A link to the Cardinal Pell decision itself & a question

[FiveLinden]

One of the two alleged victims died of an overdose after saying no-one had abused him. The surviving alleged victim claims Pell assaulted him in circumstances which the defence believed they had proved could not have happened. The layout of the cathedral and sacristy made the crime close to impossible. The elaborate vestments Pell was wearing at the time made it more so. There is no corroborating evidence.

This was not the finding of the court - any of the courts. The finding of reasonable doubt related to the evidence as to his usual practice. The points about layout were a context for that. The vestments claim can be ignored. The jury had a set of the vestments in their room. There was a small amount of corroborating evidence such as the complainant’s accurate recollection of parts of the cathedral to which he would not normally have had access. But very little. It was impossible of course for the other person said to have been involved to give corroborating evidence because he had died. And ‘propensity evidence’ relating to other incidents claimed to involve the Cardinal was not admitted.

 

[FiveLinden]

Here is Professor of Law, Fr Frank Brennan, SJ, AO, giving a very thoughtful and lucid summary of the various problems with this case. I watched this yesterday and it’s well worth the viewing time:

I’m not familiar with the prosecution guidelines for the Victorian police but if they are like those in other jurisdictions with a similar history they will be based largely on an assessment of the likelihood of success, i.e. a conviction. Given the fact it had to go all the way to the federal High Court with convictions all the way it seem’s hardly fair to call this work on the part of the police ‘shoddy’. They seem to have made a rational call in the light of the law as it stood. In a similar case now they may make a different call. That’s what precedents are about.

 

[dochawk]

I have not gone back to check but when I read it I thought the court said what I said. I don’t disagree with your version of it but i think it goes further than the court said.

It wouldn’t;'t go further for the simple reason that the court couldn’t go further: they found that no reasonable jury could act that way, and that any reasonable jury would have acquitted, and thus entered the acquittal. But that’s as an appellate court can go.

 

[Bithynian]

Has this been posted on any of the Pell threads here before? I don’t think so.

A caution about the Quadrant: it is essentially Australia’s political and cultural equivalent of Church Militant and LifeSite News (quelle horreur!). It’s ultraconservative to the point of being hysterically paranoid.

The literary editor resigned from academia (he was a professor of English literature) after a leak of several of his work emails in which he complained about the presence of 'fat people, ‘Chinky-poos’ (i.e. Chinese people) and ‘Muzzos’ (i.e. Muslims) in his classes.

The editor-in-chief is a “historian” who describes the Stolen Generations - the forced removal of Indigenous Australian children from their families - as a myth. This is a bit like describing antebellum slavery in the US South as a ‘benevolent institution’.

It used to be a good publication with thoughtful and interesting articles (some still are). Their previous literary editor was the poet Les Murray and one could always count on his discerning eyes in selecting wonderful verse and prose submissions.

 

[FiveLinden]

It wouldn’t;'t go further for the simple reason that the court couldn’t go further: they found that no reasonable jury could act that way, and that any reasonable jury would have acquitted, and thus entered the acquittal. But that’s as an appellate court can go.

I don’t think so. I think it could have made a finding, if it thought this to be the case, that it was impossible for Cardinal Pell to have committed the crimes alleged. The decision makes very clear that it thought it open to the jury to believe the accuser, but that they had also failed to take into account other evidence, or had failed to give it its appropriate significance.

 

[dochawk]

I don’t think so. I think it could have made a finding, if it thought this to be the case, that it was impossible for Cardinal Pell to have committed the crimes alleged.

No, that isn’t within the purview of an appellate court in the Common Law system.

It doesn’t make factual findings, but rather determines whether the evidence allowed the lower court to make the finding that it did. Other legal systems are different in this regard.

 

[EssentialBeing]

At least we can praise the Australian legal system for the presumption of innocence until proven guilty

The foundation of the legal system has been upheld.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Has this been posted on any of the Pell threads here before? I don’t think so.

