The case of Cardinal George Pell

[Neithan]

I believe that is the issue and why the High Court will hear the arguments for appeal. The majority judges ruled it was open to the jury to find a guilty verdict because it was “possible” not because it was “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

 

[Pai_Nosso]

To me @FiveLinden he has just been contentious. I noticed he is an unbeliever and that was a red flag. Why would he even give this topic that much attention. Why is he even here in disagreement. Eager to discredit the religion maybe hate. Carrying hate around is toxic for ones self.

He acted like an anti Catholic atheist with me. When you only argue over the smallest things such as wording while avoiding everything else including the premise (that there is loads of reasonable doubt) your motives will be questioned. When u demand to see references only to ignore them when presented ur going to look suspiciously dishonest.

So rather than show any discord and respond with more arguments i simply handed it over to God.
His will is to pray and keep the peace. So I did pray for us both.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

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.

Any belief on Pell’s trial has no empirical evidence.

 

[LilyM]

I believe that is the issue and why the High Court will hear the arguments for appeal. The majority judges ruled it was open to the jury to find a guilty verdict because it was “possible” not because it was “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

“Open to find a guilty verdict” means exactly “open to find beyond a reasonable.doubt” - that is precisely what a guilty verdict is.

And what the judges are saying is it was open to the jury, who had access to the defence witnesses,.the complainant AND some physucal evidence such as the clothing in question, to.reject the defence.assertions of impossibility. Eg that Pell’s clothing was ‘impossible’ to shift in the manner described or that it was ‘impossible’ that he was alone with the complainant.

And if they reject those, and otherwise assess the complainant as credible and the defence witnesses and arguments as not credible, then why would they be wrong to find him guilty? It may be one person’s word, but why is it less likely for one person to be telling the truth than a number of people?

It is the nature of these sort of crimes that they usually are committed in secret. It is also in the nature of these crimes that perpetrators often rely on that fact for protection,. Further, that they either overtly threaten or cajole the.victim into silence.or rely on what status or authority they may have to scare the victim into silence.

 

[Barnesy]

To me @FiveLinden he has just been contentious. I noticed he is an unbeliever and that was a red flag. Why would he even give this topic that much attention. Why is he even here in disagreement. Eager to discredit the religion maybe hate. Carrying hate around is toxic for ones self.

He acted like an anti Catholic atheist with me. When you only argue over the smallest things such as wording while avoiding everything else including the premise (that there is loads of reasonable doubt) your motives will be questioned. When u demand to see references only to ignore them when presented ur going to look suspiciously dishonest.

So rather than show any discord and respond with more arguments i simply handed it over to God.

I can count nine arguments in what you wrote in your post just before you said youd rather not give us more arguments.

 

[AlNg]

I can’t see that Cardinal Pell could have been worse off had he decided to give evidence under oath.

I think that generally it is better for an innocent man to testify under oath. Questions arise when a man refuses to give his side of the story under oath and lets his lawyers do all the talking.

 

[FiveLinden]

Why is he even here in disagreement. Eager to discredit the religion maybe hate. Carrying hate around is toxic for ones self.

I’m here because I was invited to be here. Thank you to those who have commented positively on my efforts to be objective in discussion.

 

[FiveLinden]

I think that generally it is better for an innocent man to testify under oath. Questions arise when a man refuses to give his side of the story under oath and lets his lawyers do all the talking.

I think it is often (not) done to minimise risk. In this case we have the situation of someone saying they are returning, under no compulsion, to clear their name and then saying nothing under oath to do so. So as you say, questions arise. As I mentioned earlier the result for Cardinal Pell could not have been worse had he given evidence although I suppose if he wins his next appeal that would allow him to speak publicly at that point. But again, he would not be under oath and subject to cross-examination. I don’t think his failure to give evidences shows he is guilty. But I think it odd he did not take the opportunity to himself rebut all the allegations in court. I also think the evidence he gave to the police, shown to the court on video could not possibly have been the best he could have done in presenting his side of the case.

