Move FM Australian News

In this essay on the Cardinal George Pell case I shall restate more comprehensively the key idea I have already presented regarding the location of the wine according to Pell’s complainant.i

It was heard at trial that in 1996 two choirboys discovered some altar wine and were then assaulted in a particular room (the Priests’ Sacristy at St. Patrick’s Cathedral), but where exactly was this wine found? At trial it was heard that the complainant located it in the corner of the sacristy, in a slightly concealed alcove. However, in several papers now I have argued that this was not the original story. In the earlier narratives (as the police explain to Pell when they travelled to Rome to interview him in October 2016) the boys found wine in a storage area immediately on the left as the boys entered. This is a very different place, though we can note instantly both a comparison and contrast. The storage area immediately to the left of the doors now has two sinks but at the time of the alleged assault was a wardrobe while the alcove in the corner used to have a “sacrarium” (a type of sink) which was removed after the installations of 2004.

It’s important to understand at the outset that this is not a mere quibble about a few feet mis-remembered over two decades. The Crown, in fact, was able to launch an argument with considerable power, namely, that by recalling the sacrarium (the sink as it was back then) he had knowledge that could not be explained by any other means than recall because that sink is no longer here. The mirror image applies to the counter argument because the sinks (which actually, the complainant saw on his police walk-through in March 2016) were not installed in 1996 and thus such “knowledge” can only be explained by recent coaching. Clearly, this fact demolishes the complainant’s credibility, but worse, it casts suspicions on some sections of the police (or those who had access to the police information). For in December 2016 the police discovered that the sacristy had undergone renovation and at this stage would have known that the complainant’s story was ridiculous – whereupon it transpires that that story now shifts to the more plausible version. For to spell this out, not only had the complainant looked at the storage area immediately on the left and affirmed that it was exactly the same when it clearly wasn’t, but in locating the wine there his story implied that the boys had found a bottle in a cupboard used for hanging albs. Naturally, the new story not only avoided this embarrassment but actually made for a far more cogent narrative how else could he know of the sacrarium unless he had been in that room at the time?

A further point to note here is that the storage area immediately on the left (which is how the police informant described it to the accused in interview) is reasonably enough also described as a “storage kitchenette” even as the alcove area is (tendentiously) described using the same phrase. By this and similar devices the narrative shift was disguised.

Moreover, and by way of corollary, not only do we find new versions as to the wine-finding but the details of the offending have to alter too. For in the earlier narratives the boys are by the storage kitchenette (properly so called) so that they can see Pell who apparently planted himself in the doorway. However, the large storage kitchenette blocks the line of sight from the door to the alcove area a detail not neglected by the authors of the revised edition with the result that the configurations of the people in the room had to change to make vision possible. The boys now have to move away from the alcove area in order to catch sight of Pell who is on the move.

These claims can be established beyond reasonable doubt. We have two narratives. The earlier narrative I shall abbreviate to the “wine in the wardrobe” story with its corollary the “planted in the doorway.” After finding out about the sacristy renovations, however, there emerges what we may call the “wine in the alcove” story with its corollary I abbreviate to the “crouching in the corner.” To admit the variants, however, is to see at once that the stories are just that, fictions.

But what is a fact is that at the time of writing, a little over a week after the High Court sitting in Canberra, only one version has been heard in official circles. On behalf of the Crown, Kerri Judd (assisted by Mark Gibson) presented consistently (with just one redactable hiccup) the “wine in the alcove” account arguing, appropriately enough, that this gave their story some corroboration. Whether or not Their Honours have caught wind of the scribbles of this “non-legal commentator” I cannot say, but the alternative has been mooted for about a month or so. On the discovery of the alternative you are reading it might be worth underscoring that it finds its support primarily (but not exclusively) in the obiter dicta of the Rome interview, a document in the public domain, one, however, that is little discussed and has only recently been transcribed. It provides evidence that is very clear and obvious when noticed but, like a popular video of a gorilla on a unicycle at a party, may prove invisible at first. The alternative account you are reading now is “the gorilla in the room.”

I shall now make good these claims. To begin I shall introduce the sacristy to get clear the significant places in the locale and also to provide some idea of the changes over the years and the logistics of the allegations. Next I will run through a sequence of the narratives on both the finding of the wine and the offending drawing from material presented in 2016, 2018, 2019, and 2020. Third I shall spell out how by understanding this data we may see that the narrative shifts really have developed as indicated, from both what was said and what was unsaid. Finally, I shall offer some pointers as to what has been going on in the Pell affair.

