George Pell was by far the best known and most
polarising church figure in Australia in the
past century, if not for ever. He attended the
funeral of Pope Benedict XVI just over a week ago.

The Cardinal who ran further on the world stage
than any other Australian cleric was loved by and
admired by many traditional and conservative
Catholics and resented by many on the church's
progressive wing.

Cardinal Pell will be remembered as a formidable
defender of traditional Catholicism which meant
that he was portrayed as a monster by some and
as a saint by others.

He will be judged harshly over his handling of
sexual abuse claims and his protection of the
Catholic Church.

The government will arrange to have his body flown to
Sydney for burial.

Should he be given a state funeral?

Dear Foxy,

«Should he be given a state funeral?»

Definitely not - why would you want his corpse to be desecrated by the Australian state, again? Has he not suffered enough?!

Have you checked whether he even wished his body to be buried in Australia after all Australia did to him?

Or is the Australian government planning to kidnap his body from another state against his wishes?

I think he would much more appreciate to be buried in the Vatican among friends!

May he rest in peace and in contrast, do some time among the heavenly angels!

"George Pell was by far the best known and most
polarising church figure in Australia in the
past century, if not for ever."

Do some research on Dr Mannix or read "Power without Glory".

"He will be judged harshly [by some] over his handling of
sexual abuse claims and his protection of the
Catholic Church." There you go, fixed it for you.

The only way Chairman Dan would give him a state funeral is as a final slap in the face for an innocent man utterly mistreated by police, judiciary and political class in his home state.

Innocent? We are all innocent unless proven guilty. He was never proven guilty....QED.

Read his diaries of the 404 days he spent in gaol to see a truly good man who practiced the forgiveness he preached.

Hi Yuyutsu,

A requiem mass will be held for Cardinal Pell in
coming days in St Patrick's Basilica at the Vatican,
after which the Australian Cardinal's body will be brought
to Sydney for a funeral Mass at St. Mary's Cathedral
in Sydney. His remains will be buried in the crypt.

In life, opinions on Australia's most senior Catholic
Cardinal George Pell were polarised.

The reactions to his death have not been any different.
What his legacy is depends on who you talk to. Most
agree, it will be mixed.

The Catholic Archbishops of both Sydney and Melbourne were
quick to mourn the Cardinal. However, not every one has been
complimentary.

A law firm has confirmed it will continue to progress a
civil claim on behalf of the father of a former altar boy
who accused Cardinal Pell of sexual abuse. The lawyers said
that there was still evidence for the claim to rely on
despite not being able to cross examine the Cardinal at any
trial.

The Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne is also listed as a
defendant in this matter.

That's news, not opinion.

We don't need to advised of his death, particularly by someone who maintained his guilt in the face of a unanimous High Court judgement - shame on her!

The Catholic Church will never know another priest with such honesty and adherence to the faith.

He is now free of the nastiness and the nasty people who castigated him. If there is a Heaven, George Pell is certainly worthy of a place there.

Apparently our local bookshop has had a run on
" New Revelations - Cardinal: The Rise and Fall of
Cardinal Pell" (Updated edition) by Louise Milligan.
With a Foreword by Tom Keneally.

It sounds like an interesting read. Louise Milligan
we're told is the only Australian journalist "who's
been privy to the most intimate stories of complainants.
She pieces together a series of disturbing pictures
of the Cardinal's knowledge and his actions many of
which are being told in this book for the first time."

We're told that "the book uncovers uncomfortable
truths about a culture of sexual entitlement abuse
and trust and how ambition can silence evil."

Do I really want to read this book?

I'm not sure. I know that I have always believed that
the Cardinal got off on a legal technicality. But I
think I might find all the details involved in this
book just a bit confronting. So I have to give it some
more serious thought on the subject.

Now that the man has died - I shall pray for the repose of
his soul. And my sympathies go out to both his family and
to the victims and their families who have had to live with
the abuse that either he or his silence has caused

Pell was one of the few churchmen who had the courage to warn of 'cancel culture and Woke activists’ and the 'agnostic drift across the Western world' faced by Christians. He knew that the state wants full access to and control over every aspect of our lives. He would have agreed with Ryszard Legutko, member of the European Parliament who lived under Communism in Poland, and said, that the West is "heading in the direction of the Communists of old".

Legutko, makes a case for what we call liberal democracy and communism being closer than we think they are:

. Both systems hanker for change all the time.

. They say that the world can't be tolerated the way it is. The old must be replaced with the new.

. Both systems "intrude on the social fabric. No one can be left alone.

. Everything has to be modernised.

. There is no respect for the past. The past is to be forgotten, or derided and demonised, making people more malleable and defenceless. Memory is the enemy of authoritarianism.

.Traditional family structure is no longer respected. Children negotiating rather than respecting their parents experience and duty to provide guidance. More power ceded to children.

. Loss of respect for marriage.

. That which communism achieved with force, liberal democracies are achieving by allowing people to "drift along in the flow of modernity", sidelining Christianity with secularism, undermining education with political brainwashing. Keeping us "safe" during the Covid panic by taking away our personal responsibility and freedoms. Most of the population in Australia fell for it.

. The invention of a 'climate crisis' supposedly needing quite idiotic changes to our lives, accompanied by massive increases in the cost of living.

. Price control (gas and coal caps).

. Telling the populace what they should and shouldn't eat.

Western values are disappearing - fast. And it's getting harder to find people willing to protect them: certainly among the politicians we stupidly tolerate. We have lost one such protector.

Here is a link that gives a different perspective:

http://theconversation.com/how-george-pell-won-in-the-high-court-on-a-legal-technicality-133156#

He got to live hell of a longer than many of the children he served up to be abused by clergy who had been reported by moved on to abuse again.

The number of blighted lives, many of whom did not make it, that this man is either directly or indirectly involved in is in the hundreds.

Hopefully it brings some slice to the many victims of the church.

Now there's a surprise. A "different perspective" from a bunch of lying Leftists. Imagine!

ttbn,

Instead of continuing to slam every single one of my
posts - how about you providing some evidence to
dispute what you don't like or agree with. That's
what intelligent people normally do in discussions
instead of just making the drive-by comments that are
your forte.

Grow up!

Dear Foxy,

«... after which the Australian Cardinal's body will be brought
to Sydney for a funeral Mass at St. Mary's Cathedral
in Sydney. His remains will be buried in the crypt.»

These are just technical arrangements: you have not answered my question

- Did Cardinal Pell agree to any such arrangements?
- Did he indicate in his will, or in any other document, even verbally, where he wants his remains to be buried?
- Would Cardinal Pell not be disgusted at still being called "the Australian Cardinal" after all that Australia did to him?

It really is timely to remember Julia Gillard's steadfastness in pushing through the establishment of a Royal Commission into Institutional Child Sexual abuse.

Without it we would have left so many victims without a voice and we would not have seen Pell directly caught out in his lies.

Well done Julia.

Yuyutsu,

I gave you all the information that has been made public
to date. I can't do anything more than that.

Dear Steele,

Yes our former PM certainly did a great deal of good
by giving victims of sexual abuse a voice. That should be
acknowledged. As for the Catholic Church? It still needs
to do more. It has lost the trust of many of its members.
There's still much that needs to be done to regain that
trust.

It's a good thing the dead cannot be libelled, as the Leftist jackals slaver over Pell's corpse.

"... as the Leftist jackals slaver over Pell's corpse."

Not really. I view it as "... a sad story and it wasn't of much interest to me." Exactly how he described the abuse of children by Gerald Risdale.

I think that most people are concerned about the
living not the dead. About the surviving victims
of abuse and their families. And about the reactions
of a Church they trusted and believed in who so badly
disappointed them in hiding the crimes that were being
done by their clergy. The Cardinal has died but has
his Church made any concrete changes to how it deals
with abusers within its ranks?

The Cardinal had a chance to make changes. He chose not
to do that. The true jackal was the Cardinal. Not the
victims being abused or the Church members praying for
changes to be made.

What was done to Pell by an incompetent Victorian court and cheered by the horrible Left haters was one of the greatest injustices in Australian history.

Even when the man was exonerated by the High Court, the ABC haters and their excitable acolytes (including those on OLO) couldn’t let it go. The kangaroo-courters would have done Communist China or Russia proud. They would be in the front row of lynch mobs if greater society hadn't moved on from the wild west.

All the while, Pell remained calm and dignified, with a 'forgive-them-they-know-not-what-they-do attitude to the baying mob. His answer to a question on what he thought about the apparent lack of support from the Australian Catholic Church hierarchy for his cause was, "That’s life".

The Catholic Church's cowardice was disgraceful; hardly better than that of the mob.

This topic has attracted little interest, and only one of the sad woman's pals has supported her. Perhaps most people would prefer to forget that Pell spent 404 days in jail for nothing.

" Pell spent 404 days in jail for nothing."

One of the commentators I saw on the ABC yesterday (yes the ABC - I don't know how it slipped through) called it the most horrendous miscarriage of justice in the whole of Australian history. Perhaps a bit hyperbolic (or as St Julia said - hyperbowlic) but not far from the mark.

SR,

Pell was never proven guilty of any crimes, nor was there any verifiable evidence to this effect, nor did he serve anyone to be abused. Bob Hawke was more guilty of sexual abuse.

P.S. Juliar only instituted the RC after Tony Abbott pushed for it in parliament.

So far there have been 21 responses to this discussion.
Some people responding more than once, myself included.
Of course the responses have been emotional at times.
Which is perfectly understandable considering the subject
matter.

As my earlier link pointed out - For many people in this
country it is hard to understand how the unanimous jury
verdicts of guilty, further supported by a Court of Appeal
majority of two judges, could be overturned by a High Court.

The High Court decision did not find Cardinal Pell innocent.

As the link made clear - he got off on a legal technicality.
And, that this decision will undermine confidence in the
legal system, especially in child sexual abuse prosecutions.

Civil legal actions against the Cardinal and the Church are
ongoing. The release of the Royal Commission's findings about
the Cardinal's conduct in Ballarat are revealing.

The Cardinal's case was exceptionally complex. The link stressed
that it was important for the public to understand the legal
process and the key issues. For example, the High Court appeal
did not ask whether Cardinal Pell committed the offences. It
asked whether the two majority judges in the Victorian Court
of Appeal in discussing Cardinal Pell's earlier appeal made
an error about the nature of the correct legal principles
in their application.

Cardinal Pell may have won on a legal technicality but he will
continue to be assailed by lawsuits even after death.

In contrast the complainant was believed by a jury, by a
majority judgement, and by a substantial body of public
opinion.

Victorian Premier Dan Andrews said that there will not be a
state funeral out of respect for the victims of sexual abuse
and their families. He also will not be attending the funeral
in Sydney.

" he got off on a legal technicality."

That's very true....if you think that the lack of evidence that he did what his inquisitors said he did was a technicality.

It comes down to this. If you believe that rape took place then you have to believe that only three people were in the room when it happened.
Two of those people said nothing happened. One claimed otherwise. Based on the claims of that one person and without the slightest collaborating evidence, a man had his liberty stolen.

That's not how justice works. We can be thankful that 7 of the most prominent judges in the land saw through the inquisition and freed its victim. I doubt we can rely on that forever.

Foxy,

The two possible verdicts are guilty or innocent. The high court judged Pell innocent.

The "technicality" that led the High Court unanimously to throw out the verdicts of the incompetent Victorian judges was the complete lack of verifiable evidence. The judge that allowed a jury verdict based on emotion without verifiable evidence should be disbarred.

shadowminister,

We shall have to agree to disagree on this one.

I simply can't understand how a unanimous jury verdict
of guilty, further supported by a Court of Appeal majority
of two judges, could be overturned by a High Court
on a suspect application of a legal principle. But I guess
the law is the law. Justice is another story. That's why
the statue is depicted wearing a blind-fold.

Why didn't the High Court ask - whether the Cardinal had
committed the offences? The findings of Pell's behaviour
in Ballarat by the Royal Commission were horrific.

Pell is being judged harshly over his behaviour and his
protection of the Catholic Church.

Anyway, I guess the man earned all of his promotions.
But at what cost to others?

The NSW government
has ruled out offering a state funeral for Cardinal Pell.
The Prime Minister has not yet confirmed whether he will
be attending the Cardinal's funeral in Sydney. Undoubtedly
the former PMs Tony Abbott and John Howard will attend.

A memorial service was held
for the Cardinal in Ballarat - many who came prayed for the
victims of sexual abuse and their families. Ballart has a
record of suicides due to sexual abuse. It's also known as the
pedophile capital of Australia.

As one church member stated - "I'm not here to mourn Cardinal
Pell. I'm glad the gargoyle is dead."

Innocent or guilty? I dare say a higher authority will now judge
the man.

I don't know enough about this issue re the claims of individuals made re George Pell (so I'm not commenting there), but there are things I do have an issue or question with here.

1. The role of juries. Here's another take on that issue from someone else: http://theconversation.com/can-juries-still-deliver-justice-in-high-profile-cases-in-the-age-of-social-media-193843

A Media Watch program gives a good overview of the media coverage re the case, let alone what went out via social media and Facebook broadly.

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/episodes/pell/12166274

2. George Pell having to spend about 400 days in prison. In principle, people should not be imprisoned. We have seen so many people internationally put in prison for acts they did not commit. Prison should only be a last resort.

3. People questioning the high court decision. The decisions made by the high court are final in Australia. In this case it was a 7-0, unanimous decision. We also had the Mabo decision made by the high court also. We can't pick and choose here.

Finally....

4. Lindy Chamberlain saw the public turn on her, with a decision made seeing her spend three years in prison. A later coroner's inquiry saw things differently.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jun/12/dingo-baby-azaria-lindy-chamberlain

Australia must be a place where innocent until proven guilty is paramount and human rights are held high at all times.

shadowminister,

Bollocks.

It wasn't because of a "complete lack of verifiable evidence" at all. It was because "the evidence did not establish guilt to the requisite
standard of proof".

Very big bloody difference.

Hi Nathan,

Cardinal had the best legal team that money could buy.
He was given every opportunity to present his case
and was treated more than fairly. He was not asked to
testify. He was able to dictate the terms of the
proceedings. Yet a unanimous jury gave the verdict of
guilty, which was further supported by a Court of Appeal
majority of two judges - and hence he ended up in jail.

Cardinal Pell was treated fairly according to the laws
of this country. A High Court decision did not find him
innocent. The Cardinal got off on a legal technicality.
On a suspect application of a legal principle. And was
released from jail. Not many people would get that sort
of hearing or decision. In his case - he was a lucky man.
an important man in society - important enough with the
right connections and influences - to be able to do that.

We should feel sorry for the victims - of the clergy that
he protected. Not of him being treated with special
privileges.

Foxy,

So many of your points in your last post are so contradictory to each other, they make no sense. For example, you say:

<<Cardinal had the best legal team that money could buy.>> and then:

<<Yet a unanimous jury gave the verdict of guilty>>.

Well clearly that legal team didn't achieve much and was a waste of money. Yet the high court of Australia took a different position, so that legal team was clearly a better one. Not a position of mine, just a reflection based on your comments.

Secondly, you didn't reply to any of my points about:

1. The roles of juries in a day and age where digital media and Facebook is so readily available.

2. People spending time in prison. People have done so internationally, no crime committed. This has included people like Lindy Chamberlain.

3. Questioning high court decisions. Mabo was fine, no questions from me, same here re George Pell, decision 7-0.

If you don't like our court/legal system, by all means advocate for change but realise innocent until proven guilty must remain a core principle and human rights is important.

