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.
BartholomewB said:
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.
Click to expand...
And I think it goes without saying that someone who could state that he suspects the defendant was not guilty simply on the hearsay of a couple of unverified and unsubstantiated statements by random forum members would not be considered capable of giving an unbiased determination.
 
Last edited:
Bradskii said:
… on the hearsay of a couple of unverified and unsubstantiated statements by random forum members
Click to expand...
On what grounds do you assert that my conjecture is based solely on “the hearsay of a couple of unverified and unsubstantiated statements by random forum members”? Where did you get that information about my sources?
 
BartholomewB said:
On what grounds do you assert that my conjecture is based solely on “the hearsay of a couple of unverified and unsubstantiated statements by random forum members”? Where did you get that information about my sources?
Click to expand...
Well, here’s your opportunity to show us the verified and substantiated evidence.

Unless you actually attended the case then anything you now bring to the table will be hearsay. Which by definition is unverified and unsubstantiated.
 
Last edited:
BartholomewB said:
40.png
Bradskii:
Well, here’s your opportunity to show us the verified and substantiated evidence.
Click to expand...
I note that you refuse to answer my question.
Click to expand...
The answer is that because one can reasonably assume that you did not attend the case, then the only information you have from the case would be, in the first instance, from this thread. Or, as I said above, from other unverified and unsubstantiated sources.

I think my point is clear enough. That you possibly got your evidence from a source other than this thread is a moot point and does nothing to justify your position whatsoever.

As I said, let us know where you have obtained your info from and we can then tell ifit is verified and if it is substantiated. Otherwise it will be what is claimed as hearsay and one does not, should not and in fact cannot make a determination of innocence or guilt based upon it.
 
Last edited:
Online news sources available to anyone with an internet connection have been covering the allegations against Cardinal Pell for several years. I’m surprised you didn’t know that until now.
 
BartholomewB said:
Online news sources available to anyone with an internet connection have been covering the allegations against Cardinal Pell for several years. I’m surprised you didn’t know that until now.
Click to expand...
The specific allegations have never been released by the police in Australia. I’m NOT surprIsed that you didn’t know that otherwise you wouldn’t have made that statement above. And they have not been covering the allegations for years. The charges were only made recently. It seems that you know even less about this matter than you claim.

“The charges relate to multiple complainants and alleged offences said to have occurred in the state of Victoria. However, police have not detailed exactly how many charges Pell is facing or named what the specific charges are.”


So where did you get your information?
 
Last edited:
Bradskii said:
40.png
BartholomewB:
Online news sources available to anyone with an internet connection have been covering the allegations against Cardinal Pell for several years. I’m surprised you didn’t know that until now.
Click to expand...
The specific allegations have never been released by the police in Australia. I’m NOT surprIsed that you didn’t know that otherwise you wouldn’t have made that statement above. And they have not been covering the allegations for years. The charges were only made recently. It seems that you know even less about this matter than you claim.

“The charges relate to multiple complainants and alleged offences said to have occurred in the state of Victoria. However, police have not detailed exactly how many charges Pell is facing or named what the specific charges are.”

Australia news | Australia-news | The Guardian

So where did you get your information?
Click to expand...
I’m assuming you aren’t in Australia because the process of trying to ‘get’ Pell has been a years long and media documented roll out. The gag order was only in place during the actual trial. Before the trial we knew what was coming.

A 1 May, 2018 newspaper report - George Pell will be the most senior Catholic leader to face a jury after being committed to stand trial on multiple historic sexual assault charges.

In a decision that will ring loud through the Vatican and around the religious world, Australia’s most senior Catholic and the man who a year ago oversaw management of the Vatican’s finances was on Tuesday committed to stand trial on half the charges he faced, involving multiple accusers.

However, magistrate Belinda Wallington struck out a series of serious charges at the start of her ruling, finding there was insufficient evidence for him to be convicted by a jury.

