The case of Cardinal George Pell

[Freddy]

Emeraldlady:

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.

Exactly!

Gerald Ridsdale - pleaded guilty

Risdale, an admitted and convicted paedophile. Not much one could say in defence of such a monster. But maybe if you accompanied him to his sentence hearing you could hope for a reduced punishment. Maybe if you said in his defence that at least he buried some dead people and celebrated the sacraments that might help. But a word for the victims? Well, a sad story no doubt but of little interest really.

And people are puzzled as to why Pell declined to take the stand?

 

[Freddy]

And am I the only one to see the irony in the fact that in an attempt to show that Pell might be innocent we are presented with an extremely long list of convicted Catholic priests.

 

[Rau]

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.

I should not have said “remove the possibility” - I should have said “put beyond a reasonable doubt”. The word of one person who is not a “disinterested witness” is the issue here. Nothing at all in corroboration. Is the legal
standard such that every credible complainant proves (to the requisite standard) their case by telling a credible story (be it true or not) and maintaining that story under cross examination?

 

[Rau]

“Might” be innocent is the key word. But yes there is a touch of irony. That all these others plead guilty reflects the strength of evidence against them. Repeated offending, multiple complainants etc.

What I find breathtaking is that we are seeing on this very thread the pre-disposition (of certain poster(s)) to deem him guilty unless he can prove his innocence. Corroborating the very observations some others have made in expressing concern for the safety of the verdict. Paraphrasing: “If the defence can’t show it could not have happened, then he must be guilty!” Why is guilt or innocence hanging on what the defense can prove?? It used to be the case that the lesser evil was to release a man who might be guilty than to incarcerate one who is innocent.

 

[HarryStotle]

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’.

Even if you are right, the fact remains that Cardinal Pell chose not to give evidence.

No, there was plenty of evidence given to support Pell. What you mean is that Cardinal Pell chose not to give his own testimony. That is quite different from choosing not to give evidence.

Additionally, it wasn’t Pell who chose not to give testimony. It was his lawyers that persuaded him not to. He was taking what he believed was sound legal advice. Let’s not turn this into Pell not giving testimony as if he had something to hide. There are many reasons his lawyers would advise him in that way.

 

[Rau]

Let’s not turn this into Pell not giving testimony as if he had something to hide. There are many reasons his lawyers would advise him in that way.

Exactly and these have been well ventilated on this thread. While the jury may well think he had something to hide, they erred if that influenced them.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

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.

Do you have the transcripts for his changing statements? I am interested to read them.

It was cited in #258.

The other boy told his parent once, or twice, I believe. Thats pretty understandable. I would not put too much stock in that. We know how predators threaten their victims.

If an adult doesn’t initiate charges of any sort, the normal course is that they are not pursued.

There are others who have heard a lot of noise about Pells history. This noise is supressed atm.

You are asking me to supply sources and not just advance theories but that’s all this is.

Ask a few surf coast life clubs about his reputation.

Sources?

As for the pool incident, one man is dead now , so the charges did not go ahead. Again this does not mean it did not happen.

No the charges didn’t go ahead because they were not credible. Lyndon Monument and Damian Dignan had been found to have accused a teacher before for the purpose of getting compensation money. Found to not be credible and a money grab on the back of the legit scandals.

 

[FiveLinden]

Additionally, it wasn’t Pell who chose not to give testimony. It was his lawyers that persuaded him not to. He was taking what he believed was sound legal advice. Let’s not turn this into Pell not giving testimony as if he had something to hide. There are many reasons his lawyers would advise him in that way.

A agree that it was undoubtably on the advice of his legal team that Pell chose not to give evidence.

Think it is most unlikely that the team was in a position to force him on this point so that it ‘was not his decision’. Maybe not his idea, but it must have been his decision.

As I have said, I do not have a view on what actually happened on those days in the Cathedral. I was not there. Unlike others I am not so impressed by the defence case that I have concluded that the events were ‘impossible’ or ‘certainly did not happen’ or that the conviction is a result of a conspiracy.

