Wednesday, April 8, 2020

Guest Submission: Cardinal George Pell



Cardinal Pell Acquittal

Analysis by Colin Ector


Cardinal George Pell has been released from prison after having his conviction overturned. 


Pell was convicted in December 2018 of sexually abusing two choir boys in the late 90’s. He had been accused of committing the crimes when he found the boys drinking alter wine after mass, in Melbourne’s St Patrick’s Cathedral.


Australian High Court


“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,” 


Pell has made the following statement to the press. ( The Cardinal’s words are in italic.)

I have consistently maintained my innocence while ( ) suffering from a serious injustice
This has been remedied today with the High Court's unanimous decision.”


  1. We note the subject, (Pell) begins with the pronoun “I” making it likely to contain reliable information.  It does not mean it is truthful or deceptive. Only that statistically within the words, we will find reliable information as he is psychologically present.
  2. The subject does not tell us he is innocent.  He tells us that he has “consistently maintained” his innocence.  There is a difference. This would be a true statement regardless of whether he abused the boys or not.  This leads us to ask, why has he simply not told us that he did not sexually abuse the boys? Why does he have the need to change what we call, a reliable denial, to a statement of his commitment to maintaining a position.
A reliable denial contains 3 parts.
  1. The pronoun “I”
  2. “Did not” or “didn’t”
  3. The specific allegation stated clearly.
  1. Note the subject has omitted the pronoun “I” when he tells us of his “suffering from a serious injustice”.  The missing pronoun reduces his psychological commitment to his words.  
  2. “remedied”. We remedy an undesirable situation.  Would an innocent man use such a weak word to describe being acquitted of such a serious crime, especially after spending over 400 days in prison?


“I look forward to reading the judgment and reasons for the decision in detail.
I hold no ill will toward my accuser, I do not want my acquittal to add to the hurt and bitterness so many feel; there is certainly hurt and bitterness enough.


  1. Why does the subject use the singular “accuser”?  There were two boys. Does he hold bitterness to one of them?
  2. Anything in the negative is doubly important to the subject.  The subject now tells us what he does not want.
  3. Why would there be “hurt and bitterness” if he did not sexually abuse the boys?
  4. Anything repeated is important to the subject.  “Hurt” and “Bitterness” are repeated.
  1. Who feels “hurt and bitterness” that the subject has increased in importance with repetition and connecting to the negative?
Answer: So many.  Is the subject thinking of others abused by other members of the Catholic Church or might this be an indication that there are others that Pell has abused? 


However my trial was not a referendum on the Catholic Church; nor a referendum on how Church authorities in Australia dealt with the crime of paedophilia in the Church.
The point was whether I had committed these awful crimes, and I did not.


  1. We still wait for a reliable denial. “I did not” misses the third part of a reliable denial. "I did not" what? The truly innocent have no issue stating the allegation as they have no psychological connection to it.  The subject here changes the allegation to “these awful crimes” and he does not connect even this to his denial.
  2. This sentence does in fact, allow for the possibility that the subject committed “these awful crimes”.  This is unexpected wording from an innocent subject.
    3. He acknowledges that awful crimes took place.


The only basis for long term healing is truth and the only basis for justice is truth, because justice means truth for all.


  1. This in analysis is called “the sermon”.  It is often an indication of projected guilt. It could be argued that the subject being a Cardinal may Sermonise more than most. However, no one gets a pass on human nature and the sermon is noted regardless.
  2. “Truth” is repeated three times in this sentence.  The subject does not connect himself to the truth. He does not say “I have told the truth” or “I am telling the truth”.  It is likely part of the subject’s sermonising and need to persuade.


A special thanks for all the prayers and thousands of letters of support.
I want to thank in particular my family for their love and support and what they had to go through; my small team of advisors; those who spoke up for me and suffered as a result; and all my friends and supporters here and overseas.
Also my deepest thanks and gratitude to my entire legal team for their unwavering resolve to see justice prevail, to throw light on manufactured obscurity and to reveal the truth.
Finally, I am aware of the current health crisis. I am praying for all those affected and our medical frontline personnel.