Ms Wallington committed the 76-year-old on charges against multiple complainants, involving alleged sexual offending at Eureka swimming pool in the 1970s in Ballarat, where the accused man was then working as a priest; and at St Patrick’s Cathedral in Melbourne in 1990s, when he was the then Archbishop of Melbourne.

Asked to enter a plea, Cardinal Pell said in a loud, clear voice: “Not guilty.”

_Ms Wallington took more than an hour to read through her decisions on the respective sets of charges, and the first ruling she made was to strike out the most serious of allegations. _

They involved alleged offending at a Ballarat cinema during a screening of Close Encounters of the Third Kind, and allegations of other offending throughout Ballarat over the following year.

But Ms Wallington said inconsistencies in the evidence of the complainant who claimed he was sexually assaulted in the cinema and throughout Ballarat, and the timelines of when the movie was screened, combined with the accounts of family members, meant there was insufficient evidence for him to stand trial.

 
See above @Emeraldlady

And I am Australian. I have been following this since the begining. There was no reporting about the case on which he has been convicted. No details at all. Nothing whatsoever to make any call on guilt or innocense.
 
Last edited:
We do know what the charges are. They’ve been bandied around the media for years. There is the choirboy accusers from St Pats Melbourne in the 90’s and the Eureka pool accusers from '74. Even though the current overseas sites are blocked to Australian readers, the google page gives more than enough info that we know that it was the choirboy charges that he was convicted on this week.

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=...rome..69i57.9220j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
 
Last edited:
Emeraldlady said:
We do know what the charges are. They’ve been bandied around the media for years. There is the choirboy accusers from St Pats Melbourne in the 90’s and the Eureka pool accusers from '74. Even though the current overseas sites are blocked to Australian readers, the google page gives more than enough info that we know that it was the choirboy charges that he was convicted on this week.

choirboys melbourne pell - Google Search
Click to expand...
Good grief…

Bartholomew has stated that on information he has, he suspects that Pell is not guilty. As ZERO details about the allegations were made available before the case and NOTHING has been released after it, I have asked him where he gets sufficient evidence to make his claim.

He has not given an answer because I know perfectly well, as does he, that there is nothing but unsubstantiated statements, unverifiable claims and hearsay available to him. Or to anyone else.
 
I suspect that Bartholomew like myself, have followed the progress of the building case against George Pell avidly and especially the number of exposes and interviews conducted by the well know leftist, anti Catholic ABC. One ABC journo who has had a long history of run ins with George Pell, has even written a book documenting the details of the Melbourne case and the Ballarat case. You can read the details in this article…


Over the years 2 different media watchdogs have challenged the journo to clarify her suspect evidence in her book.

http://www.themediareport.com/2017/06/30/cardinal-pell-case-facts/


The fact is that the now 30 year old choirboy making the allegations only did so after the other boy supposedly involved, had died of a drug overdose claiming to the end that he wasn’t abused in the Cathedral.

One of the articles explains what I have observed over the years as well.

We’re not buying any of this. We pray that justice will be served, but we doubt it. TheMediaReport.com has been observing the climate against the Catholic Church in Australia for some time now, and we have never seen anything like it. Imagine the hatred against the Church of the Boston Globe and the New York Times combined and spread out over an entire country. The climate is truly insane.

Perhaps you haven’t been following the ABC much in your research but I promise you, it is there in the archives of the last few years, day after day.
 
Emeraldlady said:
I suspect that Bartholomew like myself, have followed the progress of the building case against George Pell avidly and especially the number of exposes and interviews conducted by the well know leftist, anti Catholic ABC. One ABC journo who has had a long history of run ins with George Pell, has even written a book documenting the details of the Melbourne case and the Ballarat case. You can read the details in this article…

Cardinal George Pell allegedly sexually abused cathedral choirboys, book claims

Over the years 2 different media watchdogs have challenged the journo to clarify her suspect evidence in her book.

