The appeal should find that the verdict was unsafe. First trial: hung jury. Second trial: verdict kept secret for two weeks. Something very fishy there for starters. Evidence: none. All hearsay. Australians can no longer have faith in our court system or the intelligence of their twelve 'peers'. Anyone before the courts for anything should have a judge only trial. At least judges know and understand the law. Emotional, ignorant juries do not.

The author says:" I trust our legal system. This trust, plus my background and my experience, says that the jury got it right".

If we trust our legal system, then we should await the outcome of the appeal, which will provide a final legal test as to whether the jury did in fact get it right.

I agree with the author that religious and other prejudices (especially concerning Pell's conservative social policy views and his administration of child abuse redress within the Church) have affected attitudes to the trial. I can't recall any previous legal process, where so many people (on both sides) had made up their minds before the trial had even taken place. The same prejudices are apparent in reactions to the guilty verdict.

Those who did not sit through the trial and hear all the evidence are in no position to judge the verdict. In this respect the secret nature of the trial and the supression of reporting did not help the cause of justice being seen to be done.

Religious wars? No not religious, but political. Political wars.

From the book "Marx and Satan", by Reverend Richard Wurmbrand, 1986 he quotes Marx's words: "The idea of God is the keynote of a perverted civilization. It must be destroyed."

The role of Pell here in this "judicial drama" is as a victim of the Marxist warriors in their attack on God's world. Peter Bowden (#MeeToo) in his writings finds the outcome of this "trial" to his liking. Evaluate.

Everything I've heard from this man's lips leads me to believe, he is a power junkie and a pathological liar. And in good company with those now flying to his defence!?

However, willing to allow him and his sworn testimony, to be tested with unbeatable space age lie detection, not even pathological liars can beat!

The reaction before and after, informs me that there are, I believe, a lot of birds of a feather flocking in Rome and, I believe, rushing wings raised and flapping to defend him here?

I know as a returning eyewitness, there is a life after this one beyond this one and that hell is a real place populated by the most incredibly terrifying denizens, terrifying beyond imagination.

With the head honcho so much so, that all the others pale into insignificance beside the sheer terror that that particular entity evokes.

Without question, the worst criminals are not thieves or murders but pulpit-pounding pious hypocrites and guilty of some of the most heinous crimes and cover-ups!

. For mine, wouldn't be in any of those creatures shoes, nor those of their support base cohort or fellow travellers.

Let me conclude with his observation. conservatism and Christian values as espoused by the Master himself, are mutually incompatible belief systems!
Alan B.

1. Its no surprise the old bold rightwing males, who populate OLO's comment threads, give this character more than the benefit of the doubt.

This powerful Prince of the Church, non-contrite, pillar of the rightwing religious Establishment, is above the morality which applies to us mere mortals. Is he not?

2. Meawhile "Pope Blames Devil". Holy Men on Earth are therefore not responsible for playing with kiddies.

3. In a shock move Pope expresses contrition! http://www.smh.com.au/national/what-the-pope-didn-t-say-when-he-blamed-the-devil-for-child-sex-abuse-20190225-p5100n.html

Nah. He didn't.

Had ya going there...

4. May His Eminence’s incarceration (rhymes with?) not be overly stretched...

I left the Catholic church decades ago. I think much of their doctrine is herectical. Much of my family are still Catholics. The first thought that came to my mind when found guilty was Lindy Chamberlain. It is almost impossible to see how the accussations against Pell were beyond reasonable doubt. Just look at the lying leftist media and swamp that has been caught out time and time again in America recently. Our own abc is among the lying leftist media swamp. It was impossible for Pell to receive a fair unbiased trial after decades of lies, accusations and slurs many of them proven false and often pushed by the abc and other catholic hating media. Again I could not care less about the Catholic church. I do care about truth and justice.

No wonder some character was apparently self-serving in creating the Melbourne Response, with the following symptoms:

- Priest A violates children.

- The victims are encouraged by the Church Not to go to Secular Authorities.

- But keep said violations secret.

- Instead a Church committee Secretly provides relatively small amounts of compensation to Victims.

- But Victims must sign Secrecy Agreements promising never to go to Secular Authorities or to the Media (even the "abc" runner).

- Priest A's sins are secretly forgiven (including Confessional Hail Maries).