Hi Nathan,

It is important for the public to understand the legal
process and the key issues. For many people in this country
it is hard to understand how the unanimous jury verdicts of
guilty, further supported by a Court of Appeal majority of
two judges, could be overturned by a High Court.

The High Court decision did not find Cardinal Pell innocent.
He got off on a legal technicality. And this will undermine
confidence in the legal system, especially in child sexual
abuse prosecutions.

I am not going to argue with you any further. Because the
Cardinal's case was exceptionally complex. The High Court
decided that in the Cardinal's earlier appeal an error was
made about the nature of the correct legal principle in
their application. The Cardinal won on a legal technicality
but he was not believed by a jury, by a majority judgement and
by a substantial body of public opinion. The complainant was.

Cardinal Pell's funeral is to be held on Saturday
14th January in St. Peter's Basilica in Rome.
Pope Francis will preside over the final portion of
the late Cardinal's funeral. He will deliver a final
commendation and salute as is the custom for cardinal
funerals.

Giovanni Batista Re. Dean of the College of Cardinals will
celebrate the Requiem Mass at 11.30am on Saturday 14th January.
The Mass will take place at the Altar of the Chair of St. Peter
in the Vatican Basilica. A host of other cardinals and bishops
are expected to celebrate the Mass.

Cardinal Pell's body will be flown back to Australia
following his Vatican funeral ahead of a Memorial Service
at St. Mary's Cathedral in Sydney. He will be buried
in St. Mary's Cathedral in Sydney where he served for
13 years before moving to the Vatican.

Steelreflux,

More bluster and bullsh1t from you again. Perhaps you could point to a single piece of verifiable evidence against Pell? There was not a single witness to the claims by the "victim" nor was there a single piece of forensic or physical evidence.

This was a politically motivated show trial facilitated by activist judges. A competent judge would have dismissed the trial before closing. The judge and prosecutor should be disbarred for this disgraceful abuse of the legal system.

This is similar to the show trial against Bruce Lehrmann where the police recommendation was that there was no case.

.

The High Court of Australia’s verdict on 7 April 2020, in the case Pell v The Queen was that :

« the appellant's convictions be quashed, and judgments of acquittal be entered in their place »

The High Court noted that “notwithstanding that the jury found A [the complainant] to be a credible and reliable witness, the evidence as a whole was not capable of excluding a reasonable doubt as to [Cardinal Pell’s] guilt ”.

Acquittal does not mean innocence. The High Court did not find Pell innocent. It acquitted him based on what it considered to be the failure of the prosecution to establish Pell’s guilt “beyond reasonable doubt”.

It did not preclude Pell’s guilt or innocence. It simply considered that the prosecution did not prove its case to the minimum legal requirement for conviction.
.

We inherited our criminal law from English common law, which continues to evolve in Australian courts. The laws of our states and territories are not chiseled in stone – even though in some states they have been codified. They are all closely intertwined with the development of society and subject to organic evolution by judicial interpretation and parliamentary legislation.

In all modern democracies such as we have in Australia, it is we, the people (demos) who have the power (kratos) to make the laws to which we accept to submit ourselves.

Our justice system is not effective in handling sex crimes. It needs to be put back on the drawing board and redesigned.

.

(Continued…)

.

.

(Contrinued …)

.

I advocate that our criminal law and court procedures incorporate the following essential features :

• trial by jury

• no presumption of guilt or innocence of either defendant or complainant – each case to be tried on its individual merits

• no right to silence by either defendant or complainant during the trial. Both to present his/her version of events and be submitted to cross-examination if so required

• complainant and defendant to be treated on an equal footing – neither to be advantaged. The onus of proof to rest equally on both

• onus of proof defined as “beyond a reasonable doubt (at least 95% certainty)

It would probably be prudent to implement these measures progressively. In the first instance, I suggest they apply to sex offences involving only the more vulnerable victims (minors and physically and mentally handicapped people).

It could be extended to all victims later when the general public has concrete evidence that it is a more equitable system and working satisfactorily.

.

shadowminister,

The late Cardinal's record is an interesting one and
speaks for itself.

Here's what he did:

http://thelatch.com.au/what-did-george-pell-do/

Pell began his career as a priest in the in the 1960s
in the diocese of Ballarat. The town now has the
unfortunate distinction of being a hot spot of historic
sexual abuse by Catholic clergy which a royal commission hearing
in 2015 found that up to 14 priests in Ballarat had sexually
abused children.

There had been at least 130 claims and substantial complainants
since 1980. Survivor groups estimate more than 50 suicides in
the town are linked to historic abuse by priests.

The royal commission found that Pell knew about the child abuse
quite early and protected the abusers. Pell remained in that
position until 2001 when he was elevated to the position of
archbishop of Sydney before becoming a cardinal.

The madwoman is talking to herself now.

I wonder who the idiot was who gave Andrews the opportunity to snarl that Pell would not be getting a state funeral!

As if. Andrews, in particular, persecuted Pell. Put him in jail for 404 days, and some nutter brings up the stupid idea of a state funeral!

The ALP all persecuted Pell. They and their wacko supporters are still doing it: trying to further blacken his name even though he is is dead.

This thread was started purely to add to the venom and hatred. Sick, sickening.

Two Australian state governments will not offer
taxpayer-funded public funerals for Cardinal George
Pell with the Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews saying
his decision was made out of respect for the victims
of child sexual abuse and their families.

The NSW State Premier Dominic Perrottet has also ruled
out offering a state funeral for the Cardinal in Sydney.

This is understandable as the allegations against Cardinal Pell
and the crimes that he was convicted for, are many and
widespread.

They go back to 1961 - when in 2002 a Melbourne man accused
the Cardinal of sexually abusing him in a Catholic Youth
Camp when he was 12 years old. The complaint was never
brought to trial.

In 2013 Victorian Police launched an operation to
investigate sexual assault crimes committed by Cardinal Pell
"between 5 and 10 boys" during his time in Ballarat and as
Archbishop of Melbourne from 1978 - 2001.

In 2013 a Royal Commission was launched into the response of
the Catholic Church to allegations of child sexual abuse in Ballarat.

In 2017 formal charges were laid against Cardinal Pell.
In 2018 one of Cardinal Pell's accusers died following an
illness and his charges were withdrawn.

A suppression order was placed on the media.

The trial was eventually split into 2. One pertaining to
sexual offences at St. Patrick's Cathedral in Melbourne
in 1990 and the other pertaining to offences at a swimming
pool in Ballarat in the 1970s.

The latter was dropped while the former resulted in the
Cardinal being convicted of the abuse of 2 Melbourne choir
boys, one of whom died of a heroin overdose in 2014 and
could not give evidence.

Cardinal Pell was sentenced to six years in jail in 2019
5 charges of sexual penetration and molestation of children
aged 13 which Judge Kidd described as "brazen and forcible."

After spending 13 months in prison the Cardinal was
released on a legal technicality.

There's more at:

http://thelatch.com.au/what-did-george-pell-do/

Foxy,

I suggest you read the comments (recently) put by Banjo Patterson. Whilst I don't agree with all of them, Banjo does focus on the high court decision and on the reform element I was referring to. Reform is the only constructive way forward here as High Court decisions are final. End of story.

Banjo Patterson,

I agree with a lot of your comments, but not the following:

<<Our justice system is not effective in handling sex crimes. It needs to be put back on the drawing board and redesigned.>>

That should include all crimes. I would also argue how the police and connected entities work and operate.

<<I advocate that our criminal law and court procedures incorporate the following essential features:

<<Trial by jury>>

Juries can be too influenced by outside sources of information and data online particularly like Facebook, the internet, youtube, websites and other social media etc. Not the same as many years ago when such things were not in existence.

<<No right to silence by either defendant or complainant during the trial. Both to present his/her version of events and be submitted to cross-examination if so required.>>

That goes against basic human rights. No-one should be forced into doing something they do not want to.

Foxy,

Again, the legal technicality was that the prosecution was unable to prove his guilt.

The "victim" was not proven innocent of lying and defamation.

Likewise, Bill Shorten was not proven innocent of rape.

Given that in criminal law, the defendant is presumed to be innocent. until proven guilty, Pell was not proven guilty, so he is by law presumed innocent. Everything else is irrelevant, public opinion, the incompetence of the Victorian judges, the gullibility of the jury or the well-rehearsed sob story of the victim.

There are plenty of cases of men being convicted of rape by a jury based on a convincing victim testimony only to be proven innocent later by new evidence. The duty of a judge is to determine whether the evidence meets the standard of proof. In this case, the judges failed miserably in their duty.

As a Cardinal and Archbishop, micromanager Pell put the "good" reputation and financial interests of the Church ahead of the psychological and financial welfare of children sexually molested by the priests Pell commanded.

Dear Foxy,

«Two Australian state governments will not offer
taxpayer-funded public funerals for Cardinal George
Pell»

Who ever asked for such a taxpayer-funded public funeral in the first place, robbing the taxpayer even from the grave?!

Let me tell you one thing: if you attempted to give me a tapayer-funded public funeral once I am well dead and unable to scream, then rest assured that my ghost would keep haunting you and your family...

Cardinal Pell was an honourable person - he would never have asked for that stupid kind of a [dis]service!

Hi Nathan,

Thank you for your comments. I have read Banjo's comments
and I agree with what he is suggesting. in reforming our
justice system - it does need to be reformed especially in
sexual abuse cases as Banjo points out.

________________________________________________________________________

Hi Maverick,

I agree that the Cardinal placed the protection of the
Church above that of the victims and survivors of sexual abuse.
His actions speak for themselves.

I think that his personal ambition may also have played
a large part in some of the decisions that he made.

Hi Yuyutsu,

Regarding the state funerals question?

I believe that it arose out of questions driven by the
media. The state premiers merely responded to the inquiries
in which Cardinal Pell's brother - David Pell played a part.
He may have wanted a state funeral - not sure.

In any case - the state premiers made it clear that they did not
want to distress the victims of abuse and their families.
Glad to read that you think that a state funeral would not be
appropriate in the case of Cardinal Pell.

shadowminister,

To convict Cardinal Pell the jury had to believe
without doubt that the complainant was reliable,
and honest, and telling the truth. The jury believed that.
This was supported by a Court of Appeal by two majority judges.

However the high court found that belief in the complainant as
a compelling witness was not enough to convict. This decision was
the result of the current legal process in Australia.

That is why
as Banjo pointed out our legal system needs to be reformed.
Especially in sexual abuse cases.

Foxy,

You claim that the complainant was truthful without a jot of supporting evidence? I have a bridge you might like to buy.

shadowminister,

Victim's advocate Helen Last said that "she felt numb,"
when she heard about Pell's death.

"It's a tragedy of great proportions. There's so many
survivors in Victoria still who have not been able to come
forward about abuse by him, on them."

"I personally believe on the basis of evidence and testimonies
by so many, that George Pell has been involved in a network of
sexual offending clergy that goes right back."

And at least one complainant was believed by a jury, by
a majority judgement and by a substantial body of public opinion.

So, you've got a bridge you want to sell?

Brooklyn or London?

I don't believe that anything actually happened between Cardinal Pell and these two naughty "victim" boys whose only reason to be in that room (it indeed they were), was to steal wine.

All evidence showed that Pell could not have possibly been alone with them at the time.

But there is one more scenario, albeit without evidence, which cannot be completely discarded as impossible:

Accordingly, there were other clergy present in the room with Pell and the boys.
Accordingly, while Pell's act would technically be viewed today as sexual, he had no sexual intentions whatsoever.
Accordingly, the motive of his act was to punish the boys for trying to steal and drink the sacred blood of Jesus Christ - the most horrendous and inconceivable atrocity according to Catholic thought.
Accordingly, since the boys were going to use their mouths for that crime, Pell wanted to teach them how bitter-tasting the result could be so they never ever attempt it again.
Accordingly, Pell's only motive was to defend Lord Jesus and the Church.
Accordingly, the other clergy present approved of that bizarre punishment.
Accordingly, Pell would never disclose anything about it and would not testify in order to protect the other clergymen who were present there.
Accordingly, the surviving accuser failed to mention the presence of the other clergymen because he wanted to depict Pell as a low-life sex maniac for maximal revenge and also to conceal his own crimes in that room.

There. An alternate possibility.

.

Dear NathanJ,

.

You wrote :

« That [“putting justice back on the drawing board] should include all crimes. I would also argue how the police and connected entities work and operate »
.

Yes, Nathan, nothing is static, especially criminal activity.

Reforming every aspect of our response to criminal activity is a vast and never-ending project.

Unfortunately, sex crimes (together with domestic violence) are by far the most frequent and widespread of the major crimes committed in Australia.

According to a Brisbane psychotherapist, Merryl Gee, less than 1% of perpetrators of sexual assaults in Australia are found guilty. She notes that sexual assault has among the highest rates of acquittal and lowest rates of proven guilt compared with other offences.

Jane Gilmore, an award-winning journalist, indicates that 1 in 150 rapes result in a rapist in jail and that for every single false allegation, there are over 220 rapes not reported to police :

http://janegilmore.com/rape-and-sexual-assault-in-australia-2019-2020/
.

I understand your concerns regarding the exposure of the members of a jury to outside influence from social media etc. Well-seasoned professional judges/magistrates are undoubtedly less influenceable in that respect.

The pros and cons of judge and/or jury are well known. Judgment by one’s peers randomly selected from the electoral role seems more democratic to me. The human aspect of justice is also important from my point of view. A professional judge is essentially a technician of the law. In many respects, he could almost be replaced by a computerised electronic logarithm.

I, personally, place a high value on the humanity of justice and should not see kindly the judge/magistrate eventually replaced by a robot of some sort, no matter how intelligent and efficient it may happen to be.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

As a final remark, you indicate that “no right to silence by either defendant or complainant … goes against basic human rights” and that “no one should be forced into doing something they do not want to”.

That may be so as a general rule, Nathan, but it seems to me indispensable to the revelation of the truth in a court of justice to hear both sides of the story from the protagonists themselves in a case where material evidence and a credible eyewitness are lacking, and it just boils down to a case of “my word against yours”.

Crimes are judged usually and, unfortunately, inevitably, long after the alleged events occurred. Sex crimes are even judged, all too often, many years after the event – as was the case under discussion of Pell v The Queen – and if, as is also often the case, there is neither material evidence, nor eyewitness, and one of the protagonists (George Pell) is allowed to remain silent throughout the procedure, the chance of eliciting the truth is, for all intents and purposes, null – which proved to be the case in Pell v The Queen.

I find it significant that the jury of twelve Australians selected randomly from the electoral roll had found George Pell guilty and was overruled by Chief Justice Kiefel and the six Justices of the High Court, all well-seasoned technicians of the law.

.

Hi Yuyutsu,

Accordingly a jury of 12 Australians randomly selected
found Pell guilty. Accordingly the jury was supported
by a Court of Appeal majority of two judges, A majority
judgement and by a substantial body of public opinion.
Accordingly Pell's own record of abuse goes back to
his time as a priest in Ballarat. Accordingly Pell
continued to protect pedophile clergy. Accordingly the
"naughty" young lad took his own life.

There are too many "accordinglies."

Father Jim McKay led the congregation in prayer at the
Memorial Mass in Ballarat for the victims of child
molestation many of whom died by suicide in the decades after
they suffered at the hands of clergy. Almost 50 people
attended.

