Cardinal George Pell: High Court quashes abuse convictions

[Lion_IRC]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1164333537937412096

 

[Edmundus1581]

Anthropology has noted a cycle of 30 years where the shame of lessons learned dissipates and stories repeat themselves and that’s pretty much the time lapse since the Lindy Chamberlain aquittal for killing her daughter Azaria.

A fascinating lesson from anthropology, and one which I haven’t heard before. Thankyou!

As an Australian who witnessed both the Chamberlain and Pell cases over several years, the parallels between the two cases have been obvious to me.

The legal passages of the two cases were almost identical, ie. a jury conviction then a failed first appeal, up to the final step, where Chamberlain’s high court appeal failed and Pell’s succeeded. One should expect no skull duggery in either case with the high court, as some have suggested, but rather that the defence evidence was stronger in the Pell case. Chamberlain had no alibi apart from her husband, whereas Pell’s was watertight (caveated by the passage of years).

As you say:

[The Chamberlain case] showed the power of trial by media and the lengths police will go to to secure a conviction against someone. It’s taken that long for Aus. justice to repair its credibility. And now it’s happening again. Trial by media has won the day even with an acquittal.

Indeed! In both cases police worked relentlessly over years to obtain a conviction of an innocent person, the media portrayed that person adversely, and much of the public was “sure” of their guilt, and stubbornly persisted in that belief.

One case involved an unknown person who went on a family holiday, lost a child, and then found themselves persecuted by the police, and sentenced to life in prison. The other case was involved a high profile person, prominent for his beliefs, and often depicted as a pariah.

The lesson is that it can happen to anyone, and undoubtedly will again.

Whether that person will eventually be exonerated after being unjustly convicted will be a roll of the dice. Perhaps our legal system will hold firm, or perhaps it won’t. Perhaps their exculpatory evidence (cf. Azaria Chamberlain’s missing matinee jacket) will eventually emerge, or perhaps it won’t.

If I’m still alive in thirty years, I look forward (in a sense) to watching this prediction play out.

 

[Dovekin]

which of the above three options do you think accounts for the reasonable doubt to which an innocent person (like Pell) is entitled. His accuser said ‘black’. Pell said ‘white’. Both cannot be right.

i think this kind of logic was used by the jury. They felt compelled to choose one or the other, and all chose the accuser.

This decision from the Supreme Court said “We do not know” was an option. Reasonable doubt is another way of saying x is right or wrong, but we do not know which.

 

[Emeraldlady]

There are two other similarities between the cases in that both accused were religious in a fairly anti religious country and both had an awkward affect that made their responses suspicious to ‘neuro typical’ personalities. It makes me wonder how many people are convicted based on autistic spectrum problems!

 

[Edmundus1581]

Thankyou! I missed those parallels, but you are spot on. I especially note your comment about “an anti-religious country”. Sadly true. And, yes, the accused person in both cases had an unfortunate way of presenting themselves which was played at its worst by the media. I’ll give the Australian bishops some credit for having spoken out on behalf of Pell for how they know him in person.

 

[Episcopalian]

Provided he was truly innocent: It breaks my heart that the Cardinal had to go through all that hardship, and I’m sure went through a ton of tears, stress, and pain during his time in prison.

I hope this truly discourages people from lying about one of God’s priests.

If he wasn’t innocent: I feel absolutely awful for the victims and any other victims of any rape anywhere. This would really shake your confidence in the legal system we have in place.

 

[OurLadyofSorrows]

Two more people have come forward and are claiming abuse by him, there was an episode of Revelation that outlined these accusations. It has been pulled offline. I cannot see this being the end of things now. If the complete redacted Royal Commission Report is published, it may be, if not, I would suggest legal processes are warming up for round #2.

 

[Paddy1989]

Paddy1989:

What is it with people who lack the professional judicial understanding and full details think they themselves know more than Judges. They only expose their own bitter bias

Would you say the same about those who supported him when he was convicted?

