The verdict is unsatisfactory. Any prosecution should have used multiple witnesses and other corroborating evidence, preferably less than one decade old let alone two. I understand the double jeopardy principle now prevents another more rigorous prosecution. Therefore those who set out to get Pell have lost the respect of much of the public. Formally that includes the Victoria Police and informally media outlets such as the ABC. We now have trial by gossip.

The law and justice have little in common.

Pell is certainly orthodox; one of the few senior priests who has stuck to the teachings of the church, in all things, no matter how unpopular it makes him.

And, it has certainly made him unpopular with the hierarchy of a church that has been radically 'feminised’ under leftist Jorge Mario Bergoglio, aka, Pope Francis, who broke tradition by not taking the name of a past popes, probably because they were all too Catholic and manly for him.

It has been said of Francis that he will have a think about abuse in the church when he gets tired of prattling about climate change.

The Catholic church is now about gays, with manly priests and would-have-been priests staying away in droves. Congregations are falling off as the Catholic church turns away from the word of God to secular matters, making the church little different from anything else, and certainly not want parishioners crave.

The 'Lavender Mafia’ in the Vatican is glad to see the back of George Pell.

“An unnamed Melbourne priest said: "It is clear it is no longer possible for a Catholic priest to get a fair trial in this State”.

Swap 'State’ for Western world, and that's true. And, if the system can do to a high profile Christian what it has done to Pell, what hope do the rest of us have: a quick trial by idiots, and locked away without the world even knowing

I suggest that those people who have doubts about the verdict should watch the 4 Corners program that went to air last night on the ABC and you might change your minds.
Pell is Guilty as charged and his appeal will fail.

David

Unless you were in the court for the entire
proceedings you have no way of knowing
what went on, what was presented, and why
the jury of 12 reached the verdict that they
did. The fact remains that they found Cardinal
Pell guilty on all counts. It was a unanimous
verdict. Yes, juries sometimes do get things
wrong - but that is rare. We need to believe in
our jury system and the judicial process.
I do.

Whether the Appeal will succeed - we have
yet to wait and see. In the meantime - we should
not be doing irrepairable damage in the message
we would be sending to other victims who may want to come
forward by saying that we do not believe in our jury
system - and worse - that we do not believe them.

Children who are abused have their lives destroyed. They grow into troubled adults who have dropped out of school, turned to drugs and alcohol to ease their pain, found relationships difficult because of trust issues and have often taken their own lives. But there was one young man who broke this mold and kept it together, ego intact. He went to the police and became a credible witness. He is a hero because he has changed everything forever.

Guilty or not guilty I have no idea. Proven beyond reasonable doubt definitely not. The science is not settled.

Dear estelles,

The young man certainly is a hero.
He did it not only for himself but
for his friend who died, and many others whose
lives and those of their families were
destroyed. I watched Mrs Forster on "Q and A"
last night (tragedy of her two daughters),
asking questions of the panel. Her face said it
all - what her family had gone through in their
contacts with the Cardinal. No matter what the
future outcomes will be - that man will go down
in history as a convicted pedophile. Justice
has been served - finally.

Victims are not 'heroes'. Nor are they 'survivors', another ridiculous description for victims of sexual abuse. Victims are ordinary people who have suffered. They have to decide whether or not they are going to carry around their victimhood for the rest of their lives or not; it's up to them. If they succeed in living a positive life, they have guts, but they are not heroes, who are people who make sacrifices for other people.

If the bloke who stood up and gave evidence against Pell in the face of relentless cross examination by one of Australia's most fearsome advocates, then I don't know what a hero is.
David

Pell made his living as a preacher of the Gospel which translates as a "teller of the truth".

How he and his expensive legal team considered that such a "teller of truth" could hide behind the right to silence and not get in the witness box shocks me.

It was the word of the alleged , now confirmed, victim against silence.

The jury , if that expensive defence team did its job, heard all the points which have been raised here -- and they convicted.

End of story. That is the truth, the Gospel that I have just preached.

The young lad spoke up for not only his deceased
friend but for all the other victims of the
Cardinal and as pointed out - he took it all
for them. Having the courage to do that despite
all the pressure and as has been pointed out - despite
the relentless questioning - he did not cave.
That makes him a hero. It gives hope to other victims.

Quite happy for Cardinal Pell to be accorded an opportunity to have his evidence thoroughly tested by space age, unbeatable lie detection equipment.

In fact, if such a test were offered and he failed, ought to die in prison then rot in hell for eternity. For some of the most heinous crimes a person given such trust can commit!

Seen by his supporters as minor misdemeanours! Rather than the heinous betrayal of trust, theft of innocence this heinous crimes really are! Have in past times led to the suicide of hugely psychologically damaged victims.

I believe the jury got it right, a Cardinal is not above the law, nor a Pope!

He still has the appeal process to negotiate, and should a very senior judge find that there was some error in law? The judgement could be overturned.

Of importance was the suppression order placed on earlier convictions, five.

The fact that the defence placed such importance on suppressing that salient fact, very telling/may weigh heavily on the appeal judges determinations. Which if successful will not exonerate this highly placed church official but may keep him out of prison.