The Sacristy Locale

We shall introduce the layout of the sacristies area at St Patrick’s Cathedral Melbourne. First, we present above the plan view of the sacristies area.

Rather than go into further description we refer to what we have already written.ii We review a police photo that shows both the storage area to the left of the doors and the alcove area to the far left (as one enters the room).

Here is another view, one that focuses on that storage area with sinks to the left of the doors.

We also have a police photo of the white door. Without doubt this (cropped photoi i i ) was taken in the sacristy as a still from 2017 showed.

The two significant places are described in various ways. The storage area immediately to the left may be described as:

– Storage area immediately to the left of the double doors as you enter

– Storage kitchenette

– Furniture with two sinks

– Furniture that at the walkthrough (and in the police photos) displayed an opaque bottle of

wine

– Furniture with wood panels

– Furniture with lockable doors

– Furniture that in 1996 was a wardrobe

– Furniture that in 1996 had no sinks

– Cupboard that in 1996 was used for hanging albs

– Furniture that in 1996 was vinyl with a woodgrain finish

– Furniture that in 1996 had concertina doors

I shall also refer to this as the “storage kitchenette properly so-called.”

On the other hand, and to the right of this area in the photos we have what may be variously described as:

– The alcove area

– The corner of the room

– On the far left as you enter

– The place where the vault is with a white door

– The place where the sacrarium used to be

– The place where it is said that the fridge used to be

– The place with shelving

– Cupboards a little bit concealed

It may also be described as the “storage kitchenette improperly so-called.” To belabour the point, this “storage kitchenette” is very different from the one that in 2016 had (and still has) two sinks.

Although we do not have photographic evidence we have drawn on an artist’s reconstructioni v based on evidence heard in court to show some of the changes made after sinks were installed in 2003/4. The contrast is very clear in this diagram. This interpretation of the changes finds support from Potter in his statement 5 December 2016 as recoded by Mark Weinberg. He pointed out that by 2004 the sacristy and undergone renovation”

835 However, Potter gave unchallenged evidence to the effect that the entire kitchen area that could now be seen in the Priests’ Sacristy had only been installed in about 2003 or 2004, long after the applicant had ceased to be Archbishop.

The details are explained as follows:

468 In relation to the Priests’ Sacristy, Portelli said that there had once been a sink ‘about 300 mil square’, with a single tap in the enclosed area where the vault was located. A shelf was constructed above it where a small bar fridge with a woodgrain front had been placed. It was at that sink that wine would be poured before being returned to the vault.

He said that the concertina doors that were said to have had a woodgrain appearance, did not look similar to the current panelled doors, as depicted in various photographs that he was shown.

Here we can also cite Portelli’s supplementary statement to Reed 6 December 2016 (paragraph nine):

Within the priests’ sacristy as you walk in through the double doors immediately on your left was a wardrobe with folding doors. Within this wardrobe were the personal vestments of the cathedral clergy. Immediately adjacent to that was a funny little arrangement with a small sink, a couple of shelves and then the walk in vault on the wall. This sink was properly named the sacrarium and was reserved for certain liquids only. It didn’t operate as per normal, but drained into the earth, not the sewer or stormwater. There was a small bar fridge as well, I can’t recall if it was above or below the sink. This area was hidden with folding doors that closed across the front.

From the appearances, we suggest that it would be difficult to describe the storage kitchenettes properly and improperly so-called as similar even as it is difficult to describe the sacristies as “eerily similar” across the decades. On the logistics, a first point is to note that the storage kitchenette blocks the view from the double doors to the alcove it is slightly concealed to say the least. For anyone who has “planted themselves in the doorway” (with one’s back to the door) it would, however, be possible to be seen by someone in the middle of the room. Indeed, if that person was near the storage kitchenette then someone at the door might grab them if they were just a step away, and of course, that person could then be shepherded into the middle of the room where all parties would be less visible from passers-by in the corridor. On the other hand, it would not be possible to grab someone in the alcove from the doorway, though if one were in the alcove already it would be possible to shepherd others to the centre of the room, but not for the sake of having more privacy.

Successive Narratives

Over time we find a series of differing accounts of what went on in the sacristy.

– 1. In June and July 2015 the complainant gave police statements to the informant detective Chris Reed. It seems that also a mark was made on a plan to indicate the positions in the room though the jury did not see this and only parts of the police statements were tendered as evidence.

