Cardinal Pell and David McBride

Cardinal Pell and David McBride

Why was Cardinal Pell convicted of sex crimes against a minor? And will McBride be convicted by the same “corrupt” Australian legal system?

The idea that Pell was guilty was pushed by gullible and biased journalists and commentators, such as Peter FitzSimmons (See left-hand column for his views on Pell) and accepted by a jury and a host of judges who lacked the analytical ability to see that some of the allegations were almost physically impossible while others were highly unlikely.

But, the core reason that Pell was convicted was that accusations were given in secret, and away from any member of the public who might be able to say they knew something about the accuser that suggested he was a liar.

The psychology of secret courts will almost always allow injustices. See:

Psychology of Secret Courts / Military Tribunals

We are now seeing the case of David McBride accused of leaking confidential military information to the media.

The first thing to doubt is the basic intelligence of the people in the so-called “security” community making the allegations. I have met people in the security communities while living and working in Australia, Russia (including spies), and China. On the whole they rarely have highly sophisticated minds. One only has to look at the low quality of the written work of most Australian security analysts after they find new employment as journalists or in think-tanks. And, then there are Australia’s Air Chief Marshal Houston (see blogs in left-hand column) and Major-General Cantwell (also see blog in left-hand column) –both men in powerful security positions displaying foolishness. And remember the fairy-tale about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

The second thing to doubt is the ability of juries to grasp more than quite basic issues in life and put aside emotions. Most people are just too stupid! Anyone who doubts this has not lived!

The third thing to doubt is the quality of judges. I have already mentioned the Pell case. What about ACT Supreme Court judge David Mossop who is presiding in the McBride trial.

According to a 2 May 2013 by then ACT Attorney-General, Simon Corbell, Mossop “was a barrister in private practice for 14 years, prior to taking up appointment as an ACT Magistrate. During his career as a barrister, his areas of practice were diverse and included constitutional law, commercial law, administrative law, tenancy law, corporations law, and human right and discrimination law. In his earlier years, Mr Mossop was a solicitor at the Environmental Defender’s Office (ACT) where he provided legal advice and community legal education on environmental law, and managed a small community legal centre. Prior to that he was Associate to then High Court Justice McHugh.”

This is hardly the sort of background that that would give Mossop any sort of ability to judge the truth or sensibility of what his accusers are saying. Indeed, Mossop might have his own biases and – given the secret nature of his court – and the opportunity to be dishonest.

Just imagine Houston telling Mossip that Australia and the US were winning in Afghanistan. Mossip would have believed every word!

According to 15 November 2023 SMH article, “on Wednesday morning, Justice Mossop said he would be directing the jury, which had been expected to be empanelled on Thursday, that McBride had no duty to act in the Australian public interest in circumstances where it conflicted with orders”. “Any duty contrary to law would not be able to be discharged,” Mossop said. “[It] could not be readily described as a duty at all.” Rather, Mossop said the scope of a Defence Force member’s duties were defined by legal rules applied to soldiers.

McBride’s barrister has argued that merely obeying orders “ignores Nuremberg”. Mossop is probably now looking up Wikipedia articles to find out about Nuremeberg. I can help him in this area, having read extensively about the psychology and thinking of defendants at the Nuremberg trials, when researching my book on dictators and the people who worked with them. Many high ranking German military officers – such as Field Marshal Manstein – refused to join a conspiracy to remove Hitler because of their duty of loyalty to the army. Mossop would probably applaud Manstein for this!

See: “Dictatorial CEOs and their Lieutenants: Inside the Executive Suites of Napoleon, Stalin, Ataturk, Mussolini, Hitler and Mao –

I would also suggest that Mossop try to find out about living in Putin’s Russia where most prosecutors and judges would totally agree with him. I can also help him here because I lived in Russia until October last year – 10 months after the February 2022 invasion of Ukraine. The change in the willingness of all sorts of people to accept that they could do nothing to change the situation was chilling, with some proclaiming that supporting the Russian military was far more important than the truth or even the overall interests of Russia. There was a “legal duty” to NOT talk about “war” and any Russian atrocities – particularly for soldiers — but also a “duty” to only talk about a “special military operations” (SVO) and the elimination of the “Nazi regime” in Ukraine.


Jeff Schubert