George Pell’s own defense lawyer begged for leniency in the treatment of his client. These are his excuses. Below the fold because they are revolting.
But did it help Pell to argue that the crime – if it happened – was a spur of the moment thing? There was no plotting, said Richter. No grooming. It was Pell, “stumbling on something without time for reflection”.
Pell was not, as he put his penis in that boy’s mouth, acting as archbishop but only as a man. Mass had finished and that was the only reason Pell was at St Patrick’s.
“The only differential of power is that he is an adult – for reasons inexplicable – with an urge to do what he did,” said Richter. “He is not abusing his position as archbishop but he is abusing his position … as a grown man.”
Richter pointed out helpfully that (if Pell had in fact done anything at all) he exerted “No force greater than was required to achieve penetration.” There were no physical injuries, no ejaculation, no recording of the offences and he did not commit them while on bail or parole.
And with this last one, he confirms that there is no Christian God.
the crime at the heart of this case was “No more than a plain vanilla sexual penetration case where the child is not actively participating…”
If there was, the lawyer would have been struck down by the deity with a pillar of nuclear fire, and the walls of the courthouse would have been shattered by the gloating, triumphant cackle of Satan as he personally arrived to gather Pell to his bosom.
No such event occurred, therefore we atheists are right.
Fucking hell, but that lawyer should have just kept his mouth shut. I’m ready to see Pell led out to a chopping block after that performance.