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

[Emeraldlady]

Was he convicted in the civil court? In Australia if someone is convicted in the civil system they are unable to obtain clearance to work in the field of children and the vulnerable. In Queensland that is via the Blue Card system. In other states it has a different name.

 

[LilyM]

Was he convicted in the civil court? In Australia if someone is convicted in the civil system they are unable to obtain clearance to work in the field of children and the vulnerable. In Queensland that is via the Blue Card system. In other states it has a different name.

People can be denied Blue Cards, and thus the right to work with children, either for criminal charges or for other reasons (eg having Domestic Violence orders made against them, or Child Safety concerns raised about them).

 

[poche]

It is active in the United States. If it is blocked in Australia it would go to prove what I have already asserted. This whole prosecution is not just an attack against an innocent man, It is against the Catholic church and the Catholic people of Australia.

 

[poche]

The problem I see is that these accusations against the cardinal don’t pass what is even credible. That while he was surrounded by various people who would have testified against him he committed these acts.

 

[Bradskii]

In this case I remain unconvinced that the prosecution was fair. I think that this is really an assault against the Catholic Church and the Catholic people of Australia.

And you are basing this on a report that an unamed observer at the trial - in all probablitiy a member of the public, thinks he wasn’t guilty? Honestly?

One almost certainly biased observer and you want to throw doubt on the whole legal process? Is that your idea of justice? Innocent even if proved guilty as long as someone in the public gallery disagrees with the verdict in a way in which you agree.

And this is not an attack on the church or on its members, however you want to spin this. It was a conviction of a man who was charged with the sexual assault of chidren. The church was not in the dock. And if you think that finding one man, who is a Catholic, guilty of this heinous crime reflects badly on the Catholic Church, then that horse has already left and dissapeared over the horizon a long time ago. If you and anyone else now want to bolt the stable door, then be my guest.

And from that report:

"Prosecutors can retry him - in secret - until they get a conviction, but there can’t be any discussion of what he’s accused of, no scrutiny of the evidence against him, and no questioning the verdict. On what planet is this justice?”

He is not being retried. It is a separate case. And it is impossible to keep retrying him ‘until they get a conviction’. You can only be tried once unless there is a mistrial or a hung jury. And there certaily will be discussion of what he’s accused of as soon as the trial is completed. With whatever result. And Joe Public scrutinising the evidence will have zero effect on the verdict. That is for the jury to decide. And yes, he will be able to question the verdict if it goes against him if he chooses to appeal.

So the planet on which this is justice is this one.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

It just proves the case is subject to a suppression order, nothing more

 

[Flopfoot]

It’s worth pointing out that originally they couldn’t even persuade a judge to hear this case because of how unlikely it was to be true.

So we can apply Bayes theorem here

Even if your prior is that a jury usually makes the right decision,

It becomes less likely when it’s related to a politically charged issue (we recently had the royal commission in Australia and a plebiscite on gay marriage and other things that may have stirred anti Catholic sentiment)

It becomes less likely when the accused is related to the Risdale case which the jurors would have already known about and might’ve wanted to punish him for it pre emptively

It becomes less likely again when it’s a historical case where there can’t be much if any evidence of what the accused did

It becomes even less likely when the jury concludes the opposite of what everyone originally knew to be true

Also to address an earlier comment about being able to choose the fairest 12 out of 24 jurors: I think that over 75% of Melbourne hated the accused, he was a controversial figure and it’s an extremely progressive city (and even lots of Catholics would’ve been out for his blood over aforementioned issues). So even if the prosecution can only knock out 6 of 24 options it still means that none of the remainder would’ve been sympathetic to the accused

Internationally there might not have been a lot of news about him, but down here there’s been all sorts of hit pieces (even petty stuff like when he was first appointed to the Vatican there were stories saying he was spending too much on clothes?!) our comedians even wrote insulting songs about him when he was too sick to travel back to Aus and talk about stuff that happened in his diocese related to the royal commission