Facts about Cardinal Pell accusers Damian Dignan and Lyndon Monument : Cardinal Pell sex abuse accusers

http://www.edmundburkesociety.gerar...es-to-answer-questions-about-her-hatchet-job/

The fact is that the now 30 year old choirboy making the allegations only did so after the other boy supposedly involved, had died of a drug overdose claiming to the end that he wasn’t abused in the Cathedral.

One of the articles explains what I have observed over the years as well.

We’re not buying any of this. We pray that justice will be served, but we doubt it. TheMediaReport.com has been observing the climate against the Catholic Church in Australia for some time now, and we have never seen anything like it. Imagine the hatred against the Church of the Boston Globe and the New York Times combined and spread out over an entire country. The climate is truly insane.

Perhaps you haven’t been following the ABC much in your research but I promise you, it is there in the archives of the last few years, day after day.
Click to expand...
But there is no information about the case at all in any of the links you gave. Is it valid to assume that someone is probably innocent because a writer is accused of bias in perhaps assuming he is guilty? That would seem to give us two people who are making unfounded conclusions as opposed to the one justifying the other.

Suggesting that he is innocent just to ‘balance the books’ is a nonsensical positon.

Again I will ask of @Bartholomew…where is the information that he has available to him that is credible, verified and substantiated that will justify his comments?
 
JimG said:
A recent article about the matter from the Catholic World Report:

Reports of Pell guilty verdict emerge, despite gag order – Catholic World Report
Click to expand...
From that article:

‘Last week, another Australian court overturned the recent conviction of the former Archbishop of Melbourne, Philip Wilson, on charges he failed to report complaints of sexual abuse.’

From what we have heard from some people on this thread, the Australian justice sytem is not to be trusted. So who can now put hand on heart and say that Wilson is now innocent?

Or is it the case that justice is found to have been carried out only in cases where we have a bias?
 
All I know of these cases is what I have read, which is quite limited. In the case of Archbishop Wilson, the District Court apparently overturned a prior jury conviction.

For myself, I have no way of knowning the facts of either case. I can’t comment as to the effectiveness of the Australian justice system, but I find myself often doubtful about the accuracy of many U.S. jury cases. Most routine defendants are likely guilty, but there are a lot of cases in which innocent people have been convicted and sentenced. I have served on several juries myself in which the decision could have gone either way.

In the case of the Norfolk Four, for example, four innocent men who knew nothing of the crime were convicted and even signed confessions under intense unrelenting interrogation. If I recall correctly, the convictions were later set aside when another man confessed to the crime who did in fact know all the details of it.

I am especially skeptical of child molestationf cases after reading “No Crueler Tyrannies,” by Dorothy Rabinowitz, who recounts numerous cases of false convictions for crimes which never happened, and for which innocent persons served long prison terms.

Those were child abuse cases which had nothing to do with priests and occured in the 1980’s. I hope that justice is better served today, but a prosecutor’s job after all is to secure convictions, not necessarily to secure justice.
 
Last edited:
The Wilson case actually further demonstrates that juries can be motivated by anti Catholic sentiment and that their conclusions don’t always match what really happened. Here’s a couple of quotes from the judge who overturned the conviction:
“Philip Wilson when he appears before this court is simply an individual who has the same legal rights as every other person in our community.”
“It is not for me to punish the Catholic Church for its institutional moral deficits, or to punish Philip Wilson for the sins of the now deceased James Fletcher by finding Philip Wilson guilty, simply on the basis that he is a Catholic priest.”
 
You’re jumping all over the place shifting the goal posts of your claims at random. There’ve been some notable cases in Australia of horrendous wrongful conviction because the climate of popular media made it impossible to have a fair trial. Lindy Chamberlain is the most famous I would say. I remember my parents being shocked that the jury was convinced that a dingo could not drag human baby out of a tent and off to a lair. Being born and raised in the bush, many, many people knew that it is absolutely possible that that could happen. Those people, even though not at the trial had legitimate reasons to doubt the conviction.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top