But never ever from having to face his maker, account for his actions or final eternal justice, whatever that may be.

What you and I believe? Is ultimately, of no importance, nor likely to affect the final judgement of someone who knows everything we all do, what is truly in our hearts!?

That my friend is the man in the mirror, the one none of us can successfully lie to or excuse!

Let me conclude by witnessing, that hell is a very real place, a thousand times more terrifying than your very worst nightmare. I'd sooner do my time/punishment here, no matter how injurious, than do any of it there!

I take some comfort in the Maker being the very epitome of love personified and understanding, we are all of us, even Cardinals, just flawed human beings. And judging us accordingly.

My sympathies lie with the victims!
Alan B.

Alan. your Makers were your mother and father. No supreme being was involved.
David

As a boy, staying for around 18 months at an uncle and aunt's place. Had occasion to complain about the extremely troubling activities of a Marist Brother/school Principle.

And witnessed the outrage my remarks created. And received a very severe flogging for daring to utter such filth!

Remember many an occasion of being belted to the ground by an adult Brother's fists for daring to presume I owned my stuff.

Remember being mercilessly flogged and until the arm raising the leather could lift it no more and for every day of a seemingly endless 18 months.

Had my very first fist fight, aged just six and a half. My attacker a 15-year-old fellow inmate who thought I was too pretty to be a boy. A fight I won and dozens of others that followed.

But not able to hold my own when gang tackled etc-etc.

I'm here to tell you all the horror stories you heard about Catholic and state-run institutions are true and that pedophiles hide behind their robes and the protection of birds of a feather?

Why else have these things been allowed to happen or persist for so long? And so heinous as to beggar belief.

I survived, bowed but not beaten by becoming a seemingly fearless rebel, albeit, quaking in my boots with legs of jelly that barely supported me.

Being routinely disbelieved, par for the course and eventually the very reason for my enduring silence and no doubt those of many other damaged victims.

I mean, just look at some of the earlier commentary and the unprovoked hostility toward the damaged victims (by fellow travellers) to understand why this behaviour and injustice has persisted for so long! Centuries in fact.

Not for nothing is it writ large, there are none so blind as those who will not see!
Alan B.

Dearest Foxy,

I can't stand Pell. I've always been an atheist, and if anything, from a proddy background.

In Scotland, I think the system allows for three sorts of verdicts in such trials: guilty, not guilty and not proven.

Without corroborating evidence, it seems that Pell was found guilty on the word of one person, and no physical evidence whatever. Maybe there was more evidence presented in court, but on the face of it, I'm very worried (Jesus, me, worried for a sanctimonious hypocrite like Pell !) that justice was not served well in this case.

Try this: imagine someone who you admire greatly, Dr di Natale or Kerryn Phelps or Bernie Sanders - now imagine that someone has accused them of some vile crime, committed twenty years ago. No evidence, only their say-so, spoken passionately with extreme honesty pouring out of their eyes and dripping with the burden of covering up a crime for so long.

In such a scenario, one might have misgivings about di Natale or Phelps or Sanders' guilt. Is the evidence enough to convict ? Is there more to the story ? Is it a complete, but honest and delusional, fabrication ? Are such things possible ?

The big question now is whether or not an appeals court would uphold the verdict on the basis of the evidence available. If no, then Pell goes free, forever, no more trials (at least not involving this witness). Free as a bird.

You've got to get it water-tight right, not just "Yeah, the bastard, that'll do."

Joe

David, we are more than flesh and bone. Which is just a vehicle we use to exist in the physical relm.

An interesting study done in France some years ago. Put cadavers on precise scales minutes after they died. To find that the scales moved quite suddenly around three quaters of an hour after clinical death, to suddenly record a lighter weigh of several ounces in a moment.

Not able to be explained by dehydration or any other normal occurance. An athelite's muscalature is strong before we die, yet minutes after the life force departs those same muscles tear and are rent asunder by half the load they were capable of bearing in life!

As a reurning and breifly clinically dead eyewitness, I can confirm that there is not only a life beyound this one, but one we are able to see it with our spiritual sensory equipment.

Moreover, if there is indeed a hell in the afterlife? Why not a heaven? And given those very real possibilities?

Why not intelligent design however you believe it to be? I look back on a life which has purpose, even the bad parts, for that has molded me and the character I am and have today.

You and I remain free to believe what we will! However, no matter the strength of those beliefs, but particularrly those spported by not so much as a single shred of evidence, could easily be fallacious.
Cheers, Alan B.

If the standard of not allowing uncorroborated testimony to enable a conviction then Pell's one time room mate Ridsdale would likely still be walking the streets. That evil man abused probably hundreds of kids yet the church even allowed him to have a lad stay with him and suffer daily abuse.