There is nothing within this statement from Cardinal Pell upon his release from prison to suggest he did not sexually abuse the two boys.  
He does not reliably deny the accusation of sexual abuse and uses more words, time and effort to do so.  If he is unable or unwilling to tell us reliably he did not abuse them, we cannot say it for him.


In 2018 the Cardinal made this statement to the media. We believe the Cardinal’s words. He is the one who has the information. He is the one who knows what happened. We expect to hear a reliable denial from the Cardinal.


Good morning to you all. I want to say one or two brief words about my situation. These matters have been under investigation now for two years.There have been leaks to the media. There has been relentless character assassination — relentless character assassination — and for more than a month, claims that a decision on whether to lay charges was imminent. 
  1. The subject (Cardinal Pell) takes ownership of what he describes as “my situation”, with the possessive pronoun “my”.
  2. He expresses his desire to say “one or two brief words”.  It only requires a few brief words to tell us “I didn’t sexually abuse the boys”.  He does not.
  3. Instead of denying the accusations the subject tells us he is the victim. “Relentless character assassination”, which he repeats making it doubly important to him. 
  4. The subject is likely frustrated that “these matters” are still under investigation after two years.  It is important enough for him to tell us and at the beginning of his statement making it a priority for him.  


I'm looking forward, finally, to having my day in court. I'm innocent of these charges. They are false. The whole idea of sexual abuse is abhorrent to me. 
  1. There is no reliable denial again.  The subject is avoiding giving a reliable denial whilst hoping we will interpret his words into his innocence.  He is not looking forward to telling a court that he did not abuse the boys. It is “having his day in court”.
  2. The subject sermonises telling us “The whole idea of sexual abuse is abhorrent to me”.  Sermonising is often used by those who harbour guilt as they project and try to persuade others of their innocence.
I've kept Pope Francis — the Holy Father — regularly informed during these long months. I have spoken to him on a number of occasions in the last week, I think most recently, a day or so ago. 
We talked about my need to take leave to clear my name. So I'm very grateful to the Holy Father for giving me this leave to return to Australia. I've spoken to my lawyers about when this will be necessary. 
  1. The subject’s language has changed. “spoken to him” is now “we talked”.  “spoke to him” holds more authority in his words? Now they have “talked about his need to take leave” which is more conversational.   Did the Holy Father suggest or tell him to take leave?
  2. This is very sensitive to the subject.  He unnecessarily tells us the reason why he is “very grateful” which in context may suggest he did not want to return to Australia.
And I've spoken to my doctors about the best way to achieve this. All along, I have been completely consistent and clear in my total rejection of these allegations. 
  1. This is a true statement.  It is not a denial. It is not a reliable denial. It takes more effort than a reliable denial and it is to avoid giving a reliable denial.  It avoids the internal stress of telling a direct lie.
  2. This likely speaks to the subject’s personality.  In his mind he has no need to deny the allegations. He can simply reject them like you might reject a faulty item.  That is enough for him and it should be enough for the legal system. He likely sees himself above the law and beyond prosecution.
News of these charges strengthens my resolve, strengthens my resolve. And court proceedings now offer me an opportunity to clear my name and then return here back to Rome to work.Thank you.”
  1. The subject doubles down on his strengthening of resolve.  He will likely double down on his deception.
  2. His name is what is important and clearing it.  He is unwilling or unable to tell us he did not do it.


Conclusions


  1. The subject is unwilling or unable to give a simple reliable denial regarding the accusations of sexual abuse. This is the "psychological wall of truth" we expect one to safely stand behind. "I didn't sexually touch the boys" should be front and center and the defense against all injustices perpetrated against him.
  2. The subject likely sees himself above prosecution and the law.
  3. The subject’s name is what is important to him.  
  4. He sees himself as the victim and does not show any empathy for the boys who were abused.

The Cardinal’s words from both Statements indicate that his acquittal is a mistake and that justice for the victims has been undone. 


The Cardinal’s words indicate he has always seen himself as Elite and above consequences.  The acquittal is not likely to dissuade him from this position. 

***************************************************

If you would like to learn deception detection, please visit Hyatt Analysis Services