Will Pell be defrocked?

[FiveLinden]

Perhaps I missed it what with this thread being 300+ posts now, but have any of those firmly certain of Pell’s guilt addressed the substantive issues brought up by those skeptical of the victim’s testimony (as it’s been provided by pretty much all of the major news outlets)? Anything more than emotional prevaricating? Anything more than “he’s been convicted in a court of law, and how dare you question that you evil rape enabler!”?

The thing is, the jury spent a huge amount of time considering the prosecution’s responses to those very things. I can’t find full court transcript but when I do I will read it. It was open to the judge after both sides had presented their cases to stop the case and say that no jury could possibly convict on that evidence. So we have the views of the jury plus the view of the judge that on the evidence presented a conviction beyond reasonable doubt could be made. The jury made that finding.

This does not mean that Cardinal Pell did what he was caused of. But it does mean that in law, pending an appeal, he is guilty of them. I assume that is why he elected to not seek bail pending appeal but to begin his inevitable imprisonment. He is demonstrating that he agrees that under law, he is guilty.

Unlike in the US, it is unlawful in Australia to talk to jurors about their thinking or actions. So further information will not come from that quarter.

The grounds for appeal have now been set out and we will have to wait and see where they go,

On the issue of the post-conviction ‘defences’ raised in the media I do not see them as strong. The ‘you can’t do that while wearing an alb’ defence does not square with my observations of albs although I must say I have never seen anyone attempt such a thing. The ‘there’s only one person’s word’ defence is not a defence. Yes, that is the case in many sexual crimes. We have courts to weigh the evidence. In this case it is not ‘he said, he said’ it is just ‘he said’ because the other ‘he’ chose not to give evidence. And the ‘the jury wasn’t in when he pleaded not guilty’ defence is unlikely to be thought of as anything but technicality. There is also the attempt by the defence to introduce new evidence in summing up by showing an animated cartoon of where everyone was said to be. It was always going to be refused. If they wanted to introduce it, summing up was too late.

And then there’s the ‘vanilla’ comment. Apart from its obvious infelicity, it prompted the judge to respond indicating that he, for one, fully accepted the jury’s verdict. That can’t help.

Incredulity and shock are not evidence.

 

[Bradskii]

All good points. But if I may…

The first jury was given exactly the evidence and heard exactly the same testimony. So we have had 24 jurists make a determination of innocence (the basis on which we start) or guilt. If just two of the jurists in the second trial felt that, on all available information, they could not overturn the initial assumption of innocence beyond reasonable doubt, the we would have a situation where 12 people think he’s innocent and 12 that don’t.

As it is, the people who know more about this case than literally anyone except the two people involved, have voted 14-10 for guilty. That’s quite a narrow margin.

Does anyone think that that is a satisfactory result?

 

[angel12]

Perhaps I missed it what with this thread being 300+ posts now, but have any of those firmly certain of Pell’s guilt addressed the substantive issues brought up by those skeptical of the victim’s testimony (as it’s been provided by pretty much all of the major news outlets)?

Not really.

 

[Emeraldlady]

And then there’s the ‘vanilla’ comment. Apart from its obvious infelicity, it prompted the judge to respond indicating that he, for one, fully accepted the jury’s verdict. That can’t help.

That isn’t true. The vanilla comment was made by the defense during the sentencing process to distinguish between the legal nature of serial abuse of this kind and a one off isolated attack of this kind. The judge was commenting only the nature of such an attack, not on Pells guilt or innocent.

 

[LilyM]

All good points. But if I may…

The first jury was given exactly the evidence and heard exactly the same testimony. So we have had 24 jurists make a determination of innocence (the basis on which we start) or guilt. If just two of the jurists in the second trial felt that, on all available information, they could not overturn the initial assumption of innocence beyond reasonable doubt, the we would have a situation where 12 people think he’s innocent and 12 that don’t.

As it is, the people who know more about this case than literally anyone except the two people involved, have voted 14-10 for guilty. That’s quite a narrow margin.

Does anyone think that that is a satisfactory result?

Plus the judge, given the comments he has made. The judge in the first trial obviously couldn’t do other than rule a mistrial - a judge can’t tell a deadlocked jury that the evidence supports one or other verdict. We don’t know what that first judge thought of the evidence.

But obviously a judge can at least indicate whether they think a guilty verdict is not reasonably open to a jury based on the evidence. In fact if the judge thought there was no evidence on which Pell could reasonably be found guilty he could direct the jury to enter a not guilty verdict. Neither judge chose to do so.

 

[Hoosier-Daddy]

Oh we know. Or we should.