"The Commission heard many stories from victims including one who was sent to live alone with Ridsdale at age 14 at the presbytery in Mortlake. The victim said he was "sexually abused all the time just about every day" and the Commission heard evidence that Ronald Mulkearns was among a number of clergy who knew Ridsdale had a boy living with him, but failed to intervene. It was also found that every boy at the school at Mortlake between the age of 10 and 16 had been abused by Gerard Ridsdale." Wikipedia

To my knowledge the abuse always happened one on one and when it was flagged it was always just the victim's word against his.

Were his convictions unjust as you are claiming for Pell's?

Dear Joe,

As Senator Kristina Keneally pointed out on
Monday night's emotional episode of "Q&A" -

"Anyone who is passing comment on the jury
verdict, unless they were in the room every
day, heard everything the jury heard, had access
to all the information the jury had, they're actually
doing a great disservice."

"They're doing a disservice to our democratic jury
system and I'm quite surprised and distressed that
people like John Howard and Tony Abbott, but
particularly John Howard are running the type of
commentary and providing support publicly for
Cardinal Pell following his conviction."

"I think it's disrespectful of the jury verdict. I
also would reflect it's quite disrespectful of victims."

She went on to stress that the main reason victims often
fail to come forward is because they don't think they're
going to be believed. We have had a legal process. Due
process. A trial. A jury has rendered a decision.
And now we have people out there casting doubt on that
decision because they say they know this man and they
don't believe he could have done it. Some are claiming
lack of evidence yet how do they know what evidence
was presented to the jury. They don't.

We should have faith in the integrity of our legal
system. Of course the Cardinal has a right to lodge
his appeal and we can all believe that it will be
treated appropriately. However as the Senator said -
the disregard that is being shown to the jury and
the disrespect that is being shown to victims by this
public commentary is quite extraordinary.

Well said Foxy.

Interesting that this essay was originally published in The Wanderer.

Saint Jesus of Galilee who was never ever in any sense a Christian was of course a wanderer, and outsider who taught and demonstrated the Spirit-Breathing Way of Truth on the margins of the Jewish culture in which he lived.
He was of course also scathingly critical of both the political and ecclesiastical establishments of his time and place. For which he was then executed by the Roman State as a public "trouble-maker" with the deliberate collusion of the said ecclesiastical "authorities".

Regardless of the justice re George Pell's conviction he is a very senior figure in the worlds largest official institutional "religion".
And like all "catholic" cardinals, and the "catholic" church altogether, he is very much a key player in the powerful political establishments of most countries in today's world (and for the past 1500 years or so.
Political and "religious" power which is wrongly protected by supposedly binding state laws as described here:
http://www.concordatwatch.eu

So what would Saint Jesus have to say about the "religious" and political establishment in which George Pell is a powerful participant?
Would he be in any sense welcome at the Vatican or in any of the palaces in which the cardinals or "princes (ponces) of the church" live (oft times in a sea of wretched poverty).

Foxy,

Is that the same 'Q&A' that the ABC said is just for entertainment and not to be taken seriously?

Steele,

Nok, just insufficient. Imagine some right-wing government which grabbed lefties like you and me off the streets, charged them with, um, something, anything, it wouldn't matter, get some stooge to make some sort of accusation and, bang, bullet in the back of the head. Neo-liberal bastards

Imagine how some genuinely right-wing government could execute any leftists without any actual evidence of wrong-doing. Do you think this hasn't happened before ? Do you remember Pinochet ? The Greek generals ? The Argentine generals ? Chiang Kai-She ? Lon Nol ? Marcos ? Various Arab governments, all fascist but some even claiming to be socialist ? People disappearing without even a phony trial in so many countries ?

Evidence - and surely more was presented at Pell's trial than we are allowed to know about, otherwise it's an obvious travesty - is surely vital, not just hearsay or he-said/he-said ?

'Not proven' would surely have been the most progressive answer ? Even for a turd like Pell ?

Cheers,

Joe

Oh Is Mise

And don't forget Q&A is on "that bad left communist ABC TV"

So any sound, caring, arguments voiced on ABC can be dismissed by OLO's sad band of rightwingers.

Daffy

as usual you show an appalling understanding of theology and most other things but you raise an interesting thing by askin
'So what would Saint Jesus have to say about the "religious" and political establishment in which George Pell is a powerful participant?'

Personally I think Jesus would be appalled at the Catholic church and its history. This of course does not make Pell guilty. I am also convinced Jesus would be appalled at the slaughter of unborn babies by heartless godless people

Hear, hear and well said Foxy and Pete!
Cheers, Alan B.

Dear Loudmouth,

Are you really comparing a trial before 12 good citizens who included a church pastor, not one of whom were rejected by Pell's defence team, to phony trials in dictatorships and arbitrary executions?

I hope not because that would be ludicrous.

Now you have not addressed the point I raised about Ridsdale's victims. I recall no DNA sampling being taken, no collaborating witnesses but rather the testimony of victims, yet he was found guilty of abusing over a hundred girls and boys.

Is each of those convictions tainted by virtue of them being decided by only the testimony of the abused?

Do you want Ridsdale released because it was "just hearsay or he-said/he-said"?

And well said Alan B.

Your post at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=20194&page=0#356935

It must be difficult to recount what you've been through, mate.

The perverse sadism of Holy Men who choose to violate little children.