- Priest A is moved to aa new diocese, where he, more often than not, violates more children.

- Repeat Melbourne Response Secret Process.

" Its no surprise the old bold rightwing males, who populate OLO's comment threads, give this character more than the benefit of the doubt. '

The court was supposed to do that as well, but alas....

'" Its no surprise the old bold rightwing males, who populate OLO's comment threads, give this character more than the benefit of the doubt. '

maybe the rightwing males believe in justice and truth a fair bit more than lying liberals/marxist who only care about sides.

Catholics are nothing more than slightly more civilised middle east Muslims.

I respect the fact that so many OLO commenters so quickly identify with Australia's poor Prince of the Church. He was and is so misunderstood, by old and certain young (that some OLO commenters forget).

Many good Catholics literally think of Cardinals as "Princes of the Church" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_of_the_Church

Making the Pope therefore the King of the Roman Church, with his golden throne in Vatican, Rome, Italy.

The Princes and the King are, after all defenders of the Faith, closer to God than us.

And of His Eminence, Australia's Highest Churchman, perhaps on the basis of the legal Pub Test that you concocked there should be additional allegal tests.

Perhaps The Rack Test http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rack_(torture) that recalls the salad days

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition of the Catholic Church when Cardinals, Princes and Kings

were idolized as Above The Law, is what you cherish.

CORRECTION

In third last line of preceding comment, some kids were thinking of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rack_(torture)

for the good Prince.

'Catholics are nothing more than slightly more civilised middle east Muslims.'

who are slightly more civilised than secularist.

We live in a violent culture where revenge is considered a virtue.

It is not!

Convincingly enough, the choir boy was not consciously lying, but long-term memories are subject to distortions and misinterpretations, even more so in the presence of alcohol, guilt and lying. According to the testimony, the boys sipped sacrificial wine and one of them told Pell: “Can you let us go? We didn’t do anything” - obviously a lie.

Pell was very clearly upset and angry when he discovered the desecration of the holy sacramental wine. It's likely that he wanted to inflict as much pain as possible on the boys, but very unlikely for him to be sexually aroused at such a time. In his rage he possibly (though unjustifiably) considered a sexual punishment adequate. Quite possibly, he even preferred and pretended to be seen as a paedophile rather than reveal his greater shame at failing to protect the holy blood-of-Christ that was desecrated in his presence. He could even deny that desecration in court and take that shame to his grave, even if this adds years to his imprisonment as a presumed paedophile.

Nevertheless, let us assume that the choir-boy's testimony was completely true.

The second spiritual injunction in Hinduism is truth-telling, Satyam, but Satyam is still subordinate to the first injunction: non-violence, Ahimsa, so should the two conflict, non-violence takes precedence over truth-telling.

Throwing in jail an elderly man who is obviously non-dangerous at present, for the thrill of revenge over something he did more than 20 years ago, is violence. It will not help the victim in any way, it will only be to his spiritual detriment, it will only exacerbate his problems and make him feel more guilty for his childhood mischief. A better attitude would be: "OK, I was naughty so I got punished. It might not have been proportional to my crime, but I better call it a day, turn a page and stop the cycle of violence right here". Spoiling one's whole life over a 6-minute traumatic incident, agonising as it might have been, is simply unwise.

The writer fails to mention that the cardinal’s first trial ended in a hung jury, with 10 of 12 jurors in favour of acquittal.

In the retrial, the defence again demonstrated that it was physically impossible for the alleged abuse of two choirboys to have occurred, given the layout and security of the cathedral.

Whether the anti-conservative writer likes it or not, the question remains: how did a jury’s overwhelming vote for acquittal of the cardinal get flipped to a unanimous guilty finding on retrial?

Bring on the appeal.

What I don’t understand is how Pell can be convicted of abusing a second boy who denied that it happened, all based on the 20 year old memory of another boy, with no substantiating evidence.
I haven’t heard of any evidence that supports the fact that the boys were even in the area, let alone proof that anything happened. I simply cannot understand how this has happened.
This is not about Pell, or the Catholic Church, it’s about the desecration of our legal system.

Yuyutsu,

"Pell was very clearly upset and angry when he discovered the desecration of the holy sacramental wine"

Bollocks, Pell would have had years of knowledge that altar boys had a glug of the very ordinary wine that is kept for Communion, bet he had a swig when he was an altar boy.
There is no desecration of anything holy and sacramental about having a bit of the unconsecrated wine, it's just plonk.