 

[FiveLinden]

That isn’t true. The vanilla comment was made by the defense during the sentencing process to distinguish between the legal nature of serial abuse of this kind and a one off isolated attack of this kind. The judge was commenting only the nature of such an attack, not on Pells guilt or innocent.

The judge was not required to make any response. He did so and indicated his acceptance of the jury decision. The lawyer also used the expression ‘what was done’. No ‘alleged’.

 

[Atreju]

We’ll see if the mods know what an ad hominem is, or if they’ll declare it against forum rules to say “it was only 6 minutes” and “nobody should say convicted child molestors are pedophiles” are problematic attitudes.

 

[Rubee]

Why do you think I should allow someone to slander me by saying my comments are “ad hominem” and “a load of rubbish” (when they very clearly are not) without responding?

I mean you want to talk about ad hominem, your comment to me was pure ad hominem with a side of appeal to authority.

What a joke! You have claimed our attitudes actually contribute to the shuffling around of abusive priests—have you no shame? We have rejected that silliness like the ad hominem it is. On second thought, I really should go ahead and report. This shouldn’t be ok.

 

[Rubee]

Anything more than emotional prevaricating? Anything more than “he’s been convicted in a court of law, and how dare you question that you evil rape enabler!”?

To be fair, only one poster has shamelessly pulled that card out so far.

 

[Bradskii]

Guys, take it elsewhere for heavens sake…nobody is interested. It’s like two people shouting on a crowded bus.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

That isn’t true. The vanilla comment was made by the defense during the sentencing process to distinguish between the legal nature of serial abuse of this kind and a one off isolated attack of this kind. The judge was commenting only the nature of such an attack, not on Pells guilt or innocent.

The judge was not required to make any response. He did so and indicated his acceptance of the jury decision. The lawyer also used the expression ‘what was done’. No ‘alleged’.

It’s the nature of the pre-sentencing environment to address only the verdict in front of the court and that is the guilty verdict. Melissa Davey is the most notable journalist who attended every day of both trials and has provided the most unbiased and factual account of what’s gone on. She reported;

“Richter said he was in a difficult position because he could only propose a sentence based on the jury’s finding of guilt, not on the basis that Pell maintained his innocence. He said Pell did not have a pattern of offending and had not planned the attack, and so would have been “seized by some irresistible impulse”.”

The judge is in the same position of having to address the sentence only in relation to facts before him. Not on personal opinion. Melissa Davey had previously reported that the judge had reminded the jury daily not to make Pell the scapegoat for the Catholic Church abuse crisis in Australia indicating that he knew that was a real danger in the climate.

 

[BarbTh]

The Vatican, from what I have read, is waiting for the results of Cardinal Pell’s Appeal.

 

[Rau]

Hoosier, if 1 more juror in the first trial had voted to “acquit”, he’d have been acquitted. What would we “know” then? If the appeal case overturns the conviction, what will we “know” then? I’m perplexed as to why, given the evidence/lack of it, you feel able to hold a view about guilt with such certainty?

 

[LilyM]

Hoosier, if 1 more juror in the first trial had voted to “acquit”, he’d have been acquitted. What would we “know” then? If the appeal case overturns the conviction, what will we “know” then? I’m perplexed as to why, given the evidence/lack of it, you feel able to hold a view about guilt with such certainty?

An acquittal would mean there was not found to be enough evidence to sustain a guilty conviction.

As we know from OJ Simpson, it would not be proof of innocence by a long shot. Pell, if acquitted, could still be brought before civil courts and found on balance of probabilities (the Oz equivalent of ‘preponderance of evidence’) to have done the deeds and therefore be liable to compensate the victims or their families.

Courts dont punish people without a reasonable degree of certainty (as best they can ascertain) of evidence of wrongful behaviour.

As I said upthread, we daily place stock in all sorts of ‘certainties’, on major and minor matters, and feel ourselves entitled to do so, with far less reason than we have here.

For the record I’ve never claimed to be ‘certain’ of anything concerning Pell, and never will be. As with many things, we each can only come to what we think is the most reasonable conclusion based on the almost invariably fallible informatuon we have.

In the course of my daily work I see the real difficulties that victims of abuse of all sorts, including child abuse, have. Firstly in acknowledging to themselves what has happened, secondly in telling other people, thirdly in being taken seriously rather than dismissed, and finally getting so far as the start of criminal or civil court proceedings, let alone a guilty verdict or civil compensation.

I can be quite certain that a whole lot of wheat gets thrown out with the chaff in the process. No, the system isn’t perfect but none of the critics here have proposed anything better - so I think we can have a decent degree of faith in it.

