The Catholic Weekly 5 September 2021

catholicweekly.com.au 16 5, September, 2021 V ista Milligan didn’t give it much more of a run. It became gen- erally known that Pell did not live at the cathedral presby- tery and was only ever there for major liturgical events. The first account of a one- off escapade straight after mass received a considerable re-working. You will recall that Shane Patton (who when appointed Victorian Police Commission- er in June 2020 was described as ‘forthright and analytical,’ with his colleagues saying he was ‘right into the detail’ ) led a couple of his men to Rome to interview Cardinal Pell on 19 October 2016. At the in- terview, Detective Sergeant Chris Reed was accompanied by Detective Inspector Paul Sheridan. Preparing for the record of interview, Pell had thought, in light of the preliminary writ- ten details given him by the police, that the allegations related to assaults in a back room of the cathedral some time after choir practice when others would not be around – much like the Milligan ac- count which was published a year later. But it was now made clear to him that the allegation was that the assaults occurred soon after solemn 11am mass in the priests’ sacristy. Hav- ing heard that, Pell must have thought that the police would realise that J’s allegations were unreliable, if not ridiculous. At the outset in the inter- view Pell told the police: “The allegations relating to Saint Patrick’s cathedral are ... the products of fantasy.” He went on to say: “The most rudimentary interview of staff and those who were choir boys at the cathedral in that year and later would confirm that the allegations are fundamentally improbable and most certain- ly false and I invite my inter- viewers to tell me who they’ve spoken to and I’m happy to provide them in due course the persons who can speak authoritatively about my functions, presence and con- duct at the cathedral generally andmore particularly at times when abuse is alleged to have occurred.” “I would earnestly hope that this is done before any decision is made whether to lay charges because immeas- urable damage will be done to me and to the church by the mere laying of charges which on proper examination will later be found to be untrue. Thank you.” Detective Sergeant Chris Reed responded, “Thank you. I appreciate that.” Mr Reed, Mr Patton, and Detective Superintendent Sheridan returned to Austral- ia and did nothing of the sort. Pell gave the police four vital pieces of information of which they were previously una- ware, and which should have brought the investigation to an end after some very simple police work back home. FOUR VITAL PIECES OF INFORMATION FROM THE PELL RECORD OF INTER- VIEW, 19 October 2016 1.The Hive of Activity in the Priests’ Sacristy After Mass THE FIRST vital piece of in- formation was that there would be a hive of activity in the priests’ sacristy after mass, including the sacristan, his assistant, money collectors, concelebrants and altar serv- ers. Pell told the police that they should go back to Melbourne and interview these people who would be able to cor- roborate his claim that it was just not possible for Pell to be alone in that place at that time with two choir boys. Here are Pell’s actual words spoken at the record of interview: “Now, the sacristy after mass is generally a hive of ac- tivity because you’ve ... well have got the sacristan there and often you had an assis- tant sacristan. If there were concelebrants, they would divest. The servers would get out of their vestments. The collectors would bring in the collection. The sacristan and the assistants would be bring- ing the chalice and the vessels out from the altar. Now, I was always accompanied by my master of ceremonies after the mass, so he would come around with me and help me unrobe. It was just the proto- col.” When J’s version was put to him, Pell said, “What a load of absolute and disgraceful rubbish. Completely false. Madness. All sorts of people used to come to the sacristy to speak to the priest. The sac- ristans were around, and altar servers were around. This is the sacristy at the cathedral after Sunday Mass?” Mr Reed replied, “yes’” To which Pell responded, “Well, need I say anymore. What a load of garbage and falsehood and deranged falsehood. My master of ceremonies will be able to say that he was always with me after the ceremonies until we went back to the car park or back to the presbytery. The sacristan was around. The altar servers were around. People were coming and go- ing.” The police led by Mr Patton with an eye for detail returned to Melbourne and did not interview one single money collector nor one single altar server. By the time of the second trial, the police had been provided with the diary of an altar server Jeff Connor who Father Frank Brennan SJ, above.The high-profile legal expert attended the Pell proceedings and, after hearing the prosecution case, became convinced the cardinal was innocent.The sacristy of St Patrick’s Cathedral below. PHOTO:ABOVE:ACU “The police ... returned to Melbourne and did not interview one single money collector nor one single altar server.” documented key participants at each mass. Here is Robert Richter’s cross examination of Christopher Reed the lead investigator at trial: Yes. One of the interesting things about his diary is you were able to establish, from his diary, the names of a whole lot of altar servers, who were rele- vant to the relevant period? - Well, relevant period. There was altar servers - I don’t - I actually don’t recall reading the - a name of altar servers in the diary of Mr Connor. Well, in the diary entries he has lunch, they have regular lunches? - Okay. Do you recall reading some- thing like that, and he names them? For example, in July, ‘Serves luncheon at Jimmy Watson’s Lygon Street, Carl- ton, with Ray, Ralph’ and a few other names there that I can’t read? - I don’t recall that entry, no. All right. They had regular lunches, get togethers, the altar servers, the adults? - Okay. You accept that, don’t you? - Yes, I’ll accept that, yes. So what happens is this; apart from the fact that we tracked down Mr Connor you had not tracked down any al- tar servers at all? - No, that’s correct. But the altar servers were a very, very important part of this investigation? - Well, not during the in- vestigative stage, no, we were concerned with the choir boys specifically, because the events that have been alleged oc- curred surrounding the choir boys, not the altar servers that were in a different location and had a different role. But there weren’t any choir boys present when this hap- pened, alleged to have hap- pened? - Well, there weren’t any al- tar servers. There weren’t any of those present ... ? - There weren’t any altar servers alleged to be present either. Correct, but the altar servers took part in processions in the same way that the choir boys took part in the processions? - That’s correct, yes. And not just that, the altar boys were more important be- cause the altar boys were in a position to say what they did aftermass in the priest sacristy? - Evidence has been given to that effect, yes. Yes, and you accept that? - I accept the evidence that’s given, yeah. So the situation is that apart from Jeff Connor - it was certainly possible to ask him for the names of other altar servers who were operational at the time? - Yes, it was. But he was never asked by anyone in the taskforce? - No, he wasn’t. No attempt was made by the police on their return from Rome to contact any al- tar server, or any money col- lector, or any concelebrant. Why? Because J said none of them was in attendance. Pell had told them that these people would routinely have been in attendance in the very spot and at the very time that the offending was alleged to have occurred. Instead of in- vestigating the allegations, the police simply accepted J’s account unquestioningly including the assertion that there were no altar servers present during any of the pe- riods that the first incident could have occurred. They interviewed no altar servers. But they interviewed over 30 choristers. Why? Be- cause J was a chorister. Chor- isters don’t enter the priests’ sacristy after mass, unless of course they are misbehaving. This policing technique, if applied to other cases, would compromise many a criminal