See:http://www.sevenhill.com.au/wine-portfolio/sweet-red
Altar wines are not anything special!!

Although Brother John's drop at $110 a bottle would be very special for me ($660 for the minimum order).
http://www.sevenhill.com.au/wine-sales

'This is not about Pell, or the Catholic Church, it’s about the desecration of our legal system.'

so true Nana but not for the lying leftist media and its followers. Thank God we don't just have the fake news of Fairfax and the abc.

What now needs to be asked is - was the verdict
unreasonable? Did the jury deliver a verdict that
was not supported by evidence?

These are questions for the Appeal Court.
This case needs to go through the proper legal
process. We can only hope that the complainant can
find some peace, and is able to get on with his life
whichever way the appeal goes.

This is such a sad, sad, and controversial case -
if the appeal wins it will send an incredibly
damaging message to survivors who are thinking about
coming forward in these cases. And if it fails -
believers may truly wonder if Cardinal Pell is the
unwitting victim of a wounded nation in search of
a scapegoat.

Dear Foxy,

«if the appeal wins it will send an incredibly damaging message to survivors who are thinking about coming forward in these cases.»

Some victims may not like it if the appeal wins, but it will still end up to their advantage. Revenge does nothing good.

It will also be of advantage for the jurors and the judge who will not have to face the awful karma for throwing someone in jail.

It will also be of advantage for ordinary Australians because it will reduce our anxiety (thus also improve our health) about being incarcerated at random for beings at the wrong place at the wrong time.

It will also be of advantage for taxpayers, not having to pay for Pell's incarceration.

The only person who will not be advantaged, is George Pell, if indeed he did what he did, for he will need to face even harsher consequences once he leaves his old body to stand before God.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Thank You. You always see so many different
angles to any given situation and you give us
much to think about.

'This is such a sad, sad, and controversial case -
if the appeal wins it will send an incredibly
damaging message to survivors who are thinking about
coming forward in these cases. And if it fails -
believers may truly wonder if Cardinal Pell is the
unwitting victim of a wounded nation in search of
a scapegoat.'

I agree to some extent Foxy however if not proved beyond doubt it does damage to everyone. It seems we have learn't nothing from Lindy Chamberlain. Everyone agrees that people found guilty beyond reasonable doubt for these sorts of crime deserve severe punishment. I am not so convinced that everyone agrees that the crime must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Bitter irrational people spit out so much hatred like those outside the court that they are incapable of being reasonable. I have little time for the Catholic church however can not accept guilt by association. It appears this has played a big role.

What would be sad would be a judicial process where people could be convicted because they weren't liked, represented an institution that wasn't liked, or because of things written about them.

There is a judicial process that is yet to be completed. I will be interested to see what the judges hearing the appeal make of the case against George Pell and the appropriateness of the prosecution.

I've been an atheist all my life (my parents were Communists, the only working-class members of a working-class branch, Chullora Railway Works, my mum sold Tribunes to all the middle-class members of the branch, people like Dorothy Hewett - now there's someone who knew all about sexual exploitation), and I've never liked Pell - that unctuous, haughty, holier-than-thou act repulsed me.

But I don't know how he-said-only evidence can convict anyone. Yes, maybe it's the sort of case where no other 'evidence' would be available, or it's all in camera, and maybe he's so cunning, but still. Maybe there's a lot more to it, but I can't see how anyone can be convicted on one person's assertions alone.

I suppose we'll see when the appeal is heard.

Joe

Our present jury system is faulty.

It demands that that twelve citizens reason guilt or innocence purely on the evidence presented in court.

That way of functioning is hopelessly outdated, stemming from an era well before the overwhelming impact of today's media.

Practically, our jurors seem to be selected from a supply of people who are probably not truly representative of the accused peers' socio-economic culture.

An amount of personal bias existed within juries in which I sat - some jurors were influenced by the appearance, manner of speech, or attitude of witnesses, particularly police who often portray an arrogant demeanour. It took considerable arguing accompanied by hostility to convince fellow jurors to act ONLY on the evidence.

But with these faults, it is the only system we have, other than the defence's ability to request a judge-only hearing.