Daffy Duck,

"Saint Jesus of Galilee who was never ever in any sense a Christian was of course a wanderer..."

here you hit upon a Great theological imponderable, how indeed could Jesus Christ be a follower of Himself?

How could Elizabeth II be a subject of herself?

How could Bill Shorten be a loyal follower of Bill Shorten?

I eagerly await your reply.

plantagenet,

I was merely recounting what the ABC management said about 'Q&A'.

It wasn't me that said that the program wasn't to be taken seriously.

Foxy,
I recall seeing a TV segment where Howard and Abbott were asked about Pells conviction. As I recall Howard said the matter was going to appeal and he could not comment. Abbott, I think, gave a similar answer. If that is so, Keneally is wrong in that neither offered support for Pell. I do not recall anything that I saw as whether Pell was guilty or not and nothing disrespectful of the jury.

Joe,
You may have noticed that SR left out the fact that, according to Wikipedia, Ridsdale pleaded guilty to the charges so the accuracy of the victims stories is irrelevant.

Present case.
Unless the court releases some aspect of the accusers statement that is really outstanding, the present situation sets a precedent for conviction on allegations alone which goes against our whole judicial system.

According to the "Guardian" the need for proof was set aside because prosecutors were frustrated in getting convictions in these cases.

I cannot see how we allowed this to occur. Our system requires proof

OK Is Mise

Point taken.

Pete

Taswegian.
If the jury accepted the witness as being credible, that is all you need. Remember Pell was not put on the stand to respond on his own behalf.

David

Alan B writes: "Let me conclude by witnessing, that hell is a very real place, a thousand times more terrifying than your very worst nightmare."

"Let you"? Had I been invested with the authority, the letting would be denied and the drivel you assert would not have polluted this page. Fie on your hubristic presumption to "know" by witnessing hell to so diverse a readership. Your witness is merely a smug presumption by you to knowing the mind of your deity. But, if there's anything the average christion clings desperately to it's to "know" the mind of their god. It raises them from the pit of self abnegation to a level of worth that is generally pitied by the rational in society.

Not 100 times worse, not 999 times worse, but 1000 times worse. Only the religiously afflicted could utter such an infantile claim and not anticipate a 99% devastation of their credibility.

And further along we read: "....we are all of us, even Cardinals, just flawed human beings."

Yes, created flawed by their maker and ordered to be perfect on pain of disposal in a place "a thousand times more terrifying than your very worst nightmare." And the gift of "free will"? It's like giving a child a broken toy for christmas. The gift is either flawed or the creation was so deeply flawed that it was created unable to use the gift of free will to its creator's satisfaction.

Was this omnipotent, omniscient and ubiquitous creator, "being the very epitome of love personified and understanding", not in complete control of the whole kit and kaboodle? Is this thing, this agency, this force, this spirit, this deity so basely motivated as to gift his creation with something that would serve only to deepen the iniquity of their nature?

This puppet-master is surely a deceiver, a sower of iniquity, a concept fully worthy of annihilation and purging from human memory.

.

“Beyond reasonable doubt” !

.

Cardinal Pell’s lawyers are confident that not only their request for a repeal trial will be granted but that it will succeed and their client declared innocent.

Their key argument is that it all boils down to “my word against yours”, a one on one confrontation between the accuser and the accused, with no witness and no material evidence.

This is a classic situation in which there is no way of knowing with absolute certainty who is telling the truth and who is lying. There is necessarily doubt. And the benefit of the doubt is attributed to the accused by application of the sacrosanct principle of the presumption of innocence. The accuser is presumed to be lying. That is the law.

The fact that all twelve members of the jury considered that Cardinal Pell was guilty “beyond reasonable doubt” should normally be judged “unreasonable” in terms of the law by the appellate court judges.

“Innocent until proven guilty” is the very noble principle that underpins the concept of justice in all modern democracies. It constitutes an invincible barrier of legal protection for the innocent but, alas, also for the guilty. It is an effective means of guaranteeing legal immunity to sex offenders and denying justice to the millions of victims it was designed to protect. In its present form justice is counter-productive. It achieves exactly the opposite result to that for which it was intended. Instead of preventing and punishing crime it encourages and facilitates it.

Commenting on the doctrine in "A Treatise on Judicial Evidence" (1825), the English philosopher and jurist, Jeremy Bentham, wrote :

« Between Plaintiff and Defendant, the presumption ought to be in favour of the former, to the prejudice of the latter. The probability in favour of the former, because he voluntarily submits his right to the decision of justice; but the defendant appears in spite of himself »

In my view, this should be adopted in the case of children under the age of 18 who are easy prey and the prime target of sex offenders.

.

@Pogi, Tuesday, 5 March 2019 11:44:20 PM

"This puppet-master is surely a deceiver, a sower of iniquity, a concept fully worthy of annihilation and purging from human memory."

Ah-ha, you've been reading Karl Marx again, who wrote - "The idea of God is the keynote of a perverted civilization. It must be destroyed."

