The case of Cardinal George Pell

[FiveLinden]

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

All were dismissed for reasons by the majority judges or they gave reasons why the jury in the earlier trial could have reasonably dismissed them. Your statement is not accurate.

 

[FiveLinden]

It’s clear that you are bias in your opinion and want him in prison regardless.

You have made this up on the basis of nothing I have said.

 

[Rau]

Those in any of his diocese who know him can affirm this.

He was a shocking communicator. His TV interviews regularly left people shaking their heads. He would come across as gruff, aggressive and lacking empathy. His sporting days were decades ago.

Either way the only thing we can be sure of is someone is lying.

Yes, lying or strangely confused.

 

[Rau]

All were dismissed for reasons by the majority judges or they gave reasons why the jury in the earlier trial could have reasonably dismissed them.

Think about this: two judges take one view (evidence is good). One judge takes a contrary view (evidence is not good). And a jury reached a verdict “beyond reasonable doubt”! [Not to mention the prior jury that reached no verdict.]. Do you see how this is disturbing; why it might unsettle one as to the reliability of the criminal process here?

 

[Rau]

No, straight up lying.

I read one interpretation that suggested perhaps the accuser was abused but not by Pell. Seems an overly complex scenario.

 

[Rau]

H e is a good communicator. What happens Rau, is the media chops interviews to bits.

Do you live in Australia - I’m left wondering just how much you’ve seen of the man.

 

[FiveLinden]

Think about this: two judges take one view (evidence is good). One judge takes a contrary view (evidence is not good). And a jury reached a verdict “beyond reasonable doubt”! [Not to mention the prior jury that reached no verdict.]. Do you see how this is disturbing; why it might unsettle one as to the reliability of the criminal process here?

Of course I do. Why do you think I am interested in the case? If it was obvious to everyone it was done and who done it there would be nothing to talk about.

One thing I have earned here is that there are people who believe in the innocence of Cardinal Pell in exactly the same way they believe in spiritual things without empirical evidence. I’m here to understand more about belief so this is really interesting to me.

 

[Greenfields]

prayersoutherncross:

Those in any of his diocese who know him can affirm this.

He was a shocking communicator. His TV interviews regularly left people shaking their heads. He would come across as gruff, aggressive and lacking empathy. His sporting days were decades ago.

Either way the only thing we can be sure of is someone is lying.

Yes, lying or strangely confused.

Family and friends who personally know him find him easy to communicate with I think stating what you have is rather lopsided .
God bless.

 

[FiveLinden]

Re the issue of Pell as a communicator and the reasons he did not give evidence under oath:

1. Cardinal Pell was seen by the jury, arguably not at his best, when they were played the police video tape other interview with him done in Rome. So there was nothing further to be lost by seeing his style and attitude to the allegations in person. So I think his alleged poor communications skills did not lead to the advice not to give evidence under oath.
2. Had he given evidence he would have been cross-examined. So claims that he ‘never’ or ‘always’ did something would have been tested just as they were when his supporters were cross-examined. In other words, his case would be weakened.
3. I have seen the Cardinal in the flesh and watched him a bit on YouTube. I’ve seen many less impressive people give effective evidence.

 

[Emeraldlady]

One thing I have earned here is that there are people who believe in the innocence of Cardinal Pell in exactly the same way they believe in spiritual things without empirical evidence.

What is your take on those who were convinced of Lindy Chamberlains innocence? Were they invoking a ‘spiritual thing’?

 

[FiveLinden]

What is your take on those who were convinced of Lindy Chamberlains innocence? Were they invoking a ‘spiritual thing’?

Now that you mention it, probably yes. They turned out to be right of course. They said, at least the ones I knew, that a ‘mother could not do that’. They meant, of course, that a mother not plainly evil or psychotic could not do that. I also believed in her innocence but for another reason. I believed ‘a dingo would not do that’. I believed that because I believed experts. I was right for a wrong reason. So were the others. Those who say of of Cardinal Pell ‘Cardinals don’t do that’ or even ‘that Cardinal could not possibly do that’ are guilty of the same thing I was - blind faith. I have since learned to be more careful in my evaluation of expert opinion but in my previous ‘faith’ in it I think I was like those who looked at Lindy and thought ‘no’ on the basis of her sex, motherhood status and appearance, and also those who have ‘faith’ that prevent them assessing all the evidence (or that we know of) in Cardinal Pell’s case. As an unbeliever I think believers in their beliefs are just being human, just like me. The difference is that I try to avoid belief without evidence and try to stop my existing beliefs interfering with my observations. I know many believers do likewise, but not all supporters of Cardinal Pell, or all his detractors.

