PELL’S MOMENT OF TRUTH
CARDINAL George Pell said he had been looking forward to his day in court.
Yesterday, when the main event finally arrived, he was greeted by Valda Hogan, who rose from her walking frame and inflated to her fullest form, which might just top five feet.
She was the Australian training jacket in the media mayhem, the screech in the flash of arms and cameras. She was determined to fulfil a deathbed pledge to her brother George to “get these buggers”. So she roared: “George Pell, go to hell.”
Inside the Melbourne Magistrates Court, Pell encoun- tered a gentler reception. An orderly queue hushed and straightened when he arrived outside court 21 at 9.15am. Near its door lurked two believers. “Hello, Father” they echoed, as he discussed the studies of the young lawyer accompanying him.
Pell loped with an energy unusual for his years and medical history. He is odd angles at the knees and elbows, like a football who didn’t know when to stop. His hands turn out. His feet turn in. A jacket hung like a scarecrow’s afterthought. His hunch bulged when he removed his glasses to polish them.
By then, the lawyers were wrangling over procedural matters in what surely rates among the tardiest justice systems in the free world — which would explain why the parochial oddities of this case have merited an explanation in the New York Times. Perhaps, then, it wasn’t at all strange that the question of dogs in court was yesterday pondered and resolved.
Dogs? Here was — as a court staffer gushed — “the biggest” case in Victoria in years. Yet it has so far yielded few details, beyond allusions to historical allegations and multiple complainants. Much of what was open to the public — a little over 10 minutes yesterday swirled over the use of dogs being used for the com- fort of witnesses giving evidence. Pell’s lawyer Robert Richter QC wondered about the sight of dogs licking. Weren’t dogs mostly for kids and the elderly?
As usual, Richter framed the headlines for the day. Richter has a knack for talking points ( and filleting the evidence of those in the witness box).
Last year, he said some allegations against Pell would prove “impossible”, following an earlier courtroom ( and at the time legally unnecessary) announcement that his client would plead not guilty.
Yesterday, he offered a free assessment of the police investigation into his client. Investi- gators had, in effect, bungled, he said, because they did not follow guidelines. “The Cardinal” was a public figure, he said, and the police had applied a “presumption of guilt”.
When the court closed again, an observer concluded proceedings had “led us absolutely nowhere”. Outside, where a sign spoke of “ending 100 years of secrecy”, Hogan had again tossed aside her walking frame. She was waiting, prowling. “Come on, George Pell, get out here,” she yelled.
She later talked about the truth. Yet Hogan — along with Pell and anyone who looks forward to justice — may be waiting some time yet.