Will Pell be released?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Wozza
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
TheBomb.Com said:
Do you think he’s innocent?
Click to expand...
I definitely don’t agree with anyone who says that he was convicted because of who he was. But we weren’t in a position to hear the victim’s testimony. That obviously had an influence on the jury.

Absent that critical aspect, I’m of the opinion that there is reasonable doubt.
 
Last edited:
TheBomb.Com said:
Do you think he’s innocent?
Click to expand...
Honestly, on this one I think “God only knows”. Pell may not even clearly remember what happened.

From what I’ve read likely there is reasonable doubt. There have been massive threads about this here on CAF. Honestly, I think this entire thing is terrible, and we should say a prayer for all involved. I hope people don’t take satisfaction whatever the verdict.
 
Last edited:
jack63 said:
40.png
TheBomb.Com:
Do you think he’s innocent?
Click to expand...
Honestly, on this one I think “God only knows”. Pell may not even clearly remember what happened.

From what I’ve read likely there is reasonable doubt. There have been massive threads about this here on CAF. Honestly, I think this entire thing is terrible, and we should say a prayer for all involved. I hope people don’t take satisfaction whatever the verdict.
Click to expand...
Agreed. There are no winners in this however it turns out.
 
I believe he’s innocent ,and I’ll ask people here to please pray for All Australian’s at this time.
God bless.
 
By deep inner conviction I also believe him to be innocent and victim of a hidden agenda. But even the fact that no convicted clergy before has ever demonstrated such a brazen, isolated random offense without any other hint of such behaviour prior or afterwards. It just doesn’t make sense.

Praying that the Holy Spirit will reveal every truth eventually.
 
I listened to the hearing. As I understood, it was a 2 to 1 vote. One of the justices agreed with Pell. This will always be controversial.
 
There is a next step now, the Appeal to the Australian High Court.
 
It would appear that the victim’s testimony was tbe crucial factor:

'Two of the three judges agreed. They did not doubt his evidence: “[He] was a very compelling witness, was clearly not a liar, was not a fantasist and was a witness of truth.” 'He was a witness of truth': why the judges decided Cardinal George Pell was guilty | George Pell | The Guardian

Edit: The quote above may not have been made by either of the two judges who turned down the appeal. The context in which it is used in the newspaper report makes it unclear on reflection.
 
Last edited:
Wozza said:
'Two of the three judges agreed. They did not doubt his evidence: “[He] was a very compelling witness, was clearly not a liar, was not a fantasist and was a witness of truth.”
Click to expand...
And the third judge said he was not very credible at all.
 
GiftofMercy said:
40.png
Wozza:
'Two of the three judges agreed. They did not doubt his evidence: “[He] was a very compelling witness, was clearly not a liar, was not a fantasist and was a witness of truth.”
Click to expand...
And the third judge said he was not very credible at all.
Click to expand...
There is nothing in the appeal document that suggests that. I’m not sure where you’d get that from. All we can go by is that document. I’m not even sure that the three judges are allowed to comment on the verdict. And what Weinburg, the dissenting judge said in the appeal was:

'…there is, to my mind, a ‘significant possibility’ that the applicant in this case may not have committed these offences. That means that, in my respectful opinion, these convictions cannot be permitted to stand. ’

It came down to that. In his opinion there was reasonable doubt. In the minds of the other two judges (and the jury), there wasn’t.

And in passing, I am now unsure as to whether the quote I posted above from the other two judges was actually made by either of them. I took it from the Guardian. But a quote implied as being made by Weinburg is thus:

“His evidence contained discrepancies, displayed inadequacies, and otherwise lacked probative value so as to cause him to have a doubt as to the applicant’s guilt. He could not exclude as a reasonable possibility that some of what the complainant said was concocted … ”

So as to cause him? Who is ‘him’? Weinburg is being referred to in the third person so obviously didn’t make the statement. So in all probablity, niether did either of the two other judges make the statement that I attributed to them. Apologies for that. I have edited the earlier post to make that point.
 
Last edited:
Its all over the internet, you can stream it on the internet, which is what I have done.
but here you go

www.abc.net.au

This is the reasoning a Victorian court gave for dismissing George Pell's appeal

Here is the full judgment summary of Chief Justice Anne Ferguson, Justice Chris Maxwell and Justice Mark Weinberg in Cardinal George Pell's appeal against convictions over historic child sexual offences.
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au

In his dissenting judgment, Justice Weinberg found that, at times, the complainant was inclined to embellish aspects of his account.

He concluded that his evidence contained discrepancies, displayed inadequacies, and otherwise lacked probative value so as to cause him to have a doubt as to the applicant’s guilt.

He could not exclude as a reasonable possibility that some of what the complainant said was concocted, particularly in relation to the second incident.

Justice Weinberg found that the complainant’s account of the second incident was entirely implausible and quite unconvincing.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for that.

One wonders whether they’ll now decide to take it to the High Court. There are seven judges and if the matter is only going to be decided on reasonable doubt then I’d suggest that the majority would back the decision of the appeals court.
 
Considering that Cardinal Pells case has been so starkly different from all other cases of convicted clergy in Australia where more than one case came to light upon investigation and where there was ‘buzz’ over the years about the person, we have to come to terms with something very new and different. If a person like Pell is guilty, any man can be guilty. There is no longer cause to trust any male, clergy or not. All males are now potentially pedophiles. That’s a lot to come to terms with for the ordinary person.
 
Last edited:
Emeraldlady said:
Considering that Cardinal Pells case has been so starkly different from all other cases of convicted clergy in Australia where more than one case came to light upon investigation and where there was ‘buzz’ over the years about the person, we have to come to terms with something very new and different. If a person like Pell is guilty, any man can be guilty. There is no longer cause to trust any male, clergy or not. All males are now potentially pedophiles. That’s a lot to come to terms with for the ordinary person.
Click to expand...
I think we’re seeing a lot of that. The #metoo movement has meant that all men are seen as potential sexual predators. Geoffrey Rush comes to mind. And John Jarret.

I was at the swimming pool some time back when my grandson was having swimming lessons. I was going to take a few pictures of him but my wife practically grabbed the phone out of my hand. Too dangerous. Other kids in the pool. Someone will take offence.

I don’t know if it’s good or bad.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top