Cardinal George Pell Said to Parents of Abuse Victims: “it’s All Gossip until It’s Proven in Court”

Kangaroo Court of Australia
July 1, 2017

https://kangaroocourtofaustralia.com/2017/07/01/cardinal-george-pell-said-to-parents-of-abuse-victims-its-all-gossip-until-its-proven-in-court/

In 1997 Cardinal George Pell said to the parents of abuse victims who were whistleblowing on 5 paedophile priests: “We won’t believe any of this. It’s all gossip until it’s proven in court”. It’s one of many examples of George Pell covering up for paedophile priests over many years with some saying he was involved in the cover-ups as far back at the 1970’s. So, it no surprise that Cardinal Pell himself has been charged.

George Pell is about to see firsthand if paedophile allegations can be proven in court given the charges laid against him by the Victoria police on Thursday 29/6/17. What exactly George Pell has been charged with I don’t know other than “multiple historical sexual offences” as announced by the police as per their press release below. But there are previous claims that he sexually abused 3 boys and claims in the recently published book “Cardinal: The Rise and Fall Of George Pell” that George Pell forced 2 boys to give him oral sex in the 1990’s.

A big problem for Pell is that even if he is found not guilty of the charges other evidence might be uncovered during the trial that Pell helped cover-up the crimes of other priests. And that is exactly what is happening in Newcastle now:

“ARCHBISHOP Philip Wilson – the most senior Catholic cleric in the world to be charged with concealing the child sex offences of another priest – will face a two-week hearing in November.” (Click here to read more)

In the below video is Anthony and Christine Foster who had 2 daughters abused by a priest. They fought the church for 9 years to get compensation. Pell said to them regarding paedophile priests: “We won’t believe any of this. It’s all gossip until it’s proven in court”

Detective Chief Inspector Peter Fox: Lateline 2012 in relations to George Pell:

“the Fosters and others in 1997 pleaded with him to remove five other priests that were involved in, or believed at that stage to be involved in paedophilia, away from being in schools and contact with young children. And his comment to them on that occasion was, “It’s all gossip until it’s proven in court.“ (Click here to read more or watch the interview)

Previous history of allegations and cover-ups by George Pell – (Click here to read previous articles on this website)


Pell basically started his career in Ballarat Victoria and right from the start the cover-ups were going on all around him but he says he saw nothing. The Guardian says:

Young Pell was plucked from Australia to train in Rome and at Oxford for the big career that was always beckoning. He returned to serve briefly and unhappily in a remote parish on the Murray before being brought into the heart of the diocese of Ballarat which was a hell of child abuse.

Pell swears he saw little or nothing in those years.

Strange that the career of a man who would climb so far and so fast was marked early on by such a want of curiosity. He would explain to Australia’s royal commission into institutional responses to child sexual abuse: “It was a sad story and of not much interest to me.”

He sat on a committee that transferred Father Gerard Ridsdale from parish to parish. The crimes of this vicious paedophile were notorious in Ballarat, known to the bishop and familiar to other members of the committee. But by his own account, Pell never asked why this priest was always on the move. (Click here to read more)

In 2002 the church hierarchy paid a senior barrister, Mr Alex Southwell QC, to investigate allegations the George Pell had sexually abused a boy. I wrote in an article in 2014:

Mr Pell and the paedophile allegations

“A decade ago, a Melbourne man claimed he was sexually molested as a 12-year-old at a Catholic youth camp by a student priest he knew as “big George” and later recognised as the Archbishop of Sydney. After a church-appointed inquiry, Pell said he was grateful to God to have been exonerated.”

“In fact, retired Victorian Supreme Court judge Alec Southwell had said that both Pell and his accuser gave the impression they were speaking the truth. Taking into account questions about the accuser’s credibility (he had a criminal record) and the fact that the alleged incidents occurred so long ago, Southwell found he was “not satisfied that the complaint had been established”.”

“Tony Abbott hadn’t waited for the judge’s decision. “It should not surprise any Christian that there would be people who want to make unfair, wrong, mischievous, malevolent accusations against the strongest and most public Christian of the time,” the politician said when the allegations were first aired. “I’m more than ready to accept Pell’s testimony.”

The retired Victorian Supreme Court judge Alec Southwell was on the Church’s payroll as it was an internal Church inquiry so he was hardly impartial. The full report was put on the Churches website in 2002 but has since been taken down. Part of it can be read on the Broken Rites Australia website. (Click here to read)

Pell turns a blind eye to paedophiles and caught lying about it

“As archbishop of Melbourne, he allowed a priest found to have sexually abused a teenager after officiating at his mother’s funeral to continue working in another parish. In Sydney, he said in a letter to a man named Anthony Jones that the priest who sexually assaulted him had been the subject of no other complaints, when in fact Pell had written to another of the priest’s victims that same day. The letter to Jones was “badly worded and a mistake”, he said later.” (Click here to read more) It was not a mistake, it was clearly a lie and cover-up and Pell was caught out. (Click here to read more)

Sub judice – False reports on what you can and can’t say on social media now Pell has been charged

Almost everything said about Pell is already on the public record so I don’t think anyone should be too worried about what they say. Some people are saying you can’t make any comments about the case because it is now sub judice which is stupid as even the public prosecutors statement below says you can comment but it must be fair coverage. Given the subject matter I think almost anything is fair coverage