Pell sentence handed down

[Bradskii]

The Australian legal machine is always conscious of maintaining the safeguards embraced since the 1980’s Lindy Chamberlain case. ie. recognising the real impact of prejudice on the public and if a truly impartial jury is possible in that climate.

Council for the defence and the prosecution get the opportunity to question and refuse any six jurors they consider to be prejudiced. Fourty percent of Australians self identify as Catholics. That would mean that up to five of the jurors were Catholic.

If anything, there would have been a tendency for prejudice in his favour.

 

[FiveLinden]

Strange that he only had one accuser.

More than that. The prosecution only thought they had one that would have sufficient evidence to meet ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.

 

[Seeksadvice]

As a lawyer who tries cases, one never knows what a jury discusses in chambers. Unsurprisingly, members of the jury pool will lie in voir dire (jury selection) sometimes to get onto the jury to advance whatever personal agenda they have.

I don’t consider a “hung” jury the first go around to be the smoking gun of insufficient evidence. Get one anti-government guy/gal on there, or a person who absolutely doesn’t believe any sexual abuse allegation is ever true, and you’ve got yourself a hung jury.

 

[nunsense]

Cardinal Pell is prejudged by the court as being so arrogant that he must have thought he could get away with anything, anytime, anywhere. (Strange that he only had one accuser.)

Cardinal Pell was not prejudged, he was judged.

Cardinal Pell had several accusers but from different events. He was charged with indecently assaulting two boys at Ballarat’s Eureka swimming pool in the 1970s.

Those offences were scheduled to go to trial after the Melbourne Cathedral trial but the trial was eventually cancelled because of problems with the evidence - not surprising after nearly 40 years.

There is not one person could be found who has known Cardinal Pell over 45 years of public life, who could provide propensity evidence to support that conclusion. I believe the Judge was pointing out publicly that there really is no conclusion that can credibly explain the behaviour that Pell was convicted of. It highlights how many black and white facts normally influencing a verdict were dispensed with.

Those who live in Ballarat and Melbourne have different opinions of Pell than you seem to. As one person who has interacted with him over the past 45 years, I can safely state that I would not trust my child around him, nor would I trust him not to cover-up an abuse by another priest. Providing evidence after all these years however, is the problem. And since most victims are not believed, they often don’t want to talk about what happened. It is about time that a jury actually listened and believed.

And the judge did not say he did not believe the verdict - you have misstated the facts there. I watched the sentencing on TV here in Australia for more than an hour and also read the transcript of the sentencing, which is here:

George Pell's full sentencing, as issued by Chief Judge Peter Kidd - ABC News

 

[poche]

I think it was predetermined. The police opened the investigation by publicly soliciting complaints about Cardinal Pell long before there were any accusations.

 

[nunsense]

I think it was predetermined. The police opened the investigation by publicly soliciting complaints about Cardinal Pell long before there were any accusations.

Conspiracy theories never hold much weight with me. There were complaints about Pell in the local community long before the police investigation.

 

[Lion_IRC]

The judges’ sentencing remarks make this exact assertion.
There is no ambiguity that the judge held this opinion about Cardinal Pell - whether as a result of prosecution evidence tendered during the court case or BEFORE the trial even began.

If the prosecutors can persuade the jury (with a little help from His Honor) that Pell was so arrogant and confident of his ability to get away with such a preposterously audacious, spur of the moment crime, then the credibility or otherwise of his accuser becomes irrelevant.

 

[nunsense]

The judges’ sentencing remarks make this exact assertion.
There is no ambiguity that the judge held this opinion about Cardinal Pell - whether as a result of prosecution evidence tendered during the court case or BEFORE the trial even began.

If the prosecutors can persuade the jury (with a little help from His Honor) that Pell was so arrogant and confident of his ability to get away with such a preposterously audacious, spur of the moment crime, then the credibility or otherwise of his accuser becomes irrelevant.

You show very little respect for the judge and the jury, and their ability to do their jobs without bias or prejudice. The judge made it very clear that he accepted the verdict and deliberated thoughtfully before passing sentence. The jury were unanimous in their decision to convict. Really, you are beating a dead horse.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Appellate courts regularly reverse the decisions of lower courts. This is a matter of common jurisprudence. Nothing to do with disrespecting the jury.

Let’s see how well all the Pell haters accept it when Cardinal Pell’s appeal is upheld. I’m sure they are all going to gracefully accept Pell’s innocence,

 

[nunsense]

Appellate courts regularly reverse the decisions of lower courts. This is a matter of common jurisprudence. Nothing to do with disrespecting the jury.