Now you know a bit more about the most hated man in Australia, it makes more sense why I say I’m almost certain the jury made the wrong call

 

[poche]

I am also basing this on common sense. How likely would it have been for the cardinal to have done what he was accused of when he was surrounded by people, in the open in public with no witnesses? He was never alone with those ‘victims.’
Sometimes the legal processes are subverted. In a neighboring state there was a priest who was shot in cold blood. The judge and the jury were sympathetic to his assassin because of their hatred for the Catholic people and eyewitnesses were not allowed to testify. In this case the jury said “not guilty” to the accused.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Everyone is struggling with this, poche. You are not alone in this

 

[poche]

The prosecutor wanted to make sure that he could get a conviction without there being any kind of scrutiny on what teh evidence or lack there of would be.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Poche there is no conspiracy theory here. The first jury could not reach agreement.

There was enough evidence to reach a verdict. We must wait now for any appeal to see if it was to be upheld

Do you know much of the history of the Diocese the second trial is in?

 

[PickyPicky]

Interesting that the gag order came from the prosecution. I was assuming that it came from the defence

It didn’t surprise me. I assumed the situation in Australia would be similar to that in England, where it is a particular responsibility of the prosecution, representing the Crown, to ensure the integrity of proceedings.

 

[Bradskii]

I am also basing this on common sense. How likely would it have been for the cardinal to have done what he was accused of when he was surrounded by people, in the open in public with no witnesses? He was never alone with those ‘victims.’
Sometimes the legal processes are subverted. In a neighboring state there was a priest who was shot in cold blood. The judge and the jury were sympathetic to his assassin because of their hatred for the Catholic people and eyewitnesses were not allowed to testify. In this case the jury said “not guilty” to the accused.

I’ll be honest with you. I believe your attitude to be more harmful to the church than the actual prosecution of individual members of the church. You would do well to take Rose’s advice.

 

[on_the_hill]

What is a suppression order?

 

[PickyPicky]

It’s an order of the court preventing the reporting of proceedings. In this case to avoid prejudicing the jury at a different trial by revealing the defendant’s previous conviction.

 

[Ubenedictus]

I understand how the jury works and it can still produce an untrue verdict

 

[PickyPicky]

I understand how the jury works and it can still produce an untrue verdict

Of course. But given the choice between on the one hand the considered verdict of a jury which has been exposed to all the evidence and on the other hand the ill-informed comments of random internet posters with a clear bias — well, it’s not a difficult choice to make.

 

[BartholomewB]

There are only three people in the world who have certain knowledge of the true facts, namely the two choirboys and Cardinal Pell himself. Whatever anyone else may say – the judge, the jury, the prosecuting attorney, the defense attorney, newspaper editorialists, or anonymous commenters on a CAF thread – makes no difference to the truth or falsehood of the allegations. Personally I tend to suspect he is not guilty of the charges against him, but that’s just my conjecture. I don’t make any stronger claim than that about it.

 

[Bradskii]

Whatever anyone else may say – the judge, the jury, the prosecuting attorney, the defense attorney – makes no difference to the truth or falsehood of the allegations.

The people you have listed make a decision on whether the charges are true or not beyond reasonable doubt. How many times does this have to be pointed out?

Personally I tend to suspect he is not guilty of the charges against him.

Your tendencies are duly noted. And no doubt would also be noted by the court if you were in the position of being selected for the jury. Which would then exclude you from siting on the jury by rendering you incapable of giving an unbiased verdict based on the evidence alone.

 

[BartholomewB]

The people you have listed make a decision on whether the charges are true or not beyond reasonable doubt . How many times does this have to be pointed out?

My point exactly. Making a judgment “beyond reasonable doubt” is not the same as possessing certain knowledge.

Which would then exclude you from siting on the jury by rendering you incapable of giving an unbiased verdict based on the evidence alone.

No, it would not, because – as I said – it is only my conjecture, based on the very limited information available to me. It would not have prevented me from keeping an open mind while I listened to everything that was said in the courtroom.