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/

.