Cardinal Pell charged and must return

[Rau]

Do you think the prosecutors who have more access to the case and evidence than you or I are making a political move against a high ranking prelate?
What do you think the motive is of that?

I doubt that they are misbehaving. Either there is better evidence than so far released, or they are making a judgement about who is telling the truth. Or… If there are multiple complainants, and the police can’t determine they are all mistaken or lying, and with the backdrop of the Royal Commission, perhaps they feel a trial is warranted to test the stories.

I note that at earlier points in the police investigation, the director of public prosecutions (separate from police) did not act on the police brief but returned it to them saying the police can pursue charges if they see fit. So at least at that point, the experts did not see sufficient cause.

 

[CeelosDeznos]

The way this thread has developed shows a lack of logic on the part of many participants.

For example: The case against Cardinal Pell was developed by means of the Australian Royal Commission (ARC), the same commission that about one year ago charged the Jehovah’s Witnesses of failing to protect the children in their religious organization against sexual predators.

The ARC uncovered 1,006 cases of child sexual abuse that had occurred in the Jehovah’s Witness church since 1950 and that had gone unreported to the authorities. In almost all these cases, the Jehovah’s Witness clergy handled the cases in-house, forcing the victims to face the pedophiles before a room of church elders, sometimes without their parents present. If the children could not charge the pedophile with the sin of sexual child abuse or there were not two witnesses to the actual act of child rape, the accused was set free and the child was often punished for “lying.” To make matters worse, the Witnesses often victimized the child’s family further by having them excommunicated. Records of these cases were kept hidden from the public, and before the ARC commission began there was some evidence that the Watchtower authorities in New York attempted to have all Jehovah’s Witness congregations in Austalia destroy these records. They did not succeed.

Victims were rounded up to testify, most now adults, and many “faithful” Jehovah’s Witnesses made the same excuses about their church and their religious elders and Governing Body members I am reading here in defence about Cardinal Pell. But the ARC found these claims about the Witnesses’ crimes shamefully true despite the Watchtower’s efforts. It was a horror story come so shamefully true.

I don’t recall anyone here on this forum or anywhere in the Catholic world saying that the Australian Royal Commission was wrong about the Jehovah’s Witnesses and that their judgments about those 1,000-plus sexual child abuse cases that go back all the way to 1950 were faulty. The same arguments made here on this thread in defense of Pell can be said for the Witnesses (since many of the cases involve memories that go reach just as far back in years), but no one here spoke up when it was the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ turn before the ARC last year. I didn’t hear a Catholic say that the news coverage about the Witnesses was unfair or wrong or twisted or biased when the reports came out night after night in Australia and even here in the USA on PBS and the Washington Post. There were no Catholic defense posts saying that any of the figures or memories of the victims were wrong or that any of the faithful ministers or their religion was undergoing wrongful persecution. No one spoke up for the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

The reason Cardinal Pell has been charged is because of the findings of the ARC. They also did a similar study involving complaints against the Catholic Church and its clergy in Australia. If they weren’t faulty with the Witnesses, how is it they are suddenly fautly now with Pell? The ARC has done its job with regards to various groups. It did not just focus on Catholics. It went after all types of organizations that had complaints involving sexual child predators. Now the criminal charges are going out, and Pell just happens to be one of the many. Will any of you Catholics defending Pell cry out the same way when the charges that go out against the Jehovah’s Witnesses for their crimes goes out too?

And tossing in all this information about the Netflix docu-series, “The Keepers,” is just a “red herring.” It has nothing to do with the real issue here.

The real issue is that Cardinal Pell deserves his day in court.

If you don’t want people calling him guilty before the court calls him guilty, then you also can’t call him innocent before the court calls him innocent.

If you want to call the evidence against him faulty, then you better complain against all the evidence the ARC collected against every other group they investigated. If the memory of a victim is faulty against Pell then so is the memory of a victim against one of those Jehovah’s Witness elders. Either your logic works for everyone, regardless of who they are, or you are just lying to yourself and everyone here.

Watch and see what happens first before jumping to conclusions, otherwise this is just a bunch of people tossing bias-confirmation exchanges back-and-forth who haven’t the courage, intelligence, or spiritual integrity to show greater self control.