 

[Edmundus1581]

That’s very good, and almost irrefutably argues that the alleged offence couldn’t have happened before, at least, five minutes after Mass.

It would have been easier to follow if Bolt had highlighted the significance of the five minutes before he, at 5:30 in the video, went into the detail of his investigation of the timeline.

I had to watch it a second time to find it, ie. the significance of the five minutes, and it’s at 4:40.

“The two judges said this assault must have occurred in the sacristy in five or six minutes of private prayer time left to worshipers immediately after the Mass ended”.

I’ve found the judge’s words, with citation, in Keith Windschuttle’s excellent article, which is the basis for Bolt’s own article.

On the basis of the above evidence, Ferguson and Maxwell drew the following conclusion:

In our view, taking the evidence as a whole, it was open to the jury to find that the assaults took place in the 5–6 minutes of private prayer time and that this was before the “hive of activity” described by the other witnesses began. The jury were not bound to have a reasonable doubt. [par 300]

I have verified Windschuttle’s citation of "[par 300]"in the official court ruling.

So, Bolt’s argument is very well founded.

 

[Londoner]

I do wonder how many of those other convicted priests are innocent victims of this evil smear campaign.

Trying to make excuses for paedophile priests is the last thing the Catholic Church needs. It was putting the reputation of the Church above the interests of victims that got the Church into this situation in the first place. I trust that convicted priests have been afforded a fair trial and make no excuses for them. Seriously, let’s not go back to the dark days when it was assumed that priests could do no wrong and victims were telling wicked lies. The conspiracy theory stuff helps nobody.

 

[Greenfields]

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/...d/news-story/0a6e9e4c9fb5f97ef5f4b5dbfcd39303

 

[FiveLinden]

I don’t think the case of Archbishop Wilson is relevant. He was not accused of abuse.

Phillip Wilson's overruled conviction explained and why public opinion was 'dashed' - ABC News

The case of Br John Francis Terrell is relevant. The Appeal Court said: “ There were a number of substantial inconsistencies between the account that he gave to the police, and the evidence that he gave at the trial. …

Having carefully reviewed the evidence in the trial, the Court of Appeal concluded that in light of the many inconsistencies in the complainant’s account, and the improbabilities associated with his evidence, it had not been open to the jury to be satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, of the guilt of the appellant."

As discussed in this thread the challenge will be for Cardinal Pell to establish such a strong case. Here’s the full decision so people can see for themselves the similarities and dissimilarities with the Cardinal’s case.

https://www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au...john-francis-tyrrell-v-the-queen-2019-vsca-52

Andrew Bolt, the author the article linked to in the previous post is a well-known defender of Cardinal Pell who has argued his case rather better than the Cardinal himself in my view! But he is not a go-to person for an objective analysis.

 

[Greenfields]

It’s a funny thread,no different to most of the threads on the same topic going nowhere.
Facts are presented and I’ve noticed not many of the links aknowledged ,read and people still hold firm to what they first thought and haven’t changed their mind on anything.With that in mind it’s for outside readers that I post who might not understand the full and true story.
We’ll probably have several more before March that go in circles and I will keep sourcing the truth.Bolt isn’t Catholic ,but recognises something very odd is going on.Most of Australia’s media are anti Catholic,anti Christian and very biased in their reporting running with the crowd to be in favour.Bolt has the courage to speak as he does.
God bless ray:t2:

 

[Rau]

could not possibly have been the best he could have done in presenting his side of the case.

What can his (Pell’s) side of the case be in these historical situations (where there is no evidence but the accuser’s words) other than “The accuser has fabricated a story”? [That very statement would harden the attitude of some I suspect. I recall during the Royal Commission the comnunity being implored to always “believe the victims” and being reminded how many were not believed…]

 

[FiveLinden]

What can his (Pell’s) side of the case be in these historical situations (where there is no evidence but the accuser’s words) other than “The accuser has fabricated a story”?