I have read up on Cardinal Pell’s history and concluded that he is of a very independent mind, very loyal to the Church and anyone in authority over him, extremely intelligent and has a deep strategic understanding. His interpersonal skills are clearly not such as to make him a rock star in Australia or I expect anywhere else but they have been sufficiently above average to allow him great success as a pastor and prelate. Indeed much if the opposition to him seems to be based on his ideas,not on his personality. I also think that he has shown himself willing total risks to uphold what he believes in.

I think it most likely that unless he has failed into an acute depression that Cardinal Pell was not calling the shots this trial and made an actual decision to not give evidence. This is what I find inexplicable. I am making this post not to repeat that point, but to explain what I mean. The only hypothesis that would explain this decision completely to me would be that the Pope told him to simply follow legal advice throughout the process. I have no idea why the Pope would have made such a suggestion but I think on the basis of what I have read that Cardinal Pell would have followed it. In other words his decision was based on a sense of spiritual obedience or filial respect rather than on his strategic understanding,

 

[Greenfields]

Did you think him innocent of charges before may I ask ?

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Additionally, it wasn’t Pell who chose not to give testimony. It was his lawyers that persuaded him not to. He was taking what he believed was sound legal advice. Let’s not turn this into Pell not giving testimony as if he had something to hide. There are many reasons his lawyers would advise him in that way.

A agree that it was undoubtably on the advice of his legal team that Pell chose not to give evidence.

Think it is most unlikely that the team was in a position to force him on this point so that it ‘was not his decision’. Maybe not his idea, but it must have been his decision.

Again you are conflating evidence with testimony. There was plenty of evidence provided by Pell through his lawyers. You appear to be disingenuous on that point.

Look the reason individuals hire lawyers is that the lawyers are the experts regarding the law and how to deal with matters in a trial.

“His decision” doesn’t imply that it is what he wanted to do in the end, it means it was his decision to trust his lawyers precisely because they have the expertise.

The only hypothesis that would explain this decision completely to me would be that the Pope told him to simply follow legal advice throughout the process. I have no idea why the Pope would have made such a suggestion but I think on the basis of what I have read that Cardinal Pell would have followed it. In other words his decision was based on a sense of spiritual obedience or filial respect rather than on his strategic understanding,

This demonstrates a lack of knowledge of the relationship between the Pope and Bishops. You are wildly off in your speculation.

 

[CRV]

One hires the best lawyers possible to defend yourself especially in a matter where you are basically trying to prove something didn’t happen (with lots of evidence to support it wasn’t possible) against the word of someone who claims it did happen (with only their say-so to support their claim). These lawyers/QC are specialists in their fields and only a fool would disregard their own counsels’ direction/instruction wrt the handling of your own defense.

This demonstrates a lack of knowledge of the relationship between the Pope and Bishops. You are wildly off in your speculation.

Agreed 100% (actually it’s rather an understatement).

 

[Rau]

I have read up on Cardinal Pell’s history and concluded that he is of a very independent mind, very loyal to the Church and anyone in authority over him, extremely intelligent and has a deep strategic understanding.

True.

His interpersonal skills are clearly not such as to make him a rock star in Australia or I expect anywhere else but they have been sufficiently above average to allow him great success as a pastor and prelate.

His skills supported him in some ways but let him down severely in other ways. If you are trying to suggest an innocent Pell would have been put in the stand, I can only assure you his interpersonal skills would not have shone in that setting.

Indeed much if the opposition to him seems to be based on his ideas, not on his personality.

It is most certainly both.

The only hypothesis that would explain this decision completely to me would be that the Pope told him to simply follow legal advice throughout the process. I have no idea why the Pope would have made such a suggestion but I think on the basis of what I have read that Cardinal Pell would have followed it. In other words his decision was based on a sense of spiritual obedience or filial respect rather than on his strategic understanding,

That is perhaps the most speculative statement I’ve read on the thread!

 

[FiveLinden]

@Rau Thank you I think! I did say it was a hypothesis - like all good hypotheses it first the facts but is not established by them.

 

[FiveLinden]

The only hypothesis that would explain this decision completely to me would be that the Pope told him to simply follow legal advice throughout the process. I have no idea why the Pope would have made such a suggestion but I think on the basis of what I have read that Cardinal Pell would have followed it. In other words his decision was based on a sense of spiritual obedience or filial respect rather than on his strategic understanding,

So help me out. I’m constantly learning new things and appreciate those who teach me. What is it about the relationship between Cardinals (not bishops) and the Pope that I have so ignorantly ignored?

