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.