R
Rau
Guest
Didn’t miss it. I asked earlier how many of that huge number have come forward in the US?
- Status
R
Rau
Guest
That report is a literature survey I believe. The Royal Commission’s findings amount to first hand evidence - primary research - and there is not any significant rejection of it. Which isn’t to say there have not been falsely accused or convicted clerics and religious. But I see no basis for a wholesale rejection of the findings.
I make no statement about the abuse levels occurring in public schools or in households.
F
FiveLinden
Guest
J
Johann_du_Toit
Guest
I never claimed personal knowledge of the matter. I read the commentary of people who do have knowledge of this matter and have followed the case (Weigel, Donnelly, attorneys examining the evidence given) and concluded that, in my opinion, had it been a South African criminal case, it would never have gone to trial. You implied I have some hidden knowledge of the matter which is not the case and a classical strawman argument, aimed at scoring a cheap shot while ignoring the argument made.
F
FiveLinden
Guest
This is why you said. You said you had 'examined the “evidence”. You had not.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
And the 2010s are rife with social justice and cancel culture warriors attempting to rewrite history to their advantage by destroying all semblances of western civilization and conservatism. We could call that criminal activity, as well. Perhaps when we wake from the nightmare we will realize how destructive to civil society these people have been.
In the meantime, I think it behooves us to look for real justice, the full truth, and fairness instead of relying on those who presently control the narrative to dictate to everyone what the truth actually is.
Pell is innocent and Epstein didn’t kill himself.
I would add that Catholic schools are no more dens of iniquity than public schools, despite the impression that might be had from the Commission. Full disclosure: I taught in public schools for over 30 years before retiring and all of my children went to Catholic schools. I have no bias towards either.
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
That is a strange claim. There is available evidence and it can be examined. Why could @Johann_du_Toit not have examined it?Johann_du_Toit:
This is why you said. You said you had 'examined the “evidence”. You had not.
Do you have evidence that he didn’t? Had a private investigator trail him did you to make sure he didn’t access any evidence at all?
In the meantime, Andrew Bolt (not a Catholic) has spent a great deal of time, effort and resources testing the evidence and he is persuaded of Pell’s innocence.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
No one is above God’s law, but as to whether some are above the practice of law in current societies, that is an open question.
We have many instances of unequal treatment of individuals under the law because of their wealth, power or social standing.
G
godisgood77
Guest
I too believe that Pell has been treated unfairly… however, I do not believe that there is some left wing conspiracy to blame. Instead, this case is an almost to be expected backlash against the horrific sex abuse crimes committed and covered up by Catholic clerics.
R
Rau
Guest
It’s a long interview, but Bolt well describes the “animus” toward Pell which existed long before the present accusations arose. The comparison of his often-encountered demeanor with Lindy Chamberlain [both come across as wooden & lacking warmth] is also well described. (Lindy Chamberlain was falsely convicted of murdering her baby and later exhonerated.)
N
njlisa
Guest
@HarryStotle: Thank you for your feedback. I want to address a few points you made.
According to a study from the Brookings Institution, the overwhelming majority of men who go to prison in the U.S. make very little money.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Let’s go back to the Cardinal Pell’s case.
I don’t know all the ins and out of accusers’ testimony. And I don’t know how the Australian justice system works. But I do know eye-witness accounts are the most unreliable sources of evidence. Emotionally driven testimony can sway a jury. As was stated in other news accounts, Cardinal Pell would have been better off with a bench trial. Judges don’t rule based on emotion. They rule on facts. But Victoria is the only state in Australia that doesn’t allow bench trials.
To sum up:
In the U.S.,
In the U.S., some rich, powerful people go to prison, e.g. Bernie Madoff, Leona Helmsley, and Martha Stewart. But they are a tiny fraction of the U.S. prison population.
According to a study from the Brookings Institution, the overwhelming majority of men who go to prison in the U.S. make very little money.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Let’s go back to the Cardinal Pell’s case.
I don’t know all the ins and out of accusers’ testimony. And I don’t know how the Australian justice system works. But I do know eye-witness accounts are the most unreliable sources of evidence. Emotionally driven testimony can sway a jury. As was stated in other news accounts, Cardinal Pell would have been better off with a bench trial. Judges don’t rule based on emotion. They rule on facts. But Victoria is the only state in Australia that doesn’t allow bench trials.
To sum up:
In the U.S.,
- Most prisoners have little or no income before their incarceration.
- Eyewitness testimony is highly unreliable.
Last edited:
R
Rau
Guest
The principals are no different in Australia. The jury believed the complainant spoke honestly. That testimony was the prosecution case. The legal question has been asked whether the jury may simultaneously believe the accuser yet find reasonable doubt. Perhaps the jury felt “no”? The defence evidence seems to have failed to persuade the jury because it did not rise to proof of innocence. There was a chance of guilt. As if the burden was reversed.
Last edited:
F
Freddy
Guest
It might be more accurate to say that Johann did not examine ALL of the evidence.FiveLinden:
That is a strange claim. There is available evidence and it can be examined. Why could @Johann_du_Toit not have examined it?Johann_du_Toit:
This is why you said. You said you had 'examined the “evidence”. You had not.
