Pell appeal lost today

  • Thread starter Thread starter GiftofMercy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
IdaCatholic stated that Pell’s case was stronger than McCarrick’s and you questioned whether IdaCatholic was present at Pell’s trial. My contention is that it is irrelevant, because Pell’s case was tried before the courts, and McCarrick’s was not. That de facto makes the case against Pell stronger, particularly since it was two courts of a strong Western democracy based on the Rule of Law and based on the same legal tradition as all English-speaking Western democracies.

Therefore my comment is indeed pertinent.
 
Last edited:
You speak of ignoring logic, yet you have no answer to the points made outside a blind faith in this jury decision.
 
Because the points made are made by people who have no real knowledge of the situation but seem to want to put themselves in position to accuse and second guess those who did their job and know more than we do. I blame the media and the Catholic media in particular that is pushing the idea that there is one giant conspiracy to frame the guy for politics.

Just in this thread there is evidence that the media is driving the argument.
He is a convicted child molester.
 
pnewton said:
You speak of ignoring logic, yet you have no answer to the points made outside a blind faith in this jury decision.
Click to expand...
While the jury can certainly err, as can the judges of the appeal, none of us where there, and we’re getting a media-massaged message by those on either side of the case. On the surface, it seems like the case was entirely based on the testimony of the victim. However, none of us were there. We didn’t hear, for example, all the details about the difficulty of committing (or not) the offense with the vestments, or the issue of opportunity at that particular moment after the Mass. Clearly the jurors did not find that line of defence credible.

So while there is a large element of his word against the victim’s, the jurors did seem to find that the defence lacked credibility or sincerity for some reason.

The next appeal will perhaps furnish the answer.
 
IdaCatholic said:
Because the points made are made by people who have no real knowledge
Click to expand...
If the points made are wrong, say which ones are in error. That way there is more than an ad hominem response. You are right that no one here knows everything the jury heard, including you. Yet if what is known is in error, then it should be easy to demonstrate.

Yes, he is a convicted sex offender. No one has denied he was convicted. There is also no evidence he was a re-offending sex offender. If he did what he was convicted of, he could be that miracle of God where a sex offender quit on his own, without being caught, and without treatment, a situation much rarer than a wrongful conviction.
 
“One thing we’ve learned from the Cardinal Pell case is that unless the presumption of innocence is reaffirmed, even in cases involving sexual crimes, your conviction or mine might be next.”

www.catholicworldreport.com

A Certain Disease of the Law

www.catholicworldreport.com www.catholicworldreport.com
 
IdaCatholic said:
I’m just wondering if everyone is on board with mccarick being guilty?

Or anyone for that matter.

I think it is an uncharitable position at best to defend Pell by accusing and doubting the victim, the Jury, the judges, and the legal system of an entire modern western nation that uses the same base for justice as England and the USA.
Click to expand...
Firstly, it is absolutely laughable to try and compare Pell’s case with McCarrick’s. They are completely dissimilar.

If Australia has the same basis for justice as England and the USA, then the standard of proof is “beyond a reasonable doubt.” What evidence was given to reach this standard of proof? Are we basing a man’s guilt simply on the testimony of a supposed victim?

Many of us feel that there is reasonable doubt and that the defense was able to show that it was unlikely that the alleged events could occur, based on the evidence given. And, there’s the hung jury in the first trial that was reportedly 10-2 in Pell’s favor. The dissenting judge also strongly believes that the evidence just wasn’t there to make a conviction. So clearly someone with legal expertise and familiarity with the case also sees problems with it. Is his opinion without merit?

Legal systems are neither sacred nor infallible, and we have every right to criticize them if we see something lacking. That is not an uncharitable position to take.
 
Last edited:
Do you think the prosecutor, judge, and the 12 jurors are culpable in sin?
 
IdaCatholic said:
Do you think the prosecutor, judge, and the 12 jurors are culpable in sin?
Click to expand...
Whoa, where did that come from? All I said was that I (and others) have reasonable doubts about Pell’s guilt.

Well, my answer: no, not necessarily. I cannot ascertain the consciences of those involved and cannot therefore make that kind of judgement.
 
They were involved in the trial and if they should have had reasonable doubt according to you then didn’t they have a moral duty to do so and not send a 78 year old man who was innocent to jail?
 
I am simply speaking to the facts of the case as I see them, not making a judgement on the moral culpability of the jurors.
 
You are correct about Mccarrick. His and Pell’s cases are different.

Pell had a trial where he had the opportunity to defend himself
He was tried in a just and fair adversarial system in the country of his crime.
He was sentenced to a penal institution.
Pell had the right to appeal, it was heard. It was decided upon

Mccarrick was not “tried” in the sense that we know.he was found guilty by a system and a trial we have little knowledge of in the Vatican and do you know where he is now? He appealed. They denied ever hearing an appeal from him.
DId his victims get a chance for justice?

Mccarrick was tried in public opinion and press. Pell was kept from that kind of a trial. Both are guilty.

Pell has the rougher punishment.

The Church, and the members who defend Pell over all else have shown a problem that still exists in the Church and that is not understanding the problem by not confronting it in reality. This is the quagmire that Pope Francis stepped in with the Chilean issue where he blamed the accusers until he became aware of the real problem there. The Church is struggling to deal with this now. And it doesn’t help our credibility when we choose to defend a convicted child molester over an entire country’s legal system.
 
Last edited:
Are you aware of the facts of the case more so than the jurors?
 
IdaCatholic said:
You are correct about Mccarrick. His and Pell’s cases are different.
Click to expand...
I don’t just mean the circumstances in how cases were handled, but the very details of the crimes as well.
IdaCatholic said:
Mccarrick was tried in public opinion and press. Pell was kept from that kind of a trial.
Click to expand...
Pell was also definitely tried in the court of public opinion and the press (although the gag order did limit the press in Australia).
IdaCatholic said:
And it doesn’t help our credibility when we choose to defend a convicted child molester over an entire country’s legal system.
Click to expand...
You realize that false convictions exist, right? Not every decision in a country’s legal system is right or just. I don’t support abusers, McCarrick, or any other of the men who have done wicked things, but I also believe there is a good possibility that Pell did not commit abuse. And so do a lot of other people. Has it occurred to you that Pell has been so much support because things simply don’t seem to add up in this case? This isn’t about the Church’s credibility, but about what acts a man did or didn’t commit.
IdaCatholic said:
Are you aware of the facts of the case more so than the jurors?
Click to expand...
I’m aware of what has been given to us based on reports of the trial and the news. You’d think that if a piece of damning evidence came out during the trial that convicted Pell, we would’ve heard about it by now. And again, one of the three appeals judges also agreed that the evidence to convict simply wasn’t there.
IdaCatholic said:
Do you think the jurors were wrong in their conviction?
Click to expand...
Fundamentally, yes. Because I don’t believe that the evidence was beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact, I believe that there are serious doubts, as I said earlier.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top