The case of Cardinal George Pell

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pai_Nosso
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
prayersoutherncross said:
Unfortunately for Australia, this is defining the Church at the moment. The damage done is going to take decades and maybe a lifetime to heal. The extent of this in some parts of Australia has lead to significant trauma on both Catholic and secular communities.
It is current, people and their families are still living. Families have lost adults raped as children, who could not cope.
Click to expand...
The most irritating and frustrating thing about that is that witch hunts and overkill never serve the victims in the long rung. There seems to be so many fools in public service positions who can’t think long term about the common good. Or perhaps they are only interested in getting immediate kudos for their own ego’s sake. Look at the Lawyer X scandal. Overden and Ashton (former PC and current PC) authorised the illegal use of a lawyer informant to get gangland convictions a decade ago. Now that this has come to light, these convictions are going to be overturned. How is that fair on the victims?
 
prayersoutherncross said:
We need to stop linking pells case with conspiracy cabals and theories. It serves no real purpose except to completely discredit victims and survivors who have come forward and those now dead, or not come forward,
Click to expand...
History demonstrates that the influence of agenda’s in the public service is incredibly destructive to the common good and justice. Pope Francis has identified a number of powerful factions in the Vatican like that. This aspect of the making a case against Cardinal Pell is very real. Miranda Devine has covered it many times in her reporting.

 
prayersoutherncross said:
To the knowledge that the type of Mass conducted that day appears to be not common knowledge amongst those not in attendance or in following the Melbourne Clergy?
Click to expand...
Try to follow the course of the discussion. The “no” seems to be you response to my question as to whether you have evidence for your claim that Pell has said he has a detailed memory of his specific movements on the day.
 
Last edited:
Rau said:
cannot see any significance in Pell not testifying (other than that that fact may improperly influence the jury) because he would have no useful evidence to give that could not equally or more effectively be provided by others.
Click to expand...
He would have been able to say, on oath, ‘I did not do these things’. No one else was able to do that for him. If he believed the story about the impossibility of moving the vestments, he could have given that evidence on oath. In the event of his being found guilty, those who choose to believe in his innocence would know that he did all he possibly could have done to ‘clear his name’ which he said was the purpose of voluntary return to Australia.
 
FiveLinden said:
He would have been able to say, on oath, ‘I did not do these things’.
Click to expand...
While I hear that, his protestations of innocence are well known. Say it on the stand or not I think makes little difference. And given the other matters I’ve mentioned - I think it was a pretty reasonable call not to go on the stand.
 
prayersoutherncross said:
Any logic reasoning dictates if a person cannot remember, he or she can therefore not enter a plea.
Click to expand...
If you nominate my most memorable day, but one decades ago, I will not be able to tell you just what I did minute by minute. I remember walking down “the aisle”, I remember some notable career-related events but not details of the day minute by minute. But if I am accused of, say, committing a serious crime on that day, I can vigorously assert I did not do it, and be certain of it.

The prosecution’s case was the testimony of the accuser. Pell had no proof that he did not do the deed. It seems that to be acquitted would require:
  • an accuser lacking credibility; or
  • Pell being fortunate to have proof that he could not have done it; or
  • Pell bring able to persuade the jury favorably through his own testimony.
The first two were not the case. And I’ve given my rationale for why Pell would have little hope of achieving the 3rd point even if he is innocent.

So from this case, we learn that a credible accuser with an accused who can’t prove innocence amounts to a strong case!
 
Last edited:
The under oath issue is one thing. The other is the willingness to submit yourself to cross-examination. His accuser did both. Cardinal Pell did neither. I am quiet sure that his legal advice was not to give evidence. But it seems to me the outcome from his point of view would have been better had he done so, given the situation he finds himself in and even if he eventually wins on appeal. His stated aims ‘to clear his name’ and there is more to that than being found not guilty.
 
I think there was a breach of privacy ,the filming of a private visit that went public.That is sad and shameful.
 
