The case of Cardinal George Pell

[FiveLinden]

OK. Understand. So in terms of decision-makers, even given that claim, we have 9 jurors against (it was an 11-member jury); 14 jurors for, two judges for (including the lower court judge who allowed the jury to decide, and one judge against, all judging against the standard of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. Who knows what the appeal will find. But to majority of those charged with carefully considering it the case appears to have been compelling. It is a great shame we have not been able to read the transcript of the evidence and cross-examination of the complainant. Only that could explain the judgements made by those who agreed with conviction. The appeal court, of course, will have that available.

 

[Rau]

all judging against the standard of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.

That there would be so much disagreement when the bar is high, as in a criminal case, disturbs me.

Given what’s come before, I doubt any High Court decision will settle the question of guilt or innocence to everyone’s satisfaction - or even to the satisfaction of a large majority. Maybe we’ll get clarity over what is/is not necessary to clear the “beyond reasonable doubt” standard. And the answer there might still be disturbing!

 

[pnewton]

How on earth would that work? A man is convicted of raping a young boy, has two appeals turned down (in your scenario) and the Catholic church backs him up to a man? Can you be at all serious?

If you wanted to completely destroy the Catholic church in Australia then that is exactly what you’d do.

No, the Church would not be destroyed. Not all are willing to fall into Satan’s traps. And I have no doubt that what I am seeing in Australia is the work of that Great Adversary, who was a liar in the beginning and an accuser of the brethren. I do not really blame Australia though. They are hardly unique in being Satan’s playground.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

How on earth would that work? A man is convicted of raping a young boy, has two appeals turned down (in your scenario) and the Catholic church backs him up to a man? Can you be at all serious?

If you wanted to completely destroy the Catholic church in Australia then that is exactly what you’d do.

No, the Church would not be destroyed. Not all are willing to fall into Satan’s traps. And I have no doubt that what I am seeing in Australia is the work of that Great Adversary, who was a liar in the beginning and an accuser of the brethren. I do not really blame Australia though. They are hardly unique in being Satan’s playground.

Satan certainly has been treating this place like a playground. Just scroll up a few pages to that very long list of convicted paedophiles that had a free hand for so long in raping children. Old Nick has been very busy indeed.

I guess he thought that if he could convince enough priests to commit the most evil of acts then the church would self destruct. It’s not exactly in great shape down here at the moment. Come out in support of a convicted molestor and watch what happens. The devil will have his day I can assure you.

 

[pnewton]

Come out in support of a convicted molestor and watch what happens.

I believe that is what I did, and just like I favor other convicted criminals, like Jesus, who were wrongly convicted. Or did you know that Jesus was wrongly convicted for his religious oppression. It is not like this never has happened.

And yes, I will see what happens. Fortunately, I will not be going to Australia, so I have no personal reason to fear what they call justice.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

Good article. One point against one of the commenters under the story claiming that Vatican has abandoned Cardinal Pell. That isn’t true at all. Once the Australian Courts have exhausted all avenues, the Vatican then does it’s own investigation. That is when the voice of the Australian clergy will all but unanimously unite behind him for the sake of the Australian Church. It’s not prudent during the civil proceedings for clergy to speak out.

How on earth would that work? A man is convicted of raping a young boy, has two appeals turned down (in your scenario) and the Catholic church backs him up to a man? Can you be at all serious?

If you wanted to completely destroy the Catholic church in Australia then that is exactly what you’d do.

The Vatican will hold it’s own investigations once all the civil proceedings are closed. It is a long standing procedure within the Church.

The Vatican statement indicates that the C.D.F. will follow the procedure and the time limit laid down in the code of Canon Law of the Catholic Church.

Depending on the findings of the investigation, which will take into account the findings of the Australian court, the C.D.F. will decide whether to proceed by an administrative process or hold a formal trial.

If tried and found guilty, the penalties can vary depending on the seriousness of the crime and, often, the age of the accused; possible penalties include removal from office, restricted ministry, “a life of prayer and penance” without any public ministry and dismissal from the clerical state.

Vatican to open canonical investigation into Cardinal Pell, now in Australian prison | America Magazine

It will actually have more access to information that the jurors who don’t see the many bits of evidence for or against, that are legally suppressed in the course of a civil trial.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Come out in support of a convicted molestor and watch what happens.

I believe that is what I did, and just like I favor other convicted criminals, like Jesus, who were wrongly convicted. Or did you know that Jesus was wrongly convicted for his religious oppression. It is not like this never has happened.

And yes, I will see what happens. Fortunately, I will not be going to Australia, so I have no personal reason to fear what they call justice.

You wouldn’t like it down here. Waaay to liberal.

