The case of Cardinal George Pell

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pai_Nosso
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
FiveLinden said:
40.png
Lion_IRC:
Pleading not guilty IS a formal statement to the court.
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’.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
His lawyer Robert Richter prevented him from taking the stand.
The overwhelming consensus of legal opinions I’ve read about this case agrees with Richter, that in cases like this the accused has everything to lose and nothing to gain (in terms of a legal strategy) by allowing prosecution lawyers to ask carefully worded questions which paint word pictures and images that the jury can’t simply “disregard”.
I have no doubt that Cardinal Pell would have wanted to testify had he been allowed.
 
Freddy said:
But if I believed him, then by definition I wouldn’t have doubt.
Click to expand...
But is doubt meant to be something objective, or mere personal feeling? Can testimony by one complainant remove the possibility of error or untruth? I’ve always believed it can’t and that corroborating evidence would be necessary.
 
FiveLinden said:
Yet he did not do all he could in an effort to do so. I find this hard to understand.
Click to expand...
Many posters have explained it to you. He followed the best available advice and for well explained reasons.

My personal interest is less about is he actually guilty and more about is guilty a safe verdict. The weight you place on his decision not to testify may well be (inappropriately) shared by the jury adding to the concern that it is unsafe.
 
Rau said:
40.png
Greenfields:
While Cardinal Pell says he’s innocent I will believe him even if he isn’t released.
Click to expand...
That’s a judgement that rests on what?
Click to expand...
A lack of evidence/proof.
Cardinal Pell’s good character.
His unrelenting insistence of innocence.
The incredible audacity and stupidity that it would take to do what Pell was accused of doing.

Think about that same question in reverse. What do people use as their basis for thinking he is guilty?
 
prayersoutherncross said:
40.png
Pai_Nosso:
The good news is that Pell has gone to the high court for an appeal, his final option, and has been granted it.
Click to expand...
The High Court has not granted leave to appeal yet, unless they did it today.
here is where its at

George Pell's fight against his convictions will be heard by the High Court. Here's what happens next - ABC News
Pai_Nosso said:
I am of the belief that Pell is innocent, a scapegoat of the left wing movement with the objective of discrediting our religion in order to bring in sinful laws. And so I do wonder how many of those other convicted priests are innocent victims of this evil smear campaign.
Click to expand...
or he really did it.

All other Priests and religious convicted here pleaded guilty…
Click to expand...
This is an important point.

None of Cardinal Pell’s’ supporters are defending a pedophile. They are defending a person who they think is NOT a pedophile.

It’s not like they are cleverly trying to get Pell out of jail on some slippery legal technicality.

There’s no admission whatsoever that…well yes, maybe the accuser and Pell technically were alone together in the same place at the same time - but you can’t prove anything happened.

There’s absolutely no attempt to exploit any legal loophole. (Statute of limitations, diplomatic immunity, age of consent…etc) This ain’t an episode of “Better Call Saul”.

George Pells’ supporters and a disproportionately large number of well-credentialed legal professionals think an innocent man has been convicted on the basis of unproven claims made by one anonymous accuser. (An accuser whose mental health records can’t be subpoenaed)

This is not defending a pedophile.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
Secular academic studies suggest the rate of false accusations is around 8%
 
Yes … my point is, innocent people have been wrongly found guilty. I believe this is the case here, because apart from ‘A’ statements having ‘the ring of truth’ to them, there was plenty of witness testimony etc showing it couldn’t have allegedly happened when it did, in the way it supposedly did.

I don’t know if he has ever abused anyone - only he and God knows whether he has or not.

But in this particular case, I believe he is innocent for reasons I’ve stated in previous posts.
 
Last edited:
CRV said:
Yes … my point is, innocent people have been wrongly found guilty. I believe this is the case here, because apart from ‘A’ statements having ‘the ring of truth’ to them, there was plenty of witness testimony etc showing it couldn’t have allegedly happened when it did, in the way it supposedly did.

I don’t know if he has ever abused anyone - only he and God knows whether he has or not.