Do you have evidence that he didn’t? Had a private investigator trail him did you to make sure he didn’t access any evidence at all?
I’m sure that somebody with a legal background such as Johann would agree that no decision on guilt or innocence could be made without all the evidence being examined. And as the testimony of the complainant has not been made available, then all we have in all cases is opinion based on limited knowledge.
Someone suggested that it would have been preferable to have a ‘bench trial’. Perhaps like the three judges who decided the case on appeal. Which is precisely the process we use down here (and elsewhere) to make sure that decisions reached are valid.
Some disclosure might be in order. I have sat on a jury in an Australian court and know the process. From all AVAILABLE evidence I would have said that there was reasonable doubt and I would have aquitted. BUT I don’t have all the evidence. So I accept the decision as it stands.
R
Rau
Guest
Not possible in The State of Victoria.
The question really is, if the complainant sounded credible and you believed him - could you still conclude there is reasonable doubt - given the complainant could be lying or mistaken.
What does it to “accept the decision”? The court’s conclusion is the only one that matters!
Last edited:
L
Lion_IRC
Guest
Pleading not guilty IS a formal statement to the court.Rau:
He would have been able to say, on oath, ‘I did not do these things’. No one else was able to do that for him. If he believed the story about the impossibility of moving the vestments, he could have given that evidence on oath. In the event of his being found guilty, those who choose to believe in his innocence would know that he did all he possibly could have done to ‘clear his name’ which he said was the purpose of voluntary return to Australia.
And Cardinal Pell has emphatically asserted his innocence at all times.
Pell in the dock restating his innocence would have made no difference to a judge and jury that decided the case based solely on their subjective belief that the accuser was ‘credible’.
They had to decide purely on gut feel - or the taint of presuppositional bias against this widely hated conservative Catholic - because there certainly was nothing else apart from the uncorroborated verbal story telling of one accuser to support their belief that Pell was the man in the story. (And even if he wasn’t - so what? Why couldn’t Pell be the perfect scapegoat?)
Even in the appeal case, Chief Justice Anne Ferguson’s opening statement made direct reference to the widely held belief that a Pell acquittal would trigger huge outrage and pain for all victims of clergy sex abuse. She also concurred with the lower court judge and jury by endorsing the much lower and newer threshold available to courts when dealing with historical clergy sex abuse cases - namely, that it’s sufficient proof of guilt to merely “find the accusation credible”.
No forensic evidence needed.
No corroboration needed.
No default presumption of innocence.
No high threshold of guilt beyond all reasonable doubt.
No Blackstone’s Ratio.
No requirement to weigh up exculpatory evidence/facts/alibis
No consideration of the jeopardy of unfalsifiable accusations.
Pell’s legal team was even forced to resort to the extreme measure of having to try defend against this reverse onus of proof and prove his innocence using various arguments from impossibility. Even these were futile because the judge, and the jury he was leading, had all they needed - one single accuser who they said was believable.
Last edited:
F
Freddy
Guest
A fair point. But if I believed him, then by definition I wouldn’t have doubt.Freddy:
Not possible in The State of Victoria.
The question really is, if the complainant sounded credible and you believed him - could you still conclude there is reasonable doubt - given the complainant could be lying or mistaken.
Going back to the fact that I was involved in a case a few years back as a juror, with just the facts as presented I would have found in favour of the complainant (who claimed he was badly beaten in a drug deal gone wrong) and voted guilty (in regard to the person he said has assaulted him). I did wonder in fact how on earth anyone of us could decide otherwise. Until he was questioned. And it was plainly obvious to me (and to all the other jurors) that he was lying. So we aquitted.
The reverse situation can obviously occur. There may be some doubts about the facts of the case but the complainant is so obviously telling the truth (as far as one is concerned) that those doubts are removed.
F
FiveLinden
Guest
Johann_du_Toit has not ‘examined the evidence’ because the vast bulk of the evidence and cross-examination of the complainant remains suppressed.
F
FiveLinden
Guest
Even if you are right, the fact remains that Cardinal Pell chose not to give evidence. There is a big difference between defending yourself in detail and being open to questioning and saying ‘I am innocent’. He came back to Australia when he could have stayed in the Vatican. He said he did this to ‘clear his name’. Yet he did not do all he could in an effort to do so. I find this hard to understand.
T
tafan2
Guest
I meant to respond the other day to this, but forgot. You are misrepresenting the Royal commission findings. There was one religious order with a rate of 40%, not multiple. It was the St John of God Brothers. It was by no means a large order in Australia. As of 2010, they had 50 members in their entire Oceania province.
I will give you the benefit of doubt, and say you are reporting based on a flawed memory, perhaps flawed by preconceptions. But even then it calls all of your posts on the topic of the Royal Commission into question.
Sources:
T
tafan2
Guest
I don’t disagree about the 7% number being horribly high or that this is not the topic of the thread. But, I do think errors should at times be corrected, even if it is a thread drift.
- Status