As always only two people know the truth.
The victim and the perpetrator.

The victim and the perpetrator.
ateday,
Yes but the problem is that the victim tends to exaggerate the truth & the perpetrator plays down the truth ! Meanwhile integrity flies out the window !

Weaknesses also in police procedures, particularly in Victoria. One wonders if Cardinal Pell would have had to endure such a shocking ordeal in any other of the Australian states. Victoria is very definitely a fly over or drive around state now, thanks to its Marxist, toadying-to-Communist-China Andrews government. But, of course, there is always the insidious billion dollar ABC and the Red Press spreading their sleazy lies all over the nation.

It's a toss up as to what we have to fear the most: Communist China or our increasingly Soviet-style system. Given all the new powers the Australian government has granted itself as a result of the Chinese virus (a try out to see what they might be able to get away with in the future) the enemy within seems to be the priority for those willing to resist.

I`ve never had to be on trial or even do jury duty but have always thought that this system could never be completely impartial.
Everything is subjective. Objectiveness/objectivity is impossible.

We have an adversarial system where it is a question of winners and losers, not the exposure ever of the unvarnished truth! And we'd rather see a thousand guilty go free than incarcerate a single innocent man, allegedly.

Mr Pell was acquitted on a legal technicality, not the unvanished truth and still not exonerated by it, nor 12 good men nor the Victorian appeals court!

Nor indeed, I suspect, the court of public opinion? Nor a now seriously troubled Vatican, despite public assurance and visible support for Mr Pell, who is still under investigation by his peers, in that place!

I remain, without bias.
Alan B.

Alan B,

CARDINAL Pell was NOT acquitted on a technicality. Even a querulous old bore like you should know that reasonable doubt is not a technicality; it is part of our legal system.

CARDINAL Pell was acquitted, unanimously, by the High Court because the Court found that there was a strong likelihood that he had not committed any crime. You are on the 'losing' side on this one Alan. Get over it.

A pyrrhic victory if ever there was one! The Pell acquittal exposes a church using all its resources to clear the name of one man while it ducks and weaves to avoid compensating its victims.

Alan B, you cannot call the presumption of innocence a legal technicality. It is the whole basis of our legal system.
Any person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. In the case of Pell there was no evidence to support his guilt apart from the testimony of the victim, but plenty of evidence to make that charge seem impossible.
And this is the first I have heard of the fact that the initial complaint from the mother was not about Pell but about a parish priest at another church altogether. Which makes the whole issue even more unbelievable.

Estelles

Had you watched Andrew Bolt's interview with the Cardinal last night, you would know that the Church contributed NOTHING to his court costs. Costs were borne by himself and rich and not so rich ordinary people who believed in him. You anti-Catholic, anti-justice people are crippled by ignorance. You also missed the Cardinal say that he was ashamed of the Catholic church's response to proven abuses, and it was him who set compensation up well before he was persecuted by the ABC.

There is an interesting article in Quadrant Online today titled "Wilfred Burchett's Heirs and Imitators" that likens contemporary Left journalists, who tried to drag Archbishop Pell down, with the notorious Australian communist and Soviet sympathiser, William Burchett, who helped Stalin's Russia persecute another Cardinal in 40's Poland. Burchett was stripped of his Australian citizenship by the Menzies government, and died unlamented in a down at heel Communist sh.thole in Europe. It's a pity similar arrangements can't be made for Cardinal Pell's pack of media jackals imitating Burchett.

someone against the gw religion, perverting marriage and against women must be guilty. Just ask the Marxist propaganda of the abc, corrupt Victorian Police and a Yr 10 Judicial setup in Victoria. Never mind a man spending 400 days inside for so little evidence.

Legal academics have described the Pell case
as being acquitted on a technicality.

At the other extreme, his supporters suggest the
high court finding means Pell should never have
been prosecuted. This disparity highlights the
role of the legal system. Mr Andrew Bolt along
with many Pell supporters have questioned the role
of our national broadcaster, and the media in
general in this case. News Corp journalists and
commentators along with other supporters have
called the Pell case a "witch-hunt."
And worse.