One of the two alleged victims died of an overdose after saying no-one had abused him. The surviving alleged victim claims Pell assaulted him in circumstances which the defence believed they had proved could not have happened. The layout of the cathedral and sacristy made the crime close to impossible. The elaborate vestments Pell was wearing at the time made it more so. There is no corroborating evidence.

I mentioned it indirectly when I said there were serious physical problems with the small amount of evidence the prosecution presented.

dochawk already made the further point I would have made about the function of the appellate court vs the function of the lower court. I tend to avoid having discussions of emotionally charged appellate court rulings with non-lawyers because there is a lot of basic stuff like what dochawk said that people usually don’t know and don’t really want to know when they have decided somebody is “the bad guy”.

 

[Edmundus1581]

At least we can praise the Australian legal system for the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

The foundation of the legal system has been upheld.

Indeed! The system has withstood a severe test against trial by media and police activism.

No, that isn’t within the purview of an appellate court in the Common Law system.

It doesn’t make factual findings, but rather determines whether the evidence allowed the lower court to make the finding that it did. Other legal systems are different in this regard.

I was quite puzzled when the grounds for the appeal, ie. “unsafe verdict”, were revealed, as I well remember visiting the high court building in Canberra and the guide explaining that the court only rules on matters of law, not fact, from which I got the impression that a jury verdict itself was not open to re-consideration, but just whether there had been a legal slip along the way, ie. basically a “technicality”.

I would imagine, however, that instances of reviewing a jury verdict are very rare. (But thank God that it can happen!)

As we mentioned in another thread on this, Lindy Chamberlain’s high court appeal failed, even though there was a strong impression that there had been a miscarriage of justice. And one with more severe consequences than Pell’s, ie. mandatory life in prison.

 

[IanM]

One overlooked point in all of this is the link with people in power in the State of Victoria and certain people in Italy (which even Catholic News Agency obliquely refers to in the article linked below) Also search for “Operation Tethering” to see how it worked. p.s dont use G oogle (its not really your friend in any of this)
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/...ould-distract-from-major-police-scandal-55972

 

[BartholomewB]

@Bithynian, thank you for the warning. The site was previously unknown to me. It was a link I found on another comments thread, evidently posted in good faith.

[Edit]
The commenter who posted the link describes James Franklin, the author of the Quadrant article, as “a Catholic and a mathematician” . (That British commenter is himself a physicist by profession.) Would you say Franklin himself is above suspicion, or not?

 

[Maximian]

Yes. I don’t think that this was even a case of “credibly accused”. One uncorroborated accusation, whose dates shifted, opposed by credible witnesses including the mother of the supposed other victim, over an event which supposedly happened 40 years ago, Made after the only other possible witness was conveniently dead. On that basis anyone could accuse anyone of anything.

Such a case can only have got to court for political reasons.

 

[InThePew]

Most allegations of rape and / or sexual abuse are “uncorroborated” simply because there’s usually nobody around when it happens - that’s sort of the whole idea. It’s also not uncommon for child abuse victims to take a considerable time to come forward and to deny that anything happened. So those things in and of themselves don’t have a huge bearing on credibility. The complainant’s evidence was sincere (that’s probably the best way of putting it) - there was no suggestion he was lying - but it ultimately just didn’t fit with the known pattern of behaviour on the part of Cardinal Pell and others.

Tbh I think this case was pursued to the extent it was because of the high profile nature of the defendant. I think there was a desire to be seen to be prosecuting to the Nth degree in order to avoid any suggestion that a high profile figure could get away with something like this. Besides this, the impression I get (admittedly having never met the man) is that Cardinal Pell’s strong personality and direct (almost abrupt) nature makes him something of a lightning bolt for criticism and personal attacks.

 

[Lion_IRC]

A caution about the Quadrant: it is essentially Australia’s political and cultural equivalent of Church Militant and LifeSite News ( quelle horreur! ). It’s ultraconservative to the point of being hysterically paranoid.

Poisoning the well fallacy.
…and false to boot.

 

[Maximian]

In fact most allegations of rape are corroborated, whether by dna, psychological reports, eyewitnesses, witnesses to the psychological aftermath. - something. But in this case there was absolutely nothing. Just a bald accusation, forty years after the supposed fact, of an utterly improbable incident. And solicited by the police, which in many countries would be illegal.

