The case of Cardinal George Pell

[Joe_5859]

I suspect the main reason people believe in his innocence is that he’s a priest who has not confessed.

That is likely true for some people or with some clergy sex abuse cases, but I don’t think that satisfactorily explains most people’s reactions to Pell’s case.

I can’t help but contrast Pell’s case with McCarrick’s. McCarrick also claims to be innocent. But you can tell that virtually no one inside or outside of the Church actually believe him.

With Pell, the same certainty of guilt just isn’t there, especially considering the public facts of the case. Does this mean Pell is innocent? I couldn’t tell you. I’m sure there are more facts to the case than what I know. But from what I have read, it certainly seems reasonable to think he could be innocent quite apart from any deference to the clergy.

 

[Pai_Nosso]

I suspect the main reason people believe in his innocence is that he’s a priest who has not confessed.

I would say the main reason is because Pell has several witnesses who testified for him, witnesses who didn’t leave his side throughout the whole event. These testimonies were dismissed for the one testimony of the accuser. This is not beyond reasonable doubt.

Another reasons would be the length of time it has taken to bring forth these allegations. Over 20 years. The impossibility of parting the Cardinals robes as it was described in the testimony. And the simple fact that the word of one person is not enough to convict anyone.

 

[LilyM]

Elf01:

I suspect the main reason people believe in his innocence is that he’s a priest who has not confessed.

I would say the main reason is because Pell has several witnesses who testified for him, witnesses who didn’t leave his side throughout the whole event. These testimonies were dismissed for the one testimony of the accuser. This is not beyond reasonable doubt.

Another reasons would be the length of time it has taken to bring forth these allegations. Over 20 years. The impossibility of parting the Cardinals robes as it was described in the testimony. And the simple fact that the word of one person is not enough to convict anyone.

The jury,.who heard the testimony of.both the complainant and Pell’s witnesses and saw all of them.cross-examoned and re-examined, thought it was beyond reasonable doubt. So did the trial.judge and two out of three appeal.judges.

And of course people who are abused, especially by someone in a position.of high authority, might be too scared, too traumatised, or too convinced that no one will believe them, to put themselves through the stress of a criminal trial for years afterwards. I work with criminal lawyers, seen it happen time.and again.

 

[Emeraldlady]

There are some hills that are worth dying on. Cdl Pells innocence is one of those for me. Most members here that I’ve dialogued with have called me a progressive/liberal (which I’m not) but I am more conformed to Catholic discernment and truth and that adamantly convinces me that Cdl Pell is a victim of something evil. I pray for a speedy outcome of truth.

 

[FiveLinden]

I would say the main reason is because Pell has several witnesses who testified for him, witnesses who didn’t leave his side throughout the whole event. These testimonies were dismissed for the one testimony of the accuser. This is not beyond reasonable doubt.

Another reasons would be the length of time it has taken to bring forth these allegations. Over 20 years. The impossibility of parting the Cardinals robes as it was described in the testimony. And the simple fact that the word of one person is not enough to convict anyone

You really need to read the decisions. No one gave evidence that they ‘didn’t leave his side throughout the whole event’. The second jury and the judge had access to the actual type of robe worn. They were not persuaded it could not be pulled aside. The evidence that tis was not possible was rejected.

 

[FiveLinden]

I am more conformed to Catholic discernment and truth and that adamantly convinces me that Cdl Pell is a victim of something evil

So you believe this on the basis of what?

 

[FiveLinden]

This is from an objective summary of the appeal decision produced by the ABC. Have read the original appeal decision, The summary is accurate:

"Part of Cardinal Pell’s case on the appeal was that there were 13 solid obstacles in the path of a conviction. The Chief Justice and Justice Maxwell rejected all 13.

By way of example, one of the 13 ‘obstacles’ was said to be that the acts alleged to have been committed by Cardinal Pell in the first incident were ‘physically impossible’.

The defence relied on categorical statements by Monsignor Portelli (the prefect of ceremonies to Cardinal Pell) and by Mr Potter (the sacristan) that it was not possible to pull the Cardinal’s robes to the side.

The robes were an exhibit at the trial and had been available to the jury in the jury room during their deliberation.

Having taken advantage of the opportunity to feel the weight of the robes and assess their manoeuvrability as garments, the Chief Justice and Justice Maxwell decided that it was well open to the jury to reject the contention of physical impossibility.

The robes were not so heavy nor so immoveable as the evidence of Monsignor Portelli and Mr Potter had suggested.

The Chief Justice and Justice Maxwell found that the robes were capable of being manoeuvred in a way that might be described as being moved or pulled to one side or pulled apart."

 

[pnewton]

Emeraldlady:

I am more conformed to Catholic discernment and truth and that adamantly convinces me that Cdl Pell is a victim of something evil

So you believe this on the basis of what?

For me, it would be the lack of physical evidence, reliance on testimony, the degradation of testimony over time, which is why most civilized nations have had statute of limitations.