The following link gives a reasonable explanation
of the disparities involved:

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/apr/15/andrew-bolt-and-the-abc-did-the-reporting-on-george-pell-step-over-a-line

For balance - it's worth watching both the Bolt Report
as well as the ABC's "Revelation," and reading The Guardian.

Personally I found the ABC's TV series "Revelation"
triple times more comPELLing than The Bolt Report.

Foxy, I dont know who your supposed legal experts are but the exact words from the 7 judges in the highest court in the land are

”With respect to each of the applicant's convictions, there was, consistently with the words the Court used in Chidiac v The Queen (1991) 171 CLR 432 at 444 and M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487 at 494, "a significant possibility that an innocent person has been convicted because the evidence did not establish guilt to the requisite standard of proof".

That does not imply a legal technicality, it goes to the very foundation of our legal system, that a person must be proven guilty, not just convicted on an accusation.

Foxy's regressive tactic again, Repeat a lie often enough in order to convince themselves of untruths

'Legal academics have described the Pell case
as being acquitted on a technicality.;

Funny how the regressives jumped to Jussie Smollets defense. Oh that's right it never made the fake news after he was exposed.

The Victorian Prosecution service refused to take up the case and made the Police Dept fund it. I wonder why ?
Also the court and the appeal court ignored the evidence that a witness
was at the front of the church with Pell talking with a number of
attendees at the service.
It wasn't a technicality, he couldn't have been in two places at the same time !

Hi Big Nana,

They're not "my"supposed legal experts.
And the web has been full of their recorded
articles. I'm surprised that you haven't read either
what's been on the web - or what I've been citing
on the forum in the Pell's acquitall discussion in
the general secion.

Anyway they included people like -

Prof. Ben Mathews, Prof. School of Law
Queensland University of Technology.

Bernard Thomas, Senior Lecturer, Queensland University of
Technology.

Professor Gideon Boas, a barrister and Professor of
Law at La Trobe University in Melbourne.

Dr Tyrone Kirchengast, a barrister and solicitor of the
high court.

And many more.

The Pelll case had a set of unique and complex circumstances.
Prof. David Hamer with the University of Sydney Law School
said that the Pell case was complex and even experts had
different readings and views of it and the high court
decision

Eventually Pell's freedom by the high court does not mean that
Cardinal Pell did not perpetrate the abhorent acts of which
he was convicted earlier - it only means that the
available evidence could not prove the crimes -
"beyond reasonable doubt."

The following link explains:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6715000/how-george-pell-won-in-the-high-court-on-a-legal-technicality

The high court is the highest court in the
Australian judicial system. The judges
did not accuse the young witness against
Pell of being a liar or a fantasist. They
did not find his evidence contained discrepancies
or displayed inadequacies.

As one commentator pointed out -

"Long term, the court's decision reinforces scepticism
in senior legal circles about prosecution of accusations
of sex crimes committed a long time ago."

"The question that has yet to be fully explored is how
the law operates here when time has placed everyone -
the accused, accusers, police, and prosecutors at such
a disadvantage."

Of course we have to respect the high court's decision.
I'm sure that it was carefully considered and well
founded in criminal law.

But perhaps reforms are now long overdue?

Nevertheless despite all the technical reasons he could not be in two
places at the same time !
Not unless he was Dr Who !

Bazz,

You're right. Cardinal Pell could not be in
two places at once. Obviously someone lied.
The jury believed witness J - not Pell's dresser -
Father Portelli's testimony. Another witness
had also come forward -
Pell's lawyer dropped his testimony.

Foxy, legally Pell is innocent because our legal system says you are innocent until proven guilty.
The one Victorian judge who upheld the appeal was the only one of the three judges who had any criminal law experience. The other two judges had none and so they based their whole argument on their emotional response to the victim. The experienced judge looked at the facts of the case and said that there was no proof that the crime was committed. He wrote a very long explanation of his reasons, and now his verdict has been supported by 7 High Court judges.
I know you want Pell to be guilty but fortunately our legal system has been salvaged and upheld and no disturbing legal precedent has been set.

