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

[poche]

I don’t know about the second trial but if they are anything like the following situation then I find it seriously questionable;

The allegations are understood to concern Pell assaulting the two choristers in the sacristy of Melbourne cathedral on several occasions immediately following Sunday Mass.

The defense presented a range of witnesses who testified that the cardinal was never alone in the sacristy with altar servers or members of the choir, and that in all the circumstances under which the allegations are alleged to have taken place, several people would have been present in the room.

The sacristy in Melbourne’s Cathedral has large open-plan rooms, each with open arches and halls, and multiple entrances and exits, the defense noted.

Defense attorneys also produced a range of witnesses who testified that Pell was constantly surrounded by priests, other clergy, and guests following Sunday Masses in the cathedral, and that choristers had a room entirely separate from the sacristy in which they changed as a group, before and after Mass.

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/after-guilty-verdict-questions-raised-about-pell-trial-88675

 

[poche]

If the cardinal is guilty I am all for throwing the book at him. But in this case the evidence that was presented makes this look pretty incredible. And then to have the trial to be held in secret doesn’t show any transparency at all. This looks more like an attack agains the Catholic Church and the Catholic people.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

We Australians cannot open those websites. We are blocked

There is no conspiracy theory about the suppression order. He won’t get a fair trial if the media is covering it and commenting.

 

[Ubenedictus]

Is the gag order really effective? If it is how do you even know of this case.?

 

[Ubenedictus]

I would too on Almost every case, except in cases like this where public opinion is already against him and celibacy is almost akin to leprosy and there seem to be a general distrust of catholic priests.

As I earlier said, if farmers had terrible cases of abuse, and farm soil or tools where blamed for the abuse which the resulting outcry and public opinion like the Catholic case I would not trust any trial finding farmers guilty especially for cases that happened decades ago and ultimately goes down to my word against yours

 

[Ubenedictus]

The defendant conviction has been revealed so what has the suppression order accomplished?

 

[Bradskii]

If the cardinal is guilty I am all for throwing the book at him. But in this case the evidence that was presented makes this look pretty incredible. And then to have the trial to be held in secret doesn’t show any transparency at all. This looks more like an attack agains the Catholic Church and the Catholic people.

This is bizarre. IF the cardinal is guilty? He has been found guilty. ‘The evidence that was presented’? You have no idea of the totality of the ‘evidence that was presented’ except hearsay from a Catholic site that reports that someone who says he or she was in attendence heard some of it.

So with no substantiated or verifiable evidence, with no idea whatsoever what was revealed in the court and simply on hearsay obtained third hand at best by someone with an undoubted bias passed on through a Catholic agency, you have the temerity to suggest it’s nothing more than an attack on the Catholic church.

What honestly do you think does more harm to the church? The fact that a small proportion of its members have been found guilty of sexual assault of children or the vast numbers of Catholics who want us all to believe that its nothing more than an attack on Catholicism.

The cry goes up - ‘he didn’t get a fair trial’ yet so many of you want to overturn the decision using arguments that defy the very term ‘fair trial’.

 

[Bradskii]

The defendant conviction has been revealed so what has the suppression order accomplished?

The supression order only relates to Australian media. So news agencies outside Australia can report it. Orders such as these were designed well before social media was even conceived, so they were quite effective back in the day. But now? I browse papers from Australia, the UK and the States every day so it would be unlikely for me not to know the result.

And once the cat is out of the bag…

 

[Bradskii]

We Australians cannot open those websites. We are blocked.

Seriously? I’m in the UK at the moment so I can view them. But I have serious reservations about sites actually being blocked to prevent anyone in Australia reading them.

 

[Bradskii]

Roseeurekacross:

We Australians cannot open those websites. We are blocked.

Seriously? I’m in the UK at the moment so I can view them. But I have serious reservations about sites actually being blocked to prevent anyone in Australia reading them.

Good grief. You are correct. I used a VPN to reroute my connection through different countries (I use it to watch overseas content and to protect my IP adress) and the Catholic site which was linked was unavailable when I just set it to Australia.

This is atrocious! Who on earth is doing this? I agree in principle with supression orders in that you cannot report on a case, but to prevent members of the public accessing foreign news sites is not acceptable.

I sincerely hope there is some other technical reason for this and is not censorship.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

yep, all blocked

Now what country is it that controls the social media of its population…hmm

its censorship, not one of the site links listed on that other thread can be accessed

 

[Bradskii]

yep, all blocked

Now what country is it that controls the social media of its population…hmm

Letter just sent to the SMH highlighting that very fact. And I’ll be all over facebook later making sure everyone I know knows about this. Totally unacceptable.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

I wonder just how they did it. Its a bit scary. We are not a communist government controlled country… or are we. And we who live here cannot complain or we would feel the full force of the law in attempting to access suppressed content, or share it.

Which I have done in starting this thread

 

[poche]

If the evidence that was presented in public was credible then I would believe it. As it stands it was a secret trial. I had my doubts when the evidence was that the cardinal was never alone with anyone when he was at mass and then the prosecutor moved for the trial to be secret. I believe he did this because the lack of evidence of the cardinal’s guilt would not stand up to public scrutiny.

