The latest on a certain case in Australia that is subject to suppression orders here

  • Thread starter Thread starter Roseeurekacross
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well I also felt same, a robust judicial system is not by any means free from errors, the abuse in the church has reached terrible proportions and it is sad to say but many decent human beings will consider an accused priest guilty even before trial and it will be hard to convince them otherwise.

Worst still this happened decades ago all physical evidence is gone, no witnesses, that means the issue is simply my word against yours and in this case a jury will more readily believe the victims before the accused, there has been cases where the jury were told to ignore the inconsistency in the stories of the accused…with this much bad news from the church I doubt if anybody will be interested in the not so alingned details.

This jury may have done its work well and may have no bias, it may simply be that the victim is just really convincing or the cardinal may really be guilty.

I don’t know either way so I’ll be very careful about what I say as regards this and I’ll keep the name calling like pedophile away, let him serve his sentence and hope either in God’s mercy or vindication.
 
Ubenedictus said:
Well I also felt same, a robust judicial system is not by any means free from errors, the abuse in the church has reached terrible proportions and it is sad to say but many decent human beings will consider an accused priest guilty even before trial and it will be hard to convince them otherwise.

Worst still this happened decades ago all physical evidence is gone, no witnesses, that means the issue is simply my word against yours and in this case a jury will more readily believe the victims before the accused, there has been cases where the jury were told to ignore the inconsistency in the stories of the accused…with this much bad news from the church I doubt if anybody will be interested in the not so alingned details.

This jury may have done its work well and may have no bias, it may simply be that the victim is just really convincing or the cardinal may really be guilty.

I don’t know either way so I’ll be very careful about what I say as regards this and I’ll keep the name calling like pedophile away, let him serve his sentence and hope either in God’s mercy or vindication.
Click to expand...
Amazing that you know so much about the case. Especially as nothing has been reported. The question has to be asked whether people would doubt the verdict to the extent which you have if the accused was a teacher or a mechanic.

What we DO know is that 12 members of the Australian public, selected by both the defence and the prosecutor, after due course and considering all the available evidence and testimony decided that, beyond reasonable doubt, Pell had sexually asaulted two children.

And what term do you usually reserve for someone who preys on children?
 
I can say two things with surity.

When we say historic sex abuse, we are talking here of children who grew up and are now middle aged. So these alleged victims and witnesses are in their middle age. Sadly some have passed on. May they rest in peace.

we pray for both the public figure involved and the survivors and victims .

Secondly the Diocese that the second trial is in, reached horrific proportions in terms of abuse and its history is known, and has been dealt with and its perpetrators either in jail or dead.
Read the Royal Commission report, or google a few names of incarcerated individuals. I will also say it was not just clergy doing the abusing, it was also laity in service of the Church.
I will also say historic sexual abuse was prevalent across all denominations and in non religious institutions too
 
Last edited:
When a decision has been made in a court of law as to the gulit or innocense of a particular person in the matter of sexual assault, then the victims can no longer be referred to as ‘alleged’ Do you think the victims would appreciate that description?

The rest of your comments can be summed up as: ‘It wasn’t just us’. It never was, it isn’t now and it never will be. But the fact that this refrain is constantly sung speaks volumes about the singer.
 
Its all alleged until after the second trial and the outcomes of any appeals. We Aussies must be very careful about the wording of this discussion, as others need not be. And we don’t know the decision. We have what, rumours? rumours that 5 charges have been upheld. Thats it atm. I pity the person who leaked this if authorities find them.

You can assume what you wish, but I do invite you to come and meet some of the Survivors who have had their cases heard and justice done. You can come and meet families of those who did not survive. We are praying for a parishioner who was a respondent in these specific trials but passed away earlier in the year.

It was us, I have never said it wasn’t just us. However I did point out the stats in the Royal Commission report, as far as Catholics it wasn’t just us. It was unfortunately ubiquitous across many institutions regardless of what group ran them.
It was a very sick Australian sector of society who thought this was OK. Then thought children telling authorities their experiences was not OK.
So lets point the finger where it lies. What was wrong with Australian Society that allowed this to occur for so very long.
 
There’s no reason for me to assume that what the jurors concluded is the same thing as what is true
 
Considering all the facets of these current charges being that Cardinal Pell sexually abused teenage boys, the hardest part for Australian Catholics is accepting that the conviction actually means that he is a pathological liar. He has categorically denied guilt from the beginning. Many Catholics are still in ‘wait and see’ mode for that reason. It is entirely possible that he is indeed the victim of a witch hunt being targeted for his very conservative and orthodox positions for many years. It will be a huge blow to the faith of Australian Catholics if categorical evidence of his guilt is revealed. He is either an evil sociopath or he is the victim of a witch hunt.
 