 

[CeelosDeznos]

Post Script:

And, from what I understand, it is not the job of the ARC to do the actual charging with a crime before a court of law, etc. That is what is beginning now.

 

[Rau]

Post Script:

And, from what I understand, it is not the job of the ARC to do the actual charging with a crime before a court of law, etc. That is what is beginning now.

There is not - or should not - be claims that Pell is innocent, since that is beyond any poster’s capacity to know. Nor is there a claim that memories are faulty, persons are lying or evidence concocted.

But there is a claim that the evidence publically released in connection with Pell is weak and unconvincing on the face of it. And unlike many accused, he strongly denies the actions of which he is accused ever occurred.

If you can point to similar circumstances pertaining to a Jehova’s Witnesses representative, then point out the case, direct us to the charges and extensive media coverage, outline the fragility of the evidence, or point to media articles doing so, and you may find that we share your concern that justice be dispensed equally.

The Pell case attracts attention because of the position he holds. There is no basis to suggest that attention represents some kind of one-eyed bias on the part of CAF posters.

 

[ProdigalSun]

I pray that Gods will be done!

I Also pray that Crdl Pell is found innocent.

I also pray that both of these prayer are in line with one another!

 

[Lion_IRC]

I don’t recall anyone here on this forum or anywhere in the Catholic world saying that the Australian Royal Commission was wrong about the Jehovah’s Witnesses…

Therefore what?

Your lack of ability to recall stuff is irrelevant to Cardinal Pell being legally entitled to the presumption of innocence.

 

[Lion_IRC]

ruleoflaw.org.au/beyond-reasonable-doubt/

The clearest way we protect the presumption of innocence in our system is through the high standard of proof placed on the prosecution in a criminal trial: that they must prove the case against the accused “beyond reasonable doubt”.

…One of the key directions given to juries in criminal trials across Australia is to remind them of the accused’s right to be presumed innocent of the charge, and only to be convicted if the jury has been persuaded “beyond a reasonable doubt”. This crucial direction is just the latest protection given to the presumption of innocence, a concept that goes back through criminal law systems around the world for centuries,

 

[Lion_IRC]

…the Royal Commission, on the other hand, did NOT apply any presumption of innocence, it allowed anonymous, unsworn testimony, and it did NOT allow cross-examination of people making accusations. People could come and say what they liked and were not obliged to cooperate with the police or press charges relating to their claims.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

That’s not a summary, that’s a work of fiction in its own right.

Numerous priests committed the crimes and are doing the time as they should. There are bishops who covered up the crimes who also deserve to do time, though most are dead. There are also some who were unjustly accused.

The case against Pell - to the extent its known - does not appear to involve convincing evidence. He deserves justice too - based on the facts.

The way this thread has developed shows a lack of logic on the part of many participants.

For example: The case against Cardinal Pell was developed by means of the Australian Royal Commission (ARC), the same commission that about one year ago charged the Jehovah’s Witnesses of failing to protect the children in their religious organization against sexual predators.

The ARC uncovered 1,006 cases of child sexual abuse that had occurred in the Jehovah’s Witness church since 1950 and that had gone unreported to the authorities. In almost all these cases, the Jehovah’s Witness clergy handled the cases in-house, forcing the victims to face the pedophiles before a room of church elders, sometimes without their parents present. If the children could not charge the pedophile with the sin of sexual child abuse or there were not two witnesses to the actual act of child rape, the accused was set free and the child was often punished for “lying.” To make matters worse, the Witnesses often victimized the child’s family further by having them excommunicated. Records of these cases were kept hidden from the public, and before the ARC commission began there was some evidence that the Watchtower authorities in New York attempted to have all Jehovah’s Witness congregations in Austalia destroy these records. They did not succeed.

Victims were rounded up to testify, most now adults, and many “faithful” Jehovah’s Witnesses made the same excuses about their church and their religious elders and Governing Body members I am reading here in defence about Cardinal Pell. But the ARC found these claims about the Witnesses’ crimes shamefully true despite the Watchtower’s efforts. It was a horror story come so shamefully true.