 

[Bradskii]

If the evidence that was presented in public was credible then I would believe it. As it stands it was a secret trial. I had my doubts when the evidence was that the cardinal was never alone with anyone when he was at mass and then the prosecutor moved for the trial to be secret. I believe he did this because the lack of evidence of the cardinal’s guilt would not stand up to public scrutiny.

It was NOT a secret trial. It was not held in camera. Anyone could have attended. You were and are free to discuss it. A supression order means that the press cannot report on the trial until after the second charge has been heard. All details will then be released. Releasing information into the public domain hilst the case was in progress would NOT affect the result in any way in any case.

You are using hearsay, which is forever inadmissable, plus a lack of knowledge about the matter to claim he was innocent. You are not doing yourself any favours tin presenting yourself as an unbiased observer.

 

[JimG]

A commentary from Phil Lawler:

The inexplicable conviction of Cardinal Pell | Catholic Culture

 

[Emeraldlady]

Excellent commentary by Phil Lawler. He expresses what we ordinary Australian Catholics who are entirely behind purging our organisations of this terrible crime and convicting perpetrators, sense about this particular case. We aren’t saying that it is completely impossible that he did it. We are saying that while we can accept that clergy have got up to these things, it is pushing the bounds of belief with Cdl Pell. He would indeed have to be a Jekyll Hyde character hidden behind the holy but awkward person who has consistently presented for the last 40 years.

We can only sit and wait for all to be known and reserve the usual closure when a criminal case is done.

 

[LilyM]

If the evidence that was presented in public was credible then I would believe it. As it stands it was a secret trial. I had my doubts when the evidence was that the cardinal was never alone with anyone when he was at mass and then the prosecutor moved for the trial to be secret. I believe he did this because the lack of evidence of the cardinal’s guilt would not stand up to public scrutiny.

Has it not occurred to you that suppression orders benefit the victims? If I had suffered sexual abuse I certainly would find it very difficult and distressing to have the gory details of it splashed all over the media.

And if I were the prosecutor I would love to get those details out into the public - half my job would be done for me.

 

[Bradskii]

A commentary from Phil Lawler:

The inexplicable conviction of Cardinal Pell | Catholic Culture

Cui bono? A disgraceful and despicable comment.

Who on earth would wonder about bringing to justice someone accused of sexual predation against children and then would piously ask to whom it may benefit. Obviously and glaringly omitting the victims themselves.

The whole article is rendered even more embarrasing by one of its opening sentence: ‘Since I don’t know the facts…’. The writer then goes on to ignore that statement completely and offer his opinion on a case about which he knows nothing. Except heresay from potentially biased third parties. And then goes on to claim that Pell was convicted on nothing but hearsay evidence (with zero evidence to back that up). The irony is too rich for my stomach.

Lawler goes on to make a fool of himself by implying that the court case was negatively impacted against the accused by not being reported. Might I ask what difference would it have made if it had been reported? Yes, the world was prevented from knowing what evidence had been produced by either side. But if it had been, then what? Would we then have deferred to the court of public opinion?

And surely he can’t be guilty because there are very few other charges pending. As if a man who is charged with the sexual molestation of a child cannot be guilty because, well…because we don’t know of any other incidences.

And best of all - he can’t be guilty because…he said he wasn’t.

What a nonsensical, self-serving, farcical and inept article.

 

[Emeraldlady]

JimG:

A commentary from Phil Lawler:

Cui bono? A disgraceful and despicable comment.

Who on earth would wonder about bringing to justice someone accused of sexual predation against children and then would piously ask to whom it may benefit. Obviously and glaringly omitting the victims themselves.

The whole article is rendered even more embarrasing by one of its opening sentence: ‘Since I don’t know the facts…’. The writer then goes on to ignore that statement completely and offer his opinion on a case about which he knows nothing. Except heresay from potentially biased third parties. And then goes on to claim that Pell was convicted on nothing but hearsay evidence (with zero evidence to back that up). The irony is too rich for my stomach.

Lawler goes on to make a fool of himself by implying that the court case was negatively impacted against the accused by not being reported. Might I ask what difference would it have made if it had been reported? Yes, the world was prevented from knowing what evidence had been produced by either side. But if it had been, then what? Would we then have deferred to the court of public opinion?

And surely he can’t be guilty because there are very few other charges pending. As if a man who is charged with the sexual molestation of a child cannot be guilty because, well…because we don’t know of any other incidences.

And best of all - he can’t be guilty because…he said he wasn’t.

What a nonsensical, self-serving, farcical and inept article.

Your whole outrage is based on the mistaken presumption that the cases have not been thoroughly discussed and documented by the media for years prior to this. The 2 accusers in the Eureka pool trial coming up have been interviewed on ABC TV many times. Damian Dignan and Lyndon Monument have made no secret of their identities. They are career criminals who’ve been in and out of prison their whole lives for fraud and other serious crimes. The prosecution doesn’t want detail like this repeated but its crazy. The two have sort out media and openly expressed the desire to be compensated. Of the two choirboys in the recent case, one had died years ago of a drug overdose claiming to the end that he wasn’t molested in the Cathedral by Cdl Pell. His mother confirms that the boy always denied it. It is only going forward now since he has died. There is so much information out there already known. You are simply wrong to keep implying that no one knows anything.