Plagiarism in comments now. Gosh Pogi, you should have at least given reference to the original source. To not do so is academically unethical. Naughty.

HenryL.,

John Howard gave Cardinal Pell a character reference
for his court hearings and he also stated that his
opinion of the Cardinal did not change after the
conviction.

Richard Cooke writing in The Guardian asks the question -
"What happens when the Australian Establishment lines
up behind a convicted paedophile?"

"Supporting a convicted paedophile is morally wrong -
was an uncontroversial statement in Australia a few days
ago. It is no longer and that change - really a tectonic
one has shifted the grounds of debate so far it is hard
for some to know where to stand. It is a shift that began
immediately after Cardinal George Pell's conviction on
child sexual abuse charges were announced."

Cooke goes on to say "Pell's defenders cannot be shamed.
A man has been found guilty of orally raping two 13 year"
old boys and now people are willing to protect him."

"Ray Hadley is almost alone among conservatives in backing
the verdict reached by the jury or at least respecting it.
Ï think it would have been more prudent to allow justice
to take its course before a public exhibition of the
support for a now-convicted paedophile, he said."

"Ït's impossible to put ourselves in the position of the jury
because they're the only ones who heard that evidence."

Richard Cooke tells us that "the law is complex and an
appeals process is still to take place. But Pell's
defenders have not decided on his guiltlessness after a
careful review of the evidence. They don't know what
the evidence is. They have not sat in on the trial, or
reviewed its transcripts. It seems that they did not - and
this is damning - even take the time or
have the inclination to read unsuppressed
media reports before weighing in."

"Apparently these crimes are unthinkable. How could a man
of such seniority and such faith commit such acts? Why would
he act so publicly and so spontaneously? why had his victims
taken so long to come forward?"

cont'd...

cont'd ...

HenryL.,

Cooke asks, "Where have these people been? Did these
past decades of institutional child abuse never
happen? Were they looking away the whole time? Has
everything we learned painfully about the damage it
does and its shame been unlearned? Can it be still
unrecognised that abusers groom whole communities
as well as individual children? Of all the
implausible excuses available, surely,
"But how could a priest do this?"must rank close to
the top."

Cooke explains that "when this is the response even to
a conviction you know why victims fear they will be
disbelieved and discredited. That fear is correct,
warranted and will be made stronger than ever before
by this disgrace."

"On top of this straw-clutching is a layer of active
disinformation, lying, and irrelevance. It is not
true that priests rarely abuse their victims..."

Cooke goes on to refer to the "tens of thousands of case
files. How many more are needed?" he asks.

He explains that "these files also find priests who raped
children not just in the sacristy... they molested children
not only in public but in front of their own family
members, sometimes in the same moving car. They raped them
while wearing vestments not only orally but anally as well.
That same untieable cincture had been used to bind the
hands ofa 16 year old boy who was then raped so
viciously he needed corrective surgery."

Öpportunistic priests have acted in windows of time not just
after mass, but on school excursion in public toilets.
They have molested every daughter in a five-daughter family."

Finally in summing up Cooke says, "So what about Pell's
case is implausible or even unusual?"

" For anyone willing to look it's almost humdrum once
compared to the vast prolific compendium of international
crime his institution has compiled."

"Unthinkable? What his defenders mean is they cannot bear
thinking about it."

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/01/the-inconsistencies-of-george-pells-defenders-just-displays-their-power

Dear HenryL,

This is a witness account of giving testimony.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-06/paedophile-deacon-changed-me-my-daughter-taught-me-survivor/10872444

Quote
I testified for two days in a remote witness room and I'll never forget its every detail.
The smell of the antiseptic attempting to cover up the vomit from survivors before me. My sudden tears when I saw a battered teddy bear in the attached waiting room — children aren't allowed to take one in lest it's prejudicial to the jury.
Ice blocks so cold they burned my fingers, to stop me from dissociating — to keep me aware of my surroundings, so I wouldn't get lost in the memory.
The dozens of white envelopes full of evidence uncovered by the criminal investigation: photos of me as a child, layouts of bedrooms, back rooms and church halls. Letters written over the years by me and those I'd loved. The story of my lost life, handed to me then yanked away again.
One photo was of my childhood bed: white frilled doona cover, blossom trees outside my window. Pink and white.
Aitchison raped me on that bed and now I had to relive it: what he did, what I was wearing, whether I fought him. My body parts were described with foreign, technical names. I touched the photo in front of me, and the last tendrils of dignity fell away. I cried then. Really humiliating tears that tore sounds from my throat that no human should make.
The judge called a recess and my nose began to bleed heavily. The Sheriff said this happens a lot — our bodies aren't designed for the kind of stress testifying involves. She told me about a little girl who testified against a family member in a white dress with red cherries. The judge called a recess when her nose started bleeding but she didn't stop talking, so they kept her testifying. "By the time she finished, her dress wasn't white anymore."
End quote.

Aitchison was sentenced to 9 years in jail based on what you would call uncorroborated evidence.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/national/act/former-canberra-anglican-priest-jailed-for-historic-rapes-20180813-p4zx91.html

Do you want him to be set free too?