"We cannot change what has happened in the past. We can change
what happens in the future." Father McKay said.

With that thought in mind here's my take - before I leave this
discussion:

Australian Catholic Cardinal George Pell was a man obsessed
Protecting his Church and Clergy was what he did best
Sexual abuse charges were by him brushed aside
Their events and stats Pell totally denied

"I have no knowledge," was his claim
"It's of no interest to me," he exclaimed
"Don't be ridiculous," he proclaimed
While the victim numbers grew in Ballarat

The Cardinal died in Rome last week
Leaving behind a Church legacy that's bleak
The Catholic Church now needs to understand
That there's much to heal to save their brand

Having a Mass for the repose of Pell's soul
Won't make up for the childhoods that the Church stole
Pell allowed the damage to be done
Something the Church now must not shun

The Church needs to correct its past mistakes
Admit its faults and not erase
Only then with restitution
Can this legacy be brought to a just conclusion
Only then can the Cardinal Rest In Peace
Once the abuse he protected - has been forced to cease.

My comment,

Archy Pell is dead, ho hum.

Wait for more exciting revelations about the dear cardinal over the next few years. The CC wont be able to buy the silence of victims of this bloke, as they have done for so long now.

Banjo,

One of the major protections against tyranny is that the state is not allowed to incarcerate anyone without proof beyond a reasonable doubt of a crime.

Neither the complainant nor the defendant is compelled to testify, and the basic laws of evidence are applied by a competent judge (clearly not in Victoria)

There are already a huge number of people falsely convicted and having their convictions overturned later. The last thing that is needed is an assumption of guilt where defendants have to prove their innocence.

Foxy,

Banjo Patterson described the situation as per the High Court ruling, correctly. This is the right and responsible thing to do here, not go down the 'he hasn't been found innocent' line and then want to go against a high court of ruling 7-0.

Banjo Patterson,

You say:

<<Reforming every aspect of our response to criminal activity is a vast and never-ending project.>>

Then that's it.

I've looked through some ABS crime figures of recent years, the figures vary, and the crimes (allegedly) committed are horrible. Are we going to say murder and homicide aren't terrible and deserve less attention here than say sexual assault?

I'm not providing any links either here to prove a point. You shouldn't have to poke yourself in the eye to know that it hurts.

<<I understand your concerns regarding the exposure of the members of a jury to outside influence from social media etc. Well-seasoned professional judges/magistrates are undoubtedly less influenceable in that respect.>>

Well clearly you don't understand my concerns or you wouldn't advocate for juries. They can take outside influences like social media, this particular website (with all of the comments included) etc and be emotionally manipulated in a courtroom. Not good, let alone, their lack of understanding of the legal system and how it works.

<<Judgment by one’s peers randomly selected from the electoral role seems more democratic to me.>>

Justice isn't about democracy, or some people randomly selected to make a decision as per a jury. We are talking about other people's lives.

<<The human aspect of justice is also important from my point of view.>>

Yes. These matters can be better dealt with by the people in various formats, like voting, protests, letter writing, campaigns etc. and via legislation in parliament.

<<A professional judge is essentially a technician of the law.>>

As the system should be. I respect the decision of the high court. I don't want society to become some sort of mob rule, via the actions of politicians or juries. Laws are in place and let the judges assess as appropriate.

Continued (regarding Banjo Patterson),

<<I find it significant that the jury of twelve Australians selected randomly from the electoral roll had found George Pell guilty and was overruled by Chief Justice Kiefel and the six Justices of the High Court, all well-seasoned technicians of the law.>>

I don't. For me it's common, in the sense of justice. That being if a state/territory and their court systems stuff-up on a matter, make an error or poor judgement, you have a High Court to provide you with an alternative in terms of justice if someone has made claims against you.

Foxy,

Nathan has it in one. The fact that 7-0 high court judges threw out the victoria judges' decisions shows how badly the Vic judges screwed up.

7-0 means that there was absolutely no doubt that the evidence presented did not meet the requirements and if the victorian judges had any honour they would resign in disgrace.

shadowminister,

I agree with Gerard Henderson when he writes:

" ... it is a rare moment in Australia's history when
all seven members of the High Court question a verdict
which has been supported by a state police force and the
two most senior members of a state Supreme Court."

He's right, questions regarding our justice system and sexual abuse
victims, will undoubtedly continue for a very long time.

Dear Foxy,

«Accordingly Pell continued to protect pedophile clergy.»

So?

This just means that Pell was dedicated to the Catholic Church and was willing to defend its reputation at any cost.

Was he doing the right thing? maybe, maybe not, you may hate what he did, but his actions give no indication of any pedophile tendencies of his own. I could even argue that they reduce the probability of the above because a real pedophile would likely be a coward, stay in the shadows and betray his friends in order to remove all suspicion from himself.

You may say that for you and for your legal system, all that matters is WHAT he did, not why, but for me the WHYs matters far more than the what's.

Whether he did or didn't do the actions alleged against him (which we are unlikely to ever know), Pell was NOT a pedophile. Yes, he could have made mistakes, possibly serious mistakes, but whatever he did was [in his own best estimate] in the service of his Church and not for personal sexual gratification.

.

Dear

.

You wrote :

« There are already a huge number of people falsely convicted and having their convictions overturned later »
.

That is not the case for sex crimes, shadowminister, in fact it’s exactly the opposite : more than 99% of accused get off scot-free !

As I pointed out in my previous post, less than 1% of perpetrators of sexual assaults in Australia are found guilty (dixit Merryl Gee and Jane Gilmore), and for every single false allegation, there are over 220 rapes not reported to police.

The intimate nature of sex crimes, the impossibility of proving lack of consent, the lack of a credible eyewitness, the psychological trauma and feeling of shame that sex crimes provoke, all contribute to preventing or delaying reporting sex crimes to the police, and results in the obliteration of significant material evidence as well as the memory of sometimes small but important incriminating details.

It is because of these insurmountable difficulties – due to the very specific nature and circumstances of sex crimes – that, in the final count, it all boils down to a case of “my word against yours” – which is why most sex crimes are never brought to trial or even reported to the police.

Under the present system, the accused receives the benefit of the presumption of innocence, which, à contrario, means that the complainant is presumed to be lying. That is not a level playing field. In a contest where there is nothing more to go on but “my word against yours” the result is a foregone conclusion.

That is not justice.

In my view, there should be no presumption of guilt or innocence of either defendant or complainant. Each case should be tried on its individual merits under the adversarial trial system in which complainant and defendant are treated on an equal footing – neither being advantaged, the onus of proof (“beyond a reasonable doubt”) resting equally on both.

.

.

Oops, that was meant for shadowminister !

Sorry about that.

.

Banjo

https://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=22304&page=0

If you read this article, you will see that not only are a substantial number of people being convicted wrongly of sex crimes but that the police are bending over backwards to obtain convictions.

Your solution is to abandon all the laws and guidelines on evidence and set up kangaroo courts where the accused need to prove their innocence.

The dark side of this is that your guilt seems to depend on your political leanings where Bill Shorten is declared innocent with as much evidence against him as Pell yet Pell is declared guilty by hypocrites such as Foxy before the trial is even concluded. Even after Pell is exonerated by the high court he is declared guilty by the activist fwits.

Even your figure of 99% accused getting scot-free is fabricated from assumptions such as only 1 in 20 rapes are reported etc.

The harsh reality is that if a rape victim does not go directly to the police and submit to forensic examination the evidence of intercourse, DNA evidence and any photographic evidence of forced sex are lost which makes convictions far more difficult.

.

Dear shadowminister,

.

Thanks for that. Yes, I’m sure there are quite a number of cases of false allegations of rape and various other forms of sexual abuse similar to those indicated in the “Mobiles in the dock” article posted by Bettina Arndt.

Nevertheless, as Jane Gilmore pointed out in the article for which I provided a link in my previous post : “For every false allegation there are over 220 rapes not reported to police”.

Here is an article published in the magazine “Elle” last year titled “Australia's Justice System For Victim-Survivors Of Sexual Assault Is Broken—It's Time To Fix It” :

http://www.elle.com.au/culture/sexual-assault-justice-system-australia-26944

.

.

Dear NathanJ,

.

I read your feedback with interest. Though we obviously have different sensibilities and opinions on a number of points, apparently we both feel that our justice system does need to be put back on the drawing board and redesigned to deal more effectively with criminal activity, particularly sex crimes.

By the way, you mention that “Justice isn't about democracy “. I, personally, consider that the objective of democracy is justice – but that’s another subject.

.

This has been an interesting discussion and I am grateful
for all the different comments and the civilised way in
which on the whole this discussion has unfolded. Most people
did not stoop to emotional personal attacks. Instead they
lifted the bar on this discussion and kept it high.

The Cardinal
will soon be buried - and whether you respect him or not
his legacy will continue to be a polarising one - especially
for the people that had any dealings with him on a more
personal level.

I remember reading about the incident in Torquoy at the swimming
pool where the Cardinal was told to leave the change-rooms -as he
stood naked in front of the little boys by a guard. Who said -
"I know what you're doing, and if you ever come back here again - I'll call the cops!" "Get the hell out!" This is the record our luminary
had dating back to the 1960s. Many of his victims committed
suicide - so were unable to testify. Lack of evidence? They took
that to the grave with them.

I doubt if the man will rest in peace. And that's not just
my view. You can respect the High Court's decision or not -
and you can continue to shower the man in compliments and make
excuses for him. I don't want to do either.

And having been brought up as a
staunch Catholic, (dad was raised by the Jesuits - and my husband
by Christian Brothers), I would fight my family - to see that my
grand-kids don't go to Catholic Schools. My trust in that
institution has been lost.

This topic has proved, again, that there are some really awful people in this country and on this site. Slandering people before they have been tried: continuing to slander them after they have been cleared.

Australia has all the symptoms that lead to totalitarianism, where people trust nobody and say nothing because they don't know who's listening. As we creep further to the left, it can only get worse.

"Slandering" people?
Not at all. Recorded facts speak for themselves no
matter how distressing they may be to some defenders
of the Cardinal and the Church.

The detectives from
the taskforce SANO had an entire dossier on Cardinal Pell
for "multiple offences," going back to when he was a priest
in Ballarat and continuing when he was an archbishop and
then a cardinal.

These incidents are not "slander," but merely
reported incidents of their time.

And why should the people doing the reporting be classified
as "awful" people and the cardinal not be?

The reports go back to the 1960s for example just to quote
a few - There's the Southwell Report
where Pell was accused of abusine a 12 year old altar
boy at an altar boy's camp on Phillip Island.

Then there was the incident of Pell exposing
himself to three young boys at a surf club in
Torquay. Then there's the case of 2 former St Alipius
students swimming at the Eureka pool in Ballarat -
and the list goes on.

They all lied?

Seems there's a bit of a pattern here. And although these
young boys may be "awful" people - what does that make Cardinal
Pell to be?

The High Court found there wasn't enough evidence? In sexual
abuse cases that often happens. That's why as Banjo points
out the justice system does not reforming. And I agree. That
does not make any of us "awful people." But perhaps those
suggesting that we are need to look at their own motives for
why they are suggesting that and even questioning the motives
behind a topical discussion such as this one - which affects
so many people around the country and the world.

The Church and the abhorrent sexual abuse by its clergy is a
topic that needs to be discussed and not brushed aside and
hidden. It has/does affect too many people.

excuse my typo. I meant to say - our justice system
does need reforming. Especially in sexual abuse cases.

Banjo,

A conviction for rape is not like getting a traffic fine, the sentences are very long and reputation damage is forever. The function of a trial is to determine firstly whether the crime for which someone has been charged actually was committed.

Evidence and witnesses are presented and queried by both the prosecution and defence. If a "victim" does not report the crime, then there can be no trial. If there is sufficient evidence, then a conviction is relatively easy.

What you and the article you linked to are advocating is that for victims who report the rape late and for which there is no evidence other than the victim's statement, then special kangaroo courts will take her testimony as fact and disallow cross-examination.

That is execrable and close to the Chinese system that assumes guilt when you walk into court

No surprise to see who felt the need to defend the slander.

The rape of a child is a violent act.
We all need to protect children from these
heinous acts and not
excuse or defend the abusers.
Defending abusers is the ultimate betrayal.

Nobody is defending child abusers. You have been a non-stop abuser and slanderer of Cardinal Pell ever since he was railroaded. You are the leading 'awful person' on this matter, here on OLO. Your tedious repetition of the slanderous comments of other awful people in the media and the political class does not excuse your individual behaviour. You are responsible for your own behaviour here - and it is truly awful.

I've got a bitter enemy
His heart to hate he gave
I'm sure that he'd like to see me die
So he could dance upon my grave

But then such is a quirk of fate
Because the poison in his heart
May just hasten his miserable life
And force him to depart

So if your heart is full of hate
Folks, be aware
You could end up lying all alone
With nobody who cares

If you let hate rule your life
It won't be a pleasant doom
Providing a feast for tiny creatures
Embedded in your tomb

So try to live a hate-free life
The best things in life are free
Try to give and not just take
Let that be your ethical legacy.

ttbn,

I read your post. And I am responsible for my own
behaviour. But I can't be held responsible for your
interpretation of my behaviour. In any case no matter
what I say or do - your posting record regarding me
on this forum speaks for itself. And you need to accept
responsibility for that. "awful," doesn't even cover it.

In any case - If you think I'm being "awful."
I must be doing something right!

I accept that you will always be deluded and remain convinced that you are always right. Fortunately, you are completely harmless to everyone but yourself. And you deserve what you are doing to yourself.

The Catholic Church threw Pell to the secular wolves because he was a conservative. They didn't raise a finger to help him because they didn't want their 'progressive' sects revealed. Keep the faith, speak your mind, and you are in big trouble with the Vatican mafia.

These sects are "overwhelmingly liberal (left-wing)". Pell was their natural enemy. The sects are determined to keep out conservative views and values. They are always looking for excuses to get rid of conservatives.

And wasn't the one cooked up against Pell a beauty!

It is easy to sideline run-of-the-mill conservatives, but Pell was powerful and influential prior to the current Pope, who didn't like him either.

The sects want to change Catholic tradition to suit the current secular ideology, Their faith is not strong enough for them to accept that the Church is 'of God, not the world'; and Pell was having none of that. And the Left-ideologues-rather-than-true-Catholics were having none of Pell.

Not a Catholic myself, I have always respected Catholicism (not the corporate bureaucracy) for what it has done in the wider world as well as for Christianity via priests like George Pell.

This new, watered down version - without the likes of Pell, and with a Lefty Pope - is rubbish.6

One of THE most awful people who hounded George Pell, Louise Milligan, has neighed, " George Pell is dead. This will be a very triggering day for a lot of people".

So, even Pell's dying is cause for more angst for "lots of people" who he never did a thing to, and indeed initiated the very first enquiry into child abuse by some Catholics against them.

It's not just an anonymous poster who should be contemplating Hell because of their hateful attitudes and 'evidence' against an innocent man - all of which was swept aside unanimously by the High Court.

Foxy,

Considering that the VIC police opened a session for anyone to lodge complaints against Pell, I would guess that every opportunist and conman took a chance for free money.

Cardinal Pell has been a divisive figure both in
Australia and internationally, but his legacy has
been tarnished by the Royal Commission findings
in 2020. The late Cardinal was a polarising figure
and his death will stir powerful memories for victims
of sexual abuse.