Foxy,

It's not a question of who you believe. Without corroborating evidence a witness can be credible, consistent, etc and still lying through his teeth.

The focus on a single uncorroborated witness put Pell in the position of having to prove his innocence.

Pell's original conviction was a miscarriage of justice which was subsequently rectified.

Hi Big Nana,

No. Cardinal Pell is not innocent. He just
hasn't been found guilty. And no, I don't want him
to be guilty. I want him to be proven innocent.
He wasn't. It was merely found that the crimes
could not be proven. Our legal system needs
reforming.

As stated earlier, essentially Pell's given freedom
by the high court does not mean that Cardinal Pell
did not perpetrate the abhorrent acts of which he was
convicted earlier - it only means instead that
the available evidence could not prove the crimes
"beyond reasonable doubt."

As Professors of law have pointed out (I gave you some of
them in an earlier post):

"The very nature of sexual assault is complex. It regularly
occurs in private, the victims themselves are often the only
witnesses, there are generally long delays before disclosure,
there is rarely any physical evidence and the case often
centres on issues of credibility."

"We also have the entrenchment throughout society of
misconceptions and stereotypes abound victim/survivors
(often the victims are blamed for their own victimisation
and children routinely lieing)."

"These aspects pose a unique set of challenges to the
traditional judicial processing of cases."

Reforms need to move towards addressing how the system can be
more responsive to victims/survivors justice needs.

Foxy,

According to the legal system Pell is innocent. There is no requirement to prove one's innocence beyond reasonable doubt in any court in the free world otherwise Shorten would now be languishing in jail. The high court applied the rules of evidence without emotion or bias which the victorian judges failed to do.

Any case relying solely on the witness testimony of one involved witness will fail to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, irrespective of whether it is theft, jay walking, murder or rape. This principle is applied in Aus, NZ, the UK, the US, Canada, etc irrespective of the comments of the legal "experts" you quote.

That witnesses have lied convincingly for their own benefit is not news. There was not a shred of evidence presented in court that corroborated the witness's story.

SR,

No one "deserves" a day in court. In bringing a clearly deficient case to court the Victorian prosecution has exposed itself to massive liability. If they try to continue this witch hunt, Pell can sue them for millions.

Victoria is the only state that does not give the option of a judge only trial, this is a clear case where this failed.

Shadow, the Victorian prosecution did not bring the case.
They refused as the evidence was too weak, so the police did it.

Good Morning Shadow Minister,

People are certainly entitled to their opinions.
But they should not make irresponsible claims that
are supposedly based on "overwhelming evidence"
as Mr Andrew Bolt and others have done.

As the wife of a man who was sexually abused wrote
in her open letter to Bolt:

"Any opinion I have is irrelevant and ill informed,
because I am not privy to ALL the facts of the case."

"How about everyone stop trying to convince people
of Pell's innocence or guilt. It is not the most
important issue here."

"We have hundreds, potentially thousands of survivors
throughout Australia who have not yet come forward.
And when the likes of yourself, and other commentators,
use your public profile to cast doubt over the
outcome of a trial, you make these people even less
likely to come forward and get the assistance they so
desperately need."

This case is not about ideology nor different strands of
Catholicism nor about a man who was a lightning rod for
dissent in his church.

This case was about child protection.

In this case child protection lost.

The high court did not ask whether Pell committed the
offences. It asked whether the two majority judges in
the high court of appeal, in dismissing Pell's earlier
appeal, made an error about the nature of the correct
legal principles, or their application.

The high court's decision is also both for the
legal world and for society more broadly difficult or
even for many people it will be impossible
to understand how the unanimous jury verdicts of guilty,
further supported by a court of appeal, majority of two
judges, can be overturned.

This high court decision may undermine confidence in the
legal system, especially in child sexual abuse
prosecutions.