 

[Pai_Nosso]

@FiveLinden You seem to have little knowledge of the case and the justice system.

 

[FiveLinden]

@FiveLinden You seem to have little knowledge of the case and the justice system.

Just what I have been able to pick up in a long lifetime of exposure to the legal system and by reading the transcripts of the cases and related material. If you can refer me to source I have overlooked I’d appreciate it very much if you referred me to it.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

I am more conformed to Catholic discernment and truth and that adamantly convinces me that Cdl Pell is a victim of something evil

So you believe this on the basis of what?

Aside from the legal aspects that would normally support acquittal on the basis of insufficient evidence, there is this. Cardinal Pell has presented himself without fear through revelations of the the sordid history of priestly sexual abuse in Australia, as a visible spokesperson for the Australian Church. This does not fit with a person with a history of abusing children who would naturally seek to avoid the limelight. The only explanation is either that he is a sociopath or had a sudden bizarre breakdown in 1994… or that he is innocent and being maligned as many a Christian before him has been.

Another weird tell is that in Ballarat where the Cardinal spent many years of his early vocation, not a whisper was ever heard about him being involved in this sort of thing. One of the Ballarat victims grew up to become a mayor and prominent local advocate for other victims in the diocese. He was completely taken by surprise by the accusations turned up by the special police task force assembled to 'get Pell". He states that he had never heard any accusation against the Cardinal in all the years of advocating. Very suspicious indeed.

2 of my kids have just come home from Israel and Jordan on a tour of the Holy places. The Priest guide got into a conversation with the group one evening about the case. He is firmly of the belief that Cdl Pell is the target of a focused anti Catholic agenda in Australia. Dare we say the freemasons are still at it in institutions like the police and justice system! There is a lot of misplaced resentment in secular institutions still, about the authority that Catholicism wields.

 

[FiveLinden]

So if he has a history of presenting himself without fear, why did he exercise his right not to give evidence on oath and be cross-examined? His accuser gave evidence under oath, and was cross-examined by Cardinal Pell’s QC, one of the finest legal minds and courtroom performers in Australia.

 

[Rau]

If he was innocent and had returned, as he said ‘to clear his name’ why did he exercise his right to decline to give evidence on oath at his trial, unlike his accuser?

For those familiar with the Cdl that is readily understood. He is a very poor communicator. It would be certain that he would respond to questions in ways that put people off. That is simply him.

Of course without the accuser, there’d be no trial - because there is no objective evidence but the word of the accuser. So not much choice for him.

I have no idea whether he did what he’s accused of doing. But it disturbs me that an accuser’s testimony on its own is enough to support a verdict “beyond reasonable doubt” - even if the jury is persuaded of the truth of the testimony. Maybe Pell is guilty and hoped that one man’s word could not convict. Or maybe he’s innocent.

 

[Rau]

The jury,.who heard the testimony of.both the complainant and Pell’s witnesses and saw all of them.cross-examoned and re-examined, thought it was beyond reasonable doubt. So did the trial.judge and two out of three appeal.judges.

If the accuser lied or is in some way confused about who did these acts, assuming someone did), we would have the same result. It seems to all rely on the believability of the accuser.

Keep in mind that a prior jury was divided on the question of guilt. Keep in mind that one experienced appeals court judge found the verdict unsafe. How then can any finding (on the same information) of guilt beyond reasonable doubt be readily accepted?

Regrettably, this case will never be resolved satisfactorily (unless the Cdl recants and confesses) no matter what the outcome of the final appeal. This is because the evidence base is solely the accuser’s words.

 

[Rau]

Cardinal Pell is not so much a scapegoat as he is a leader of the Church experiencing punishment for the collective sins of the Church. He is like collateral damage. It may not be justice, at least as I see it, but I do understand it from that point of view.

The “counter” to the proposition that he did not do the deed is “would anyone mount such a false accusation?”

Arguably, his conviction may in a technical sense lack justice even if he is guilty, on the basis that the evidence was insufficient.

 

[catholiclala]

I support convicting sex offenders but guilty until proven innocent is currently ruling the day. If a case is opened decades after the fact but there is prior record or evidence of the offense being made, that is legitimate, but to believe every case presented decades later with no prior mention or evidence and the only convicting evidence being the victim’s testimony, is truly problematic and has set an unjust precedent. There is big money to be made for false accusations. To think nobody could be tempted to fabricate abuse for gain is naive.

Do people remember the whole phenomena or “repressed memory abuse” from the 90s? How many innocent people were convicted during this time? The phenomena was later debunked, with little notice, after lives were ruined based solely on a victim’s word. What is the point of a justice system if anyone can just say someone did something and that is enough to prove guilt? I’m not saying no old accusations are valid and we should not believe victims, but the legal system is being highly influenced by bias. I listened to an interview with a Catholic defense attorney recently who was lamenting this courtroom trend. Many lawyers, judges and juries go along with bad evidence if it supports what “feels right” and is acceptable in the media. It’s getting out of control.