 

[Freddy]

It will actually have more access to information that the jurors who don’t see the many bits of evidence for or against, that are legally suppressed in the course of a civil trial.

I’m not sure how that worms, Emerald. The jurors would have access to everything. What was supressed in this case was access to information (such as the complainant’s testimony) to the public. By definition, jurors will be given ALL evidence.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

It will actually have more access to information that the jurors who don’t see the many bits of evidence for or against, that are legally suppressed in the course of a civil trial.

I’m not sure how that worms, Emerald. The jurors would have access to everything. What was supressed in this case was access to information (such as the complainant’s testimony) to the public. By definition, jurors will be given ALL evidence.

No, the jurors did not get any information about the credibility of the accuser. They had to depend solely on his performance at trial. They were only fed enough about the other two accusers swept up by the special task force, to serve as unofficial propensity evidence.

What was not known was that the reason that case ie Lyndon Monument and Damian Dignans accusation, was dead in the water because the pair had previously made accusations, individually against other members of the school system as a ploy to get compensation. They never made any mention against Cdl Pell until the special taskforce gave them the idea. Cdl Pell has been a well known figure to them their whole lives and would definitely have represented a cash cow to them. Yet not mention of him until the special taskforce.

On the back of that, this accuser has been kept well out of the spotlight. There has been no opportunity to know of his character and past history. The jurors had no chance to weigh those things.

The canonical investigation will also see the visual presentation the defense had professionally done to perfect scale of how the incident would have happened on the day and would have showed the impossibility of it in accurate detail. That had been disallowed by the court.

There are a lot of things that the Church will have at hand that the jurors didn’t.

 

[FiveLinden]

On the back of that, this accuser has been kept well out of the spotlight. There has been no opportunity to know of his character and past history. The jurors had no chance to weigh those things.

Didn’t his two-day cross-examination by one of the country’s leading defence lawyers provide something of an opportunity? Didn’t the defence have the ability to investigate and introduce evidence about his background?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Emeraldlady:

It will actually have more access to information that the jurors who don’t see the many bits of evidence for or against, that are legally suppressed in the course of a civil trial.

I’m not sure how that worms, Emerald. The jurors would have access to everything. What was supressed in this case was access to information (such as the complainant’s testimony) to the public. By definition, jurors will be given ALL evidence.

No, the jurors did not get any information about the credibility of the accuser. They had to depend solely on his performance at trial. They were only fed enough about the other two accusers swept up by the special task force, to serve as unofficial propensity evidence.

What was not known was that the reason that case ie Lyndon Monument and Damian Dignans accusation, was dead in the water because the pair had previously made accusations, individually against other members of the school system as a ploy to get compensation. They never made any mention against Cdl Pell until the special taskforce gave them the idea. Cdl Pell has been a well known figure to them their whole lives and would definitely have represented a cash cow to them. Yet not mention of him until the special taskforce.

On the back of that, this accuser has been kept well out of the spotlight. There has been no opportunity to know of his character and past history. The jurors had no chance to weigh those things.

Accusations by others are irrelvent to the case. That was the reason they weren’t considered. It wasn’t surpressed. Even if they had written testimony from another complainant that he was only doing it for the money it would have been inadmissable. In fact, it wouldn’t have got to the point where it would have needed to be declared as such. Nobody in their right mind would have submitted it. It would only have bearing on any case involving the person making the claim.

Edit: Are you referring to the credibility of the complainant in Pell’s case? In which case, as fivelinden said, the defence had ample time to bring into question his credibility. I’d guess that a large part of tbe defence was based on that co sidering it was one person’s word against another.

 

[LilyM]

Freddy:

Emeraldlady:

It will actually have more access to information that the jurors who don’t see the many bits of evidence for or against, that are legally suppressed in the course of a civil trial.

I’m not sure how that worms, Emerald. The jurors would have access to everything. What was supressed in this case was access to information (such as the complainant’s testimony) to the public. By definition, jurors will be given ALL evidence.

No, the jurors did not get any information about the credibility of the accuser. They had to depend solely on his performance at trial. They were only fed enough about the other two accusers swept up by the special task force, to serve as unofficial propensity evidence.

What was not known was that the reason that case ie Lyndon Monument and Damian Dignans accusation, was dead in the water because the pair had previously made accusations, individually against other members of the school system as a ploy to get compensation. They never made any mention against Cdl Pell until the special taskforce gave them the idea. Cdl Pell has been a well known figure to them their whole lives and would definitely have represented a cash cow to them. Yet not mention of him until the special taskforce.

On the back of that, this accuser has been kept well out of the spotlight. There has been no opportunity to know of his character and past history. The jurors had no chance to weigh those things.

