I spoke with a lawyer and recall him telling me that he left the law as he saw people get off on a technicality. This came straight to me in the Pell verdict today came down. I have been having a feeling to look for this outcome as my intuition told me he would get off at this time of lockdown. The outcome confirmed what I feel intuitively.
Many will be frustrated that they cannot protest outside the court but ultimately it is God that witnesses all of us. We live in glass houses spiritually speaking. The truth sets all free eventually, as I saw written outside Gandhi’s ashram in Ahmedabad. That is my feeling in this case. This is not the end of the matter. This is the beginning.
I feel for the boys (now men, one passed away) and their families. I send them love.
I searched for them and found:
‘One succumbed in 2014 to the heroin addiction that overwhelmed him from the age of 14 — the year after the event that changed their lives. He was only 31 when he died. The other choirboy remained silent about what George Pell did to them until his friend’s death.’
I send George Pell love as that is the only healing in this world that will truly awaken him in realisation of God as love as a real phenomenon. To win is to lose is my feeling.
I wrote poetry about justice as I had my own deep inquiry when I experienced injustice first hand. Refer ‘Justice of the Peace’ https://ha.worldpeacefull.com/public-interest-poetry/
Justice is about impartiality and its power is empowered under God not the Queen, she is empowered under God allegedly.
Today courts are businesses who are in my view losing the trust of the public. The majority of cases are to do with sexual abuse.
This decision impacts Catholicism as Catholics are well aware pedophilia is occurring in the Catholic church and there are pedophile rings alleged at the highest levels.
Fiona Barnett is a survivor from child ritual abuse and it is evident her voice as a witness is ignored as she has never had justice in her case. Her website reveals the following documentary where you can see and hear Fiona, she appears credible and it is evident she feels strongly. Click on link.
Below is Fiona’s view of George Pell as she is a witness. Her view is largely unreported in the Australian media.
AUSTRALIA IS RUN BY LUCIFERIAN PEDOPHILES!
During the past few days, the mainstream media have revealed that the Australian government covered up the conviction of Cardinal GEORGE PELL for two historical counts of pedophilia. That’s not all. The first attempt to convict him resulted in a hung jury. That was not reported either. Then a judge banned police prosecutors from using crucial evidence that Pell sexually assaulted two boys in a school swimming pool in the 1970s, which forced the DPP to drop the charges. Further, the Victorian police have refused to take witness statements from other George Pell victims including Dean Henry.
Victims of organised child sex trafficking and ritual abuse like myself are bloody angry! How dare the Australian government deprive other George Pell victims of the chance to heal just a bit, by realising their horrific memories are TRUE? And that their memories have been VALIDATED by a court conviction against a Luciferian pedophile?
You heard right, Luciferian. George Pell is not just a pedophile. He is a Luciferian who ritually abused multiple children. Cardinal George Pell ritually abused James Shanahan. Further, Pell was in the audience during the Luciferian ritual I attended at St Mary’s Cathedral when I was 14 years old, and which I described in my Candy Girl amateur documentary.
The federal Child Abuse Royal Commission were supplied with multiple witness accounts of George Pell’s Luciferian ritual crimes against children. And when I say the work ‘ritual’, I mean as employed by the Australian Prime minister in his apology to our country’s numerous victims of organised child sex abuse. But this has been covered up by the Australian government also.
The Royal Commission poorly cross-examined George Pell regarding his cover-up of priests raping children in Victoria. Knowing the cardinal had himself raped multiple kids, and that there were outstanding allegations being investigated by reluctant police (aka ‘The Catholic Mafia’), the Royal Commission allowed Pell to leave Australia and risked his never returning to face the charges he was just convicted of.
Remarkably, Cardinal George Pell signed a letter agreeing to the fact that James witnessed two Melbourne priests ritually murder a 5-year-old girl on an altar. James’ story was published in the Melbourne Age newspaper in 2005. Why isn’t the Australian mainstream media focusing on George Pell’s letter and spectacular admission?!
One of the priests whom Cardinal George Pell admitted ritually abused James, Father Thomas O’Keefe, also bludgeoned Maria James to death, to cover up his pedophile rape of Maria’s disabled son. This crime was also covered up by the Australian government. The ABC ‘Trace‘ series hosted by Rachel Brown only touched on the true nature of the murder of Maria James. Rachel Brown ignored James Shanahan’s evidence concerning the ritual nature of the case, and key evidence hidden by the ‘Catholic Mafia’, aka Victorian state police.