I have no idea if he is guilty or not but we really need to start looking more objectively at how these cases are tried.

 

[FiveLinden]

@catholiclala here’s a way of looking at how it was tried objectively: read the appeal court transcript.

Pell v The Queen [2019] VSCA 186 (21 August 2019)

 

[Pai_Nosso]

@FiveLinden I didn’t want to get into the details but I may as well drop the facts now.
Let’s first look at your definition of “reasonable doubt”

The word of a single accuser is often the basis of convictions

You admit the only evidence was the uncorroborated testimony of the accuser.
The word of a single accuser is often the basis of convictions yes, but it is often also not. So for you, the testimony of one single accuser is enough to convict Pell which is the main reason why we are in disagreement here.

This change in criminal law has only started happening from about 10 years ago, especially for sex crimes. It may be before your time but one persons testimony wasn’t even worth taking to court back then.

No one gave evidence that they ‘didn’t leave his side throughout the whole event

Incorrect. Many people testified for Pell including choir boys and alter boys. The main witnesses were choir master Peter Finnigan, sacristan Maxwell Potter and master of ceremonies Charles Portelli. All of them are in the appeal court transcript that you provided.

"Portelli gave Pell an alibi. He told the jury the archbishop couldn’t possibly have abused choir boys in the sacristy because, first, His Grace lingered for some time on the steps of the cathedral talking to the faithful and, second, because he was always by Pell’s side while the archbishop was robed in chasuble and alb.
But the jury convicted nevertheless."
Quoted from this article.
[After a train wreck of a day, George Pell's fate hinges on alibi evidence | David Marr | The Guardian]

One thing worth mentioning is the fact that there is no statute of limitation anymore on sex crimes. This means you can get charged for something that allegedly happened over 20 years ago making it very unfair for the defendant. Refer to this article.
[Child Sexual Assault and the Statute of Limitations in Australia]

 

[Pai_Nosso]

Another vital fact is the large amount of professionals that disagree with the conviction including one of the appeal court judges Mark Weinberg. The other judges stated that the accusers testimony had the *“ring of truth”. That’s totally absurd.

*"Weinberg said There is a “significant body of cogent evidence casting serious doubt”
He also said this probability analysis “suggests strongly to me that the jury, acting reasonably, on the whole of the evidence in this case, ought to have had a reasonable doubt”.
“There is, to my mind, a ‘significant possibility’ that the applicant in this case may not have committed these offences,” Justice Weinberg said. “The only order that can properly be made is that the applicant be acquitted on each charge.”"
All quoted from this article.
[Judges dismiss grounds of Cardinal Pell’s appeal and say witness testimony has the 'ring of truth' - The Catholic Leader]

U mentioned the defence had 13 reasons why Pell should of been acquitted but only elaborated on one. Here is a list of them.

1. The timing of the assaults was impossible. The victim initially told police both attacks took place in 1996 but prosecutors told the jury the second incident happened in 1997.
2. It was not possible for Pell to be in the sacristy a few minutes after mass when witnesses said they saw him go to the front of the cathedral to greet parishioners.
3. It was not possible for Pell to be robed and alone in the sacristy, because church officials always ensured the then archbishop was never left unattended.
4. It was not possible for the two choirboys to be sexually assaulted in the sacristy undetected.
5. It was not possible for the boys to leave a procession outside without being noticed.
6. Officials near the sacristy did not see either boy.
7. It was not possible for the boys to be absent from the choir room, after the procession, without someone noting their absences.
8. It was not possible for the boys to re-enter the choir room unnoticed.
9. The crimes attributed to Pell are physically impossible because he wore heavy, cumbersome robes.
10. The prosecution case that the second incident happened in 1997 was contrary to the victim’s own evidence.
11. No one noticed the second incident when the victim said he was attacked in a busy corridor.
12. It was not possible for Pell to be in the corridor because he would have either been greeting parishioners or at the end of any internal procession.
13. Other people present did not see anything consistent with the prosecution case.
Quoted from this article.
[[George Pell appeal: The 13 reasons why Cardinal should be freed]

Thirteen arguments. Thirteen points of reasonable doubt. All were dismissed, most without reason.

@FiveLinden U ignored the case of the defence and you accepted the uncorroborated testimony from one single accuser. It’s clear that you are bias in your opinion and want him in prison regardless. I hope my review was helpful to anyone interested.

 

[FiveLinden]

No one gave evidence that they ‘didn’t leave his side throughout the whole event

No one gave evidence that ‘they did not leave his side throughout the whole event’. The evidence cited in the transcript clear says they gave evidences that ‘they did nt think they would have left his side’ or that ‘at such events they did not normally leave his side’. This issue is addresses by the majority judges. You seem to think I am arguing the case for Cardinal Pell’s guilt. I am not. I am urging people to be accurate about the cases.