St. Patrick's Cathedral in Ballarat - has its fence
and gates covered in ribbons from sexual abuse victims.
Two state governments are not giving him a state funeral.
The membership of the Catholic Church in Australia has
declined according to the last census. And so it goes.

Stating these facts is not "slander." And before criticising
Louise Milligan - it would be more appropriate to first read
her book.

Providing information as part of a discussion is a normal
process - and does not mean that the provider is trying to be
"right." If you don't agree with the facts being provided it's
better to provide your own evidence to dispute them rather than
name-calling and labelling people while stating that you
accept opinions different to yours. Your behaviour does not
support your claims.

My family asks me - why do you respond to that "ignoramus?"
But they know why. I have been raised to try to be polite.
Except of course when I lose it.

shadowminister,

Possibly. However do you know how many did not report
their abuses during the Cardinal's lifetime? How committed
suicide? Or became drug addicts. Or how many priests he
allowed to continue abusing because he moved them from
parish to parish? The count with Ridsdale was over 130.
And suicides just in Ballarat were over 51.

Hope can you compensate for that?

Foxy,

What does Ridsdale do with Pell's trial? I don't believe that this is in any way connected. I guess that since you have lost this debate you are just trying to muddy the waters.

How does this compensate for the 30 million people Stalin executed?

The percentage of sex crimes that are punished?

- 100%

Regardless of what human police and courts do or not, nobody can get away scot-free with their crime in the heavenly court.
Given this infallible justice, why that crude attempt at duplication?

Nobody can be raped or otherwise injured unless they deserved so because of something similar they did earlier in their life and/or in previous lifetimes. The best one can do in such circumstances is to thank God for finally settling their account and closing the matter. The middling approach is to forgive and get on with life. The worst they can do is to start a new cycle of violence and suffering by asking police to investigate and prosecute. Revenge can never brings closure and peace, only further anguish.

---

Dear Ttbn,

«So, even Pell's dying is cause for more angst for "lots of people" who he never did a thing to»

That places him in the great company of Jesus Christ.
If his dying is a cause for so much angst - just imagine how much will his resurrection be?!

Foxy doesn't want the truth. She wants her delusions to continue. She ignores legitimate criticism, and retreats into an echo chamber with other people like her family (if she is telling the truth about their "ignoramus" comment). They could be the only people she has anything to do with, which goes a long way to explaining her ignorance and naivety about the real world.

Fancy involving your family in your obsessions. What a joyful household it must be.

Does anyone else do this? Go boo-hooing to the rellies when some 'nasty man' doesn't agree with Mumsy-wumsy.

.

Apparently, Foxy’s closing remarks came a little too early this year. The enigma that was George Pell continues to haunt the minds of some.

Could it be that there was not just one, but two George Pells ? Was he George Pell, the monster, the masculine Lamia of Foxy, or George Pell, the staunch defender of conservative views and values, of ttbn and shadowminister ?

Have we all just witnessed another version of “The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde” 137 years later ?

This is how the Encyclopedia Britannica explains it :

« In The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Stevenson suggested that the human propensities for good and evil are not necessarily present in equal measure. Hyde is quite a bit smaller than Jekyll, perhaps indicating that evil is only a small portion of Jekyll’s total personality but one that may express itself in forceful, violent ways. The story has long been interpreted as a representation of the Victorians’ bifurcated self. Jekyll is in every way a gentleman, but just beneath the surface lie baser desires that remain unspoken; he is the very personification of the dichotomy between outward gentility and inward lust. Stevenson’s tale took on new resonance two years after publication with the grisly murders perpetrated by Jack the Ripper in 1888 when the psychological phenomenon that Stevenson explored was invoked to explain a new and specifically urban form of sexual savagery »
.

The question remains :

Who was the ex-choirboy (15 years old at the time) who accused Cardenal Pell 22 years later in 2018 of sexual penetration and why if it was not true ? Why would he lie ? What was his motive ?

The full hierarchy of courts in Australia, from the lowest to the highest, examined the case and arrived at the final renouncement of acquittal.

Could Pell have been the sort of stuff legends are made of ?

Time will tell.

In the meantime, RIP George - and, as Yuyutsu suggests, God will look into the matter ...

.

Paul Collins, a Catholic Church Historian and former
Priest has said that Cardinal Pell's death was unlikely
to cause a huge shift in the Australian Catholic landscape
given that change had been gradually occurring since the
2012 Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to
Child Sexual Abuse.

We're told that:

"Pell's vision of the Church was a kind of fortress. A place
that had all the answers and Pell's kind of approach was
a pugilistic fairly boots and all kind of Catholicism, whereby
he certainly was not going to take secular society seriously."

The Church was above reproach. It was infallible. It could do
no wrong. Cardinal Pell was a divisive figure both in Australia
and internationally but his legacy has been tarnished by the
Royal Commission and Cardinal Pell's death will stir painful
memories for victims of sexual abuse.

Dear Banjo,

Your raising the the duality of human nature with the
example of Dr Jekyl and Mr Hyde, regarding Cardinal Pell is
interesting. The idea that every single human being has
good and evil within them. I think what is important is how
you behave and the decisions you make is what matters.

Clearly Mr Hyde did not repent or accept responsibility for
his evil crimes and ways. Neither did Cardinal Pell. However
Mr Hyde did commit suicide in the end. Something that
Cardinal Pell would never do.

History, will judge Cardinal Pell. We can only hope that the
Church will learn from its past mistakes and take action
to heal those still in pain.

I went to Church yesterday and prayed for the repose of
Cardinal Pell's soul and for the victims of sexual abuse.

Shortly before his death, Cardinal Pell wrote a document describing the planned 'Synod on Synodality' as a "toxic nightmare", "couched in neo-Marxist jargon", and "hostile to the apostolic tradition"; ignoring "such fundamental Christian tenets as belief in divine judgement, heaven and hell".

No wonder he was hated by the Vatican and disliked by the Pope. No wonder there are rumours that his death might not have been natural.

Cardinal Pell's life was not natural.
He was a polarising figure and his death
is stirring painful memories for the
victims of sexual abuse.

As for the Vatican and Pope Francis hating him?
Hardly. Cardinal Pell was very much at home in
Rome and was even given the task of cleaning
up the Treasury mess.

It is interesting ttbn, that you seem on the one
hand to defend the Cardinal's and the Church's
behaviour and then on the other hand suggest
that these people are capable of murder?

It is becoming more and more difficult to take
you seriously.

Father Jim McKay said at the memorial mass in Ballarat
that "We can't change the past." The past was immutable.
However he made it clear that " We can change the future."

Ley's hope and pray that changing the future as far as
the Church's handling of sexual abuse cases goes - will
be a change for the better for all concerned. It must be
done if the church is to survive.

Like all narcissists, Foxy doesn't take much notice of what anyone else says.

I did defend Pell, and I will continue to do so. I DID NOT defend the churches behaviour, and I never will.

Further I DID NOT suggest "that these people are capable of murder". I referred to a rumour that it could be the case. I think that it's very unlikely, and too Dan Brown to be taken seriously.

I suppose when she lives a fairy tale and has only the family to agree with everything she comes out with, she really is not equipped to deal with people who have opinions different from hers.

For me this discussion has now run its course.
There's nothing new that any of us can add that
hasn't already been said. So I will close
with these few words:

Cardinal Pell, a man ordained
For the church's failings he's now blamed
Nobody told him as he rose high
That without wings he couldn't fly
That without good deeds he couldn't soar
Nor little children would him adore

So within the church he wasn't revered
There were those who were scared
And many who sneered
There were the kids he failed to protect
Whose lives as adults became total wrecks
And thanks to him his church now remains
Lower in its membership, heavier in its chains
Perhaps one day understanding will arise
By following the actions of a previous Christ
The church in time may learn to teach
That love and peace is within its reach
But not while men within the church remain
Who look at humanity with disdain.

Foxy always says that the discussion has run its course when she hasn't got her way and has run out of bulldust and fairy tales.

She's run out of Cardinals to rubbish. The Pope will be her next subject, given his age and health. I'll get in early and say that he is the worst Pope ever, and I won't be defending him - mainly because he hasn't done anything worthwhile, but also because he is a dreadful lefty who chickened out on the CCP, or Xi himself, selecting Bishops in China.

Do you think Archy Pell and Dirty Old Father Ridsdale are once more roomies in heaven. Although Ridsdale kept a pile of obscene pornographic magazines in their rather small shared room in Ballarat, Pell claimed he had not seen or had any knowledge of Ridsdale's mags, it defied belief.

"Pell lived with Ridsdale for a time in the 1970s, accompanied him to court in 1993, and offered to provide character evidence for him. The royal commission investigated what Pell knew of Ridsdale's offending while Pell worked in the Ballarat diocese."

"I'll (ttbn) get in early and say that he (Francis) is the worst Pope ever" What an ignorant statement from a bloke with zero knowledge of the over 260 Popes since Peter. Pray tell what is your opinion of Pope Linus? I can see saying, WHOSE this Linus bloke, never heard of him! Oh yeah, I know says ttbn, Charlie Brown's best mate.

.

A couple of things I should rectify …

.

I mistakenly indicated in my previous post that the choirboy, A, was 15 years old at the time of the alleged crimes. In fact, both he and the other choirboy, B, were only 13 years old.

I also mistakenly indicated that A accused Pell of sexual penetration in 2018. In fact, A made his first complaint about the alleged assaults in June 2015, i.e., when he was 32 years old – 19 years after the alleged assaults.
.

Choirboy B died in 2014 aged 31 from a drug overdose.

That raises a couple of questions :

1. Was B’s drug addiction due to the purported sexual assaults ?

2. Did B’s death trigger A’s decision to report the purported sexual assaults to the police ? If not, what did trigger his decision ?

The father of the deceased choirboy B had instigated legal proceedings in the civil court against Pell and the Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne, separately, prior to Pell’s death.

Shine Lawyers’ chief legal officer, Lisa Flynn, acting on behalf of choirboy B’s father (referred to in court as RWQ) has indicated that the civil claim would continue despite Pell’s death.

The civil trial would have provided the only opportunity to cross-examine Pell, and truly test his defence against the allegations – despite the High Court’s ruling of acquittal in the criminal case during which Pell never uttered a single word, remaining silent throughout the trial, retrial, appeal to the Supreme Court of Victoria and subsequent appeal to the High Court of Australia.

Pell died in Rome at age 81 while undergoing hip surgery. According to the Vatican, he had been suffering from heart problems for some time and had been implanted with a pacemaker since 2010.

.

I wonder if Ridsdale was a member of the Greens and mates with Doig.

He certainly had the attributes

No SM,

But if you want to play dirty, The Liberal Party supplied Australia with it one and only, as far as I know, PAEDOPHILE PRIME MINISTER, yes he did like the young boys, I think you know who I am referring to, he is now long dead.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

«during which Pell never uttered a single word, remaining silent throughout the trial»

Likely because he wanted to protect the other clergymen who were with him in the room, whose identity he now successfully took to his grave. All evidence shows that he could not have possibly been there alone with the children.

That needs to be corrected.

Actually at that time St Patrick's Cathedral was
under going renovations - and there was great
disorder in the private areas of the cathedral.
Pell's personal assistant went outside for a smoke -
To which he later testified. There was confusion all
round at the time. And the incident with the two boys
was very believable. As was shown by the jury, the
court of appeal majority judges, the court of public
opinion - et cetera.

Dear Banjo,

This provides more information:

http://theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/feb/28/the-kid-and-the-choirboy-the-harrowing-story-of-george-pells-victims

Two more comments from Foxy after she declared the conversation over for her. It is impossible to believe anything she says.

Paul,

Bob Brown was never PM though he acted like it.

While it might be a green attribute to rummage through a roommate's belongings to assume Pell would do it is to assign Pell the greens sewer rat morals.

Foxy,

The RC's comments on what Pell knew are conjecture and have no legal standing

The alter boy's suit against the Catholic Church is far less sound since the HC's ruling on the quality of evidence. In the event of the suit failing, he will be saddled with the court costs.

Banjo,

"Was B’s drug addiction due to the purported sexual assaults?" Speculation on B's drug addiction assumes he had no responsibility for his own actions.

Cross-examining Pell for something where there was no evidence would have been futile.

ttbn,

What about your promise to leave me alone?

Pot, kettle, black!

SM, wrong BB is still alive, guess again.

Yes Foxy, SM has given us another one of his famous "pearls of wisdom" a forum legal opinion, soon he will be telling us Archy Pell will be in for $10+ million plus in compensation, a groveling apology from the ABC, and 100 ABC staff sacked to pay for it all. AND he will also add "an arrest is imminent" besides Cardinal Pell's future career is assured, probably be the next Liberal Party PM. Right SM? Remember your legal opinion on 'Cry Baby' Porter.

Dear Paul,

Are you talking about Billy MacMahon?

Pauliar,

Once again you are lying. I think anyone should assume that anything you post is a lie.

I will use small words that even a stupid greenie can understand:

This is more logical than legal. Unless Pell admitted that he knew something, a court or judge cannot state that he did as it is impossible to know what someone knows. The judge might believe he knows or that he should know, but he cannot state that he did.

This is why no one can be charged with lying under oath for stating "I don't recall" as it can never be proved a lie.

Simple enough even for a village idiot.

shadowminister,

Pell said that sexual abuse was of "no interest" to him
and that attacks on the church he considered worse then
sexual abuse. Which says a great deal about his character.
His record of abuse with accusations goes back to the 1960s.
And he was involved in the pedophile network in Ballarat.

The man does not have a clean slate. He's now dead. Stop
defending him. Let history be the judge. His record speaks
for itself. There were enough witnesses who came forward.

Foxy,

Now you are lying, there was no solid evidence that Pell was involved in paedophilia. Unlike Doig the green's federal candidate.

shadowminister,

Evidence was provided by the Royal Commission which
tarnished Pell's legacy. Not only was Pell conscious
child sexual abuse by clergy but priests were moved
from parish to parish. Pell went to court with Ridsdale
and offered Ridsdale's nephew a bribe not to go to the
police. Apart from Ridsdale there were other priests -
Peter Searson, Leo Fitzgerald, Ted Dowlan to mention
just a few.

The fact remains that Pell was sentenced to six years
in jail in 2019 on 5 charges of sexual penetration
and molestation of children aged 13 which judge Kidd
described as "brazen and forcible."

After spending 13 months in prison Pell was released
not because he was innocent - but because there wasn't
the required amount of proof. Many of the victims had
died and were unable to testify. Pell never testified.

I have nothing further to add. Thankfully the man can
do no more harm. It's now up to the church to rectify
the harm that was done to ensure it doesn't happen again
in the future to others.

Foxy,

You refer to decisions made at a state level, but then ignore the High Court ruling as if it has no value, and from that dumb down the importance of the High Court of Australia.

As the below points out, with link below:

"The High Court is often referred to as the ‘guardian’ of both the Constitution and the rule of law in Australia. Former Chief Justice Murray Gleeson succinctly described the complex relationship between the law, the government, the judiciary, and the public, when he said:

The importance of the rule of law lies partly in the power it denies to people and to governments, and in the discipline to which it subjects all authority. That denial, and that discipline, are conditions of the exercise of power, which in a democracy, comes from the community which all government serves. Judicial prestige and authority are at their greatest when the judiciary is seen by the community, and the other branches of government, to conform to the discipline of the law which it administers. The rule of law is not enforced by an army. It depends upon public confidence in lawfully constituted authority. The judiciary claims the ultimate capacity to decide what the law is. Public confidence demands that the rule of law be respected, above all, by the judiciary."

http://blogs.unimelb.edu.au/opinionsonhigh/about-the-high-court/why-is-the-high-court-important/

We must accept High Court decisions and move on. If people feel there is a need for change, then they can take action for (in their view) a better outcome.