I’m not saying this necessarily applies to the subject of the thread,but we need to keep in mind there is also such a thing as wrongful convictions.
To clarify again,I’m not suggesting it does or does not apply here as I was not there (obviously) when the accusations occurred nor do I have information on what information the jury went off.
I can only hope the accusations aren’t true as it’s horrible to think they could be true.
Personally,tbh I always thought of the individual as being somewhat cold and unapproachable seeming for a Priest, but I didn’t get a child molestor vibe,but I guess one never knows…

Happy Birthday!! @Roseeurekacross 🎉🎉💃🍰
 
Last edited:
Rozellelily said:
Personally,tbh I always thought of the individual as being somewhat cold and unapproachable seeming for a Priest, but I didn’t get a child molestor vibe,but I guess one never knows…
Click to expand...
That’s what most of us faithful thought. Aspergers perhaps. But not child molester. We can only just wait and suspend personal judgement for the time being.
 
The afore mentioned public figure was on the front of the Australian newspaper today in discussions about his health and his retirement from his Vatican appointment
 
Last edited:
Thankyou Rozellelily. its not my birthday , apparently it is the anniversary of joining the new CAF
 
Last edited:
During the hearing that was open to the public the priests who were part of his entourage all stated that he was never alone in the sacristy with anyone. I find it hard to believe these accusations. The bishop has to travel all through his diocese, confirmations, special masses etc. Wherever he goes there are always other priests with him.
These accusers sang in the choir. Maybe Australia is different but in most other places I have been to the choir is far removed from the sacristy area. It is very unlikely that he would have even known who those boys were much less been in a position to approach them for this type of activity without being noticed. The second part of the trial was secret. I believe that it was deliberately kept secret because the accusations and the nature of the the testimony would not have been credible under a more critical scrutiny.
 
Australia is a bit different. Our Bishops know us if we attend regularily. They can travel alone or with others. They celebrate daily masses as well as special masses.

I just changed Parishes, new priest but same diocese. I have yet to say one word to him as he is always busy with the school kids and their parents. But he conducted a funeral and I was in the choir. He came over to speak to the organist and said Hello rose eureka cross ( using my real name). I was floored that he knew who I was. He knows quite a bit about me already. My Bishop Emeritus sits and has morning tea with us and chats and asks everyones name, and remembers. My Bishop asked my name when he blessed some items by car boot light at a rural mass he came to celebrate when he was rostered on a Saturday Vigil.
The second trial is a completely different trial. Its charges are different and its Diocese is different.
We all know the accusations though. As did people with the first trial.

The aforementioned public figure was ordained and grew up in my diocese. We are all praying for a righteous outcome and for the health of all concerned.
 
None of the 12 people individually or together is gifted with infallibility… I doubt anyone has physical evidence of a crime allegedly committed decades ago. In the opinion of those 12 people it may really be a case beyond reasonable doubt, but people have been wrong in such cases before. People who prey on kids are pedophiles and this robust court may have said pell did prey on kids but in a case like this I would be careful whether the person is a farmer or a mechanic.

If there were terrible cases of farmers abusing people and people blaming the soil with which the farmers worked, a great public outcry against farmers in general and farm tools… I would generally be cautious about any farmer found guilty.
 
Oops,I’m sorry I thought the cake symbol meant birthday.
 
Last edited:
It seems to be an increasingly common practice, when faced with unwelcome news, to reach for some conspiracy theory that will keep the news at bay. Unless you come across evidence of what you allege, it would be more sensible to regard the jury’s findings as very probably justified.
 
poche said:
The second part of the trial was secret. I believe that it was deliberately kept secret because the accusations and the nature of the the testimony would not have been credible under a more critical scrutiny.
Click to expand...
Maybe you don’t know much about the law. But the supression order, for what it’s worth, is an attempt to keep the fact that he has been already convicted on one charge from prejudicing his trial in the second case. The jury is not allowed to hear details of any prior convictions the accused has. He or she is meant to be tried only on the details of the case put before them.

That every man and his dog in Australia will be aware of the first conviction makes a nonsense of the supression order but it is, presumably, a legal requirement.

And not to labour the point, but if a person is found guilty, then those who found that person guilty were in posession of all the relevant facts (which in this case we are not) and found the person guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. That means that to imply, without any knowledge of the case, that there has been a mistake in some way for whatever reason is, by definition, unreasonable.

And again I will point out that jurors are not he first 12 people who happen to roll up at the court. They are selected from 24 people and the defense has the option to accept or reject the same number as does the prosecution. That said, any given jury is a balance of those selected by the defense and the prosecution. The theory being is that if there were any bias, it should even out. But in this case the verdict was unanimous.

Put another way, six people selected by the defense as the best six they could have chosen to give a not guilty verdict, still found the accused guilty.
 
Last edited:
poche said:
During the hearing that was open to the public the priests who were part of his entourage all stated that he was never alone in the sacristy with anyone.
Click to expand...
But of course if he was a child molester this is exactly the impression he would try to build up in the minds of other adults. This observation of mine is based on absolutely no information about the particular situation other than what is public. But this is a crime that seems to be closely associated with secrecy and deceit. No doubt the jury was aware of all this or informed if they were not and took it into account. Intimate the trial transcripts will be available.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top