 

[Dovekin]

The complainant’s evidence was sincere (that’s probably the best way of putting it) - there was no suggestion he was lying - but it ultimately just didn’t fit with the known pattern of behaviour on the part of Cardinal Pell and others.

His testimony convinced a majority of jurors in the first trial, and all of the jurors in the second trial. In a country where people are supposed to be tried by a jury of their peers, it looks awfully suspicious that high ranking judges acquitted a high ranking clergyman. This is the flipside of innocents should not be convicted; should juries still be used or should convictions come from trained “justice technicians”?

I think one reason Pell was convicted was the arrogance shown by his lawyers. I was astonished when I read accounts of the trial that they relied on things like “it ultimately just didn’t fit with the known pattern of behaviour on the part of Cardinal Pell and others.” That just did not sound right after hearing many years of clergy sex abuse stories. It probably was true of Pell, but it was used to dismiss the accuser as an inconsequential person. (Arrogance was not an unusual complaint about Pell.)

I am happy that the Cardinal is out of prison, but I fear the jury system is not well served by this decision. Pell may have been tried in the media, by bigots, etc. but he was also convicted in a court by 12 jurors. Their service should be affirmed, or the jury system will die.

 

[BartholomewB]

His testimony convinced a majority of jurors in the first trial,

The hung jury split 10-2, two for “guilty” and ten for “not guilty”.

 

[Bithynian]

The commenter who posted the link describes James Franklin, the author of the Quadrant article, as “a Catholic and a mathematician” . (That British commenter is himself a physicist by profession.) Would you say Franklin himself is above suspicion, or not?

James Franklin isn’t a particularly regular contributor to the Quadrant, so it’s difficult to assess. I was attempting to encourage some circumspection and cross-referencing when reading Quadrant due to some very iffy editorial decisions made in the past. Separating the wheat from the chaff, as it were, and there’s a lot of chaff.

 

[InThePew]

In fact most allegations of rape are corroborated, whether by dna, psychological reports, eyewitnesses, witnesses to the psychological aftermath. - something.

Not always. Traditionally, a woman was expected to have raised the “hue and cry” immediately as evidence of her attack and failure to do so counted against her credibility. Psychological reports don’t really count for much unless it’s evidence of having told someone and even then, it’s a legacy from the days of “hue and cry”. Forensic evidence isn’t nearly as common as most people think - the CSI effect as it’s known has a lot to answer for. There can be medical evidence but this is very dependent on timing. Finally, rapes, like sexual abuse, don’t tend to occur around eyewitnesses. Most rape and sexual abuse cases simply involve an allegation by itself.

His testimony convinced a majority of jurors in the first trial, and all of the jurors in the second trial.

Most of the time, juries get it right - but they’re not infallible or we wouldn’t need appeal courts. Here the jury plainly got it wrong as is clear from the judgment.

I think one reason Pell was convicted was the arrogance shown by his lawyers. I was astonished when I read accounts of the trial that they relied on things like “it ultimately just didn’t fit with the known pattern of behaviour on the part of Cardinal Pell and others.

What they were actually talking about isn’t his character but his routines - which can be evidence in themselves. Churches, like courts, have long-held ways of doing things which they don’t tend to deviate from. Here, one of the key issues was Cardinal Pell’s custom of greeting the people outside after mass (whcih it seems was different to his predecessor).

 

[Emeraldlady]

One overlooked point in all of this is the link with people in power in the State of Victoria and certain people in Italy (which even Catholic News Agency obliquely refers to in the article linked below)

These are the things that are known at higher levels and not discussed out of fear of reprisal. But we do know that the freemasons have been influencial in the Victorian Police force and host high ranking officers at their meetings. We know of the connection between the Mafia and Freemasons. Pope Francis spoke of both as a problem in the Vatican. It sounds like a typical conspiracy theory but it’s in fact a huge problem.

Mafia join Italy’s freemasons to ‘do deals’ with judiciary | World | The Times