Hi Nathan,

The Pell case as Banjo has already pointed out earlier
highlights the very difficult tensions in Australian criminal
law between our society's right to seek justice for historical
sexual abuse offences and a defendant's right to have their
guilt proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Given as we know that sexual abuse often happens in private and
within relationships of trust, cases of historic sexual abuse
are usually alleged by one witness who is also the purported
victim.

If the evidence of one witness, who is also a victim, cannot
suffice to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, then what
is the likelihood of historic sexual abuse claims ever
succeeding?

Further, when is it the court's place to decide that 12 members
of the public MUST be mistaken?

The Pell case needs to be analyzed and assessed especially in the
role of the HIgh Court in hearing criminal matters.

There appears to be a case for questioning the appropriateness
and implications of a High Court substituting a decision made
bu a jury with its own finding of what it thinks is rational.
Will one "Witness of Truth," ever be enough to be held
compelling enough to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?

I agree with Banjo the current legal system as it stands needs
to be reformed in sexual abuse cases.

See you on another discussion. I have nothing further to say.

Hi Foxy,

SM likes to quote the Murdoch Gutter Press, her's something for him;

"Billy McMahon has long been regarded as a pathetic politician, endlessly scheming and riven with paranoia, and an incompetent prime minister who was out of his depth and became a figure of ridicule as he led the long Coalition government at its fag end and to defeat in December 1972.To be compared to McMahon is the ultimate political insult. He is probably Australia’s worst prime minister, an embarrassment to the Liberal Party with few redeeming qualities and with a negligible legacy after a miserable 21 months in the top job."

'The Australian' 2018.

Foxy,

Let's look at this matter though from a different perspective in terms of the High Court.

Let's say both yourself and myself are in the village square about to be hung to death after a state-based court ruling and facing the court of public opinion, all in the negative.

We both dispute the claims made by others about certain actions of ours. For yourself though the State legal system rules, and you will take nothing else into consideration. I'm screaming out for you to change your mind, but you won't do anything, we are hung, and both die.

Let's say though just before we are hung, someone comes along and screams out, "these people have been treated unfairly! I want their case referred to the High Court and I will pay all of their legal costs!"

What are you going to do.... refuse? As one of the people here wrongly accused, facing death I would hope that not to be the case. I would need all the support possible to be taken down and the rope removed.

A long but very sobering read.

http://theaimn.com/george-pell-devil-incarnate-is-dead/

One can only hope the bastard's death brings some comfort to the thousands of victims of the church.

.

The Law is Not Justice !

.

The role of the High Court of Australia is defined on its website as follows :

« The functions of the High Court are to interpret and apply the law of Australia; to decide cases of special federal significance including challenges to the constitutional validity of laws and to hear appeals, by special leave, from Federal, State and Territory courts »

There is no mention of justice in that definition.

The fact is, the High Court simply “interprets and applies the law”. But law and justice are not the same things. What is the difference ?

Put simply, law means rules and regulations – justice means fairness, equitableness, and moral rightness. Rules and regulations may or may not be just. Strict application of the rules and regulations could, and in some rare cases, does, produce totally unjust outcomes.

Law is a concrete concept (written). Justice is a more abstract concept (unwritten).

In condemning Pell, each of the 12 members of the jury did so on the basis of his or her intimate conviction that Pell was guilty “beyond reasonable doubt” of the sex crimes of which he was accused. In doing so, they understood that their duty was to pronounce a decision of justice based on the elements of the case presented during the court hearings.

Historically, it seems that today's juries have 12 people because the Welsh king Morgan of Gla-Morgan, who established jury trials in 725 A.D., decided upon the number, linking the judge and jury to Jesus and his Twelve Apostles.

Juries are composed randomly of people from all walks of life. Their sole task is to come up with a verdict in accordance with the law as explained to them by the judge right throughout the trial and in a summing up before the jury commences its deliberations.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

In Pell’s case, the High Court ruled that the jury verdict did not conform with the law. It deemed that, based on the evidence, or lack thereof, the jury should have had a “reasonable doubt”.

As for the members of the jury, conscious of the important responsibility imparted to them, they no doubt judged as any neophyte in such matters would based not only on the evidence presented to them but also on their own personal experience as human beings with their natural intuition and plain common sense.

The jury rendered justice. The High Court proclaimed the law. The High Court's decision prevailed.

The judgment of the High Court is final and conclusive.

.

Thanks Steele for the article, during life Pell had the power and influence to shield himself from the truth, hopefully in death and without that protection, the truth about the real Pell will someday be told in full.

SM,

"rummage through a roommate's belongings" or watch a roommate (Ridsdale) bugger a boy in your (Pell) presents, which Pell did. SM you are quite entitled to defend one of your own. Just as I have no desire to defend the grub Jonathan Doig, as far as I am concerned the bastard can rot in jail forever, regardless of the fact he was a failed Greens candidate in the seat of Cook, that has no relevance. Unlike you who sees Pell's conservatism as a reason to defend him, regardless of what he had done.

Thanks again to Banjo for explaining the difference
between justice and the law. Hopefully the day will come
when reform will happen in our justice system in this country
as far as sexual abuse cases go and
the High Court will not interfere in the decisions made
by a jury trial supported by a Court of Appeal majority vote.

Thanks again to all those who were able to remain civil despite
differences in opinions - and did not have to stoop to personal
attacks and try to lower the bar of this discussion.

It is people like you that keeps rational posters coming back.
As David Fisher says - Thank you.

A good comment on Feeble Francis comes from a German cardinal: 'The Pope is closer to climate change than he is to God'.

Isn't the Pope infallible according to the Church's
traditional and conservative teachings? And Isn't
climate change connected to God - the all ultimate
powerful and infallible Deity?

God is ultimately in control. Scripture is clear that
God is sovereign over everything (Psalm 115.3) including
the weather (Psalm 148.8).

.

Dear Foxy,

.

I wish to thank you for that excellent excerpt from Louise Milligan’s book “Cardinal: The Rise and Fall of George Pell”.

You have provided me with the answer to my question : “Did B’s death trigger A’s decision to report the purported sexual assaults to the police ?”

It certainly did.

That settles a major interrogation in my mind. I now have no hesitation in considering that Pell v The Queen highlights once more the inadequacy of our current justice procedures to deal effectively with sex crimes.

Though the general principle of the presumption of innocence may rightly be considered a sound moral basis for judging most crimes, this is not true for some of the worst in terms of severity and frequency : sex related crimes. These include rape, sexual assault, incest and paedophilia, which are permanent features of all human societies, deeply embedded in our social structures at all levels and penetrating the inner circles of the family in epidemic proportions.

The sacrosanct principle of presumption of innocence 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 than that for which it was intended. Instead of preventing and punishing crime it encourages and facilitates it. It is headed in the wrong direction.

Reliable statistics are hard to come by, but according to the Rape Statistics by Country 2023, Australia has the 11th highest rape rate in the world (28.6 per 100 000 citizens). By comparison, The US is 13th with a rate of 27.3 per 100 000 citizens.

In the US, 97% of rapists never spend a single day in jail. Indications are that the situation is no better anywhere else in the world.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

From what I can understand of the case of Pell v The Queen and with all due respect to the honourable members of our judiciary whose professionalism and dedication are by no means in question, I consider that choirboy A deserves our utmost sympathy and admiration for his courage in taking the matter to court and for his constant loyalty to the memory of his deceased fellow victim.

As is regrettably so often the case, both have suffered a double punishment : first by their torturer and second by the social stigma inflicted on them by the highest and most prestigious court in the land.

Surely we must be able to do better than that.

.

Dear Banjo,

I am so glad that you read that article by Louise
Milligan. It's one excerpt from her book. I am tempted
to buy the updated edition that has more information and
a foreword by Tom Keneally before the book disappears
off the book-shop shelves. I'm hesitating because she writes
so vividly - and what you read is quite harrowing.

Cardinal Pell was acquitted by the High Court on child
sexual abuse charges but without ever facing court over
multiple other allegations. Louise Milligan deals with
all the charges for which Pell was never tried in her book.

I fully agree - our justice system needs to be able to do better.
Much better.

ttbn,

The German Cardinal to whom you referred, Cardinal Gerhard
Muller, 75 year old prelate is very critical of Pope Francis's
outreach programs.

Muller, was appointed by the conservative
Benedict XVI as Doctrinal Chair at the Vatican only to be
replaced after Pope Francis took office. Could that be
influencing Muller's outspokenness regarding Pope Francis?
A case of sour grapes?

Banjo Paterson,

<<The jury rendered justice. The High Court proclaimed the law. The High Court's decision prevailed.>>

If the jury rendered justice, then they rendered justice by their own ruling. End of story. They either rendered justice, or they didn't. That being a person is satisfied with the jury ruling alone and nothing else. After all the decision was made before the high court ruling.

That depends on though if someone wants your interpretation of justice (alone) or if they want other things to go along with that, let's say some type of justice/revenge/other things as a whole package.

That is in the context a person wanting a jury ruling in their favour, plus someone to go to prison for the rest of their life or a very long time and say some sort of financial compensation to be paid.

Now if a person who has made a claim doesn't get all of what they see as justice/revenge/other due to a high court ruling, it does not change the ruling of a jury (in principle, in terms of the jury's original decision).

It could be argued that those who made claims here got what they wanted (via the jury decision), the other facing the claim, got what they wanted (via the high court decision), but do either parties accept that in principle?

I don't think I can take that view. Financial compensation is still being sought and the person facing the claims here (George Pell) had to spend a lot of time in prison (losing a lot of his life) as a result.

Finally, it could be argued that the justice rendered actually lasted, involving the justice/revenge/other, via the jury decision and until the high court decision was made, with George Pell forced to stay in prison (personally though not my position).

Pauliar,

You might find it OK to invade others' privacy, but I don't.

Pell is not one of my own, but when I see a specific case of left whingers abuse of the political and legal system I speak out. I have no time for those from the Catholic church, greens, or anyone else that sexually abuses children, or rapes women.

But what I do see from the left including you, foxy and Banjo is any of these abuses from the left are swept under the carpet and even an utterly unsubstantiated whiff of misdeeds from conservatives and a lynch mob is instantly raised.

A complaint of rape was made against Shorten by a witness that had no other motive, and the case was swept under the carpet, Pell with no more evidence was convicted after a show trial and either incompetent or activist action by the Victorian Judges. Pell was freed because the high court unanimously saw that there was no substantive evidence against him and shamed the Victorian judges.

Banjo's proposal is to abandon the presumption of innocence and set up kangaroo courts to convict conservative figures. What is very likely is that Witness B saw the possibility of $m and lied through his teeth to convict an innocent man for profit.

Banjo Paterson wrote: "Law is a concrete concept (written). Justice is a more abstract concept (unwritten)."

Mmm. The first is suppose to serve the second so in that sense they are certainly not separate.

One perspective of the case is that the prosecution failed to do their job. They left the opportunity witnesses unchallenged. Whether this was a strategy, an oversight, a question of resources or just hubris from having a highly believable central witness it is hard to tell.

The High Court clearly stated that because "The unchallenged evidence of the opportunity witnesses was inconsistent with the complainant's account" they "held that, on the assumption that the jury had assessed the complainant's evidence as thoroughly credible and reliable, the evidence of the opportunity witnesses nonetheless required the
jury, acting rationally, to have entertained a reasonable doubt as to the applicant's guilt in relation to the offences involved in both alleged incidents."
http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgment-summaries/2020/hca-12-2020-04-07.pdf

Basically it was saying to the prosecution your failure to even attempt to challenge the opportunity witnesses has tied our hands and given that the only just outcome was to conclude the 'burden of proof' measure was not fulfilled then the conviction could not stand.

In that sense it was a just decision.

Continued:

The Law Council summed it up nicely:

"In criminal trials, the prosecution bears the burden of proof and must prove every element of their case to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. While the High Court proceeded on the basis that the jury had found the complainant to be a credible and reliable witness and did not need to make an adverse or different finding about the complainant's credibility, the decisive issue in the appeal was the existence and treatment of other evidence that was inconsistent with the complainant’s account of the incidents, and which was largely unchallenged by the Crown at trial."

"The onus was on the prosecution to negate the possibility that the complainant’s account was not correct beyond reasonable doubt, which it could not do in the face of the other evidence. In other words, although the testimony of the complainant was capable of being considered truthful and reliable when taken by itself, there was other contradictory evidence before the court that was unchallenged by the Crown and which therefore also had to be considered truthful and reliable. When considered together, a reasonable doubt must have arisen as to which account was correct."
http://www.lawcouncil.asn.au/media/media-releases/comments-on-the-high-court-judgment-pell-v-the-queen

So rather than a strict dichotomy between law and justice something can be just and unjust at the same time.

Dear Nathan,

There are pedophiles and rapists who cannot control their sexual urges and there are others who cannot control their desires for revenge and who enjoy and get excited by seeing others suffer under the pretext of "justice", including others they do not even know.

The latter are no better than the former.

It would be useless, though, to try and argue with them here because they just cannot control their urges.

Rest assured that justice is being carried with or without human courts, that the world is and always been well taken care of and nobody can ever get any less or any more than what they deserve.

Whatever happens to you, pleasant or unpleasant, thank the almighty for doing you justice and bringing closure to your previous acts, meritorious or otherwise.

Rest assured that nobody suffers, including sexually, unless they deserve so for doing something similar in their past, be it earlier in their life or in previous lives.
The best recourse for a "victim" is to introspect and try to find what it is which they have done to deserve it. Once they do they find lasting consolation and peace, but revenge only gets them into a new cycle of violence for which they will suffer again in future.

"Rest assured that nobody suffers, including sexually, unless they deserve so for doing something similar in their past, be it earlier in their life or in previous lives."

Yuyutsu, that is an outrages statement that shifts guilt from the perpetrator to the victim. When the bastard Ridsdale was sodomising children, he was merely the "handmaiden of the Lord", doing God's work. That's what you are saying, total crap!

Dear Paul,

I did not expect you to understand, which is why my post was addressed to NathanJ, not to you.

For anyone really seeking genuine understanding the following
link should shine a light on the issues:

http://home.crin.org/issues/sexual-violence/australia-case-study-clergy-abuse#

Dear Yuyutsu,

This is a public forum, and you can expect replies from all quarters including me. When I agree with your posts, I say so, that statement however is appalling, and you may get those that agree with you, but certainly not me.

This is also appalling;

"The best recourse for a "victim" is to introspect and try to find what it is which they have done to deserve it. Once they do they find lasting consolation and peace, but revenge only gets them into a new cycle of violence for which they will suffer again in future."

I note how you place quotation marks around the word victim, indicating you don't believe they are actually victims at all, but are in some perverse way instigators not victims. Are you saying children sexual abused by the likes of Ridsdale (and I only use that bastard as one example) were the instigators of the crime and Ridsdale was only a facilitator of the punishment from an unseen God! Absolute crap!

I've picked up on what you are saying, but I don't know what others think of your perverted thoughts.

BTW; Have you heard of justice, not revenge, and punishment for the perpetrator, and solace for the victim, it seems not.

Dear Paul,

You present a secular worldview.