Having been felt up by a few blokes when I was teenager, just hand up the leg stuff, (you gently pushed their hand away and broke off all contact thenceforth), I have no time for pedophiles and would-be pedophiles. If Pell is guilty, he's probably guilty of sexual abuse hundreds of times over fifty years, since I don't think pedophiles change, they just get craftier and more calculating. They never give up.

So I wish Pell was guilty. But not on the pissy bit of evidence that we are aware of: he-said/he-said. Perhaps there's more than we don't hear about. It's a tragedy that many more witnesses didn't come forward to present their stories AND have some sort of backup. But if there are other cases, dreadful as they may be, some of which may even involve Pell, then the opportunity to present them in court has now gone.

Sexual abuse is about power, stronger over weaker, older men over boys, men over women, older men over younger women. Some of us have known far too many lovely young people who have been dreadfully abused, and, with no community support, have topped themselves. It's the lowest and vilest crime.

But an accusation still has to be proven: without some corroboration in this case, all a jury should have found was a verdict of "not proven". Unless there's much more to the case against Pell than assertions.

The problem is that Pell may win an appeal on those grounds, and go free forever, free as a bird.

Joe

Dear Joe,

how do we know what the evidence presented to
the jury was? Anyone who is passing comment on
the jury verdict - unless as Kristina Keneally
pointed out - they were in the room every day,
they heard everything the jury heard, they had
access to all the information the jury had - they're
actually doing a great disservice. Not only to
our democratic jury system but to the victims as
well.

We've had a legal process. Due process. A trial.
A jury has rendered a decision. The Cardinal has a
right to lodge his appeal and I believe it will be
treated appropriately. But the disregard that is
being shown to the jury and the disrespect that is
being shown to victims by this sort of commentary is
quite extraordinary.

Foxy,
I read the article by Richard Cooke but his honesty and integrity left me in the second paragraph, when he stated the accusations of sexual abuse of aboriginal kids was false. He was referring to the 'children are angels' report and went on to say that the response from the then PM was to 'send in the army'. If nothing else the Tennent Creek case verified the truth, so I classify Cooke's article as rubbish. Political garbage!

There is no doubt that cases of child abuse are sickening and I have read many, and some from the USA and Ireland. I would impose the maximum penalty for those proven. However they have to be proven. The base of our system is on proof. According to the 'Guardion' conviction can now be obtained by allegations on their own, which appears to be the case against Pell. Unless there is some dramatic evidence still to be released, he should be acquitted in my view. Justice must also be seen.

HenryL.,

Perhaps the honesty and integrity of Mrs Chrissie Foster
may appeal to you more:

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/chrissie-foster-on-the-conversation-of-george-pell/10851846

Foxy,
I have watched the link of Mrs Foster and her full statement to the commission and, of course, I feel empathy for her and family. I also feel for the other victims of sexual and physical abuse.

I would like the perpetrators brought to justice but I do not think that compromising the standard of evidence required in our courts is fair and reasonable. According to the 'Guardian' this has already taken place so we must prevent further erosion of the standard of evidence. Simply requiring the judge to advise the jury to be careful is not good enough. It is the thin edge of the wedge.

When there is a word-on-word situation and no other evidence the defendant must be acquitted, unless he or she pleads guilty.

HenryL
That might be OK if the defendant is prepared to take the stand, but when he is hiding behind a barrister, and the witness for the prosecution comes across as a very credible person, the guilty verdict seems very reasonable to me and in this case also, the jury.
David

Dear VK3AUU,

Indeed.

And what HenryL is studiously avoiding is answering whether other clergy who have been convicted on the testimony of victims many years after the fact should now be released and left to roam our streets preying on our young.

Aitchison still asserts his innocence even though he is serving 9 years for repeatedly raping a then young girl.

There was no forensic evidence offered, no DNA, no collaborating eye witnesses just her testimony.

She was found to be believable before a jury, he was not. He is now serving time.

HenryL would now have that man released and consider his incarceration a grave injustice.

Bunkum.

.

Basis of Cardinal Pell’s appeal :

.

"The VERDICTS ARE UNREASONABLE and cannot be supported, having regard to the evidence, because on the whole of the evidence, including unchallenged exculpatory evidence from more than 20 Crown witnesses, IT WAS NOT OPEN TO THE JURY to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt on the word of the complainant alone," the appeal document states.

The other grounds allege there was a "fundamental irregularity" in the trial process that prevented Cardinal Pell from entering a not guilty plea in front of the jury, and that the judge erred in not allowing the defence to show the jury a "moving visual representation" that supported the Cardinal’s claim of innocence.

Sydney-based barrister Bret Walker SC will lead Cardinal Pell’s high-powered legal team for the appeal trial, taking over from defence barrister Robert Richter QC once Pell has been sentenced on March 13. Both Pell's application to the court for leave to appeal and the appeal itself, if permission is granted, will be heard on June 5 and 6.