– 2. Possibly in 2015/2016, Louise Milligan, who has no inkling of the wine or the timing after Mass, has “Mary,” the mother of the other boy, tell the journalist that the complainant met up with her:

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.”v

– 3. Then, in March 2016 Reed organised a walk-through at the Cathedral with the complainant and a nine minute video was shown in court. This is not in the public domain although in his closing address Robert Richter spelled out that when before the storage kitchenette he described it as being the same.

– 4. Next, the police wrote to Pell just before interviewing him. The “summary document” was seen by the legal team and was referenced in the interview. It is not in the public domain but this excerpt was heard in court.

After choir the complainants were caught be the accused drinking wine in the sacristy. The accused shepherded them into the centre of the room and forced his penis into the complainant’s mouth.

– 5. In October detectives Reed and Sheridan interviewed Pell at the Hilton and relate the allegations to Pell. I have commented on a transcription of the video.vi and also provided the time when made. Summarily, Reed explained:

The boys “poked around” (that is, walked along) various corridors before reaching the sacristy. No poking is ever mentioned inside the room.

After entering they encountered what has been described as a “wood panelled door … a storage area within the room.”

To be clear, this was “immediately on the left as you walk into the room” where they found some wine.

When Pell enters, “You’ve planted yourself in a spot between these two boys and the sacristy room.”

“You’ve moved your robe to one side and exposed your penis.“

“You’re still at this stage standing with your back to the door.”

“You’ve stepped forward and grabbed X (=J, the complainant) by the back of his head and forced his head down onto your penis.“

After a short period Pell let go and did the same to Y (=R, the other boy)

X was now in the “middle of the room” beside Y, and X is now assaulted again.

At no time is the alcove area in any of its cognates referenced in the interview.

– 6. We now draw on Mark Gibson’s closing address to the jury at the trial in 2018.vii Gibson takes up the complainant’s evidence:

“We entered the room and noticed to the left of us as we entered there was a wooden panelled area resembling a storage kitchenette kind of thing. We were poking through this cupboard and we found some wine.”

“It was a wood panelled surface with storage cupboards. It was a little bit concealed, but not too concealed. We found some wine in that panelled area in the cupboards.”

Gibson urges that he could not have known of this place without having been in the room and he continues now to draw on Potter and Portelli:

“This corner of the room did indeed have an odd little arrangement, being a metal bench space and a sink, being a sacrarium that drains into the ground …”

Nevertheless, an objection must be faced. The surfaces were vinyl and only looked like wood. This, however, was an easy mistake to make. The significant point is that J could not possibly know of the concealed area where the wine was kept unless he had been in that room. Nor should too much be read into fact that he got the colour of the wine and its bottle wrong. Gibson is explicit:

“So he always maintained that the wine bottle was there in the alcove. He never maintained that it was in that new sink area that we know exists now.”

Continuing the narrative:

“We were in the corner of the room where the cupboards were and we heard a bit of noise approaching and we were trying to quieten down a little bit, and then he entered the room.”

“He planted himself in the doorway and then he undid his trousers.”

“R is assaulted with J just a couple of metres away. “This was towards the centre of the room.”

Then J is orally raped, crouching, and in the corner of the room.

J is assaulted again.

– 7. Traces of these details can be detected in the August 2019 ruling. From the majority we may select:

44 Once inside the Priests’ Sacristy, A and B made their way to an alcove in the corner (described as a wood-panelled area resembling a storage kitchenette with cupboards) which was a little bit concealed. There they located some sacramental wine. This was from the panelled area in the cupboards. They began ‘swigging’ the wine. They had barely opened the bottle and taken a couple of swigs when Cardinal Pell entered the room alone. He was wearing robes. Cardinal Pell planted himself in the doorway and said something like ‘What are you doing in here?’ or ‘You’re in trouble’. The boys froze and then Cardinal Pell undid his trousers or his belt. He started moving underneath his robes.

59 In support of their respective contentions, both sides rely on considerations of the kind identified by Sir Richard Eggleston. Thus, the Crown points to aspects of A’s account of the first incident as being consistent with undisputed facts about the layout and furnishing of the Priests’ Sacristy at the relevant time. A’s knowledge of such details is said to confirm the truth of his statement that he was there when the alleged offending took place. Reliance is also placed on what could be gathered from ‘observation of the witness’. More than once, senior counsel for the Crown in this Court submitted that A was a ‘compelling’ witness.