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

The only hypothesis that would explain this decision completely to me would be that the Pope told him to simply follow legal advice throughout the process. I have no idea why the Pope would have made such a suggestion but I think on the basis of what I have read that Cardinal Pell would have followed it. In other words his decision was based on a sense of spiritual obedience or filial respect rather than on his strategic understanding,

So help me out. I’m constantly learning new things and appreciate those who teach me. What is it about the relationship between Cardinals (not bishops) and the Pope that I have so ignorantly ignored?

You are correct that cardinals do profess an oath of faithful obedience to the Pope…

“I, _____, of the holy Roman Church, Cardinal of _____, promise and swear from this hour hence as long as I live to be faithful and obedient to the blessed St. Peter, the Holy Roman Apostolic Church, and the Most Holy Lord Pius X, and also his canonically elected successors.”

… but that obedience extends only to matters of Church doctrine and matters of faith.

"I swear to observe and fulfill and see that others observe and fulfill, the regulations, degrees, ordinances, dispensations, reservations, and provisions of the Apostolic mandates and constitutions of Sixtus First of happy memory, and to combat with every effort, heretics, schismatics, and rebellious utterances against our Lord the Pope, and his successors.

It does not bind the Cardinals to obedience in matters beyond the authority of the Pope. Cardinal Pell would in no way be obliged to take, for example, legal counsel on civil matters from the Pope. The Pope would be acting beyond his authority to order Cardinal Pell to take some legal recourse or other against the advice of his lawyers.

A parallel case would be a pope ordering a Cardinal to obey him in matters of medicine, for example. That is not in the realm of matters the Pope has any kind of authority to command a Cardinal or Bishop or Priest. A pope would not do that.

Neither would a Pope interfere with a Cardinal acting under the legal advice of lawyers in a civil or criminal matter. It just would not be in the jurisdiction of a Pope to expect that kind of obedience.

The Pope is neither a lawyer nor a physician, and would not pretend to be one. That kind of interference would not be defensible.

 

[FiveLinden]

I knew that. I was not suggesting Cardinal Pell was bound to follow the advice of the Pope. Just that I thought it entirely possible that he would.

 

[Rau]

I knew that. I was not suggesting Cardinal Pell was bound to follow the advice of the Pope. Just that I thought it entirely possible that he would.

The Pope would expect the Cardinal to deal with the matter honestly I suspect. I can’t imagine what more he would say.

 

[HarryStotle]

I knew that. I was not suggesting Cardinal Pell was bound to follow the advice of the Pope. Just that I thought it entirely possible that he would.

So you are claiming that it is entirely possible that Pope Francis would legally advise Cardinal Pell on such legal matters – despite that such “advice” is not in his purview – AND that Cardinal Pell would have ALSO felt some kind of obligation to follow that advice?

The only hypothesis that would explain this decision completely to me would be that the Pope told him to simply follow legal advice throughout the process. I have no idea why the Pope would have made such a suggestion but I think on the basis of what I have read that Cardinal Pell would have followed it. In other words his decision was based on a sense of spiritual obedience or filial respect rather than on his strategic understanding,

In other words, not just Cardinal Pell but ALSO Pope Francis would have acted in a way that was far beyond what was advisable or required for either of them in terms of authority and obedience? So neither understood nor acted according to the parameters of their respective offices?

That is quite a claim.

 

[FiveLinden]

In other words, not just Cardinal Pell but ALSO Pope Francis would have acted in a way that was far beyond what was advisable or required for either of them in terms of authority and obedience? So neither understood nor acted according to the parameters of their respective offices?

Required no, advisable? Not sure. Think not. Far beyond? No

 

[njlisa]

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.

@Rau: Some therapists convince gullible clients that they the have been abused – thus creating false memories.

A friend said a therapist tried to convince her she had been sexually abused as a child. The friend told the therapist she was wrong. The therapist told the friend that she was blocking the memories.

My friend was smart enough to walk out. But I fear many people succumb to this unethical practice. And they become to believe it’s true.