The secular worldview considers the world to be chaotic.
Yes there are the laws of physics, but according to this worldview they are the only laws in the universe and by Chaos Theory, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
even the tiniest change anywhere in the world can upturn everything elsewhere (and quantum mechanics can introduce such uncontrollable tiny changes any time).

When living in a chaotic universe, fear makes sense because anything could happen at any time, no matter what we do. We can of course attempt to reduce the chances of pain and disasters, but all our attempts are only temporary and statistical.

While some succumb to fear, there are people who try to challenge it willfully. Attempting to create some justice and punishment (because one believes that there are no inherent such things already in nature), is presumed to bring some solace to "victims" because it sends them the message: "you are not alone, we care for you, we fight the darkness and chaos, Mom and Dad will always keep watching over you".

Well Mom and Dad can only keep watch over you that much and that long. Nature will continue to throw in bad experiences and it will be more and more difficult to explain how Mom and Dad failed to stop them (or do they not love me any more?), thus solace can be temporary at best and be followed by great disappointment.

I present the spiritual worldview, according to which nature has additional laws, beyond the observable laws of physics. According to which justice and punishment do exist inherently in nature so there is no need to try and re-introduce them, duplicating what is already here, according to which we live in an ordered cosmos, not in a chaos, so nothing happens "by chance" and no victims exist, according to which there are ways to find true, stable and lasting solace, according to which fear is not necessary!

Living in harmony with the all laws of nature, not just the physical ones, can bring an end to all fear and suffering.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I'll get down to tin-tacks, and maybe you can explain it all from a higher astral plane than I'm on, in light of your previous assertions. When Ridsdale (I'll use him again, but he is one among many), time and time again, was pushing his filthy prick up the arse of a ten year old school boy, until the boy bled and screamed in agony, pray tell; what was God thinking, was he thinking; "My dear chosen servant Gerard is delivering true justice to a spiteful sinner, praise the Lord!"

Well mate if that's the case I certainly know who is perverted. Please, just a simple explanation will do, none of that hairy-fairy nonsense stuff, which I don't see of being any relevance at all.

Dear Paul,

Only humans can think, but let me say just one thing - that Ridsdale and his ilk would be spending a very very long time in one of the lowest hells for what they did, and there is nothing we need to willfully do about it because nature takes care of it anyway.

«Yuyutsu, that is an outrages statement that shifts guilt from the perpetrator to the victim.»

I am not shifting any guilt, I just describe things as they are.

The "victim" has basically two choices:
1) Use this opportunity constructively to be rid of older guilt; or
2) Blame and pursue the perpetrator, thereby acquiring fresh guilt.

The perpetrator gets no choice - he acquires fresh guilt in any case, for which he will have to pay dearly.

.

Dear SteeleRedux,

.

Yes, thanks. That pretty much explains and justifies the ruling of the judiciary on Pell v The Queen.

I agree with the findings of the four courts that were consulted which is why I indicated in my previous post that the professionalism and dedication of the members of our judiciary are by no means in cause.

The fact remains that there is very little doubt in my mind that in the case of Pell v The Queen, there has been a grave miscarriage of justice – which is the fate of most sex crimes (e.g., 97% of rapists never spend a single night in jail).

It was clearly not the fault of the police investigators. Nor was it the fault of the honourable members of the judiciary. They all did their job properly. They all respected the law and the rules and regulations of the judicial process.

But while the decision of acquittal was based on a question of “unreasonableness” (of what the court was asked to consider as the facts) – rather than a question of law – in the opinion of the majority of the judges of the Appeal Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria, the weight of that “unreasonableness” was negligible compared to the overwhelming degree of credibility of the complainant’s testimony.

Did the prosecution commit an error in not challenging the third-party witnesses’ recollections of Pell’s routines and practices following the usual Sunday Mass 22 years previously? The three judges of the Appeal Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria were split on that question.

Chief Justice Ferguson and Justice Maxwell, President of the Court of Appeal, considered the evidence of the "opportunity witnesses" varied in quality and consistency, and in the degree of recall, both as between witnesses and within the evidence of individual witnesses. Whereas they accepted the prosecution’s submission that the complainant was a very compelling witness, was clearly not a liar, was not a fantasist, and was a witness of truth.

.

(Continued …

.

.

(Continued …)

.

The third judge, Justice Weinberg, dissented.

Chief Justice Ferguson and Justice Maxwell decided that there was nothing about the complainant’s evidence, or about the opportunity evidence, which meant that the jury ‘must have had a doubt about the truth of the complainant’s account. They stated that it is not enough that one or more jurors ‘might have had a doubt.’ Rather, the jury ‘must have had a doubt.’ The Chief Justice and Justice Maxwell stated that they did not experience a doubt.

In its report the High Court indicates :

Page 35, paragraph 127 :

« The unchallenged evidence of the applicant's invariable practice of greeting congregants after Sunday solemn Mass, and the unchallenged evidence of the requirement under Catholic church practice that the applicant always be accompanied when in the Cathedral, were inconsistent with acceptance of A's evidence of the second incident. It was evidence which ought to have caused the jury, acting rationally, to entertain a doubt as to the applicant's guilt of the offence charged in the second incident. In relation to charge five, again making full allowance for the jury's advantage, there is a significant possibility that an innocent person has been convicted. »
.

I doubt that Pell’s acquittal will do anything to improve the pitiful results of our justice in its offer of service for judging sex crimes.

The comment of Pauline Wright, president of the Law Council of Australia in the article on their website to which you posted a link expresses her preoccupation in this regard :

« … nothing in the Pell case has overturned or diminished the crucial and primary responsibility of juries, not judges, to determine whether an accused person is guilty of an offence.

It is our hope that the decision will not deter victims of sexual abuse from coming forward to tell their stories and seek justice for past wrongs they have suffered »

The problem is we have great laws and a fantastic judiciary but we have practically no sex offenders !

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Very few victims of these predatory monsters seek revenge, for if they did our streets would be littered with the corpses of dead old Catholic clergy, they are not. Justice is even more elusive, as it has been showen, our judicial system is inadequate when dealing with historic sex offences of this nature, the Paedophile Pell case is a prime example of that inadequacy.

"Use this opportunity constructively to be rid of older guilt"

That is where you are wrong, the victim (please stop using quotation marks trying to indicate there is no victim, there certainly is) a child in these cases HAS NO GUILT, old or otherwise. The notion that some unseen being in the form of a god is up there in his heaven willy-nilly metering out justice is a nonsense. Justice has to be served here on earth, nowhere else.

SR,

In any criminal trial, there is always the reasonable possibility that a witness's testimony is materially false either deliberately or otherwise which is why even in civil trials if in the absence of any corroborating evidence a case where there is one man's word against another the case will be dismissed.

In the case of Pell, not only was there zero corroborating evidence to support the testimony of the complainant, but the opportunity witness testimony threw serious doubt on the complainant's testimony. If the Victorian judiciary were even vaguely competent they would have picked this up and dismissed the case.

Dear Paul,

«Very few victims of these predatory monsters seek revenge,»

I would have hoped so.

«for if they did our streets would be littered with the corpses of dead old Catholic clergy»

Why do the dirty work yourself, and risk jail too, when police and the courts can do it for you for free?

I don't have numbers, but I tend to agree with you that the silent majority does not seek revenge, and therefore neither kill in the streets nor tell the police.

«Justice is even more elusive, as it has been showen»

Indeed, humans are not equipped for and not capable of doing justice.

Tweak it here, tweak it there, humans will always do a clumsy mess of a job which creates more problems than they solve.

«a child in these cases HAS NO GUILT, old or otherwise.»

Have you never felt guilty as a child?

A child may not be able to attribute correctly what they feel guilty for, and therefore think that they are guilty for something else which could be trivial or someone else's fault. Nevertheless, even if someone does not FEEL guilt, that does not mean that they do not carry any guilt.

«The notion that some unseen being in the form of a god is up there in his heaven»

That is your notion, not mine.

«Justice has to be served here on earth, nowhere else.»

Well to a great extent it is served here on earth, just not by humans.

Gentlemen,

It was thanks to an effective combination of survivor
advocacy and truth-telling along with persistent journalism
and police officers who broke ranks to create the political
institutions for a major inquiry into the institutional
sexual abuse of children across Australia.

The findings of the Royal Commission produced an official
historical account of the scale and severity of the abuse in
the Catholic Church and other institutions. The Commission
helped to place the issue in the public consciousness,
largely thanks to consistent media coverage of its work and
findings.

Its recommendations led to important legal and policy reforms
and the establishment of a national redress scheme, and
the inquiry itself is now considered a model for truth-
telling and accountability for survivor groups internationally.

Dear Banjo, Steele, and Paul,
Please read the full case study here:

http://home.crin.org/issues/sexual-violence/australia-case-study-clergy-abuse

Thanks Foxy,

That article is an excellent read, thanks to the political will of the Gillard Government that a Royal Commission become a reality. If left to the conservatives there would never have been such a far reaching enquiry, probably no enquiry at all. Could you imagine the 'Mad Monk' Abbott giving up his mate Pell, or the 'Happy Clapping' Morrison lifting a finger to assists victims of church abouse, no way. If Pell wasn't a paedophile, and there is enough to suggest he was, then he certainly was an enabler, guilty as sin!

There are those on here who see Pell as a model of conservatism, who should be defended at every opportunity

Dear Pell,

The archbishop of Sydney Fisher, (whose appointment
Pell influenced), has announced that Cardinal Pell
will lie in state at St Mary's Cathedral on 1st
February and then a Requiem Mass will be held on
February 2nd followed by a private burial and transfer
to the crypt in the Cathedral.

Fisher has announced that thousands will attend the
Requiem Mass on 2nd February, including overseas visitors.
To a big show will be on display. People will probably
be brought in by the bus load - from schools et cetera.
Anyway we'll see. It is an opportunity for the Church
to show its power. A pity it can't show compassion for
the victims.

Instead orders have been given to have the ribbons
removed that survivors of abuse have been (and continue)
to place on the fences and gates of the Cathedral. Remove
all"" is the given order.

Showing where the Church stands.

OOOOOps, Dear Pell, should read - Dear Paul.
Freudian slip. It made my husband laugh out loud.

What can I say when a mistake is made
Instead of Dear Pell I should have prayed
For all the children that have been abused
And for which the church remains unmoved

By all means lets pray for Pell
His death is cause to ring those bells
But let's not forget the many misused
Whose truths by the church have been refused.

Pauliar,

It was only after Tony Abbott requested that an RC into child abuse be formed that Juliar decided to move on the issue.

And aren't we glad that she did!

Shonky,

Is that another lie like the Mad Monks lie that he didn't have a secret meeting with Pell.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liplU86amFI

Abbott the great lier!

Dear Paul,

Tony Abbott referred to Cardinal Pell as his "mentor."
And he visited Pell in prison.

John Howard wrote Pell a character reference which was
published in full in The Herald Sun.

I expect both men will attend the Cardinal's Reqium Mass
at St Mary's Cathedral in Sydney on 2nd February.

Talking about Cardinal?

My husband have attended many fund-raising events held at
"Raheen" the old home of Cardinal Mannix in the Melbourne
suburb of Kew. Now owned by the Pratt family.

I remember one evening being shown the room in which
Cardinal Mannix died. It certainly had "atmosphere."
It was icy cold for starters - and I couldn't wait to leave
it. I was told that even family pets - like cats would not
go into that room. And would end up hissing and screaming.
Weird - right?

I never went into that room again. But it did make me think
about karma.

.

The core values of justice are :

1. Fairness

2. Equality before the law

[All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law (Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights]
.

The presumption of innocence is contrary to those two core values. It provides a major advantage to the accused right from the outset.

An equivalent advantage for the accuser would be the presumption that his accusation is true, i.e., that the accused is guilty.

Obviously, that does not make sense.

To place the litigants on an equal footing, there should be no prior assumptions of any sort for either the accused or the accuser.

This would be a more judicious and effective basis for judging sex crimes which, for obvious reasons, invariably lack a number of indispensable elements such as :

• Material evidence

• Proof of non-consent

• Testimony of a credible eyewitness

.

Thank You Banjo.

I still think that the trial by jury verdict should
have been the acceptable one . And it should also be the
one used in all sexual abuse crimes. And in Pell's case
it was also supported by a majority judgement of judges.

It should not have gone to the High Court. This is the area
where reforms have to be made for sexual abuse cases.

.

Yes, Foxy, I agree.

By the way, I see that of the seven justices of the High Court, four are right of centre and three are left :

http://www.lawyersweekly.com.au/biglaw/29806-from-kirby-to-callinan-how-liberal-are-our-high-court-justices

.

It makes things even more difficult.

Banjo, Foxy,

It is blindingly clear that your understanding of the principles of law is absolutely zero.

"In many countries and under many legal systems, including common law and civil law systems the presumption of innocence is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial. It is also an international human right under the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 11."

It is a protection of an individual against any excesses by the state.

That every single member of the most senior judges in the land both conservative and left whinge voted unanimously to overturn judgement would indicate that reform is due in the Victorian judicial system.

Paul1405,

I don't agree with everything Yuyutsu says about justice, but I do believe it is important to hear from others in terms of different perspectives, like the laws of nature (of which I agree with in principle). It's something many don't consider (the laws of nature). It is important also to encourage people to think differently, so they are not left stuck in some sort of a rut, something not a healthy experience.

I am also not satisfied with Banjo Patterson's view of justice. It is clear he wants people here to accept his view of justice alone, or you'll have no justice at all. Not a good pathway to go down in my view.

Banjo Patterson,

Your mixed messages here are doing you no credit. For example, you say:

<<It was clearly not the fault of the police investigators. Nor was it the fault of the honourable members of the judiciary. They all did their job properly. They all respected the law and the rules and regulations of the judicial process.>>

You then say in another post:

<<By the way, I see that of the seven justices of the High Court, four are right of centre and three are left>>

Not only is such a move aiming to discredit the judges in question that are part the High Court, but to further push your own (very limited) view of justice and what it should include.

If the High Court ruled differently here, you would take a completely different approach, call their decisions justice and say how great the High Court judges were and certainly not bring other matters into the debate like whether they are left/right of centre etc.

I mean you haven't done that here regarding decisions made by judges in Victoria, that being providing a link to if they are left/right of centre.

You must understand the reasons why the High Court exists and its importance, understand why the High Court decision was made here (in a complete sense), 7-0 and realise justice comes in many forms, more than just your own view of justice.

shadowminister,

It is your understanding of the principles of law
that is flawed as far as sexual abuse victims go.
The law, the unjust justice system that gives the
advantage to the abuser, in sexual abuse cases is
the problem with the current system in Australia.
Sexual abuse cases are complex and need to be looked
at differently. Currently victims are not given a chance
and the scales are tipped against them.

We are trying to look at ways in which this can be improved
for all concerned and not have the scales tipped in favour of
the abuser. Obviously that is difficult for you and some
others to understand.

.

Dear shadowminister,

.

You wrote :

« Banjo, Foxy,

« It is blindingly clear that your understanding of the principles of law is absolutely zero »
.

I can’t speak for Foxy, but I’m sorry if I have given you the wrong impression.

I don’t pretend to be a specialist in law but what you interpret as a misunderstanding of its principles is simply the evidencing of the antagonistic effect our justice has – in its present form – when attempting to resolve sex crimes. Instead of resolving them, it aggravates them and causes additional iatrogenic harm to the victims.

