Cardinal Pell's Conviction Announced; Verdict on Appeal

  • Thread starter Thread starter AngelaMarie
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This is not exactly new news. We had a thread covering the first trial (where he was convicted, though probably shouldn’t have been, as the previous thread discusses) a few months ago but it wasn’t allowed to be reported on in Australia. Now that the second trial (a different charge) has been withdrawn, the first trial can be reported on in Australia, telling us what we already knew
 
I heard that his lawyer will be appealing.
It was unanimous veredict.
What I did not understand due to the accent was if the two victims were witnesses to each other. Is that why you say shouldn t have been convicted or did I misunderstand the reporters about the two witnesses?
If you don’t mind clarifying, Flopfoot.
 
Last edited:
With this news, I think I’d better stick to hanging out in the “Liturgy and Sacraments” section… I’m not having too many warm and fuzzy feelings about the Vatican hierarchy at the moment.

Now we’ll see how how the Vatican reacts in light of the conference this week, whether it was all words, or whether it transforms into concrete action.
 
Last edited:
One of the victims is dead, so if he was supposed to be a witness for the other he couldn’t give evidence. The alleged incident happened in the 1990s and the evidence showed that the cardinal couldn’t have been alone with the victims for a minute. The first time this case was tried it was a hung jury in which 10 of the 12 jurors thought he was not guilty
 
I had never heard any of the details before reading this. It doesn’t exactly sound like an open and shut case. To me, it sounded like that one accusation that he was found guilty of was not sound. It didn’t sound true to me. And Pell’s lawyer shot some holes through the story to no avail.

I’m certainly not convinced of the guilty verdict passed on Cardinal Pell based on what I’ve read here.
 
Last edited:
1Lord1Faith

7m

I had never heard any of the details before reading this. It doesn’t exactly sound like an open and shut case. To me, it sounded like that one accusation that he was found guilty of was not sound. It didn’t sound true to me. And Pell’s lawyer shot some holes through the story to no avail.

I’m certainly not convinced of the guilty verdict passed on Cardinal Pell based on what I’ve read here.

I haven’t lived in Australia for many years…some of the few things I’ve read seem to indicate that the media in Australia…and much of the public had already judged the Cardinal as guilty…Australia is a secular and in many ways irreligious country so coupled with the media bias and possibly public bias it’s not surprising of the verdict…there are a few Australians here on CAF…would be interesting to hear their take on this.
 
Last edited:
If he was found guilty he is guilty. I’ll take the word of a legal system from a civilized country. It isn’t the credibility of the Australian legal system that should be doubted here but the credibility of another organization.
 
Last edited:
Why is one persons testimony more believable than another?
 
Last edited:
In Australia, is it possible for the accused to get a trial by judge instead of a trial by jury?
 
According to our news today in Australia. Cardinal Pell has been found guilty of sexual abuse of two boys in the 1990’s. The news today stated that the judge has indicated it will be a custodial sentence i.e. jail time. It remains to be seen if that will be jail per se or home detention. I think we should know more tomorrow, Wednesday 27.2.19.
 
Last edited:
Insofar as I know, it is possible in Australia for a trial by judge, except in Victoria - and where Cardinal Pell has been convicted by jury.
 
BarbTh said:
Insofar as I know, it is possible in Australia for a trial by judge, except in Victoria - and where Cardinal Pell has been convicted by jury.
Click to expand...
It seems to be more fair to have a choice of either trial by jury or trial by judge.
Without knowing all the facts and circumstances of this case, it is difficult for an outsider to say anything for or against the verdict of guilty. However, the Australian Royal Commission, claims that thousands of Catholic children were abused by clergy. What disturbs some people is that Cardinal Pell did not testify, but his accuser did.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top