95 There was, of course, no witness who could independently verify any aspect of A’s account of the alleged assaults. (We deal with B’s denial later in these reasons.) But, as the Crown submitted on the appeal, the credibility of his account was considerably enhanced by the accuracy of his description of the Priests’ Sacristy. He was able to describe in some detail the layout and furnishing of the alcove where he and B were discovered by Cardinal Pell. As the Crown pointed out, A correctly placed the wine area in the alcove, not where it is currently located.

From the dissent:

430 The complainant said that immediately to the left, after entering the sacristy, there was ‘a wooden panelled area … resembling … a storage kitchenette … ‘ The double doors to the sacristy were ‘… unlocked, perhaps ajar’, with ‘… one door bolted closed and the other one able to be opened.’

431 When ‘poking‘ through a cupboard, the boys found some wine in a ‘... dark brown stained bottle.’ The wine was red or ‘burgundy‘ coloured, and it was a ‘sweet red wine.’ The boys began ‘having a couple of swigs’ in the alcove area. It was at that point, according to the complainant, that the applicant entered the sacristy. He was robed, and alone.

432 The applicant ‘planted himself in the doorway‘ and said something like ‘what are you doing here?’ or ‘you’re in trouble.’ The applicant then

... undid his, his ah, his trousers or his belt. Like, he started moving his, underneath his robes …

433 The complainant then said that the applicant

… pulled [the other boy] aside and then pulled out his penis and then grabbed [the other boy’s] head from what I could see and, and um, I can only assume, put his penis in his mouth.

I could see his head being lowered towards his genitalia um, and then [the other boy] sort of started squirming. I don’t know, not um, he wasn’t looking too – he was struggling, you know.

434 In cross-examination, the complainant largely adhered to the account which he had previously given police regarding the actual details of the offending which took place within the Priests’ Sacristy.

838 Mr Boyce did, however, address this issue in oral argument. He contended that the complainant’s ability to give the police a broadly accurate description of the layout of the Priests’ Sacristy, when he first spoke to them in 2015, provided at least some support for his account of the first incident. He also added that there was no positive evidence of the complainant having been taken on any tour of the Cathedral, or through the Priests’ Sacristy.

908 The one matter upon which Mr Boyce particularly relied in support of the complainant’s account concerned the evidence given by Detective Reed. He spoke of the complainant’s knowledge, when he first approached the police, of the general layout of the Priests’ Sacristy. In that regard, Mr Boyce noted that the complainant’s evidence, at trial, had been that he had never been in the Priests’ Sacristy prior to the date of the first incident, or indeed since. He posed the rhetorical question, how then could the complainant have gained that knowledge of the layout of the sacristy?

We would add just another detail, namely that Pell was also described as moving when he exposed himself. Under cross examination from Richter we are told, “He approached us.” (VSCA, 817 and see also 379).

– 8. Finally we can briefly report that before the High Court in Canberra in March 2020 Kerri Judd is on script with the “wine in the alcove” narrative. We link to the full details.viii but here note that on two occasions (three instances) Judd uses the phrase “storage kitchenette.” The first couple of instances (which though redacted, remain in the official video) appear to be based on J’s testimony alluded to in the first sample taken from Gibson above: “We entered the room and noticed to the left of us as we entered there was a wooden panelled area resembling a storage kitchenette kind of thing. We were poking through this cupboard and we found some wine.”

On the video Gibson, at Judd’s right, is seen taking a look at his watch and making some notes. Later we find that Judd (improperly) uses the phrase “storage kitchenette” seemingly at the intervention of Gibson:

MS JUDD: Basically that it just so happens that this boy describes that alcove area in a way that so he picks the area where the wine is, so that is an important one. It is not anywhere else in that room, it is in that very room, Portelli agrees. He describes it – he describes that storage kitchenette area that was certainly there. Yes, there had been some changes, but there was a recognition about that. He describes the wood, both outside and inside.ix

That usage, then, is the only remaining instance of “storage kitchenette” in the official transcript.

Evidence for a Narrative Shift in the Texts

From these textual differences it is clear that the story has undergone various changes and the significant variation to which we shall attend regards the location of the wine. Our contention is that an original (that is, up to 2016) narrative of “wine in the wardrobe” with the associated, “planted in the doorway” gave way to the later “wine in the alcove” narrative so that we hear of the complainant “crouching in the corner.”