People ask me why they never see evidence of VIP pedophilia and Luciferian ritual abuse in Australia. Well here’s why! We are watching the Australian government bury the crimes of one of Australia’s most famous VIP pedophiles, and one of the most senior members of the Luciferian pedophile child trafficking organisation known as the Vatican.
How is anyone in Australia supposed to know if there is a suppression order, or whether a court case is finished, or if another is starting – when the public are completely uninformed and are not being told anything in our press? All else is rumour and fake news, right?
“Straya! We’ll fuck ya!”
View James Shanahan’s story here:
What you put out in this world does return. The truth as justice is critical if we want all abuse to be dealt with.
Here is the judgment summary from the High Court of Australia.
Pell v The Queen —  HCA 12
Today, the High Court granted special leave to appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria and unanimously allowed the appeal.
The High Court found that the jury, acting rationally on the whole of the evidence, ought to have entertained a doubt as to the applicant’s guilt with respect to each of the offences for which he was convicted, and ordered that the convictions be quashed and that verdicts of acquittal be entered in their place.
On 11 December 2018, following a trial by jury in the County Court of Victoria, the applicant, who was Archbishop of Melbourne at the time of the alleged offending, was convicted of one charge of sexual penetration of a child under 16 years and four charges of committing an act of indecency with or in the presence of a child under the age of 16 years.
This was the second trial of these charges, the jury at the first trial having been unable to agree on its verdicts.
The prosecution case, as it was left to the jury, alleged that the offending occurred on two separate occasions, the first on 15 or 22 December 1996 and the second on 23 February 1997.
The incidents were alleged to have occurred in and near the priests’ sacristy at St Patrick’s Cathedral in East Melbourne, following the celebration of Sunday solemn Mass.
The victims of the alleged offending were two Cathedral choirboys aged 13 years at the time of the events.
The applicant sought leave to appeal against his convictions before the Court of Appeal. On 21 August 2019 the Court of Appeal granted leave on a single ground, which contended that the verdicts were unreasonable or could not be supported by the evidence, and dismissed the appeal.
The Court of Appeal viewed video-recordings of a number of witnesses’ testimony, including that of the complainant.
The majority, Ferguson CJ and Maxwell P, assessed the complainant to be a compelling witness.
Their Honours went on to consider the evidence of a number of “opportunity witnesses”, who had described the movements of the applicant and others following the conclusion of Sunday solemn Mass in a way that was inconsistent with the complainant’s account.
Their Honours found that no witness could say with certainty that these routines and practices were never departed from and concluded that the jury had not been compelled to entertain a reasonable doubt as to the applicant’s guilt.
Weinberg JA dissented, concluding that, by reason of the unchallenged evidence of the opportunity witnesses, the jury, acting rationally on the whole of the evidence, ought to have had a reasonable doubt.
On 17 September 2019, the applicant applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal from the Court of Appeal’s decision on two grounds.
On 13 November 2019, Gordon and Edelman JJ referred the application for special leave to a Full Court of the High Court for argument as on an appeal.
The application was heard by the High Court on 11 and 12 March 2020.
The High Court considered that, while the Court of Appeal majority assessed the evidence of the opportunity witnesses as leaving open the possibility that the complainant’s account was correct, their Honours’ analysis failed to engage with the question of whether there remained a reasonable possibility that the offending had not taken place, such that there ought to have been a reasonable doubt as to the applicant’s guilt.
The unchallenged evidence of the opportunity witnesses was inconsistent with the complainant’s account, and described: (i) the applicant’s practice of greeting congregants on or near the Cathedral steps after Sunday solemn Mass; (ii) the established and historical Catholic church practice that required that the applicant, as an archbishop, always be accompanied when robed in the Cathedral; and (iii) the continuous traffic in and out of the priests’ sacristy for ten to 15 minutes after the conclusion of the procession that ended Sunday solemn Mass.
The Court held that, on the assumption that the jury had assessed the complainant’s evidence as thoroughly credible and reliable, the evidence of the opportunity witnesses nonetheless required the jury, acting rationally, to have entertained a reasonable doubt as to the applicant’s guilt in relation to the offences involved in both alleged incidents.
With respect to each of the applicant’s convictions, there was, consistently with the words the Court used in Chidiac v The Queen (1991) 171 CLR 432 at 444 and M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487 at 494, “a significant possibility that an innocent person has been convicted because the evidence did not establish guilt to the requisite standard of proof”.