FiveLinden said:
The other is the willingness to submit yourself to cross-examination. His accuser did both.
Click to expand...
Your point does not improve with repetition, nor does the counter-point. Pell makes an unsympathetic witness. So he harms his case by giving testimony and he harms it (in your view) by not… lets hope the accuser has told the truth.
FiveLinden said:
His stated aims ‘to clear his name’ and there is more to that than being found not guilty.
Click to expand...
That goal is impossible in my view.
 
Last edited:
Rau said:
40.png
FiveLinden:
He would have been able to say, on oath, ‘I did not do these things’.
Click to expand...
While I hear that, his protestations of innocence are well known. Say it on the stand or not I think makes little difference. And given the other matters I’ve mentioned - I think it was a pretty reasonable call not to go on the stand.
Click to expand...
I agree. I have watched Pell on a number of ocassions on tv during discussions and debates, live and recorded, and he visibly bristles when his views are directly and brusquely questioned. He is very single minded and doesn’t seem to be able to accept criticism gracefully. Those defending him knew that and more importantly the prosecution knew that. He would have been grilled rigorously on the witness stand with a view to have him appear cold, impersonal and uncaring.

Would that have any bearing on his guilt or innocence? None. But it would have had a not insignificant bearing on how the jury viewed the man. Let’s be honest, it is human nature to tend to believe people we like and to disbelieve those we don’t.

I could well imagine a man with more charm and humility (or at least a man able to portray those characteristics) facing the jury and looking them each in the eye whilst saying ‘I swear, as God as my witness, I did none of these things to this poor man’. And getting aquitted on exactly the same evidence. It is Pell’s misfortune that he is not that sort of man.
 
prayersoutherncross said:
Tony Abbot is Catholic, it is a work of mercy to visit prisoners, the secular world could learn a lesson from this 🕊️
Click to expand...
Abbot can in no way be described as a regular visiter to jails ministering to the incarcerated. Although they are friends and I understand the difficulty in coming to terms with one’s personal views and the opposing view of the courts. Especially in light of the offence.
 
Freddy said:
Abbot can in no way be described as a regular visiter to jails ministering to the incarcerated.
Click to expand...
Well that’s probably right, but I don’t think the guy should be criticized because the good thing he did is not done regularly!
 
FiveLinden said:
40.png
Rau:
cannot see any significance in Pell not testifying (other than that that fact may improperly influence the jury) because he would have no useful evidence to give that could not equally or more effectively be provided by others.
Click to expand...
He would have been able to say, on oath, ‘I did not do these things’. No one else was able to do that for him. If he believed the story about the impossibility of moving the vestments, he could have given that evidence on oath. In the event of his being found guilty, those who choose to believe in his innocence would know that he did all he possibly could have done to ‘clear his name’ which he said was the purpose of voluntary return to Australia.
Click to expand...
Jesus didn’t defend Himself before the Sanhedrin.
 
Rau said:
Your point does not improve with repetition, nor does the counter-point. Pell makes an unsympathetic witness. So he harms his case by giving testimony and he harms it (in your view) by not… lets hope the accuser has told the truth.
Click to expand...
I agree, and have been trying to avoid becoming psittacinistic. I’ve repeated myself only because different people have made the same point and I have been guessing they have not seen the earlier exchanges. I’m not entirely sure he has harmed his case it is just that I cannot understand how his actions helped his stated strategy.
 
Freddy said:
Would that have any bearing on his guilt or innocence? None. But it would have had a not insignificant bearing on how the jury viewed the man. Let’s be honest, it is human nature to tend to believe people we like and to disbelieve those we don’t.
Click to expand...
I am definitely not a fan of Cardinal Pells communication style but I can easily recognise traits of autistic spectrum, having 2 high functioning autistic spectrum adult kids. He reminds me a lot of my son who is without guile and socially naive in ways that leave him vulnerable at times. Cardinal Pell on top of that, has taken a strong, vocal stance against the Rainbow Sash movement baiting him during Mass at the Sydney Cathedral in 2002. There are many secularists that have hated him and baited him for over 20 years.

I hope that in the future, an honest forensic profile of the whole situation and the person of George Pell will show that this was a case of Lindy Chamberlain all over again.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top