Cardinal Pell’s appeal lawyer, Bret Walker, represented MPs including previous deputy prime minister Barnaby Joyce in High Court hearings over dual citizenship in 2017, and reportedly commanded up to $15,000 a day when he represented former prime minister Kevin Rudd at a royal commission into the failed pink batt scheme in 2014.
.

If, as seems likely, Cardinal Pell is granted leave to appeal the jury’s decision of 11 December and the appeal is successful, it is not difficult to imagine the outburst of indignation this will cause.

As I indicated in my post on page 6 of this thread, the problem is that the sacrosanct principle of the “presumption of innocence” should not apply for sex crimes. The nature of such crimes is such that, invariably, there are no witnesses and no material evidence. It is impossible to obtain a conviction under such circumstances.

There should be NO PRESUMPTION OF EITHER INNOCENCE OR GUILT. Each case should be judged solely on its merits. THE LAW MUST BE CHANGED – and the sooner the better !

.

Banjo,
There is material evidence. It is the fact that because of the acts of Pell, a man has taken his life and the life of the witness himself has been affected. I agree with you that in the cases of sexual abuse the law needs to be changed, but it is a very difficult area, but, particularly in the area of clerical abuse where some memebers of secular juries may be more inclined to accept the word of a man of the cloth as apparently happened in the first trial.

David

David,

Interesting: you write about the possibility of some jurors who might be " ...... more inclined to accept the word of a man .... " Which man ? Pell's or the accuser ? One man's assertion against another's ? Accept the word of somebody with no other evidence ?

Yes, sexual abuse is a vile crime, of power and the devaluing of the victim, of deviously plotting and entrapping someone less powerful. But like any other accusation, one of rape and/or sexual abuse surely has to be backed up ? Otherwise, how can you distinguish between malicious lies and rock-solid truth ?

Authoritarian societies throughout history have relied on hearsay, on 'witnesses' and the devaluation of counter-evidence - to paraphrase Marx, give them a fair trial and then shoot them (that's Groucho Marx). But in a society governed by the rule of law, anybody, even Pell, is presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty, and that should have meant some evidence other than say-so. I would have dearly loved something more substantial, and incontrovertible, but I suspect that an appeals court will find the case against Pell 'not proven' and throw it out. And he'll walk.

Cheers,

Joe

It used to be that the law could not give weight to
a single complainant's evidence unless there was also
a witness who said the victim told them about the
abuse at the time, or unless there was evidence showing
the victim was distressed immediately after the attack.

This may be why Pell's lawyer Richter made so much of
the fact that the victim did not speak out until he was
an adult.

But courts have been frustrated by the lack of successful
prosecutions against sex offenders and the unfairness to
victims. So, evidence requirements have changed due to
the fact that there is overwhelming evidence that shows
many victims do not speak about their abuse until decades
later.

The vast majority of sexual assault cases now come down to
the complainant's word.

Also to ensure trials are still fair - the legislation now
requires the judge to give jurors very specific directions
to balance any unfairness against the defence or complainant
when it comes to word on word cases.

Jurors are commonly told they must consider that the
defendant may be deprived of an alibi (if the complainant
cannot specify the time of the alleged offence) and is at
significant forensic disadvantage due to the passage of
time.

They are told it is up to prosecutors to prove guilt, not up
to the defence to prove innocence.

They are told it is not uncommon for child abuse victims
to forget exact dates and peripheral details, or to
report only as an adult.

The jurors in the Pell case were given clear, repeated
directions along these lines.

The robes Pell wore during the offending were brought into
court and tendered as an exhibit. The jurors were able to
examine and hold these robes in their jury room during
deliberations.

Monsignor Charles Portelli demonstrated to jurors how the
cincture was tied around the waist. It was pointed out that
having a cincture around the waist did not restrict
movement from the waist down. There were slits that
allowed access to trousers.

cont'd ...

cont'd ...

The jurors saw the robes, were able to hold them and
heard all the evidence from both parties as to their
manoevrability.

Allegations from Pell's past have continued to surface
over the decades. In 2017 he was charged with historic
sex offences against multiple complainants which lead to
last year's conviction.

People want leaders to speak frankly about the problems
and the desire to get greater transparency within church
structures.

The most important issue now is not just reforming areas
of the Church relating to allegations of child sexual
abuse but increasing transparency across the entire
institution.

SR,
Do you always make things up or are you just incapable of telling the truth? With the case of Ridsdale you neglected to inform us that he pleaded guilty.

Now you falsely claim that the ACT conviction of a priest named Aitchison was made with only word on word evidence. Similar to the Pell case!

a few clicks soon found that the prosecution did indeed present material evidence. Added to that Aitchison had a list of previous convictions for child sex offences and he had subjected the victim to rape and sexual assault on numberous occasions over a long period. He also engaged in the grooming of the victim and her mother.

There is nothing remotely similar to the Pell case and yet you claim without unproven evidence he would have walked free with my blessing.

You now have been caught out spouting untruths again and your credibility is below zero. No wonder I usually do not bother replying to your stupid and outrageous claims.

This is a classic example that convictions for child sex offences can be obtained and the prosecutors congratulated.