Civil legal actions against Pell are ongoing, so his
legal battles aren't over yet. More civil lawsuits may
well follow, especially after the release of the
royal commission's findings about his conduct in
Ballarat.

See you on another discussion. It's time to move on
with this one.

Foxy really?

"This case was about child protection.

In this case child protection lost."

So child protection depends on convicting an innocent man?

Seriously..

Shadow Minister,

His innocence has not been proven.
The high court judgement found there was
not enough evidence to convict him.

As one devout Catholic said to another devout
Catholic:

"We'll never find anyone like Cardinal Pell."

REPLY:

"That's the point!"

'His innocence has not been proven.
The high court judgement found there was
not enough evidence to convict him.'

same for every person on earth Foxy including you.

runner,

No. it's not the same for every person.
Not the same at all.

Peter O'Brien points out that "Hundreds of
potentially innocent people are languishing in prison.
They won't get the chance that Cardinal George Pell did."

"They don't have the funds, nor the fame to appeal to
the high court in the manner Pell did. And in the rare case
where they are able to attempt it, they are entirely
unlikely to be granted special leave to appeal as Pell was."

It's hard to claim Pell faced an injustice. He was granted
every opportunity the legal system provides, including some
of the finest barristers and appeals right up to the high
court - a privilege not granted to many.

if spending 400 plus days in prison for something the High Court said was highly improbable is not injustice then you have no idea of what justice is despite your endless opinions by journalist and lawyers with egg all over their faces. It was a witch hunt in reverse cheered on by hatred and very dishonest Victorian police, judges and the abc/guardian.

On the topic of Cardinal Pell.

His trial was but a beginning.

There are many more chapters to follow.

'On the topic of Cardinal Pell.

His trial was but a beginning.

There are many more chapters to follow.'

yes Foxy hopefully the defunding of the witch hunters (abc) and a proper investigation in corrupt Victorian court system and police. Maybe Daniel Andrews should also be investigated. Yes more chapters to come hopefully.

Dear Big Nana,

You opinined; "The experienced judge looked at the facts of the case and said that there was no proof that the crime was committed."

Absolute utter hogwash I'm afraid. He said the burden of proof had not been attained. That was despite there being a credible eye witness, the victim.

If you want to continue asserting otherwise please go to the judgement itself and cite me the section where he says there was no proof.

I will even help you out with the link.

http://www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-12/pell_v_the_queen_2019_vsca_186_-_web.pdf

Dear runner,

You claimed; "spending 400 plus days in prison for something the High Court said was highly improbable"

The High Court did no such thing. You should also go and read their judgement and let me know where on earth they stated anything like what you claimed.
http://eresources.hcourt.gov.au/downloadPdf/2020/HCA/12

SR,

The high court did not claim that witness J was credible either.

The Pell acquittal exposes a lot more than just a kangaroo court system.

It is a demonstration of how there is still a strong bond between the state and religion.

In the medieval period nobody would have blinked an eye at what has happened. In fact if this was the medieval age Pell would never have been indicted full stop! State and religion were virtually two sides of the same coin.

I think the Pell saga shows that religion can still call on the State to shore up it's reputation and protect its position.

Pell got his sentence shortened and the Vatican got off scot-free.

Shadow Minister,

The judges did not accuse the young witness of being a
liar or a fantasist. They did not find his evidence
contained discrepancies or displayed inadequacies.
The young man did not come to testify for any financial
gain. He did it for his friend who died.

Lets not forget that the high court appeal did not
ask whether Pell committed the offences. It asked
whether the two majority judges in the Victorian court
of appeal in dismissing Pell's earlier appeal made an
error about the nature of the correct legal principles
or their application.

Legal academics have described Pell as being acquitted on
a legal technicality. At the other extreme, Pell's
supporters suggest that the high court finding means that Pell
should never have been prosecuted.

This disparity highlights the role of the legal system.
Which as we know is not flawless.