May I politely suggest to anyone interested in
this case to try to get hold of the book -
"Cardinal: The Rise and Fall of George Pell,"
by Louise Milligan. The book had a ban placed
on it while the trial was on - it's now been
lifted. An updated version will be available
towards the end of March. It answers so
many questions.

.

Revelations of Church-related paedophilia continue around the world and seem to be never-ending. They touch all denominations, but the Catholic Church is by far the worst offender – to such an extent that its endemic nature is evident.

The Catholic Church is morally bankrupt as an institution.

Pope Francis is now left with just two options : either he puts a stop to it or he admits his inability to do so and resigns :

« And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves » — Matthew 21:12–13

As Jesus clearly demonstrated: there is no other honourable alternative.

I find it very interesting to see that the Vatican knows exactly what should be done to avoid any further crimes of paedophilia committed by the clergy. Allow me to quote, the Vatican’s statement regarding His Eminence, Cardinal George Pell :

« The Pope confirmed Cardinal Pell has been forbidden from contact with minors as part of “precautionary measures” … »

Those “precautionary measures” should be extended to include the totality of the Catholic clergy throughout the world with immediate effect – but in a slightly less restrictive form.

In my professional dealings with top officials of a major Chinese state-owned company in the financial sector, the rule was that no senior official was ever allowed to have a meeting with me unless he or she was accompanied by another Chinese official from the same sector. I never had a face to face meeting alone with my principal interlocutor – even if it was over a casual lunch or dinner.

That rule should be practiced by the Catholic Church in its dealings with children under the age of 18. Never alone. Always with another adult. The confessional should also be banned for that age bracket.

.

Alan B,

"I know as a returning eyewitness, there is a life after this one beyond this one and that hell is a real place populated by the most incredibly terrifying denizens, terrifying beyond imagination"

Please expand.

Banjo,

"Revelations of Church-related paedophilia continue around the world and seem to be never-ending. They touch all denominations, but the Catholic Church is by far the worst offender – to such an extent that its endemic nature is evident."

Is that designation of worst offender based on a percentage comparison or simply numbers?

'Is that designation of worst offender based on a percentage comparison or simply numbers?'

well behind Islamist and the Indigenous community but don't let facts get in the way of anyone's prejudices.

.

Dear Is Mise, Dear runner,

.

You both wrote :

« Is that designation of worst offender based on a percentage comparison or simply numbers? »

You were referring to my remark :

« Revelations of Church-related paedophilia continue around the world and seem to be never-ending. They touch all denominations, but the Catholic Church is by far the worst offender – to such an extent that its endemic nature is evident »
.

Crimes of paedophilia are notoriously rarely reported by children to their parents or guardians (when the latter are not, themselves, the perpetrators of the crimes) and even less so to the police and the criminal courts – especially when the perpetrators are members of the clergy. Because of this, inevitably, there are no precise statistics. My comment that “the Catholic Church is by far the worst offender” of Church-related paedophilia was based on various reports and articles, including, in particular :

1. The Australian Royal Commission into Child Sexual Abuses :

Catholic……………61.8% of child sexual abuses by religious institutions
Anglican…………...14.7%
Salvation Army……. 7.3%
18 other religions....16.2%

http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/religious-institutions

2. The UN singled-out the Vatican for its appalling child protection record :

http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CRC%2FC%2FVAT%2FCO%2F2&Lang=en

3. Wikipedia article : “Catholic Church sexual abuse cases” :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases

.

Runner, you should be careful bringing up Lindy Chamberlain. I worked with a mate who was once employed by the NT governments then forensic laboratory. He admitted to me, long before all of the appeals processes, that they screwed up the forensic evidence to a point where it was unable to be used in a court of law. Despite this he was adamant she was guilty based on the unusable evidence.

I was told only yesterday of a 45 year old father having been accused of sexual molestation by his 14 year old daughter & he is now in jail trying to prove his innocence.
Apparently, the Police found a how to accuse someone of sexual assault site visit on her phone but the female Magistrate was adamant & locked up the father.

Galen,

The famous 'blood spray in the car" which was forensically determined to be blood, turned out to be some body preparation sprayed by the manufacturer.

I'd be wary of citing any forensic bloke involved.

