese) also once shared accommodation with Ridsdale in Warrnambool.

On 21 May 2015, Paul Bongiorno told Fran Kelly on the ABC Radio National Breakfast program, in answer to a pre-arranged question on the morning that the Royal Commission’s hearings on the Catholic diocese of Ballarat commenced, about his previously unpublicised relationship with Ridsdale. Mr Bongiorno made the following point:

Paul Bongiorno: … I grew up in Ballarat. I went to Ballarat Catholic schools — St Patrick’s College and Drummond Street, run by the Christian Brothers. And I was inspired by what I heard and by the lives of men — both priests and brothers — by the ideals and the values that they had in terms of social justice and human welfare and well-being and belief in God, to go off and become a Catholic priest… I know Gerald Ridsdale. I lived in a presbytery with him in Warrnambool. I’ve had the victims approach me to appear for them in court cases. Let me tell you this Fran, I had no idea what he was up to. And when people look at me quizzically, I say: “Well look, let me tell you this. There are married men and women now who sleep with their husbands and wives who don’t know that their husband or wife is having an affair.” Let me tell you that Ridsdale never came into the presbytery in Warrnambool and said: “Guess how many boys I’ve raped today?” They hide it. It was certainly hidden from me…

Since Paul Bongiorno’s revelation, David Marr has not sneered that Bongiorno “noticed nothing” when he was associated with Ridsdale in Warrnambool. It seems that, once again, Marr has one standard for Pell – and another for Bongiorno and others.

Howler Number 6 – Page 50

David Marr writes about (the then) Bishop Pell’s handling of the pedophile priest Peter Searson in the Melbourne parish of Doveton.

A delegation of teachers came to Pell to complain about Searson in 1989. Whatever Pell did behind the scenes, the priest remained in the parish and at the school.

According to evidence provided to the Royal Commission, the delegation of teachers which saw (then) Bishop Pell in 1989 complained about industrial relations at Searson’s school – not Searson’s offending against children. Yet the clear implication in Marr’s The Prince is that the delegation complained about Searson’s sexual offending. Once again, David Marr did not check what he accepted as facts...

Howler Number 7 – Pages 61-62

David Marr supports the high-profile claim told by David Ridsdale (Gerald’s nephew) to 60 Minutes on a number of occasions that George Pell attempted to bribe him not to report Gerald Ridsdale’s offending against him to Victoria Police. This was a most serious allegation against Pell. This is how David Marr covered the matter:

So he [David Ridsdale] turned to Bishop Pell. Their families were friends. He [David] had grown up in Ballarat calling this man George. He thought of him as a powerful man in the church who could do something tactful and effective about his uncle. In early February 1993 he rang Pell in Mentone…

David Ridsdale was stunned by Pell’s response when he picked up the phone. “His reaction was so totally unexpected,” he would tell 60 Minutes a decade later. “He didn’t respond to anything I said. He sort of cut me off.” Pell seemed angry and somehow blaming his young caller for causing his distress. He remembers Pell saying: “David, you have a young family, you will have to make purchases like houses and cars.” David was confused. “All of a sudden I just stopped and went, ‘George, I’m totally lost. Can you please tell me what you were trying to say here?” He has never since wavered in his claim that Pell replied: “I want you to know what it will take to keep you quiet.” David was furious. “It changed everything,” he told 60 Minutes. “I said, ‘F-ck you and f-ck everything you stand for,’ and I hung up.” Then he rang the police.

He also spoke that day to his sisters [Patricia Ridsdale and Bernadette Lukaitis]. One, Bernie, remembered him saying Pell wanted to know what it would take “to make it go away.” Trish remembered her brother saying: “The bastard tried to offer me a bribe.” Pell does not deny offering David Ridsdale assistance of some kind, a gesture he believes was misunderstood.

In her submission to the Royal Commission, Counsel-Assisting Gail Furness submitted that there is insufficient evidence to support David Ridsdale’s account of his phone conversation with George Pell in 1993. As the Counsel-Assisting has written:

It is submitted that Mr Ridsdale’s evidence of his conversation with Bishop Pell is a true account of what he believed occurred during that conversation. The evidence of Ms Ridsdale and Mrs Lukaitis is however not direct evidence of Mr Ridsdale’s conversation with Bishop Pell.

Cardinal Pell gave evidence that in the conversation he offered Mr Ridsdale his assistance and expressed his desire to help. It is possible that when Bishop Pell spoke to Mr Ridsdale and offered his assistance, in a conversation in which Mr Ridsdale had spoken of his desire for a private process, Mr Ridsdale misinterpreted Bishop Pell’s offer of assistance.

Given Mr Ridsdale gave evidence that he expressed a desire to Bishop Pell for a private process, it is not likely that Bishop Pell would then have thought it necessary to offer Mr Ridsdale an inducement to prevent him from going to the police or public with his allegations. Cardinal Pell gave evidence that the time of his conversation with Mr Ridsdale, he was aware that police had spoken to [Gerald] Ridsdale in connection with child sexual abuse allegations, which makes this further unlikely.

For these reasons, it is submitted that the evidence is not sufficient to establish that in their telephone conversation in early February 1993, Bishop Pell sought to bribe Mr Ridsdale to prevent him from going to the police or from going public with allegations against his uncle.

Once again, David Marr simply accepted what David Ridsdale said – as if Mr Ridsdale is possessed of a perfect memory. This in spite of the fact that Justice Peter McClellan himself has previously warned of the “fallibility of memory”.

Howler Number 13 – Page 182

In his final chapter, David Marr’s writing indicates that he supports the following comment:

Those who admire him [Cardinal Pell] forgave him his testimony [at the Royal Commission], as they always will. But his testimony enraged many Catholics who had learnt to endure the man. That he was going [to Rome] tempered their rage. But there were many who echoed David Ridsdale’s verdict: “Pell is a power-hungry, ladder-climbing opportunist.”

What David Marr has never reported – in his writings in The Guardian or elsewhere – is that David Ridsdale is a convicted pedophile and that Gail Furness SC has submitted to the Royal Commission that there is insufficient evidence to support David Ridsdale’s claim that George Pell once tried to bribe him. Yet David Marr made much of this allegation in The Prince. The problem is that, due to his hostility to Cardinal Pell, David Marr is willing to accept, without checking, virtually any anti-Pell position. How naive can you get?