Misopinionated,

Your pre-adolescent assertion, about the Pell witch-trial:

"It is a demonstration of how there is still a strong bond between the state and religion. .... "

i.e. you assume what needs to be proven, i.e. they call that "begging the question". Maybe you need to study some philosophy, especially logic, if you ever get to uni. Get a copy of Copi as a start.

But conspiracy theories do save you a lot of time thinking, don't they ?

"And of course Pell must be guilty, regardless of no evidence; he's a Catholic; he's probably a poofter. So we have to keep digging, we have to find someone to make a baseless assertion. Sooner or later, we'll get him. "

Is that it ? So you're not into the scientific method, then ? Don't they teach any of that at TAFE?

Joe

Dear Foxy,

You say the legal system is not flawless.

I would go one up on that and say that I personally would never trust a lawyer as far as I could throw one.

Loudmouth,

I didn't write the second citation you have put above.

It looks like you are trying to make it look as if I did. That's a bit perverse.

Maybe it is for the best that you were never able to qualify to get into Arts. Just stick to reading what you can and pretending you are an Arts graduate.

Foxy,

The high court judges did not describe witness J as credible, that is a step beyond being "compelling" Note conmen are compelling but not credible not that I am calling witness J a conman.

You and others are using the term "technicality" to try and trivialise the decision. The verdict of the high court is final and damning of the previous courts. The burden of proof was not missed by a whisker, but by a country mile. A "technicality" might include that the accused is simply innocent.

Banjo,

You are trying to hyperbolize the verdict of "not guilty" to be synonymous with "guilty and got away with it" which is simply an impotent attempt at a smear and assumes that anyone brought to court is guilty.

Barry Cassidy is correct. End of story.

" ... ABC commentator Barry Cassidy tweeted after Pell's acquittal that "The High Court has found there was not enough evidence to convict. It didn't find him innocent. You are then entitled to maintain your view and you are under no obligation to apologize for holding those views."

Shadow Minister,

What you or I think is irrelevant.

Here is a link from legal academics on the Pell case.
Kindly read the summary of the key events.
You may get a better grasp of the high court
decision:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6715000/how-george-pell-won-in-the-high-court-on-a-legal-technicality/

Dear Shadow Minister,

You say; “The high court judges did not describe witness J as credible, that is a step beyond being "compelling" Note conmen are compelling but not credible not that I am calling witness J a conman.”

No the High Court were very clear;

“"It may be accepted that the Court of Appeal majority did not err in holding that A's evidence of the first incident did not contain discrepancies, or display inadequacies, of such a character as to require the jury to have entertained a doubt as to guilt.”

That old salt is says his testimony was 'beyond a shadow of a doubt'. Hardly an assessment of not credible from them was it.

Foxy,

You are right, what you and I and your left leaning academics think, the 7 most respected legal minds unanimously found that the verdict was incorrect.

To quote the court of appeal thank to SR
"In the past, in cases of alleged sexual abuse, juries were warned, in strong terms, of the dangers of convicting in the absence of corroboration. The law has changed in that regard. That makes the task of intermediate appellate courts charged with having to review the safety of convictions in such cases a particularly important and onerous one"

In a stroke SR has confirmed my original reasons for believing that a guilty verdict beyond reasonable doubt was not viable, and that the Victorian government have changed the law in such a way that basic justice is damaged.

SR,

Thanks for confirming that the high court did not describe witness J as credible. Credible has a particular meaning in legal cases which J's uncorroborated testimony could not meet.

Dear Shadow Minister,

The High Court did not attribute the word credible to the other witnesses either. However it was only the victim's testimony that they said "that A's evidence of the first incident did not contain discrepancies, or display inadequacies, of such a character as to require the jury to have entertained a doubt as to guilt.”

There was no such praise for any of the other witnesses. The argument was that collectively their testimonies raised sufficient doubt. That is it.

SR,

A witness's testimony can be both flawless and completely fabricated, compelling but not credible. This discrepancy is where conmen flourish.

I am not claiming that witness J is lying, but that if he was there would be no way to tell and why involved solo witnesses without corroboration are not considered sufficient to convict.