 

[Rau]

Offensive, I cant yet flag, if I could I would tag off topic.

Hopefully you’ll be able to “flag” soon. I suspect you’ll earn a censure for making mischievous, unfounded accusations.

 

[Rau]

So there was nothing further to be lost by seeing his style and attitude to the allegations in person. So I think his alleged poor communications skills did not lead to the advice not to give evidence under oath.

This is pure speculation. We don’t know why Pell didn’t testify, and as a matter of law that can have no impact on a jury’s judgement (though in practice, it may well).

While I judge Pell to have a very poor communication style, what I think is not in debate is the very low regard in which he is held by the families of abuse victims where he had a role in dealing with their compensation cases. This I submit is yet more evidence that he comes across being principally concerned with the Church’s reputation and lacking empathy with victims and their families.

 

[Rau]

One thing I have earned here is that there are people who believe in the innocence of Cardinal Pell in exactly the same way they believe in spiritual things without empirical evidence. I’m here to understand more about belief so this is really interesting to me.

Yes, and people who believe he is guilty because an accuser said so! For me, I’m bemused at the strength of conviction some have on this matter - whether it be for guilt or for innocence. While I can readily admit I don’t know whether he did it or not, I’m rather more comfortable calling into question the safety of the verdict.

 

[Pai_Nosso]

@FiveLinden You’ve made 22 posts on this thread opposing anyone who thinks his not guilty.

I presented all the reasonable doubts. U didn’t prove any of them weren’t.
U had nuffin but tiny misquotes so my point still stands.
There is way too much reasonable doubt to convict. . . .

 

[PickyPicky]

I question your morals. Trolling Catholics. Supporting Pells conviction in the face of so much doubt.

But u know what… With all the hate in your heart I feel sad for u.
Carrying around resentment is so mentally damaging. Against a whole group of people, it’s toxic

What is toxic is the nature of these comments. @FiveLinden has not trolled, has not displayed hate or resentment, but has simply put forward arguments which may or may not be well founded. You should be ashamed to use such language.

 

[ShrodingersCat]

I’m not sure that’s fair - I’m not getting a vibe of anger or hate from FiveLinden. I’m Catholic and I don’t know if Pell is innocent or guilty, but I’m deeply uncomfortable with making up my mind to reject the outcome of the justice system without all of the facts, which only the people present at the trial have been presented with.

 

[PickyPicky]

The mods recommend just flagging comments like that one

No doubt they are right. I have some inbuilt aversion to flagging.

 

[Rau]

Read the rules. In the FAQ. Uncharitable offensive comments attacking the commenter are flaggable.

Of course they are. But first you need to be in receipt of an offensive comment…

 

[Barnesy]

@FiveLinden You’ve made 22 posts on this thread opposing anyone who thinks his not guilty.

I presented all the reasonable doubts. U didn’t prove any of them weren’t.
U had nuffin but tiny misquotes so my point still stands.
There is way too much reasonable doubt to convict.

I question your morals. Trolling Catholics. Supporting Pells conviction in the face of so much doubt.

But u know what… With all the hate in your heart I feel sad for u.
Carrying around resentment is so mentally damaging. Against a whole group of people, it’s toxic.

Ive been reading all the posts and i dont think fivelinden has said any thing wrong as well. He has been polite and hasnt shown any hate to any one. And you have said that what he says is mentally damaging which is not very nice. And worst of all you said he might have bad morals just for pointing out what people in tbe court said about the case.

And Jesus said that you should pray in secret. Putting your prayer in your post makes it look like you think that God would think the same as you. Maybe we should pray so that you find it in your heart to be nicer to fivelinden.