If someone who has limited information claims to know more that those professionals in the judicial system then yes i would however Cardinal Pell was entitled to appeal his conviction. If he was found to be guilty then we would have to accept that

 

[silentwitness]

Two more people have come forward and are claiming abuse by him, there was an episode of Revelation that outlined these accusations. It has been pulled offline. I cannot see this being the end of things now. If the complete redacted Royal Commission Report is published, it may be, if not, I would suggest legal processes are warming up for round #2.

I think we are well past round #2.

The media have been going after Pell for a long time.

They look corrupt right now and willing antagonizers to an innocent man, they are unlikely to let it lie there.

 

[OurLadyofSorrows]

I think we are well past round #2.

Round 2 being fresh charges for completely new cases. We are not there yet.

 

[silentwitness]

Round 2 being fresh charges for completely new cases. We are not there yet.

That would be about round #6 and unless you have personal knowledge of the Cardinal’s guilt about charges that have not yet been made; let alone examined and decided on, then you seem to be wanting such a thing with little regard to charity owed to the Cardinal.

Discussion of the alleged crime scene and the conviction that was unanimously rejected by the High Court of Australia.

 

[LilyM]

OurLadyofSorrows:

Two more people have come forward and are claiming abuse by him, there was an episode of Revelation that outlined these accusations. It has been pulled offline. I cannot see this being the end of things now. If the complete redacted Royal Commission Report is published, it may be, if not, I would suggest legal processes are warming up for round #2.

I think we are well past round #2.

The media have been going after Pell for a long time.

They look corrupt right now and willing antagonizers to an innocent man, they are unlikely to let it lie there.

Corrupt? Perhaps wrong, blind and overly keen to sink the boot in. To me, corrupt in this context implies something along the lines of witnesses, judges or jurors being intentionally interfered with. There is no indication that such was the case.

 

[silentwitness]

Corrupt? Perhaps wrong, blind and overly keen to sink the boot in. To me, corrupt in this context implies something along the lines of witnesses, judges or jurors being intentionally interfered with. There is no indication that such was the case.

I think the power of the media, working in collaboration with elements of the Victorian police and politicians did interfere with jurors, judges and other legal professionals and perhaps witnesses, potential or otherwise. Just 6 days before the conviction of Cardinal Pell a judge dismissed cover-up charges against Bishop Philip Wilson and in his recorded judgement said that he felt strong pressure from the media and other sources that wanted to find the Bishop guilty despite what the facts might show. He thought that this was a real and present danger in the legal proceedings of such cases.

That seems like clear interference to me, with respect.

> Philip Wilson’s conviction overturned.

HOW STATE-FUNDED BODIES DESTROYED IN INNOCENT MAN.

An innocent bishop acquitted.

The judge (in the Bishop Wilson decision) acknowledged the role of the media in making public the “morally reprehensible” actions of churches and other institutions, but said “large numbers of members of media from all around Australia” was “the elephant in the room” in some cases.

“This may amount to perceived pressure for a court to reach a conclusion which seems to be consistent with the direction of public opinion, rather than being consistent with the rule of law that requires a court to hand down individual justice in its decision-making processes,” the judge said.

“The potential for media pressure to impact judicial independence may be subtle or indeed subversive in the sense that it is the elephant in the room that no one sees or acknowledges or wants to see or acknowledge.”

 

[OurLadyofSorrows]

That would be about round #6 and unless you have personal knowledge of the Cardinal’s guilt about charges that have not yet been made; let alone examined and decided on, then you seem to be wanting such a thing with little regard to charity owed to the Cardinal.

Discussion of the alleged crime scene and the conviction that was unanimously rejected by the High Court of Australia.

Based on 1 trial series for several charges of which he has just been acquitted on reasonable doubt.
Round #2 - These are new allegations by new people. Will they go before the courts? We shall see as they say, but again I reiterate, given their discussion and accusations have been silenced in a documentary series episode withdrawal, I am going to take a guess and say every effort will be made to put them before the courts.

I am going to ignore your emotionally charged attack and your little regard for charity in it.

 

[InThePew]

I am relieved that the highest court has affirmed that the credible testimony of a single complainant cannot itself constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Actually it can and such a situation (one complainant with not corroborating physical evidence) is common is rape and sexual abuse cases.

some commentators remarked that the defence had made a tactical mistake in their presentation of the “alibi” evidence (of Pell’s movements after Mass) in that they had given the impressions that they were trying to “prove” his innocence, and may have reversed the burden of proof in the jurors’ minds.