I don’t recall anyone here on this forum or anywhere in the Catholic world saying that the Australian Royal Commission was wrong about the Jehovah’s Witnesses and that their judgments about those 1,000-plus sexual child abuse cases that go back all the way to 1950 were faulty. The same arguments made here on this thread in defense of Pell can be said for the Witnesses (since many of the cases involve memories that go reach just as far back in years), but no one here spoke up when it was the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ turn before the ARC last year. I didn’t hear a Catholic say that the news coverage about the Witnesses was unfair or wrong or twisted or biased when the reports came out night after night in Australia and even here in the USA on PBS and the Washington Post. There were no Catholic defense posts saying that any of the figures or memories of the victims were wrong or that any of the faithful ministers or their religion was undergoing wrongful persecution. No one spoke up for the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

The reason Cardinal Pell has been charged is because of the findings of the ARC. They also did a similar study involving complaints against the Catholic Church and its clergy in Australia. If they weren’t faulty with the Witnesses, how is it they are suddenly fautly now with Pell? The ARC has done its job with regards to various groups. It did not just focus on Catholics. It went after all types of organizations that had complaints involving sexual child predators. Now the criminal charges are going out, and Pell just happens to be one of the many. Will any of you Catholics defending Pell cry out the same way when the charges that go out against the Jehovah’s Witnesses for their crimes goes out too?

And tossing in all this information about the Netflix docu-series, “The Keepers,” is just a “red herring.” It has nothing to do with the real issue here.

The real issue is that Cardinal Pell deserves his day in court.

If you don’t want people calling him guilty before the court calls him guilty, then you also can’t call him innocent before the court calls him innocent.

If you want to call the evidence against him faulty, then you better complain against all the evidence the ARC collected against every other group they investigated. If the memory of a victim is faulty against Pell then so is the memory of a victim against one of those Jehovah’s Witness elders. Either your logic works for everyone, regardless of who they are, or you are just lying to yourself and everyone here.

Watch and see what happens first before jumping to conclusions, otherwise this is just a bunch of people tossing bias-confirmation exchanges back-and-forth who haven’t the courage, intelligence, or spiritual integrity to show greater self control.

Thanks for posting this. It’s very informative.

Now it will be picked apart…

 

[Lion_IRC]

Thanks for posting this. It’s very informative.

Now it will be picked apart…

Yes it will because of things like this;

…The reason Cardinal Pell has been charged is because of the findings of the ARC.

What “findings”? They haven’t even released their final report!

We are picking apart things like this;

The case against Cardinal Pell was developed by means of the Australian Royal Commission

What “case against Cardinal Pell”?

The Royal Commission hasn’t made any findings of fact that Cardinal Pell broke the law or should be prosecuted.

The only accusation against Cardinal Pell at the Royal Commission is that he should have known stuff he didn’t know - and even if he didn’t know stuff then he ought to have done more to find out about that (hearsay) stuff being said by anonymous people about alleged stuff done by other people - decades ago - and then he (Pell) ought to have gone to the police himself to report the third party hearsay that alleged victims and their families failed to report.

Oh the irony of secular/civil political authorities waiting 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 years to launch a ‘Royal’ Commission where one of the recurring themes is an accusation that The Catholic Church took too long and didn’t do enough to try and compel unwilling witnesses to report their allegations to secular/civil political authorities.

Better late than never I suppose.

 

[pianistclare]

Thanks for posting this. It’s very informative.

Now it will be picked apart…

+1

 

[Rau]

Thanks for posting this. It’s very informative.

Now it will be picked apart…

Which, to the extent it improves a grip on reality and facts, is a good thing, no?

 

[pianistclare]

Which, to the extent it improves a grip on reality and facts, is a good thing, no?

In that respect, yes.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

“Not guilty” does not equal “innocent.” They just can’t prove it the to standards of a criminal trial. It doesn’t mean that Pell or any of the other hosts of pedophiles is “innocent.”

These cases–any sexual assault cases–are notoriously hard to “prove” since there are generally no witnesses, no confession, and guess what! After 45 years or so no forensic evidence. That doesn’t mean that they didn’t take place, are a concoction of anti-Catholic zealots, or are based on false memories.