Of course, it can be proposed that the narratives are continuous in this sense that it was always true that the complainant located wine in a “storage kitchenette.” Technically, that is true. However, we would urge that at first the furniture in question was the storage kitchenette properly so-called whereas later on the phrase refers to the storage kitchenette improperly so-called.

In particular, we would note:

Whereas in the earlier narrative the boys “poke” in the corridor, that word is later used to explore inside the room (so that the boys reach the alcove area) and also to rummaging within cupboards.

Whereas in the earlier narrative the boys locate wine in a “storage area” that is precisely described as “immediately on the left” later on they located it in the corner, in some texts, on the “far left” as one enters.

Moreover, we note that in the Rome interview this furniture is described as having wood panelled doors.

Whereas in the earlier narrative Pell is in the doorway so that the boys can see him, in the later narrative they become aware of his presence by hearing him outside of the room so that they try to quieten themselves down.

Whereas in the earlier narrative Pell exposes himself standing with his back to the door, in the later narrative he approaches the boys.

Whereas in the earlier narrative Pell is just a step away from the boys who must therefore be close to the storage kitchenette properly so-called, in the later narrative the boys are a couple of metres away from the doors.

Whereas in the very early narrative Pell is able to shepherd the boys towards the middle of the room thus affording more privacy, in the later narrative the motion of the boys is from the other corner to the centre, and not caused by Pell, so that less privacy is now afforded.

Moreover, it seems that the differences in the starting positions also impacts on the order of the assaults although perhaps this point is not perfectly clear.

Evidence for a Narrative Shift from “Silence”

We begin by repeating the obvious. While the “wine in the wardrobe” narrative is deeply embarrassing for the Crown, the “wine in the alcove” one is not. This is because (a) it is not credible to suppose that wine was found in a wardrobe, especially as (b) it was identified as “storage kitchenette” before its time. On the other hand, (c) it might be deemed more likely that the wine was found in the alcove area near the vault where it was kept, with the implication that (d) the complainant would be able to recall a “storage kitchenette” (improperly so-called, namely, the sacrarium) that, no longer being in the sacristy, could not have been learnt from recent coaching. It follows that a motive exists to switch narratives, and disguise that shift. On the other hand, should any evidence exist that the “wine in the alcove” narrative was genuinely early, that narrative would inevitably be promoted. Thus, where that evidence is not promoted this can only be because it does not exist and it is known not to exist. In other words, in this case “an absence of evidence is evidence of absence.”

Now, because we can detect this absence in various places we can conclude that the “wine in the alcove narrative” must be absent from very early sources that are not open to us. These include:

– Early police statements not tendered as evidence

– Diagrams on which the complainant was asked to mark unambiguously where the offending took place

– Cuts from the walk-through in which the complainant showed particular interest in the alcove area

– Police photos showing a special interest in that area

Generally speaking, the “wine in the alcove” narrative is conspicuous by its absence. At this point we can spell out that, by March 2016 when the complainant visited the Cathedral, the police had not heard of the sacrarium. Thus, on supposition that the complainant, with some perplexity, pointed to the alcove area wondering where the sink had gone, then that embarrassment would not have entered into oblivion, not when, nine months later, and upon reading Potter and Portelli, the detectives have their eureka moment as they realise that the missing sacrarium, though not in the alcove today, was nevertheless a feature of the 1996 sacristy. That we have not heard of such a dramatic vindication only goes to show that it never happened.

Nor, does it appear, that those who would celebrate that compelling witness of truth the complainant, have been active in their apostolate in stressing the point Gibson put the jury. It convinced them, but there is no need to convince others. Indeed, at the time of writing, not a single tweet containing the three words “Pell,” “wine,” and “alcove” and certainly not with the pair “Pell” and “sacrarium” exist.

However, we must register a possible counter-example to our thesis, which on examination turns out to be probably supportive in the end. For in a video clip I have seen of Christopher Boyce before the intermediate court in June 2019 the Crown, at (18:55) discuses indicia. Boyce, interestingly, distinguishes (a) the alcove area, (b) the storage kitchenette, and (c) the wood panelling. He also refers to the sacrarium. His point is that the complainant identified wine in the alcove.