As I indicated in my penultimate post :

The core values of justice are :

1. Fairness

2. Equality before the law

The presumption of innocence is contrary to those two core values. It provides a major advantage to the accused right from the outset and throughout the trial.

To place the litigants on an equal footing, there should be no prior assumptions of any sort for either the accused or the accuser.

This would be a more judicious and effective basis for judging sex crimes which, for obvious reasons, invariably lack a number of indispensable elements such as :

• Material evidence

• Proof of non-consent

• Testimony of a credible eyewitness
.

Our common law is not chiseled in stone. It is organic. It evolves with the evolution of society. The presumption of innocence and our judicial procedures are no exception.

The huge and everlasting justice gap for sex crimes that is recorded year after year is completely out of control and totally unacceptable. It’s not justice. It’s a parody of justice.

In “A Treatise on Judicial Evidence” in 1825, Jeremy Bentham wrote :

« At first it was said to be better to save several guilty men than to condemn a single innocent man; others, to make the maxim more striking, fixed on the number ten, a third made this ten a hundred, and a fourth made it a thousand … »

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

« … All these candidates for the prize of humanity have been outstripped by I know not how many writers, who hold, that, in no case, ought an accused to be condemned, unless the evidence amount to mathematical or absolute certainty. According to this maxim, nobody ought to be punished, lest an innocent man be punished »

Bentham’s premonition has proven to be true beyond all imagination. The scales of justice are so heavily weighted in favour of the guilty that the vast majority of sex offenders are never punished.

Not surprisingly, Bentham clearly takes the opposite position to the reigning doctrine :

« 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. The case in which it is the interest of the plaintiff to litigate in opposition to his own conviction, must always be rare. »
.

Once again,

I advocate that our criminal law and court procedures incorporate the following essential features :

• trial by jury

• no presumption of guilt or innocence of either defendant or complainant – each case to be tried on its individual merits

• no right to silence by either defendant or complainant during the trial. Both to present his/her version of events and be submitted to cross-examination if so required

• complainant and defendant to be treated on an equal footing – neither to be advantaged. The onus of proof to rest equally on both

• onus of proof defined as “beyond a reasonable doubt (at least 95% certainty)

It would probably be prudent to implement these measures progressively. In the first instance, I suggest they apply to sex offences involving only the more vulnerable victims (minors and physically and mentally handicapped people).

It could be extended to all victims later when the general public has concrete evidence that it is a more equitable system and working satisfactorily.

.

Foxy,

There is your first huge mistake. The trial is between the state and the accused. Not between the accused and the accuser. To convict a person of rape and destroy his life the court needs evidence.

The problem with rape is that sex itself is not illegal amongst adults, the definition of rape is sex without consent. The determination of lack of consent after the fact is extremely difficult and often comes down to the word of the accuser. And since there is plenty of evidence of false accusations of rape police usually rely on corroborating witnesses or other physical evidence collected during a forensic exam.

Discarding the need for actual evidence will turn these trials into kangaroo courts with plenty of convictions many of them wrongful.

What you and Banjo are suggesting is not only unfair but a travesty against Human rights.

.

Dear NathanJ,

.

You wrote :

« Your mixed messages here are doing you no credit. For example, you say:

[ It was clearly not the fault of the police investigators. Nor was it the fault of the honourable members of the judiciary. They all did their job properly. They all respected the law and the rules and regulations of the judicial process.]

« You then say in another post:

[ By the way, I see that of the seven justices of the High Court, four are right of centre and three are left ]

« Not only is such a move aiming to discredit the judges in question that are part the High Court, but to further push your own (very limited) view of justice and what it should include »
.

1. I come to this forum, Nathan, to exchange my thoughts and opinions on various subjects that interest me because it helps me to formulate them. It also allows me to bounce them off the minds of others to test their validity and fine-tune them.

2. Considering that the performance of our justice regarding sex crimes is a dismal failure, I indicated that it was not the fault of the actors involved but because our laws and judicial procedures are simply not designed to handle sex crimes effectively.

3. As Foxy pointed out recently, the High Court rarely accepts appeals for sex crimes but made an exception for Pell as a high-profile personality in the Catholic Church hierarchy. That raises the question of favouritism. High Court justices are political appointments. Hence the interest in their political allegiances.

As for your final remark, Nathan, all I can say is that while I don’t pretend to be a specialist in law, like most people, I do have a very keen sense of justice.

.

Dear Banjo,

You can speak on my behalf at any time!

I agree with your sense of justice totally!

.

Dear shadowminister,

.

You wrote to Foxy :

« Discarding the need for actual evidence will turn these trials into kangaroo courts with plenty of convictions many of them wrongful. »
.

The theory of a "kangaroo court" is that their reduced procedural protections lead to strong likelihoods that they produce unfair legal decisions (Harvard Law Review).

As I indicated in one of my previous posts :

« In the US, 97% of rapists never spend a single day in jail. Indications are that the situation is no better anywhere else in the world »

If that’s not a sign of “unfair legal decisions” I don’t know what is.

Kangaroo courts, maybe ?

.

Foxy and Banjo,

The high court took the case because the appeal court was not unanimous and the dissenting appeal judge made a valid case.

Sorry Banjo you're wrong, in Afghanistan there are no rapists, in fact there are no rapes, it just can't happen, a physical impossibility, so 100% of accused rapists, how wrong is that, fine upstanding gentlemen one and all, fortunately don't spend a single day in jail. There are only crazy women who force these "innocent" gentlemen to have sex with them. Stoning to death of 100% of these crazy women is most acceptable. Agree? I'm sure the Forums very own Dennis Denuto does, I think he was trained in the law in Afghanistan as well.

shadowminister,

The Appeal Court was a majority judgement.
It should have been respected. And a jury
of 12 people had made the guilty verdict as well.

The High Court should have stayed out of it.

So Foxy,

In your uneducated opinion, the most senior judges in the land should let a travesty of justice go because you say so?

Banjo,

Your call for kangaroo courts is moronic and thank god never likely to happen. Also, your logic is all twisted. Most of the 97% of rapes that aren't jailed are for reasons such as the rapist isn't identified or the rape isn't reported which are not problems with the justice system. Where a forensic test is done and the case is taken to court the conviction rate is closer to 70%

When the victims don't report get tested or even report the crime until later, without witnesses the only person that knows the truth is the woman.

shadowminister,

So you believed Ms Higgins?

Foxy,

Belief without evidence is for the religious.

Without a scrap of physical evidence, video or witnesses the only evidence is BH's testimony which due to its inconsistencies creates doubt that is not just reasonable but substantial. That's why I agree with the ACT police that the trial should never have gone ahead.

Did rape occur? Maybe or maybe not. Only two people actually will ever know.

AND, they were both LIBERAL PARTY members so who would believe them.

shadowminister,

The evidence was provided by the security-guard
who found Ms Higgins naked and in a dishevelled
disorientated state and crying.
And other witnesses - whose testimonies were
believable. As also the reason why he brought Ms
Higgins to the Parliament offices on a Saturday
evening in the first place were questionable.

It all added up. Plus her mental state then and since.
I am surprised that you would even defend this man.
Didn't Ms Higgins get a settlement?

Foxy,

That the only item of clothing BH had was a dress covered with puke, BH being naked was not unsurprising. That she was disoriented probably had something to do with the vast amount of alcohol she'd recently consumed. The guard did not witness any rape nor did BH claim that she'd been raped at that point.

In fact, BH only claimed to have been raped a couple of days later when it looked like she could be fired, and even then, she refused to take a forensic test. As far as the court is concerned there is no evidence that any sexual contact occurred between BH and BL.

That BL abandoned BH was a scumbag thing to do. But raping BH, that's a matter of conjecture.

.

Dear shadowminister,

.

Yes, I understand your reaction. It seems quite shocking, but it is a most regrettable paradox that such a noble ideology as the presumption of innocence should produce such an immoral result of protecting a huge majority of criminals and denying justice to so many innocent victims, most of whom are women and children and the more vulnerable members of society.

Not all sex crimes are committed with the use of physical force or violence. In some cases, psychological coercion is the “modus operandi”. In others, particularly in the case of very young children, it is a long and patient exercise whereby the aggressor abuses their position of influence and authority in order to plant the seeds of desire in their victim, progressively bringing it to fruition until the victim finally does whatever the aggressor wants him or her to do, without having to take the slightest initiative themselves.

There is no violence or physical force, nor is there any evidence of psychological coercion. The victim is persuaded that it is she or he is the depraved one and the sole person responsible for whatever occurred, the aggressor being the victim.

That is known under the technical term of “sexual grooming”. It is the duty of society to protect its children from various predators of that nature. Unfortunately, like all other sex offenders, they too benefit from the legal immunity of the presumption of innocence.

I have no doubt that the thought that the presumption of innocence for sex crimes might be repealed in Australia could cause a certain amount of anxiety among many of our highly respectable law-abiding compatriots.

Interestingly, though, in the UK, whose judiciary is not reputed to harbor “kangaroo courts”, the legal historian, Bruce Smith, indicates that many English criminal defendants in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries did not benefit from a presumption of innocence but, rather, struggled against a statuary presumption of guilt designed to combat various forms of misappropriation.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

Smith adds that “in a ringing dissent”, Lord Steyn, a life peer (judicial) in the House of Lords, having stepped down as a Law Lord in 2005, observed that nearly 40% of indictable offenses in England contain some type of statutory presumption against the defendant.

Reflecting on these figures, he sharply criticized Parliament for the "arbitrary and indiscriminate manner" in which it "made inroads on the basic presumption of innocence".

Though Lord Steyn's criticisms may well have been justified, the 40% of indictable offenses he was referring to did not include sex-related offenses for which the overwhelming majority of perpetrators continue to enjoy judicial immunity by application of the principle "presumed innocent until proven guilty".

Given the adverse effect it has on justice when applied to sex crimes, it should be repealed.

.

Dear Banjo,

I admire your patience in your continuing to reply
to shadowminister.

Mine is running out

Banjo,

The presumption of innocence is the bedrock of criminal law. It cannot simply be repealed it is intrinsic to the law in all democratic countries and the human rights documents. To repeal it would place Aus alongside China, Iran etc where trials are perfunctory with pre-determined outcomes.

I seriously doubt that it can be repealed without rewriting the constitution.

Foxy,

As your flotilla of faux outrage has smashed on the rocks of reason, I can see why you have nothing further of worth to add.

shadowminister,

For you to see anything of any worth in the discussions
on this forum - you would need ...

No, I'll stop here. My husband tells
me to be polite and ignore you as you've got such a small
screen - so of course you can't see the full picture.

SM,

Will you be going along to St Mary's Cathedral to pay your respects to the Old Fella? The Mad Monk and Little Johnny Howard will most likely be there, how about you? You might even get the chance to poke your head into Archy's coffin for one last hurrah! How about that!

.

Dear shadowminister,

.

You wrote :

« The presumption of innocence is the bedrock of criminal law. It cannot simply be repealed it is intrinsic to the law in all democratic countries and the human rights documents. To repeal it would place Aus alongside China, Iran etc where trials are perfunctory with pre-determined outcomes.

I seriously doubt that it can be repealed without rewriting the constitution. »
.

I wouldn’t count on our old colonial constitution if I were you, shadowminister. It doesn’t offer much protection for anything. It’s old, worn-out, full of holes, completely outdated, and has proven impossible to repair. It’s moribund and just a historic museum piece and has been for many years now.

Though, as I have often said on this forum, I don’t pretend to be a specialist in law, my understanding is that the presumption of innocence is not a legal right in Australia enforceable at law.

What I think is meant by that is that a person cannot sue upon the presumption in our courts.

Whilst the Magna Carta is often cited as establishing the presumption into our law it does not create an enforceable legal right in Australia, nor do any of the Human Rights Acts of the States of Australia or the Australian Capital Territory, and nor does the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and neither does our poor old colonial Federal Constitution.

The presumption only exists in the Australian legal system as a presumption in our common law. It can be excluded or modified at any time by a Federal or State Act of Parliament, which I understand has increasingly happened over the past 10 years or so.

The presumption is usually expressed in relation to a charge of a criminal offence. For instance, the website of the Federal Attorney General describes the presumption as imposing on the prosecution the burden of proving the charge and guarantees that no guilt can be presumed until the charge has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

In fact, the expression has a much wider understood meaning in Australia as applying to any assertion made, and requiring the person, the subject of the assertion, to be presumed innocent unless the maker of the assertion establishes the assertion as correct.

I see no reason why the presumption of innocence can’t be repealed or rescinded from our laws and judiciary procedures in respect of sex crimes – particularly since it would only be a partial repeal so far as the whole of our criminal law is concerned.

As for your concerns that the repeal would render trials “perfunctory with pre-determined outcomes”, that is precisely the problem under the existing system (97% of rapists never spend a single day in jail).

Compared to the latest statistics for criminal trials in Australia (including sex crimes), the result is exactly the opposite : 97% of defendants adjudicated had a guilty outcome :

http://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/crime-and-justice/criminal-courts-australia/2020-21
.

That clearly highlights and confirms (if need be) the ignominious incapacity of our current justice system to deal effectively with sex crimes.

.

.

Cardinal Pell and Mr Pell

.

While the first merits the honours that are about to be bestowed upon him by the Catholic Church and its followers, the second does not.

The High Court acquittal does not mean that both were innocent of the sex crimes of which they were accused – only that the prosecutor failed to prove that one or the other, or both were guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Accordingly, the charge will probably remain on the defendants’ criminal record even without a conviction.

Had they survived, they still would have had to face civil charges brought against them and the Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne with the risk of being found guilty based on the lower burden of proof of “the balance of probability”, i.e., the defendants were more likely than not to have committed the crimes and should be held responsible.

However, as Cardinal Pell and Mr Pell are, in fact, one and the same person, it would seem imprudent and inappropriate to confound the two and avoid confusing genres.

As it stands, the Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne will have to face the charges alone.

Rubbing shoulders with God and the devil may have been all right for the Pells, but it is not something the Church should celebrate.

Lying in State, a pontifical mass and burial in the crypt at St Mary’s Cathedral in Sydney alongside other senior figures of the Catholic church in Australia seems to be overdoing it a bit.

It sends the wrong message not only to the victims of child sexual abuse but to all the victims of sexual abuse in Australia, irrespective of their age and sex, as well as to our state and federal justices that failed, as they do so often, to reveal the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Acquittal does not mean innocent. It means undecided.

The Church should not celebrate something that has not yet been decided.

.

Pauliar,

Are you going to visit Doig and your other green mates in prison?

Foxy, Banjo,

The presumption of innocence and rules of evidence have evolved over centuries primarily to protect people from the ill intent of an authoritarian state or an angry mob and are the bedrock of justice throughout the civilised world.

Your suggestion is to abandon all protections and set up kangaroo courts. The next step is to abandon any semblance of a trial and convict based on a Twitter poll.

I see the big picture you clearly don't.

Shonky,

As a loyal Trumpster you had no problem cheering on the murderous rioters at the Capitol Building in Washington.

Pauliar,

As a loyal green, you are for the legalization of child sex.

"Sex with children is wrong. What's clear today was not always thought to be the case in Germany. A new study shows how much support paedophilia had decades ago among Green politicians."

https://www.dw.com/en/greens-research-pedophilic-past/a-17026612

SM, making another one of your no so subtle accusations that I am some kind of paedophile supporter, which I am not. Despite the claim that this site has a "zero tolerance policy" for such accusations, you get away with it time and again. But that is how this site operates.