Some people here are victim-blaming. “Why didn’t these people come forward 40 years ago?” etc. If you have to ask that, you have no empathy or compassion. Put yourself in their position–a 10-year-old boy or girl being molested by the trusted family priest. How likely would it be that you would come forward? Same with cases of rape. And the victims think they are somehow “guilty.” That makes it just that much worse. Disgusting.

 

[Rau]

“Not guilty” does not equal “innocent.” They just can’t prove it the to standards of a criminal trial. It doesn’t mean that Pell or any of the other hosts of pedophiles is “innocent.”

These cases–any sexual assault cases–are notoriously hard to “prove” since there are generally no witnesses, no confession, and guess what! After 45 years or so no forensic evidence. That doesn’t mean that they didn’t take place, are a concoction of anti-Catholic zealots, or are based on false memories.

Some people here are victim-blaming. “Why didn’t these people come forward 40 years ago?” etc. If you have to ask that, you have no empathy or compassion. Put yourself in their position–a 10-year-old boy or girl being molested by the trusted family priest. How likely would it be that you would come forward? Same with cases of rape. And the victims think they are somehow “guilty.” That makes it just that much worse. Disgusting.

As true as much of that may be, if the police, or the public prosecutor, choose to pursue criminal charges, the rules and standard of evidence in a criminal trial apply. Would you have it otherwise?

And I note that generally the assertion is not about the guilt or innocence of the accused, but about the standard of evidence (to the extent we know it). That the allegations may come to light after 40 years is unhelpful for genuine victims and unhelpful to the processes of justice.

 

[Lion_IRC]

“Not guilty” does not equal “innocent.”

Yes, this reversal of the burden of proof is something the enemies of the Catholic Church are gleeful about. It means they can insinuate stuff about Cardinal Pell before and AFTER his case.

Some people here are victim-blaming. “Why didn’t these people come forward 40 years ago?” etc.

How many more victims of child abuse are there now than would otherwise have been the case had the perpetrator been reported to the police in the first instance?

That’s not victim-blaming.
That’s stating the bleeding obvious!

 

[Roseeurekacross]

1. these charges against Cardinal Pell are NOT the outcome or end result or have ANYTHING to do with the ARC. - Australian Royal Commission into institutionalised abuse. case 50.
   absolutely nothing to do with Case 50.
2. several alleged abuse victims / survivors came forward and alleged Cardinal Pell assaulted them. now there are more then 2 alleged victims, more then 1 alleged location, more then 1 alleged state.

why did they come forward to report the alleged abuse? perhaps because of all the media coverage of institutional
abuse and the extensive coverage of Risdale. we can only assume at this point,

1. the charges, the case, the alleged accusations were given, as would be appropriate, to the public prosecuters to examine and decide if this was worthy of investigation.

after substance was found in the charges. the case was given, as is appropriate ( not handballed) to the police to

investigate.

1. the police investigation revealed reasonable doubt and there was a case to answer.
2. so as per our legal system, the case is now before the courts to determine if Cardinal Pell is guillty or innocent.
3. what happened with Case 50 , the ARC -Australian Royal Commission will have absolutely NO bearing on this.

what this boils down to
is someone reported he or she was sexually assaulted by someone else. and as per the Australian legal system, a case has been found to be answered so everyone goes yo court.

regardless of the high profile of the accused, justice will be followed.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Article 14 of The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights holds that no one shall be liable to be tried or punished again for an offence for which they have already been acquitted.

But this apparently doesn’t extend to trial by the secular/atheist media or the anti-catholic court of public opinion.

Dozens of media already declaring Pell is finished.

Earlier I posted a link to a government owned news/media source in Australia in which the presenter stated live on air that Pell needs to “prove his innocence”.

 

[MaryT777]

“Not guilty” does not equal “innocent.” They just can’t prove it the to standards of a criminal trial. It doesn’t mean that Pell or any of the other hosts of pedophiles is “innocent.”

These cases–any sexual assault cases–are notoriously hard to “prove” since there are generally no witnesses, no confession, and guess what! After 45 years or so no forensic evidence. That doesn’t mean that they didn’t take place, are a concoction of anti-Catholic zealots, or are based on false memories.