It wasn’t related to the boood splatter in the car. It related to other evidence which was mishandled and comprised and as such could not be entered into evidence. It does not disprove anything but went to the heart of the prosecution case and made it nigh impossible to conclusively seal the case against the defendant.
Galen

I am no advocate for the Church or religion in general, but this does not seem like a story that is ever going away. As a result, ordinary people might be discouraged from choosing a career in the papacy. This man's life has probably been irrevocably damaged whether he did it or not, and now everyone will always look at the Church with a hint of doubt at least.

Galen
'Despite this he was adamant she was guilty based on the unusable evidence.'

Many claimed that a dingo had never attacked humans before. The whole case was based on lies from 'experts' and an innocent woman was gaoled. There is nothing for me to be careful about in this disgraceful event in Australian history. I suspect your mate has serious character issues if he still thinks Chamberlain was guilty. I also suspect he has egg all over his face like many of the press did. The 'experts' could not distinguish between paint and blood.

"Many claimed that a dingo had never attacked humans before." and as you indicate, runner, they were wrong.

My friend, the late Burnum Burnum told me that he talked to the aboriginal trackers who were involved in the Chamberlain case and they were adamant that a dingo had taken the baby and, what's more, had identified the particular dog.
On the subject of dingoes and babies, they told Burnam that aboriginal children had been taken in the past but that the authorities never bothered to do anything about it because in their words as he related them, "...they're just bloody abos".

Allegations about Cardinal Pell's behaviour have
followed him for years. The following link is worth
a read:

http://www.news.com.au/national/victoria/courts-law/allegations-about-george-pells-behaviour-have-followed-him-for-years/news-story/7fe9b7b0742e08fa8a31c9d8e35d9634

.

There have been widespread reports in the French media in the last few days on the Pope’s ambassador to France, Archbishop Ventura, who is accused of sexual assaults by two young Frenchmen and a Canadian. One of the Frenchmen who works at the Paris City Hall appeared on television.

The problem, of course is that the ambassador has the benefit of diplomatic immunity and, despite the Pope’s recent announcement “urbi et orbi” of “zero tolerance” in respect of such matters, the Vatican took a long time to react. Finally, the official Vatican spokesman, Alessandro Gisotti, said the Vatican had learned about the investigation from media reports and declared: “The Holy See is waiting for [the] investigation’s conclusion.”

In the meantime, the archbishop of Lyon (a major city south of Paris) Cardinal Philippe Barbarin, is on trial on charges of helping cover up allegations of child sexual abuse by priests. A verdict is due on March 7. He has not been suspended from his functions.

Bernard Preynat, a French priest involved in the scandal, has been trying to block the release of a film about child abuse by priests by the acclaimed director, François Ozon, best known for ‘Swimming Pool’ starring Charlotte Rampling.

The film has premiered in Berlin and is due for release in France on Wednesday. A new book, due to be published next week, claims that about 80 per cent of priests at the Vatican are homosexual.

The book, In the Closet of the Vatican, by a French author and journalist, Frédéric Martel, is based on 1,500 interviews with priests, cardinals, Vatican ambassadors, seminarians and members of the Swiss Guard, the Pope’s private army.

Mr Martel claims that some gay priests are in relationships while others frequent male prostitutes. Some are in denial while others are gay but celibate.

There have also been a number of reports in the French media lately about sexual abuse of Catholic nuns by male clergy.

Here is an article that appeared in the 15th February edition of the UK Telegraph on the Pope’s ambassador to France :

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/02/15/popes-french-ambassador-investigation-alleged-sexual-assault/

.

Interesting how far OLO's Pellophile majority are out of step with broader Australian society.

In terms of the moderate Fairfax-Sydney Morning Herald survey published on page 32 of the paper on Saturday 2 March 2019.

on the Question

"Do you think the guilty verdict for George Pell on child abuse charges was right?"

Results "Yes"..[it was right]...71%

................."No"...............only 7%

..............."Unsure"................22%

___________________________________________

Just to advise Pellophiles that Pell features on Four Corners tonight, 8.30pm ABC1.

" I trust our legal system. This trust, plus my background and my experience, says that the jury got it right". What a steaming load of dog's droppings. The accusation against Pell is probably a combination of corrupt litigation lawyers who will say anything for money, and a witness with an overactive imagination, probably from smoking ice or crack.