 

[Rubee]

Honestly, we’re not “interested” either. We’re merely responding to unwarranted attacks, with respect.

 

[Hoosier-Daddy]

If ifs and ands were pots and pans…

 

[Emeraldlady]

Rau:

Hoosier, if 1 more juror in the first trial had voted to “acquit”, he’d have been acquitted. What would we “know” then? If the appeal case overturns the conviction, what will we “know” then? I’m perplexed as to why, given the evidence/lack of it, you feel able to hold a view about guilt with such certainty?

Courts dont punish people without a reasonable degree of certainty (as best they can ascertain) of evidence of wrongful behaviour.

The Chamberlain case disproves that theory.

I wouldn’t say that I was here as a critic of the system, rather a critic of the power of the court of public opinion if anything.

Every other pedophile Priest that’s been brought to trial here and convicted has as far as I know plead guilty in the light of the evidence and the testimony of more than one victim. There’s no reason for doubt.

With Pell, from the very start there have been odd happenings, ie. the police having to do a fishing trip to even find anyone to accuse him. The timing of that fishing trip ie. his curially unpopular purging in the Vatican plus his ‘appointment’ in the court of public opinion as a clerical scapegoat. The single accuser found not being able to recall a date or have a credible explanation of how the penetration could happen. The accusers claimed fellow victim denying twice to his mother that he’d been abused. This claimant only coming forward once that person died. The improbability to the point of impossibility that the attack could have happened where and how it did. So many inconsistencies on so many levels.

I can’t help but see the parallels to Lindy Chamberlain. I remember that rural people were aghast at the ‘science’ suggesting that a dingo could not on its own drag a human baby back to it’s lair. My mother a farm raised girl, said dingoes; born scavenger animals, are capable of dragging huge carcassass long distances single handedly. Then the single minute drop of blood on a camera case that in retrospect is an embarrassing conclusion by forensic experts.

Lindy’s case was kept alive and under the microscope by people that weren’t willing to accept such implausible scenarios as providing proof beyond reasonable doubt, hence the creation of the ‘Innocence Committee’. Without the light of their efforts it even possible that when the matinee jacket was eventually found, it may not have seen the light of day to save the legal system from the shame it had to wear.

 

[Rau]

I am entirely ok with persons, on hearing of the verdict in this case, taking it as a given that the man did the deed. Equally, given some familiarity with the evidence actually considered, I am entirely comfortable with persons forming a view that there is a very fair chance the verdict is unsafe.

I appreciate the plight of victims and how horrible for them to not be believed. We need to keep our wits about us, however, and recognize that it does not follow that every accusation is truth.

 

[LilyM]

LilyM:

Rau:

Hoosier, if 1 more juror in the first trial had voted to “acquit”, he’d have been acquitted. What would we “know” then? If the appeal case overturns the conviction, what will we “know” then? I’m perplexed as to why, given the evidence/lack of it, you feel able to hold a view about guilt with such certainty?

Courts dont punish people without a reasonable degree of certainty (as best they can ascertain) of evidence of wrongful behaviour.

The Chamberlain case disproves that theory.

I wouldn’t say that I was here as a critic of the system, rather a critic of the power of the court of public opinion if anything.

Every other pedophile Priest that’s been brought to trial here and convicted has as far as I know plead guilty in the light of the evidence and the testimony of more than one victim. There’s no reason for doubt.

I can’t help but see the parallels to Lindy Chamberlain. I remember that rural people were aghast at the ‘science’ suggesting that a dingo could not on its own drag a human baby back to it’s lair. My mother a farm raised girl, said dingoes; born scavenger animals, are capable of dragging huge carcassass long distances single handedly. Then the single minute drop of blood on a camera case that in retrospect is an embarrassing conclusion by forensic experts.

Lindy’s case was kept alive and under the microscope by people that weren’t willing to accept such implausible scenarios as providing proof beyond reasonable doubt, hence the creation of the ‘Innocence Committee’. Without the light of their efforts it even possible that when the matinee jacket was eventually found, it may not have seen the light of day to save the legal system from the shame it had to wear.

If it is that easy for a jury to be swayed, especially by unfavourable public opinion, then Pell would have been convicted at the first trial. He has for years been subject to extremely unfavourable public scrutiny. So much for that theory.

In the Chamberlain case, yes there was public sentiment against her. There was also a good deal of expert evidence given against her about the behaviour of dingoes and the presence of blood in her car, which evidence was later shown to be far from satisfactory. I would suggest that that alone would probably have sunk Lindy - in fact one of her expert witnesses had at least one other case of his overturned because his evidence was not up to scratch.