The canonical investigation will also see the visual presentation the defense had professionally done to perfect scale of how the incident would have happened on the day and would have showed the impossibility of it in accurate detail. That had been disallowed by the court.

There are a lot of things that the Church will have at hand that the jurors didn’t.

“kept out of the spotlight”? In other words not broadcast to the public? Sure, as happens in a lot of similar cases. Why is it public business? The public are neither lawyer, judge nor jury.

That doesn’t mean that Pell’s team didn’t get the same opportunity to gather and disclose information about, and cross-examine the complainant about, his circumstances and history as they would any complainant in the case of anyone else charged with a similar crime.

Or that the judges and juries didn’t have the same opportunity to “know about his character and past history” as they would in any case of anyone else charged with a similar crime.

 

[tafan2]

Fair enough. So if we treat juries as a whole. One jury convicted, the other jury had reasonable doubt. Two judges agreed, one did not.
It’s hardly a slam dunk argument for the man’s guilt.

 

[FiveLinden]

Fair enough. So if we treat juries as a whole. One jury convicted, the other jury had reasonable doubt. Two judges agreed, one did not.
It’s hardly a slam dunk argument for the man’s guilt

The word ‘guilt’ in this context has different meanings. None of us will ever be 100% sure of Cardinal Pell’s actions that day. So ‘guilt beyond all possible doubt’ cannot be established. The next level is "so unlikely as to be unworthy of further consideration’. This has been Cardinal Pell’s defence throughout - the vestments, the potential witnesses etc. But this is dealt with at each stage of the process: does a prima facie case exist? Yes, all courts have agreed.

Then we come to ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. Yes, a minority of those called to judge so far have said that this standard is not reached. The appeal may yet find that all involved should have found the case did not meet that standard. But this does not mean ‘innocence’. It means ‘not guilty beyond reasonable doubt’. Then there is the standard of ‘balance of probabilities’ which is what applies in civil, non-criminal, cases. We do not know if anyone on the first jury or any judge would have said ‘yes to this’. Certainly the dissenting appeal judge did not say the evidence failed to reach even this lower standard. So on the lower standard ‘guilt’ could exist even after an acquittal.

And then there is the standard widely adopted in the Catholic Church ‘credible accusation’. This seems ill-defined but I can’t see that ‘guilt’ under this standard would not apply.

So short of a sudden recovery of memory by the complainant in which he recalls it was someone else who abused him and his friend there seems little opportunity to remove the idea of ‘guilt’ at all these levels.

The one thing that eliminates ‘guilt’ in the social sense of course is personal trust. A great many people will continue to believe in Cardinal Pell’s innocence because they believe it impossible that he would do such a thing, and lie about it.

That’s a fact, but to use your expression tafan2, it’s hardly a slam dunk argument for the man’s innocence.

 

[Rau]

That’s a fact, but to use your expression tafan2, it’s hardly a slam dunk argument for the man’s innocence.

It is distressing that any man could be called upon to provide a “slam dunk argument for his innocence”. God help the falsely accused.

 

[tafan2]

The only concern with regards to the criminal trial is “guilt beyond a reasonable doubt”. That is what I was referring to.
Finding a slam dunk for his innocence should not be our concern.

 

[pnewton]

The only concern with regards to the criminal trial is “guilt beyond a reasonable doubt”. That is what I was referring to.

If the standard is beyond reasonable doubt, then by necessity a dissenting number of jurors or jurists would constitute reasonable doubt. that is why in civil trials, a majority can decide, and in places that use the standard of beyond reasonable doubt, it takes an unanimous decision.

 

[tafan2]

Well, acquittal also takes a unanimous jury, does it not? So our legal system does not say any number of dissenting jurors constitutes a reasonable doubt.

 

[pnewton]

Yes, but a hung jury is not a decision. It is still not “guilty,” with the possibility of re-trial. After such a trial, it is not uncommon for a prosecutor with integrity to consider if there is really sufficient evidence to have another attempt, or realize that for the time at least, evidence really isn’t sufficient to convict, dismiss the charge, and only reconsider in light of new evidence.

The idea this second trial went forward after all this time on nothing but testimony from old memories is bothersome. There was no new evidence found; no smoking gun.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

On the back of that, this accuser has been kept well out of the spotlight. There has been no opportunity to know of his character and past history. The jurors had no chance to weigh those things.

Didn’t his two-day cross-examination by one of the country’s leading defence lawyers provide something of an opportunity? Didn’t the defence have the ability to investigate and introduce evidence about his background?

While all the holes in the complainants testimony mattered to the first jury, there seemed to be nothing that was going sway the 2nd jury from a foregone conviction.