Moreover, he seems to offer some support for his opinion from an early narrative. Thus at (13:00) Boyce references the walk-through and points out the place echoed by Gibson in his closing address where the complainant described the room as “eerily similar” (13:28). Then, somewhat unclearly and quietly, at (14:06) Boyce seems to say, “He identified the al—alcove area” (and in a softer voice) “generally speaking” (a little louder) “that’s where we would identify the wine.” Let us add that Anne Ferguson appears a little agitated at this point, and she interrupts Boyce a couple of times. All the judges had been in the room, she interjects.

Boyce is arguing for the credibility on the grounds that no inventor would choose an embarrassing narrative, and here he means the location of the offending. For at (14:24) it is said to take place “in the middle of the room.” However, anyone can see that that spot would lack privacy. But our point is that at (14:39) we hear Boyce say, in answer to that question, “he steps back … (interruption) … he identifies it in the middle of the room … in view of the door.”

To us it seems that this clip must be of the complainant by the storage kitchenette then taking a step back towards the centre. This would make sense as it seems as though the narrative of the walk-through moved from the wine to the offending and we know that the complainant commented upon the storage kitchenette (explaining that it was just the same). Moreover, if the complainant stepped back at that point then it would appear more natural to have him directed to the doorway (where Pell planted himself in the early narratives) than directed to the corner of the room. For in that scenario the complainant would not be orientated in such a way as to be able to see Pell who would, of course, be behind him, approaching, and loosening his cincture.

We infer then that the walk-through does not show the complainant pointing out “the alcove area where we would identify the wine.” We take it that Boyce really is “generally speaking” referring to the alcove area broadly meaning all the furniture on that side of the room including any storage kitchenettes properly or improperly so-called.

Let us end by adding that while we may have omitted various pieces of evidence that only back up our thesis we have not come across anything that would contradict it. All reason points to one thing, the earliest story was that the wine was located in a storage kitchenette that would, however, have been a wardrobe at the time and certainly not in the alcove, which was a notion never heard of until after the police had discovered that the storage kitchenette was in fact a wardrobe, an embarrassment given that it is not possible to remember the furniture of the future.

The Gorilla in the Room

We expect no challenge to our thesis and we think that our point has been made. One thesis and one only can apprehend in a single view all the facts facts that are quite demonstrable from open sources (even if we have sometimes touched on those that are not). At first the complainant put out a story that two boys located wine in a storage kitchenette but later adapted it so that it was located in the alcove. The salient detail here is that after speaking to Pell, Potter, and Portelli the police discovered that the original story could not possibly be true. For one, that would mean the complainant located wine in a wardrobe, and two, his apparent knowledge of the storage kitchenette could only come from a source with up-to-date information since the sinks were installed well after his time. However, far from ending the investigation at that point it acquired a new lease of life. The story changed so that now, by locating wine in the alcove, indeed near a storage kitchenette (albeit improperly so-called), the complainant could now be said to possess information that could not be the result of recent coaching but had to be from a genuine (if decades old) memory.

This new narrative was taken to the jury. In court it does not appear that sufficient attention was paid to the Rome narrative and Gibson’s story found scant rebuttal. Perhaps he took Richter by surprise as, apart from four instances in Potter and Portelli, the word “alcove” gets mentioned ten times in the trial, all in Gibson’s address. In truth, the clumsiness of the narrative shift cannot disguise the awkward throw-backs to the early accounts (including the fact that at one point the complainant noticed the storage kitchenette eight years before the sinks were installed even as the pair hurriedly poked until they could find wine in the proper place) but even so perhaps the trickery was enough to bamboozle the jury.

Incidentally, it has often been charged against Pell supporters that we pay insufficient respect to the jury. Certainly, I would maintain that notwithstanding the inculpatory points advanced by Gibson we should not forget that their decision arose amidst a witch-hunt.x Bret Walker had gently reminded the intermediate court of the words of Michael McHugh to the effect that communities are subject to hysterias from time to time.xi which, with the likes of Milligan’s book and Minchin’s song, and so on was surely what we were dealing with here, “elephants in the room” as Richter put it to the jury but still, on the account offered, Pell’s jury has a mitigating circumstance: they forgot what Reed said in Rome. Is that fact surprising? It took me a years’ work to notice it and draw the significance. The jury may have reasoned that here was a sign that the complainant was reliable: he found wine in the alcove. They were wrong, but it would not appear that they were basing their decision solely on the basis of credibility. Let it be set down, then, that it is a Pell supporter who was able to give that jury credit where it was due.