I’d agree with this. I think his trial counsel placed too much emphasis on it being “impossible” leading the prosecution to try and show it could have been possible and jury to reverse the burden of proof.

The prosecution believed the witness and nothing in the trial process demonstrates he lied. The court has simply concluded there is a possibility that the events described by the complainant did not happen.

I wouldn’t say that he lied but at the same time the court went much further than simply concluding that there was a possibility that the events didn’t happen. For the first, while it was possible in theory, the window of time within whcih it could conceivably have happened would have been extremely limited and would have required a number of actions to take place unnoticed and a number of people to depart from their usual practices. For the second, the court essentially found that it was all but impossible for 6’4" Pell, in his vestments, to have pushed the complainant up against the wall and fondled him without anyone else in the room noticing.

It’s a brave trial judge who sets aside a jury verdict. And two thirds of the appeal court judges were not criminal law specialists (if memory serves me). The one who was…, favoured that appeal.

For a trial judge to set aside a jury’s verdict basically doesn’t happen. It would require an application from the defence in any event. As far as the court of Appeal judges are concerned, the same criticism could be made of the judges on the High Court. Most judges haven’t come from a career specialising in criminal law.

 

[Emeraldlady]

These are new allegations by new people. Will they go before the courts?

No they aren’t new allegations. They were part of the police trawling exercise in 2016 advertising for people to accuse Cdl Pell. These were 2 boys from a Ballarat orphanage that claimed the Cdl had abused them at the orphanage in the 70’s. Except a nun who was at the orphanage said that ‘Fr’ Pell was never there. The only time he visited was on the day the orphanage closed to be part of that ceremony. There was another accusation a couple of years ago that a boy had come to the Ballarat Presbytery and reported to ‘Fr’ Pell that he’d been abused by a Priest and was ignored. Cdl Pell still had his passport from that time that clearly proved he was in Rome for that year.

It has been a blatant witch hunt from the beginning. Those out to get him have been so blinkered by their hatred that they can no longer see the big picture and any semblence of the good in truth.

 

[Godfollower]

That’s the main issue for me. The idea that one believable complainant’s testimony can convict would be astonishing and terrifying.

But that is the law: The testimony of a single witness, if believed by the jury, is enough to convict. That’s true in Australia as well as in the United States.

As the High Court said:

There is no requirement that a complainant’s evidence be corroborated before a jury may return a verdict of guilty upon it.

The difference is that, in this case, there were quite a few unchallenged, independent witnesses who testified that the complainant’s testimony could not be true (because they place Cardinal Pell outside the cathedral, in public, at the time he was allegedly inside assaulting the victim; or because they knew that he was always accompanied and never left alone while on the cathedral by long-standing tradition in the cathedral, etc.).

Given the substantial evidence of impossibility, the High Court said that the jury should have found a reasonable doubt.

 

[OurLadyofSorrows]

No they aren’t new allegations.

Did you see the episode on Revelation before it was pulled?

 

[Rau]

If Cardinal Pell did not commit the acts which his accuser alleged, then which of the above three options do you think accounts for the reasonable doubt to which an innocent person (like Pell) is entitled. His accuser said ‘black’. Pell said ‘white’.

I don’t know whether he did or did not do the alleged acts. From the outset though, I held the view that the charges were not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The high court concurs. The high court decision neither concludes nor implies anything about the truth of the allegations.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

No they aren’t new allegations.

Did you see the episode on Revelation before it was pulled?

The Revelation series is made by the ABC which is an appalling outfit out to destroy the Church in Australia. They say what suits the narrative they are pushing. The two boys they are claiming are “new” cases ie. Bernie (surname withheld) and Peter Clarke who went to the Nazareth orphanage in Ballarat are not new at all. They were sought out by the police dragnet desperate to find ‘victims’. Their accounts were already easily disproven and should official records be required they’ll be easily produced. The ABC is terrified and will in time be among the ‘heads that roll’.

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/b...s/news-story/714ef9cf7758cca704d78c47a3c7e484