Some people here are victim-blaming. “Why didn’t these people come forward 40 years ago?” etc. If you have to ask that, you have no empathy or compassion. Put yourself in their position–a 10-year-old boy or girl being molested by the trusted family priest. How likely would it be that you would come forward? Same with cases of rape. And the victims think they are somehow “guilty.” That makes it just that much worse. Disgusting.

You make a valid point; however you also need to put yourself in the place of Cardinal Pell. What if you were an innocent priest that is not guilty of these crimes/accusations? Your name may be cleared in court but your reputation is ruined forever. That is also disgusting.

We can pray that justice prevails.

Mary.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Article 14 of The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights holds that no one shall be liable to be tried or punished again for an offence for which they have already been acquitted.

But this apparently doesn’t extend to trial by the secular/atheist media or the anti-catholic court of public opinion.

Dozens of media already declaring Pell is finished.

Earlier I posted a link to a government owned news/media source in Australia in which the presenter stated live on air that Pell needs to “prove his innocence”.

The media is not and never will be our jury system. And yes, Cardinal Pell is looking forward to his day in court to prove his innocence.

No doubt his alleged victims/survivors are also looking forward to their day in court.

Cardinal Pell will start out in the Melbourne Magistrates Court for a filing hearing.

If Cardinal Pell is committed to trial ( a committal hearing ensues) and then the trial will begin only with the first allegations and move to the County Court, and a jury.

There are multiple complainants and multiple charges.

Risdale is still up on fresh charges.

This is going to be a long process spanning several years.

His lawyers can apply for a permanent stay of proceedings due to all the publicity. And the questions of fair trial will be thrashed out first.

judicialcollege.vic.edu.au/eManuals/VCPM/27777.htm
Chapter 15 – Abuse of Process and Stays
All courts have an inherent or implied jurisdiction to prevent their processes from being used as an instrument of oppression. Courts are able to modify their procedures to avoid such prejudice and take any steps that are necessary to prevent an abuse of process (Clyne v New South Wales Bar Association (1960) 104 CLR 186; Barton v R (1980) 147 CLR 75; Connelly v DPP [1964] AC 1254; Neill v County Court of Victoria [2003] VSC 328).
The concept of abuse of process overlaps with the obligation of a court to provide a fair trial. The content of these obligations cannot, however, be stated exhaustively or analytically. These obligations rely on intuitive judgments formed by experience (Jago v District Court of NSW (1989) 168 CLR 23; Ridgeway v R (1995) 184 CLR 19).
The obligation on a court is to provide a fair trial in accordance with law. Legislation may vary existing trial procedures, the elements of offences and the laws of evidence. Subject to issues of constitutional validity and interpretive principles concerning modification of existing common law principles, courts must apply the law set by Parliament. Therefore, the right to a fair trial may be modified by Parliament and courts are extremely reluctant to consider arguments that a court must grant a stay where legislative amendment interferes with the fairness of a trial (see Grills v R [1998] HCATrans 351; R v PJE, Unreported, NSWCCA, 9 October 1995).
Courts have noted that the obligation is not to provide a perfect trial, but to provide a trial as fair as possible. A perfect trial is an unrealistic aspiration (Jago v District Court of NSW (1989) 168 CLR 23; R v Glennon (1992) 173 CLR 592).
Where a proceeding has been regularly commenced, courts have an obligation to exercise their jurisdiction and determine the matter. A court should not lightly refuse to exercise its jurisdiction. However, the right to a fair trial is paramount and if a proceeding cannot be conducted fairly, a court may grant a permanent stay (Jago v District Court of NSW (1989) 168 CLR 23; Barton v R (1980) 147 CLR 75; Attorney-General (NSW) v Watson (1987) 20 Leg Rep SL 1).
Last updated: 14 September 2009

In This Chapter
15.1 - Permanent Stays
15.2 - Conduct of Proceedings for an Improper Purpose
15.3 - Unjustifiably Oppressive Proceedings
15.4 - Proceedings That Would Bring the Administration of Justice into Disrepute
15.5 - Stays and Initiating Criminal Proceedings