Pell sentence handed down

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bradskii
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Perhaps you mean some of us who know him 🙂
Many people do like him and don’t see arrogance at all .Gosh, I hope I’m never judged on personality 🤔
 
Greenfields said:
Perhaps you mean some of us who know him 🙂
Many people do like him and don’t see arrogance at all .Gosh, I hope I’m never judged on personality 🤔
Click to expand...
You are absolutely correct - I am sure many people like him and don’t find him arrogant at all - he might never have revealed that side of his personality to them. I find that we are all viewed by different people in different ways. Some of that depends on the person doing the viewing and some on how a person might present themselves in different ways to different people. But obviously his lawyers didn’t feel his testimony would add much to his defence.

As for being judged on personality, I am sure you are, just as we all are. Human beings often judge a book by its cover, and we judge each other based on a variety of things, including personality. I am probably subconsciously judging you based on your online personality, just as you are probably judging me the same way. Our society as a whole judges on appearances a lot more than on substance - doesn’t mean it’s right, but it’s just one of those things.
 
Last edited:
nunsense said:
40.png
Greenfields:
Perhaps you mean some of us who know him 🙂
Many people do like him and don’t see arrogance at all .Gosh, I hope I’m never judged on personality 🤔
Click to expand...
As for being judged on personality, I am sure you are, just as we all are. Human beings often judge a book by its cover, and we judge each other based on a variety of things, including personality. I am probably subconsciously judging you based on your online personality, just as you are probably judging me the same way. Our society as a whole judges on appearances a lot more than on substance - doesn’t mean it’s right, but it’s just one of those things.
Click to expand...
That was the tragic lesson learnt by the Lindy Chamberlain case. We had to acknowledge that she was accused, judged and convicted primarily because of her personality. Police procedure went an overhaul after the case because even they made the evidence fit the conclusion instead of letting the evidence lead to the truth.
 
Emeraldlady said:
That was the tragic lesson learnt by the Lindy Chamberlain case. We had to acknowledge that she was accused, judged and convicted primarily because of her personality. Police procedure went an overhaul after the case because even they made the evidence fit the conclusion instead of letting the evidence lead to the truth.
Click to expand...
I know Lindsay Chamberlain is brought up a lot because of her wrongful conviction but they aren’t really similar enough to compare IMO.

She didn’t have multiple charges of killing babies whereas Pell has had multiple sexual assault charges against him, first in Ballarat and then in Melbourne. She didn’t cover up for multiple other baby killers but Pell covered up for multiple pedophile priests as Bishop and then Archbishop. I know they couldn’t (and shouldn’t) use all that in court as evidence against him, but it does demonstrate to me a pattern of behaviour that was lacking in the Chamberlain case. My opinion only of course.
 
nunsense said:
Then I guess it’s a good thing you weren’t on the jury.It would have been very hard for you I’m sure. Some of the first jury were crying because it was so hard to decide. It obviously wasn’t as easy to determine as it appears at first.
Click to expand...
I imagine the complainant was exceptionally convincing and I find it hard to imagine such a story would be made up. On the other hand, it is hard to imagine that the facts would be as reported by the complainant - overt sexual behavior in an open room in a place not expected to be deserted. And then there is the legal question as to whether an uncorroberated account can rise to the level of “beyond reasonable doubt”. Frankly, I have no idea whether the Cdl committed the crime or not, but if it was “so hard to decide”, in the first trial, how could the facts (unchanged in the 2nd trial) be proven “beyond reasonable doubt”?
 
Last edited:
That’s the fascinating thing about juries (you ever watch that TV show called ‘Bull’ mainly about jury selection and which way each juror might vote?

Obviously the second jury found the testimony more convincing (beyond a reasonable doubt to them obviously) than the first jury did. The first jury was hung 10-2 but no one knows which way they were leaning (and if you read otherwise, it is wishful thinking) since Australian law forbids that information to be released.
 
Rau said:
40.png
nunsense:
It is about time that a jury actually listened and believed.
Click to expand...
To believe the uncorroborated statement of a complainant and decide the matter is proven “beyond reasonable doubt” is what gives me great pause.
Click to expand...
It is inherent in the nature of such crimes as Pell has been accused of that independent corroboration is almost always at least very difficult if not impossible.

Abusers are usually careful to keep their crimes secret. And child victims, for a large variety of legitimate reasons, rarely immediately report the crime, or might not immediately be taken seriously by adults if they do, making it near impossible to obtain physical evidence if there is any. It also means recollections may be less than crystal clear.

Heck, adult victims of sexual abuse often find it difficult enough to report, imagine a child.

The point is, none of this means the abuse did not happen.

Possibly the jury did in this case give the uncorroborated testimony of the victim more weight than they might in the case of other crimes, where corroborative evidence is much easier to come by. It is really now for the appeal court to decide whether they were wrong to do so.
 
Last edited:
There was much ado in legal circles before the trial as to whether it was possible for Cdl Pell to ever get a fair trial. It went ahead in secret but there is a lot of unease in those legal circles about how it went down. Not because they had any allegiance to Pell, but because justice per se has to be protected. After this trial one lawyer wrote an article in the Australian about this issue. I think it might require subscription to read the article but here is some of it.

Speaking as a lawyer, I know we have few appealing qualities. But we do believe in our own justice system.

All my life, I have joined in the chorus that our justice system is the best in the world. With the case of Cardinal George Pell, I am not singing quite so loud.

"It is not whether you like or loathe Pell, or even whether you think he is innocent or guilty. What matters is whether we have a system of justice that is exposed to extraneous pressure whenever some media outlet or social media alliance decides that someone is or is not innocent.

What the last year has shown is that the justice system can be systematically assaulted from the outside in a conscious attempt to make a fair trial impossible. This should terrify every citizen, because every citizen is a potential defendant.

The problem is, the wider justice system has two parts. The first is the judiciary, the jury and the lawyers who work to produce a fair verdict. Thank God, in this country, directly nobbling any of these functionaries is virtually impossible.

But this formal structure is surrounded by a second ring, not involved in securing a verdict, but ensuring the conditions for reaching a fair verdict do exist. This is where you find rules about fair reporting of cases, not naming persons before they have been formally accused, honouring suppression orders and so forth.

he main institutions involved here are the media and the police. The media must report cases fairly, abide by the letter and spirit of the law, and not barrack for either side. The police present evidence impartially, working for justice, not conviction. Media and police never combine to form a pro-conviction cheer squad.

This is where the Pell case has gone terribly wrong. Impartial judge and jury accepted, parts of the media — notably the ABC and former Fairfax journalists — have spent years attempting to ensure Pell is the most odious figure in Australia. They seemed to want him in the dock as an ogre, not a defendant.

Worse, elements of Victoria Police, including Chief Commissioner Graham Ashton, co-operated in this. Ashton’s repeated announcements of impending charges and references to “victims” rather than “alleged victims” were matched only by the coincidences in timing between police pronouncements and favoured media exclusives."

www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/inquirer/george-pell-a-case-in-which-justice-never-had-a-fair-chance/news-story/
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top