His case was much stronger than that. His lawyers argued that he had routines and arrangements that made it impossible for such events not to be seen, that his vestments made the allegations impossible, that no one in their right mind would’ve attempted such assaults, that if the boys had left the sight of others it would have been noticed etc. The accuser’s sworn evidence was preferred against all these by the jury. And persuaded at least some of another jury. And a majority of judges said this was something they could reasonably have decided. So yes, he had a case. My point (in this respect) is that his police interview was less than compelling consisting mainly of straight denials without explanation and that evidence under oath, led by his most expert lawyer could not possibly have been worse, even with cross-examination. But the Cardinal, as was his right, chose not to do all he could to clear his name, and did not give evidence under oath himself.

 

[LilyM]

FiveLinden:

could not possibly have been the best he could have done in presenting his side of the case.

What can his (Pell’s) side of the case be in these historical situations (where there is no evidence but the accuser’s words) other than “The accuser has fabricated a story”? [That very statement would harden the attitude of some I suspect. I recall during the Royal Commission the comnunity being implored to always “believe the victims” and being reminded how many were not believed…]

Well, for starters, why accuse the victim of something as heinous as a fabricating the story? Surely it is better to say “the victim is mistaken, what he said happened did not happen and could not have happened, for xyz reasons”. It could be a case of honest but mistaken belief, after all.

And saying that on the witness stand, where Pell could have been cross examined about his reasons why it didn’t/couldn’t happen, may have made him come across as more credible in his denials.

 

[Patri]

His case was much stronger than that. His lawyers argued that he had routines and arrangements that made it impossible for such events not to be seen, that his vestments made the allegations impossible, that no one in their right mind would’ve attempted such assaults, that if the boys had left the sight of others it would have been noticed etc

Should he be found innocent I wonder what you will post regarding that (after your careful analysis about his guilty verdict) . I have no idea what happened but I do know that sometimes innocent people are convicted (even executed) and on occasions, the guilty get away. Maybe not everything is as it seems…

 

[Rau]

Well, for starters, why accuse the victim of something as heinous as a fabricating the story? Surely it is better to say “the victim is mistaken,

Yes, that’s softer, though it begs the question of how a victim could make such an error.

And saying that on the witness stand, where Pell could have been cross examined about his reasons why it didn’t/couldn’t happen, may have made him come across as more credible in his denials.

I start from the position that an accused able to “prove” he could not have done it is a lucky accused! Surely, in general, we should anticipate the accused cannot prove innocence. The law is not supposed to require that, and often, particularly in historical cases, it can’t be done.

 

[Patri]

Well, for starters, why accuse the victim of something as heinous as a fabricating the story? Surely it is better to say “the victim is mistaken, what he said happened did not happen and could not have happened, for xyz reasons”. It could be a case of honest but mistaken belief, after all.

I don’t understand how one can be mistaken in making such a serious accusation. Except that person has problems distinguishing between what is real and what isn’t. I pray that if this is an unjust sentence then truth should surface. I agree that things should not be swept under the rug, but not in a general witch hunt. There are way more priests that are working really hard in the vineyard of the Lord, sad that everything is reduced to the criminal acts of a few (but, that is how it has always been).

 

[Rau]

My point (in this respect) is that his police interview was less than compelling consisting mainly of straight denials without explanation and that evidence under oath, led by his most expert lawyer could not possibly have been worse, even with cross-examination. But the Cardinal, as was his right, chose not to do all he could to clear his name, and did not give evidence under oath himself.

It was years ago. No one could remember the specific day and events. “I would not and did not do it” seems about right (for the police interview). All the various obstacles were introduced into evidence. Pell is not a person with whom people empathize - as I’ve said. The prosecution’s proof was a believable witness . Apparently that’s enough to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.