Pell’s lawyer says cardinal’s abuse of child was ‘plain vanilla sex’

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vouthon
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Are you serious? Yes, I suppose you are.

Cosby drugged women in order to have sex with them (convicted).

Pell sexually abused choir boys (convicted).

Pell didn’t use drugs, and Cosby didn’t abuse children. But they were both convicted of sex crimes, so I suppose there are similarities between them.
 
There are also some who believe that Pell is guilty, not because they are anti catholic, or not fans, but because they truly believe this man committed these horrendous crimes.

And then, there are the victims. Kmaaj, the two Diocese that Cardinal Pell was raised in and ministered in, in Victoria, have an extensive history of sexual abuse by clergy and laity involved in religious activities.
 
kmaaj, have you provided the court transcripts yet? If not, what summary transcript do you have? Something from the media?
 
“The transcript of a closed court proceeding is not given to the media in Victoria even after a suppression order lifts, because this would undermine the effect of a closed court.”

There may be parts of the trial that were open to the public and media that are available in a transcript form, but the transcripts of the closed court proceedings are not made available in Australia as it would defeat the purpose of being ‘closed court’.

The source for this information is posted above with a link.
 
Last edited:
Whether it is usually busy or not, the accuser himself said the door was open and people where nonchalantly walking by as he and his friend were getting raped.
 
Hoosier-Daddy said:
The Cardinal has had a fair opportunity to defend himself.
Click to expand...
I don’t understand why, if he is innocent, he would not take the stand and testify under oath. It seems that a person who was guilty of these crimes would be reluctant to take the stand and testify under oath.
 
AlNg said:
I don’t understand why, if he is innocent, he would not take the stand and testify under oath. It seems that a person who was guilty of these crimes would be reluctant to take the stand and testify under oath.
Click to expand...
It’s one of the possibilities that I question as well. The other is that he just presents poorly (or arrogantly?) and thus would undermine his own cause. Anyway apparently this isn’t so unusual in Australia. Whether it has any significance, I cannot say, but I trust, that as a “rule-of-law” country, he had a fair chance to defend himself and he will get a chance to prove the jury wrong in his appeal. But in the appeal, the onus will be different, he has to prove errors in law.
 
From one of those articles it appeared that his best chance for appeal is a procedural violation.

But the articles cleared up for me the idea that evidence was not hidden but in fact the trial was incredibly fair. It was a unanimous verdict of 12 people.
 
I don’t know about Australia, but in the U.S., defendants are almost universally advised by their lawyers never to take the stand. They are also advised, when given a Miranda warning, to never speak to the police without their attorney present, but to remain silent. This advice applies whether one is innocent or guilty.

It is not the job of the defendant to prove his innocence. It is the job of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case, it was the prosecution’s job to prove that something happened 20 years ago to which only one witness testified, with no corroborating witnesses.
 
Last edited:
It appears that the prosecution did prove its case to the jury or there would not have been a unanimous verdict of guilty.
 
I believe the Pope should remove Pell (and the french Cardinal recently convicted) from the College of Cardinals.

We don’t need this press.
 
The acknowledgment of “vanilla sex” is to lessen any mitigating factors that can cause a lengthier sentence.

It’s like a man accused of rape, and then without mitigating factors is able to get that lessened to sexual battery which carries a far lighter sentence if even one at all.
 

Loading…

international.la-croix.com
The archbishop arrived unaccompanied, castigated them, and then, while fully robed in his copious liturgical vestments, proceeded to commit three vile sexual acts including oral penetration of the complainant.

The complainant said that the sacristy door was wide open and altar servers were passing along the corridor. The complainant said that he and the other boy then returned to choir practice. The choir was making a Christmas recording at that time.
Click to expand...
And then a few weeks later he apparently just pressed him against the wall and grabbed his junk with other people standing about, then continued on his way.
The complainant claimed that a month or so later, after a Sunday Mass when the archbishop was presiding (but not celebrating the Mass), Pell came along the corridor outside the sacristy where many choristers and others were milling about. He claimed that Pell grabbed him briefly, put him against the wall, and firmly grasped his genitalia.

This was the subject of the fifth charge. Pell knew neither boy and had no contact with either of them thereafter.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top