Joe,

"Having been felt up by a few blokes when I was teenager, just hand up the leg stuff, (you gently pushed their hand away and broke off all contact thenceforth),..."

Have had similar experiences, one of which nearly led to tragedy;
I was a young soldier (21) and was standing in the train going towards Strathfield (Sydney), a bloke put his fingers in the fly of my pants, I reacted violently, slapped an armlock on him and threw him out the door (no automatic doors in those days), fortunately the train was almost stopped at Strathfield and he only skidded a bit along the platform and looked to have jumped out early and fell, he got up and took off at a rate.

Elderly gent standing as well, asked me why so I told him and he said: "Pity it didn't happen a bit earlier."
However, had the groper been killed I'd have been in big trouble.

.

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, has just been found guilty of covering up child sexual abuse by priests and received a 6 months suspended jail sentence. The prosecution had not even asked for condemnation !

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/

.

.

Dear David (VK3AUU),

.

You wrote :

« There is material evidence. It is the fact that because of the acts of Pell, a man has taken his life and the life of the witness himself has been affected »

You may be right David, but you have to be able to prove that there is a direct link of cause and effect between those three events that you mention : "the acts of Pell", "a man has taken his life" and "the life of the witness himself".

What evidence or proof is there ? Do you know if this was clearly demonstrated during the trial ?

.

voxUnius writes p6: "Ah-ha, you've been reading Karl Marx again, who wrote - "The idea of God is the keynote of a perverted civilization. It must be destroyed.""

One wonders where you may have discovered that I was committing plagiarism against Karl Marx. While I have a book reprinting some of his articles published in the New York Herald Tribune between 1853 and 1860, titled MARX ON CHINA in my own library, I've not had the time to read it. I profess a sparse acquaintance with Marx's works, I have never read, in an academic context, anything he has written.

Added to which, you are stretching credibility for your charge against me. I wrote, "This puppet-master is surely a deceiver, a sower of iniquity, a concept fully worthy of annihilation and purging from human memory." And when we compare my observation with Marx's it is obvious that they share a single word only. That word is "is". The fact that Marx and I share a similar opinion of theism and religion certainly cannot be held up as plagiarism, such an accusation has no merit whatsoever and smacks of frivolous puerile mischief on the part of the accuser.

Unequivocally, I reject your accusations of plagiarism and of unethical academic pursuits. Such accusations are baseless. Were you so deeply concerned with ethical conduct, you would display the good grace to withdraw your observations and apologise to readers for wasting space that could have been filled by other more worthy contributors.

.

In case you missed it :

.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/french-cardinal-convicted-of-failing-to-report-abuse-90545

.

.

"Children-check row shows Catholic church has ‘learned nothing’, says senator"

.

Here is another interesting article that appeared in "The Guardian" dated 8 March 2019 :

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/mar/08/children-check-row-shows-catholic-church-has-learned-nothing-says-senator?utm_term=RWRpdG9yaWFsX0d1YXJkaWFuVG9kYXlBVVMtMTkwMzA5&utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=GuardianTodayAUS&CMP=GTAU_email

.

Enoy your future 15 minutes of fame all you Holy Men, still at large, who grope kiddies.

That reminds me of a P.G. Wodehouse quote:

"I'm not absolutely certain of the facts,
but I rather fancy it's Shakespeare who
says that it's always just when a fellow
is feeling particularly braced with things
in general that Fate sneaks up behind him
with the bit of lead piping."

Pell had no chance.

It was as if he had, "I am the catholic church" tattooed across his forehead, & it was the church, not one individual member on trial.

I never expected to feel sorry for a high officer of any church, but a fair trial the man did not get.

Dear Hasbeen,

How's it going old cock? Good to see you back in the saddle.

You say "I never expected to feel sorry for a high officer of any church, but a fair trial the man did not get."

I'm wondering why you feel that? I assume you did not hear the evidence presented, nor the deliberations of the jury, nor would you have read the full judgement.

So pray tell how have you arrived at your erstwhile conclusion that a convicted abuser is innocent of all crimes?

Even if his appeal is successful, his credibility is shot. He has already been found guilty in the court of public opinion. You only need to go to the Archdiocese of Ballarat and talk to some of the ex pupils of St.Alipius to reinforce that conclusion.
David

Foxy and David, Pell did not do it, but I don't doubt there are trolls in force on the net, spreading disinformation. Legal litigation is big business.

When we agree to be a citizen of a country we agree to follow its laws and its systems.

George Pell was given a fair hearing and was found guilty. You don’t t have to to believe he is guilty, but he is in the eyes of the law and will serve time for the crimes he has been found guilty of!

If Pell didn't get a fair trial, it's because the Catholic Church created an environment of very bad PR for him. They are to blame for all their problems, nobody else. Everyday Catholics have been shamefully silent about their Church's lack of action for victims. The Vatican refuses to give up its arrogance. And so it has made its bed, now its Australian Cardinal and Catholics must lie, and rot in it. We non-Catholics watch this with a satisfying, peaceful feeling of finally, justice.

Now to begin imprisoning all the other child abusing Catholic priests who have destroyed thousands of lives...