Pell sentence handed down

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bradskii
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ִi have a thread in catholic news with a link to the live sentencing. As it was.
 
I felt that Judge Peter Kidd did an excellent job of reflecting the black and white legal aspects he was obliged to consider but also reflecting the implicit concern amongst the legal community about the legal legitimacy of the actual verdict. I’m interested to hear how experts will discuss the sentencing statement.
 
Bradskii said:
He’s been given 6 years. Non parol of 3 years and 8 months.
Click to expand...
So just over 1300 days behind bars…

Again, sad to see a guy I liked so much take a fall.

On the other hand, if I were guilty of that I doubt I’d be free so quickly.

With respect to his health, what are the odds of him dying in prison?
 
Its in Catholic News.

@Greenfields the appeal is in June, today was sentencing.
 
Last edited:
Vonsalza said:
40.png
Bradskii:
He’s been given 6 years. Non parol of 3 years and 8 months.
Click to expand...
So just over 1300 days behind bars…

Again, sad to see a guy I liked so much take a fall.

On the other hand, if I were guilty of that I doubt I’d be free so quickly.

With respect to his health, what are the odds of him dying in prison?
Click to expand...
At his age, when you start catching glimpses of a hooded figure with a scythe out of the corner of your eye and from wandering the corridors of the vatican to sitting in a solitary cell, protected from retribution by other inmates, incarcerated for the type of crime that everyone considers to be one of the worst…it’s really going to mess with his mind.

If his appeal fails, then what has he got to look forward to? I guess that if he did it and is truly repentant, or if he didn’t do it, then he’ll get the keys to the kingdom.
 
He’s catholic, it’s Lent ,he will be ok ,I doubt it will mess with his mind.
If his appeal fails? He will be praying for us.
 
I watched the sentencing. I was struck by the judge’s commentary which left me in no doubt that he agreed with the decision of the jury. I was also struck by the careful reasoning of the sentencing which appears to me to make the sentence at least virtually appeal-proof since he carefully considered every submission made. I also noted the moderate comments of the complainant who feels it will not be over until after the appeal. He made the point that only the judge, the lawyers, the jury, he and Cardinal Pell had heard all the evidence. He pointed out that he was cross-examined over an extended period and that Cardinal Pell did not give evidence and was not subject to cross examination. The result was a unanimous jury decision.
 
Vonsalza said:
On the other hand, if I were guilty of that I doubt I’d be free so quickly.
Click to expand...
Are you 77 years old? Or a person of such notoriety? These and other factors were explicitly acknowledged by the judge to lessen the length of the sentence.
 
FiveLinden said:
I watched the sentencing. I was struck by the judge’s commentary which left me in no doubt that he agreed with the decision of the jury.
Click to expand...
I wonder what you have in mind? The sentencing judge must always sentence on the basis that the crime was committed. So his punishment will fit the evidence that was presented and accepted. If the jury convict on a charge of “penetration”, then it happened (for the purposes of sentencing) notwithstanding the only evidence was the complainant’s statement that it did.

I find it terrifying that the word of a complainant can be sufficient to satisfy the “beyond reasonable doubt” threshold. Having said that, I don’t suggest the complainant has lied. I simply don’t know.
 
Rau said:
The principal ground bring that the evidence appears inadequate to convict.
Click to expand...
Yes, it has been stated that will be a ground. But details of the evidence given by the victim have not been released. We also know that Cardinal Pell’s lawyer introduced as evidence a video of his police interview but would not himself give evidence, so was not cross-examined.As he returned ‘to clear his name’ it seems unusual that he would not choose to give evidence. I know that those charged are often advised to do this, but no doubt he was advised not to return to Australia at all. Having decided to do so I can see no reason why, in his innocence, would not have given evidence. All this will be taken into account and with the fact that the victim stood up to a day and a half of cross examination.
Rau said:
What has he to look forward to if his appeal succeeds?
Click to expand...
Following a failed appeal there are really only two possibilities: he will be reduced (what an awful, telling, word) to the lay state or he will retain some faculties. He is an accomplished writer and I imagine he will do some of that probably on matters of Church governance and theology unrelated to his convictions. I think Australian prison visitation rules are fairly restrictive and he will not have routine access to the internet. His books I think will be restricted to a small number (cell searching) so he will be lucky having a choice of some enormous theological tomes. I had an elderly friend who was imprisoned and he reported that much time was taken up with trying to access things like medicine, writing gear etc. all of which takes time. My impression of him is that he is gregarious but for his own safety he will probably have very little contact with other prisoners. Prison chaplains will be pretty free to visit. And he has family who can also visit. He must not have spent much time with them in recent years.
 
FiveLinden said:
The result was a unanimous jury decision.
Click to expand...
The fact of the conviction allows us to call Pell the prisoner and to speak of the crimes with which he was charged as proven, as facts. But as we know, many an innocent person has been “proven” guilty, only to be released at some later time when further compelling evidence of innocence comes to light.

This trial was a re-run. In the first trial (same charges) the jury did not convict, but was hung.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top