The unfair, anti-Catholic conviction of Cardinal George Pell

[Johann_du_Toit]

The unfair, anti-Catholic conviction of Cardinal George Pell

No one with a sense of justice can fail to be outraged when, in “To Kill a Mockingbird,” a jury in Maycomb, Ala., bows to social pressure and convicts an innocent man of a crime he couldn’t have co…

nypost.com

Having read this article by George Weigel (a man whom I respect greatly) and having followed the numerous gross irregularities in his trial from other media sources as well, I have come to the conclusion that Cardinal Pell is innocent and his conviction was a gross miscarriage of justice.

As an attorney, I wish to note that South Africa his trial would not even have met the bare minimum requirements to be deemed proper and regular.

 

[poche]

I have posted on this elsewhere and I have come to the same conclusion.

 

[tafan2]

Thanks for the link, I had not seen the article before. Weigel makes a good case.

 

[JimG]

Yes, this is a compelling case made by George Weigel, who is not one to make rash or unfounded claims. The first jury split 10 to 2 in favor of acquittal; the second jury gave a unanimous conviction. How could that happen?

 

[JamalChristophr]

I don’t really attend the news, but my intuition is in agreement with you all and George Weigel.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

The situation in Australia makes me think that at this point, none of these clerics can get a fair trial there.
It’s not making me think very highly of their legal system.

 

[FirstFiveEighth]

One thing I will say is that George Weigel is actually a friend of Cardinal Pell’s. However that doesn’t mean he isn’t correct. I am all for shining light on abuse and seeing the abusers receive justice, but this conviction stinks of prejudice and scapegoating.

 

[exnihilo]

Juries are comprised of men and men are capable of anything. A juror could have a bias. A juror could be uncertain and want to vote with the majority. A juror could think that if the state charges someone then he must be guilty. A juror could just want to get home and thus vote with the majority.