cont'd ...

Anyone who's passing comment on the jury verdict as
Senator Kristina Keneally stated on Monday night's
emotional episode of "Q&A":

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 to the
victims of child sexual abuse.

I have faith in the integrity of our legal system. I believe
that Cardinal Pell has a right to lodge an appeal and I
believe it will be treated appropriately. But the disregard
that is being shown to the jury and to victims by this
public commentary is quite extraordinary and frankly it should
stop.

.

Dear Shadow Minister,

.

You wrote :

« The moment you abandon the principle of presumption of innocence, then essentially the accused has to prove his innocence and the jury becomes a lynch mob where guilt is subjective and based on personal feelings rather than hard evidence »
.

What I am suggesting is not simply “abandoning the presumption of innocence” but judging sex crimes on their merits, without making any presuppositions whatsoever – especially, presumptions of innocence or guilt. That seems to me a much fairer basis on which to judge sex crimes whose characteristics of intimacy, secrecy, profound psychological damage, shame and fear of social ostracism, often have the disabling effect of inhibiting all possible recourse to the police and the courts for as long as 20, 30 or even 40 years – if not forever.

It requires a lot of courage to undertake that procedure. Only 4.25% are successful, which is why 75% of the victims don’t even try. It is a highly dissuasive uphill battle, full of obstacles and pitfalls, a real marathon and a terrible ordeal for the few brave souls who undertake it.

If 95.75% of sex crimes go unpunished, it is not because all the perpetrators are necessarily innocent. It is because 75% of the crimes are not even brought before the courts and the other 20.75% are acquitted for lack of proof of guilt and, therefore, receive the legal benefit of the presumption of innocence.
.

« The purpose of this presumption is that before the state robs a person of his human rights and liberty that a case needs to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. There are already too many people falsely imprisoned »

Regrettably, the state (our Institutional Monarchy) is already “robbing” many of its valued citizens today of their human rights and liberty simply by the inappropriate application of the sacrosanct principle of the presumption of innocence when judging sex crimes : 95.75% of the victims are deprived of their right to justice. The same percentage of perpetrators are granted legal immunity.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued ...)

.

In my view, for sex crimes, prosecution and defence should present their arguments and evidence on an equal footing, without any prior presumption of innocence or guilt in favour of just one of the parties – in the pursuit of justice within the adversarial system. The standard of proof for judgement should be based on the “balance of probabilities”, which essentially means more likely than not (more than 50% sure) – not, as at present, on the notion of “beyond reasonable doubt” (95% sure).

Naturally, nothing is perfect, but I expect that the modifications that I advocate would bring the scale of justice back closer to its point of equilibrium than at present and significantly reduce the huge stockpile of injustices that our judiciary system continues to generate year after year at an alarming rate.

.

.

Oops !

I meant to write “(our Constitutional Monarchy)” – of course – not “(our Institutional Monarchy)”.

Sorry about that …

.

Major stitch. Total hoax. I wrote to the Crikey website this morning. Crikey’s article says "Someone committing the ultimate profanity of child sexual assault at the heart of the sacred? That’s not an impossibility, it’s a Law and Order:SVU episode". In other words, Crikey is literally saying that the event is a fictional event, written by a scriptwriter.
I e-mailed kelso lawyers last night. Their website has an article dated 30.6.2017 which does not say anything bad about Pell, but suggests he is going to be stitched up. The website says "But his name will never be cleared now, even if he is found innocent. There is hardly any chance of Pell winning these cases".
Is this what Milo meant when he said that the word was out that Pell was going to be stitched up? Kelso lawyers web page seems to be evidence that at least they thought that a stitch up was going to take place.
I still think the evidence against Pell is absurd. I assume that the witness is lying, or deluded. I assume there is nothing unusual about a witness discussing their evidence with a lawyer. In this case I think the witness has been fed his lines by the lawyer (a scriptwriter with an over-excited imagination, perhaps smoking crack).

Peter Bowden says " 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.