Let’s see how well all the Pell haters accept it when Cardinal Pell’s appeal is upheld. I’m sure they are all going to gracefully accept Pell’s innocence,

Appeals are part of the law and perfectly sensible.Your comments are ill informed and don’t present you in a good light since they do disrespect the judge and the jury for doing their duty.

Those of us like myself who believe in his guilt will accept whatever the court decides at his appeal. I might not be happy or feel that justice has been done if his verdict is overturned, but I am not a ‘Pell hater’. I am a ‘pedophile hater’.

 

[Greenfields]

How will you feel about him if his appeal is successful?

 

[nunsense]

How will you feel about him if his appeal is successful?

I think I answered that above. Knowing Pell personally as I do, I will continue to have my private thoughts about him based on my experiences and those of people I know. But I will also accept the verdict as the best that our court system can do at this time. If you were to ask me if I want his appeal to succeed, I would have to honestly say no, I believe him to be guilty of pedophilia and agree with the verdict of the jury.

 

[Greenfields]

I have family who also know him personally,Ballarat diocese is my own .

 

[Lion_IRC]

No doubt they will also go to the matter of the presumption of guilt which attends cases in which every accuser is presumed to be telling the truth irrespective of how belatedly they make their allegation.

This is the milieu in which we find ourselves.
*Catholic priest from Ballarat - unquestioned guilt by association.
*Senior church leader - conspirator who must have known.
*Arrogant man - therefore he doesn’t think he will get caught.
*Man of authority - therefore he presumed he can muster up willing accomplices to act as alibis.
*Untold numbers of opportunities for someone with a deep-seated hatred for the allegedly homophobic Catholic Church, to make uncorroborated, non-falsifiable, accusations - where it’s their word (or homoerotic fantasy) versus that of the handsome older man wearing a white collar, whom he claims discovered him intoxicated after drinking altar wine and who then has his way.

The appellate court will surely give consideration to the precedent being set by this case of belated, uncorroborated, accusation against a much hated conservative Christian scapegoat who finds himself the subject of a reversal of the burden of proof - literally unable to prove his innocence because no defense is accepted.

This is worse than the Salem witch trials where the only way to prove your innocence was to plead guilty. #gonzo

 

[nunsense]

This is worse than the Salem witch trials where the only way to prove your innocence was to plead guilty. #gonzo

It must be very difficult for you if that is how you feel. I will pray for some peace for you.

 

[LilyM]

No doubt they will also go to the matter of the presumption of guilt which attends cases in which every accuser is presumed to be telling the truth irrespective of how belatedly they make their allegation.

This is the milieu in which we find ourselves.
*Catholic priest from Ballarat - unquestioned guilt by association.
*Senior church leader - conspirator who must have known.
*Arrogant man - therefore he doesn’t think he will get caught.
*Man of authority - therefore he presumed he can muster up willing accomplices to act as alibis.
*Untold numbers of opportunities for someone with a deep-seated hatred for the allegedly homophobic Catholic Church, to make uncorroborated, non-falsifiable, accusations - where it’s their word (or homoerotic fantasy) versus that of the handsome older man wearing a white collar, whom he claims discovered him intoxicated after drinking altar wine and who then has his way.

The appellate court will surely give consideration to the precedent being set by this case of belated, uncorroborated, accusation against a much hated conservative Christian scapegoat who finds himself the subject of a reversal of the burden of proof - literally unable to prove his innocence because no defense is accepted.

This is worse than the Salem witch trials where the only way to prove your innocence was to plead guilty. #gonzo

Funny, I don’t recall the prosecutors and judges of Salem being so bad at their job that they ever needed two trials to convict someone.they had a real fix in for. One, if memory serves, was always enough.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

The Australian legal machine is always conscious of maintaining the safeguards embraced since the 1980’s Lindy Chamberlain case. ie. recognising the real impact of prejudice on the public and if a truly impartial jury is possible in that climate.

Council for the defence and the prosecution get the opportunity to question and refuse any six jurors they consider to be prejudiced. Fourty percent of Australians self identify as Catholics. That would mean that up to five of the jurors were Catholic.

If anything, there would have been a tendency for prejudice in his favour.

The weight of support of Pell is not a religious loyalty thing. Some of his strongest supporters are non Catholic Christians like John Howard and Scott Morrison who’ve known him from public life and believe in his moral stature. Had there been even whispers of this type of behaviour as was the case with the other high profile convicted clergy, there’s no way such well respected people would publicly support him.