But in this particular case, I believe he is innocent for reasons I’ve stated in previous posts.
Click to expand...
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 it took me a long time to work up the confidence that my story would be believed.)
 
Last edited:
prayersoutherncross said:
One word against the other. You cant prove anything did not happen either
Click to expand...
This is reversing the burden of proof. Cardinal Pell was presumed guilty and expected to prove he didn’t do what his anonymous accuser claimed.

All Cardinal Pell’s accuser had to do was just keep repeating his self asserting accusation and nothing further.

There was no ability to falsify his uncorroborated accusation. The alleged third person in the sacristy at that time could just as easily have been some other recently deceased person whose name was plucked out of thin air. The hearsay accusation is literally irrefutable.

Cardinal Pell, on the other hand, was well-advised not to take the stand and submit to cross examination, because anything he said would have been cited by the judge as QED proof of his supposed authoritarian arrogance as a powerful Catholic who obviously thought he could do anything - however stupid that thing was.

I visit other forums (fora) where it is openly declared that Pell’s vociferous efforts to rid the church of closet pedophiles was, itself, a smokescreen of evidence that he was trying to direct attention away from his hitherto unknown (alleged) closet pedophilia.

See? Only a pedophile would try to cover their tracks by leading a purge against pedophiles.

See? Only an Archbishop would dare attempt such a bold, 90 second crime of opportunity against a victim whose amazingly unexpected appearance in the sacristy at that very moment Pell turned up was pure coincidence.

See? Pell must have done it otherwise he would have taken the stand.

See? Pell must have done it. What else would explain why an accuser would say that about the most hated Catholic in Australia? (Yep. Cardinal Pell opposes abortion. And he opposes same-sex marriage.)
 
Last edited:
prayersoutherncross said:
Also not change his story or any of the relevant details through extensive questioning and trial.
Also be credible.
Click to expand...
That isn’t right. He had changed a number of aspects of his story. At first he claimed that the alb (vestment) was ‘parted’ to perform the act, then when that was shown to be impossible as it was a seamless heavy drape, he changed it to it was moved to the side. Even though that was also proved to be impossible, the jury did not regard it. Then there was the change in the date when it was proved that the first time frame given was when the Cathedral was being renovated and normal Masses weren’t being held there. There was also the fact that the other boy who has since passed away, repeatedly told his mother he had never been abused yet Cdl Pell was convicted for an act on the boy simply on the hearsay of J.

There has been even further growing doubt about the conviction throughout this year from many within the legal system who have no vested interest in the Cardinal or the Catholic Church. Once the system is exploited for one agenda, it is left vulnerable to others and to being completely discredited in the publics eyes.

Here is an article in the Herald Sun which quotes credible high profile Australians whose unease about the verdict expresses that of many, many people who are invested in a trustworthy justice system.

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/...d/news-story/4f594f60d59dbb90c230143e93a2683c
 
Last edited:
prayersoutherncross said:
40.png
Lion_IRC:
See? Only an Archbishop would dare attempt such a bold, 90 second crime of opportunity against a victim whose amazingly unexpected appearance in the sacristy at that very moment Pell turned up was pure coincidence.
Click to expand...
Look up some of Risdales, Bests, or the Christian brothers crimes. Opportunistic or premeditated, it was all used to further their criminal activity.
Click to expand...
These accused pleaded guilty in the face of dozens of alleged accusers for consistently perpetrating over a span of decades. Cdl Pell’s supposed crime does not remotely fit the profile of these others you mentioned.

Paul Tatchell has been an involved advocate for victims of child sex abuse over the last 20 years. He is a Mayor of a local Ballarat shire and involved in bringing these clergy to justice. Strangely and tellingly when it was first announced that Cdl Pell would be charged, he was astounded.

“But Tatchell, who estimates he has helped 60 survivors of sexual abuse by Ballarat clergy since the 1990s, never saw or heard anything untoward. “I’ve never heard his name mentioned once with this kind of thing,” he says. “I hate the bloke, but this caught me by surprise.””