For it may be advanced that had that jury not been so bamboozled they would not have found the complainant so compelling. Had they had pointed out to them just half a dozen bullets from Reed in Rome they would have be unable to unsee the point even as no one can unsee that gorilla on the unicycle. But of course, Pell’s team did not adopt the strategy of suggesting a conspiracy that would imply a miscarriage. Unreasonable, to be sure, given that the police appear to have made their mind up before hearing from key witnesses such as Father Egan who was never called. But the suggestion was never made that the jury were being misled. And while we would not necessarily point the finger at detective Reed (maybe he was the fall guy) he surely must have realised that the story about the wine in the alcove was not the one he had related to Pell in 2016. So a pertinent question arises as to just how that happened. But as we have noted, with Gibson’s prompting, the narrative of the “wine in the alcove” is still being promoted. In this essay I have explained why that is just a fairy tale.

i For a long but slightly unwieldly statement that this essay is intended to replace, see:

https://www.academia.edu/42044834/Locating_the_Wine_in_the_Alcove

For antecedents see:

https://www.academia.edu/40887246/The_Background_Thinking_to_the_Rome_Interview https://www.academia.edu/41111911/How_the_interview_changed_the_story
For a short general essay incorporating the findings see: https://www.academia.edu/41842205/Cardinal_Pells_Impossible_Sin

In a capsule:

https://www.academia.edu/42077720/If_the_Wardrobe_Does_Not_Fit_the_Jury_Must_Acquit

For an advertisement:

https://www.academia.edu/42095447/What_Everybody_Has_Overlooked_in_the_Pell_Case

For a review that takes in key aspects of the trial transcripts:

https://www.academia.edu/42123609/The_Wine_in_the_Wardrobe_Revisited
For a note focussing on the offending: https://www.academia.edu/42136429/The_Offending
For a statement of the evidence in one page: https://www.academia.edu/42146703/The_Key_Evidence_in_One_Page
For Kerri Judd on the wine in the alcove: https://www.academia.edu/42202505/Kerri_Judd_on_the_Wine_in_the_Alcove
For detail on the redacted text: https://www.academia.edu/42245687/On_a_Redaction_in_Kerri_Judd
On the sacrarium: https://www.academia.edu/42260797/A_Note_on_the_Sacrarium
ii https://www.academia.edu/41096543/The_Sacristies_Area_Revisited
iii https://www.academia.edu/41999739/The_White_Door
iv Thanks to David Pearce. For links see: https://www.academia.edu/42044834/Locating_the_Wine_in_the_Alcove
v For a long review of Milligan’s Cardinal: https://www.academia.edu/40135146/Milligans_Cardinal vi https://www.academia.edu/42118590/Rome_Interview_With_Comments
vii As reported by Melissa Davey: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/feb/26/five- times-guilty-how-george-pells-child-abusing-past-caught-up-with-him-in-courtroom-43
viii See above, re Kerri Judd.
ix See above, re Kerri Judd.
x See: https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2019/05/the-social-media-witch-hunt-for-george-pell/ xi https://www.academia.edu/40193356/Bret_Walkers_leave_to_appeal_for_Media

(The writer Doctor Chris Friel taught maths for many years before undertaking, first, a masters in Philosophy, and second, doctoral research on value and credibility in the thought of Bernard Lonergan. In 2018 he investigated at length the “purposely timed hysteria” of the pro-Israel hawks in the UK amidst the antisemitism crisis, and commencing in 2019 has devoted an equally lengthy exploration of the Cardinal George Pell case and its context).

Also by Chris Friel: The final piece of the puzzle in the Pell case | Cardinal Pell – The Case for the Prosecution | Counsel for George Pell argues for conviction to be set aside | Reviewing the Pell appeal which goes before high Court on Wednesday | George Pell Case – The wine in the wardrobe revisited | Evidence in trial of Cardinal George Pell confusing and inconsistent | Hiatus theory in Pell trial looking increasingly wobbly | Cardinal George Pell conviction, uncanniest of them all | Where were the concelebrant priests if Pell was in the sacristy? | Juggling of times in Pell case only raises more questions | Pell alibi looms as crucial factor in High Court appeal | Chorister supported Crown case against Pell | The Pell case – “Having reviewed the whole of the evidence…” | Cardinal Pell’s Innocence or Guilt – now a matter for the High Court | Credibility of George Pell accuser under scrutiny | A Critique of Ferguson and Maxwell | How the Interview Changed the Story | Cardinal George Pell learned of charges against him in Rome Interview

Related story: High Court of Appeal in Australia to review conviction of Cardinal