The other area of support is within the legal system including judges who attended trial as observers who were shocked by the verdict based on the evidence. I have posted a link to that article in an earlier thread but haven’t got it at the tip of my fingers.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Lion_IRC:

Strange that he only had one accuser.

More than that. The prosecution only thought they had one that would have sufficient evidence to meet ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.

The history of false accusations against Pell by people trying to ‘get’ Pell and compensation since the police started the witch hunt, is known inside the system even though that is never reported to the public because it would ruin a good story.

• A Melbourne man said he was abused by Pell in 1962 at a camp when he was 12; Pell was studying for the priesthood. The case was thrown out when nothing could be substantiated. Not a single person who worked at the camp supported the charges, and all of the signed statements were favorable to Pell. The accuser had been convicted 39 times for offenses ranging from assault to drug use. Indeed, he was a violent drug addict who served four years in prison. He drove drunk, beat people, and took amphetamines.
• In 1969, Pell was accused of doing nothing to help an abused Australian boy who pleaded for help. But Pell’s passport showed that he lived in Rome the entire year.
• At a later date, Pell was accused of chasing away a complainant who informed him of a molesting priest. The authorities dismissed the charges after discovering that Pell did not live at the presbytery in Ballarat where the encounter allegedly took place. The accuser was later imprisoned for sexually abusing children.
• In a high profile case, Pell was accused of bribing David Ridsdale to stop making accusations to the police that he was abused by his uncle, Gerald Ridsdale, a notorious molester priest. The accusation was investigated and Pell was exonerated.
• Pell was also accused of joking about Gerald Ridsdale’s sexual assaults at a funeral Mass in Ballarat. But there was no Mass that day and the priest whom Pell was allegedly joking with was living someplace else when the supposed incident took place.

THE WAR AGAINST CARDINAL PELL – Catholic League

 

[Lion_IRC]

I would like to know how on earth Cardinal Pell could have possibly proved his innocence?

• What alibi might he have given which the judge couldn’t simply dismiss as unbelievable on account of the stated authority which the judge said Pell could bring to bear upon anyone of his supposedly obsequious minions? This is how the judge summarised the court’s finding and it’s verdict. Pell was (according to the court and its presiding judge) a person who felt such brazen, unbridled authority that he COULD take the preposterous risk of getting caught in the act.
• What conceivable defence by Cardinal Pell’s lawyer could discredit an accuser who is so thoroughly protected by the prevailing zeitgeist truism that nobody EVER makes up an accusation of sexual abuse? To do so would be a “vile attack on the victim”. Not to do so would be an obvious concession that they are - like every other accuser - telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
• How does any innocent priest prove that an event didn’t happen when that event allegedly happened 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago and in circumstances where there was no one else present but the person who claims that it took place?
• How does an Archbishop gainsay the assertion of a judge that it’s self-evident all Archbishops command such authority that they think can confidently depart from their normal routine at High Mass, in the largest cathedral in Australia, on the busiest day of the Church week and slip away to the heavily trafficked hallway outside an unlocked, unsecured sacristy, where they unexpectedly find not one, but TWO choirboys, both of whom also inexplicably slipped away from the choir procession - apparently thinking they could (brazenly) get away with underage drinking of altar wine in broad daylight without getting caught, and that the Archbishop takes this freakish coincidence of events as an opportunity to perpetrate a daring and fleetingly short sexual act, upon an alleged victim whom the supposed pedophile priest hasn’t been meticulously grooming for such an event.
• How is the defence lawyer supposed to simultaneously argue against two irreconcilable presumptions about their client - 1. That they typically groom victims and commit multiple offences in secure, private locations over a prolonged period. 2. That Pell felt such arrogant impunity and authority that he was brazenly willing to take this freak opportunity to offend against a boy whose name he didn’t even know, in the heavily trafficked precincts of a public space.

 

[Lion_IRC]

I was an altar server 40 years ago - in both my parish church and at the Salesian school I attended. There would be dozens of priests I could quite easily sue for cash err…I mean falsely accuse of sexual abuse and there is literally nothing they could do to falsify my unsupported accusation. (Especially since some are deceased and some are so old, that their lack of memory would work in MY favor.)

I could walk into Justice Kidd’s courtroom an assert that a priest did something to me in the privacy of a small town church sacristy where nobody else saw. (And of course, I never reported it to my parents. And of course it took me a long time to work up the confidence that my story would be believed. And of course there’s no forensic evidence.)