How is it really possible that throughout all the years that have seen victims coming out of the Ballarat woodwork, not a single one named Pell among them until a special taskforce went actively looking for ‘victims’ of the Cardinal?
 
Last edited:
Lion_IRC said:
I would like to know how on earth Cardinal Pell could have possibly proved his innocence?
Click to expand...
It’s possible, but in the circumstances, one would be freakishly lucky to be able to do so. Legally, it should not be required.

The judgement of the jury certainly gives every indication that they were so willing to convict (given the complainant’s testimony and the wider environment and context) that a “not guilty” verdict could only arise if Pell proved he could not have done it.

2 juries reached different outcomes, 3 appellate judges could not agree (the only one with deep criminal experience favoured acquittal) and many folks are ok with “guilty beyond reasonable doubt”?
 
Last edited:
Rau said:
40.png
Lion_IRC:
I would like to know how on earth Cardinal Pell could have possibly proved his innocence?
Click to expand...
It’s possible, but in the circumstances, one would be freakishly lucky to be able to do so. Legally, it should not be required.
Click to expand...
It was only by the Cardinals habit of hoarding his personal records that he was able to prove his innocence 4 years ago. He had been accused of ignoring a victim who had reported that he had visited the Ballarat presbytery in 1969 to report abuse. The victim challenged the Cardinal to prove he wasn’t there and due to having kept all his old passports, he was able to definitely prove that he was in Rome for the year of 1969 studying.

https://www.themercury.com.au/news/...t/news-story/befd9851ba09e304ffef237ae8883aab

The agenda to ‘get Pell’ has been going on for ages.
 
Last edited:
Emeraldlady said:
These accused pleaded guilty in the face of dozens of alleged accusers for consistently perpetrating over a span of decades. Cdl Pell’s supposed crime does not remotely fit the profile of these others you mentioned.
Click to expand...
Exactly!

Gerald Ridsdale - pleaded guilty

Gerard Byrnes - pleaded guilty

Desmond Gannon - pleaded guilty

Richard Cattell - pleaded guilty

Kevin O’Donnell - pleaded guilty

Neil Byrne - pleaded guilty

Greg Carter - pleaded guilty

Michael Aulsebrook - pleaded guilty

Wilfred Baker - pleaded guilty

Francis Cable - pleaded guilty

Edward Dowlan - pleaded guilty

Charles Barnett - pleaded guilty

Robert Best - pleaded guilty

Rex Brown - pleaded guilty

Brian Cairns - pleaded guilty

John Denham - pleaded guilty

John Keane - pleaded guilty

Albert Taylor - pleaded guilty

Terence Goodall - pleaded guilty

John Haines - pleaded guilty

Martin Harmata - pleaded guilty

Edward Mamo - pleaded guilty

Victor Rubio - pleaded guilty

Murray Moffat - pleaded guilty

John O’Sullivan - pleaded guilty

Paul Pavlou - pleaded guilty

…it’s hard to find cases where the defendant denies being a pedophile.

WAIT - here’s one

George Pell

Repeatedly denies accusations.

Has never faced corroborated testimony by multiple accusers.

Has never been linked to incriminating forensic evidence.

Has been subjected to allegations which subsequently were found to be false.

He forcefully prosecutes the Church’s purge of atheists and pedophiles masquerading as priests
 
Rau said:
40.png
Freddy:
But if I believed him, then by definition I wouldn’t have doubt.
Click to expand...
But is doubt meant to be something objective, or mere personal feeling? Can testimony by one complainant remove the possibility of error or untruth? I’ve always believed it can’t and that corroborating evidence would be necessary.
Click to expand...
But the standard isn’t “beyond the possibility of error or untruth”. It is “beyond REASONABLE doubt.” Otherwise no witness or amount of witnesses would be sufficient to meet it, really. Even the best scientific evidence has flaws and human error and so also cannot eliminate error or even untruth.
And the existence of the appeal system is designed to lessen, though nothing can eliminate, that possibility of error or untruth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top