"As a loyal green, you (Paul1405) are for the legalization of child sex."

p/s I have to be careful what I say about YOU as I risk immediate suspension.

Pauliar,

You have no problems openly lying about what I say and what I stand for.

I have never on OLO supported Trump or the riots and you are fraudulent and libellous in saying so.

Each time you post some outrageous lie I need to remind you of the skeletons in the Greens' closet some of which are really disgusting.

Stop lying through your teeth and I will stop reminding you. Another truce?

.

Dear shadowminister,

.

You wrote :

« The presumption of innocence and rules of evidence have evolved over centuries primarily to protect people from the ill intent of an authoritarian state or an angry mob and are the bedrock of justice throughout the civilised world »
.

I mentioned in my penultimate post that the Magna Carta is the origin of the presumption of innocence in our law.

It was signed by the English barons and King John in 12015 and established a certain number of rights and liberties that prevented oppressive rule by the monarchy.

The Petition of Right in 1628 and the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 were inspired by clause 39 of the 1215 charter, which read :

« No free man shall be arrested or imprisoned or disseised or outlawed or exiled or in any way victimised, neither will we attack him or send anyone to attack him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land. »

That is a highly legitimate and well-founded principle that no democrat would deny. It constitutes an invincible barrier of legal protection for the innocent but, especially in the case of sex crimes, also for the guilty.

It is a most unfortunate and regrettable paradox that such a noble ideology has produced such an immoral result of protecting a huge majority of criminals and denying justice to so many innocent victims.

Worse, the antagonistic effect of the ideology may even represent a perverse incentive to commit sex crimes and comfort those who commit them.

A classic example of how easily this can occur is related by Michael G. Vann, in "Of Rats, Rice, and Race: The Great Hanoi Rat Massacre, an Episode in French Colonial History" published by the French Colonial History Society (May 2003): In Hanoi, under French colonial rule, a program paying people a bounty for each rat pelt handed in was intended to exterminate rats. Instead, it led to the farming of rats.

There should be no à priori presumptions of any sort for sex crimes.

.

Banjo,

Life is not always fair. To convict someone to a long stint in jail you need to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Rectifying one injustice by creating another injustice is never the answer.

shadowminister,

12 jurors found the rock-spider Pell, guilty and were
support by a majority judgement in the Court of Appeal.
All found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Plus
there were many other crimes committed for which he
was not tried. So to overturn the guilty decision - shows
that our system needs overhauling regarding sex crimes.

Now be a good chap and say a prayer for all the victims
who will never see justice under the law as it stand in
Australia regarding sex crimes.

Dear Foxy,

«Now be a good chap and say a prayer for all the victims
who will never see justice under the law as it stand in
Australia regarding sex crimes.

I pray that all who have been raped will find forgiveness in their hearts and peace in their minds.

Even when one's body has been soiled, only s/he whose heart becomes soiled by bitterness or his/her mind with vengefulness, is a true victim.

I pray that all cycles of violence be completed and not become perpetual, that nobody who has been hurt starts a new cycle of violence by calling on the state's police and courts to create new pain.

I pray that all who have been hurt have faith in the justice of our Lord and seek His eternal shelter rather than the rickety shelter of States. I pray for all prisons to be empty and prison-guards unemployed.

If the one who once had a human body that was known as Cardinal George Pell, but who now does not know themselves by any name, has indeed done any wrong, then they must now be suffering very much in hell - I pray for their soul!

I pray that the justice system is reformed for victims
of sexual abuse so that their perpetrators cannot continue
to commit their crimes on new victims. I also pray that the
Churches will take action to ensure that these perpetrators
will not be in positions to continue their crimes. This has
got to stop. And religious people and their religious
institutions must be held to account. And this is not about
any vengeance . It is about justice,

Dear Foxy,

«so that their perpetrators cannot continue
to commit their crimes on new victims.»

Possible perpetrators of crimes in the previous century, now in their late 70's and requiring a walking stick can commit sexual crimes on new victims?
Do you think they can still get an erection even?

«And religious people and their religious
institutions must be held to account.»

So it seems you have no faith.
Is there any soul in the universe who can escape being held to account?
Is there anywhere to hide from the almighty?

(also, can a religious person commit any such hurtful crimes, yet remain religious? If not, then why do you call them or their institutions "religious")

«And this is not about
any vengeance . It is about justice,»

Justice is already here, always was, always will remain, absolute unshakable justice with precision that no mortal can ever come close to, justice that not even the grave can obstruct!

Do you seriously believe that humans can do any better?
Of course they cannot, but if it is not vengeance that they are really after, then it must be their desire to take the credit, to boast what they cannot do, to tempt people to trust and love their petty selves instead of the Divine.

Foxy,

Still struggling that 12 rock spider jurors believed the witness without any other evidence and got it wrong, next the incompetent Judge screwed up and 2 VIC appeal judges screwed up.

But then you "believe".

.

Dear shadowminister,

.

You wrote :

« Life is not always fair. To convict someone to a long stint in jail you need to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Rectifying one injustice by creating another injustice is never the answer. »
.

Yes, naturally, I share those concerns, shadowminister. It has always been one of my principal preoccupations.

At the same time, I felt that the scales of justice had been so heavily weighted in favour of sex offenders for so many years that it would take a tremendous force to overcome the resignation of society and accumulated inertia in order to bring them back to a position of equilibrium. The disaster was such that exceptional means would have to be employed to redress the situation.

Consequently, despite the psychological shock it was bound to provoke, it seemed to me that Jeremy Bentham’s proposal of the reversal of the burden of proof from the complainant to the defendant was of the nature of what was needed to awaken consciences to the gravity of the problem and to accept the drastic measures that were necessary to fix it.

Bentham argued :

« 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. The case in which it is the interest of the complainant to litigate in opposition to his own conviction, must always be rare. »

He also noted :

« Since all punishment involves pain and is therefore evil, it ought only to be used “so far as it promises to exclude some greater evil.” »

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

Reflecting further on this, I realised that the presumption of innocence is contrary to what are generally considered to be the core values of justice : (1) fairness and (2) equality before the law.

It is not fair to the complainant (the victim of the purported sex crime) because the defendant has the advantage of being presumed innocent while the complainant (the victim) is presumed, a contrario, to be lying. Obviously, that being the case, the litigants are not “equal before the law”.

The same criticism applies to Bentham’s proposal. The litigants are no more on an equal footing before the law if the complainant is presumed to be telling the truth and the onus of proof is on the defendant to prove his or her innocence.

In the final analysis, the equitable solution would be not to make any presumptions of any sort in respect of sex crimes and judge each case on its merits.

Which is why I advocate :

• trial by jury

• no presumption of guilt or innocence of either defendant or complainant – each case to be tried on its individual merits

• no right to silence by either defendant or complainant during the trial. Both to present his/her version of events and be submitted to cross-examination if so required

• complainant and defendant to be treated on an equal footing – neither to be advantaged. The onus of proof to rest equally on both

• onus of proof defined as “beyond a reasonable doubt (at least 95% certainty

.

shadowminister,

Now I've heard it all from you.

You really are a pygmy, a third-rate commentator on
this forum.

One with which I no longer wish to inter-act.

Foxy,

While you pose as a bleeding heart lefty, you are an intellectual pygmy who is happy to convict people based on public opinion and cares not for a fair trial as long as there is a conviction.

Banjo,

Saying reasonable doubt should be 95% shows that you have zero concepts of the term reasonable doubt.

In Pell's trial, there is always a chance that the accuser is lying, especially the one about to sue the church and for whom a guilty verdict is worth $ms irrespective of how convincing his story is.

A competent judge should have recognised this.

shadowminister,

The jury did not base their guilty verdict on public
opinion. They based it on what was presented in court and
on the testimony of a claimant they found believable,
as well as Pell's past record of abuse and behaviour in protecting
abusers - which speaks for itself. The claimant was believable.
Pell was not.

Foxy,

As you said their verdict was based on belief, not evidence.

.

Dear shadowminister,

.

You wrote :

1. « Saying reasonable doubt should be 95% shows that you have zero concepts of the term reasonable doubt. »
.

So far as I am aware, shadowminister, there is no universal definition of the legal term “beyond reasonable doubt”.

To clarify matters, I interpret the term “on the balance of probability” to mean that the level of certainty of guilt required for conviction in civil cases must be “more than 50%”. In other words, “it is more likely than not”.

I interpret the term “beyond reasonable doubt” to mean that the level of certainty required for conviction of guilt in criminal cases must be “more than 95%”. In other words, “it is almost certain”.

My understanding is that judges are well-advised not to attempt to define these terms for the members of the jury as it opens the door to the possibility of appeal of the verdict that ensues. It is best they leave it to each member of the jury to decide for themselves what is reasonable and what is not.

As a matter of fact, I read recently that in a notable case in 1988 (The Queen v. Britten), the Supreme Court of South Australia reaffirmed the South Australian rule that any attempt to define the term "a reasonable doubt" for the jury will result in a mistrial.
.

As you declare that I have “zero concepts of the term reasonable doubt”, shadowminister, I presume you consider that you fare much better and have many more concepts of "reasonable" than I have.

Perhaps you would be kind enough to demonstrate the truth of that affirmation, shall we say : “beyond reasonable doubt” ?

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

2. « In Pell's trial, there is always a chance that the accuser is lying, … a competent judge should have recognised this. »
.

Though the jury may not have considered Pell guilty “without the slightest doubt”, it did consider that he was guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt” – which was sufficient, in the eyes of the law, for him to be convicted.

The jury’s decision was forged (formed) in the courtroom with all the actors present. It considered that the complainant (designated as “A”) was “a compellingly truthful witness”. The defendant, Pell, remained silent throughout the trial – which was his own free choice and legal right.

The High Court’s review was based solely on the written accounts of the trial court and of the Supreme Court of Victoria. It focused on the technical validity of the jury’s verdict of guilty “beyond reasonable doubt”, and disavowed it, declaring that the jury should have had a reasonable doubt, thus quashing the convictions.

Artificial intelligence could have done that in a few seconds and at very little cost to the Australian taxpayer.

All we have achieved is a logical result based on the letter of the law – but that alone does not qualify as justice.

It is the human element that is missing, the human faculty of discernment.

That is why I am more inclined to favour, in this particular case, the findings of the jury rather than those of the High Court.

.

.

Yes, shadowminister, it was the human faculty of discernment that the jury employed in reaching its decision and the High Court chose to ignore.

.

Dear Banjo,

We can't change the past but we can try to ensure
that there is a fairer future for sexual abuse
victims with reforms to our legal system and
within our religious institutions as well. Now that
is something worth striving for.

Thank You for you rational input into this discussion
It has been greatly appreciated.

Enjoy your day!

Banjo,

I see you are still struggling with the concept of reasonable doubt and are still happy to ditch citizens' fair rights for a kangaroo court.

Discernment is a reasoned judgement, a long way from dispelling reasonable doubt. Witness testimony especially from a distant past is notoriously unreliable. A reasonable alternative to B's testimony is that he fabricated the story for his gain, or it was not Pell etc.

What dispels reasonable doubt is corroborating evidence for which there was none. In fact, the jury in its wisdom completely ignored the opportunity witness whose testimony contradicted B's.

A competent judge would have tossed the case out of court.

.

Dear shadowminister,

.

Looks like you’ve had enough, so I won’t bother you any longer, shadowminister.

Many thanks for your input. The exchange has been quite fruitful. I appreciate it.

No doubt, we’ll have the opportunity of exchanging again on some other thread of common interest here on OLO.

.

Dear Foxy,

.

You wrote :

« We can't change the past … »
.

That’s true, but there are many negationists and revisionists around who deny that certain major historical events occurred or who change the narratives to suit their purpose and rewrite the history books for present and future generations.

Half the world population lives in countries with varying degrees of democracy and half in countries with varying degrees of authoritarianism.

The negationists and revisionists are to be found in both halves, the mind control of the citizens of the latter being naturally more severe than in the former.

We are lucky in Australia to be rated 9th among the “full democracies” of which there are only 23 in the world. New Zealand is 4th. The UK and the USA are not “full democracies” at all. They are both listed as “flawed democracies” and have been for quite some time.

That said, Foxy, I very much appreciate your initiative in creating this thread and giving me the opportunity of developing and expressing my ideas and opinions on what I consider, rightly or wrongly, to be a major, and highly regrettable, historical miscarriage of justice.

.

Dear Banjo,

I'm grateful that you continue to post on this forum.

Thank you.

I learn so much from you - always with a positive slant
that gives me hope and lifts my spirits.

Is PELL in HELL?

Does anyone know the answer.

.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQOpeJ8YHrE&ab_channel=EvergreenBestMusic

.

Dear Banjo,

Thank you.

What a fitting end to this discussion.

Leonard Cohen's facing his own mortality.
Few of us contemplate our own death and God.
A brilliant album, released a couple of weeks
before his death. It gave me goosebumps.
Hineni - Hear I am!

.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dp2SJN4UiE4&ab_channel=FranceMusique

.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeP5Max8HnY&ab_channel=B2Bwhiteboard

A fitting conclusion

Dear Paul,

«Is PELL in HELL?»

No. Whether the one who was once identified as the human called 'George Pell' is now in one of the heavens or in one of the hells, or even back on earth already as a little baby, he would no longer be answering to the name Pell, which would be forgotten once his brain stopped functioning.

There - a fitting 7th end to this discussion.

The uplifting of souls in a High Mass set
to beautiful music and voices. Thank you.
Superb. If only we could all strive for that
during our lives.

.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzOmPUu-F_M&ab_channel=NathalieStutzmann

.

Hi Yuyutsu,

"back on earth already as a little baby" in that case he better watch out for any dirty old Cardinals lurking around the Cathedral.

Buddhist believe in reincarnation, but you wont necessarily return as another human, you can come back as something else, like a cockroach.

Dear Banjo,

Thank you for another link.

So beautiful. We need music like this in our troubled world,
of violence, illness, anxiety, and death

Here is my final link regarding information of Cardinal
Pell's funeral in Sydney.

The Cardinal will lie in state at St Mary's Cathedral in
Sydney from the morning of Wednesday 1st February ahead
of a Requiem Mass and a private burial service on 2nd February.
The Cardinal's successor Archbishop of Sydney Anthony Fisher
will be the principal
celebrant at the Pontifical Requiem Mass starting at 11am on Thursday
2nd February.

There's more detail at the following:

http://catholicweekly.com.au/thousands-expected-preparations-underway-for-cardinal-pells-funeral/

What can we say about Cardinal Pell
Who set down the rules of not going to hell
He tried to protect his church from scandal and shame
And consistently denied any wrong-doing and blame

Today was his funeral, we were told
And there were protestors loud and bold
There were survivors of clergy abuse
Asking for action to be introduced

If the church really wants to survive
It needs to take action and try to revive
Trust in its teachings and its clergy as well
It needs to stop teaching and threatening hell

Love and inclusion is what Christ taught
And giving the vulnerable much-needed support
It's the teachings of Christ that need to be followed
And practiced with love for all our tomorrows.

The old dead cardinal and enabler of paedophiles, drew a long list of the who's who from the right wing establishment to his last hurrah. Abbott, Howard, Dutton, Jones, Bolt, Canavan and Latham were all there.

I can see a great similarity between the greens and the Catholic Church!!

.

Cardinal Pell and Mr Pell (alias Mr “Demos”)

.

No sooner Pell dead and buried and out came the larvae crawling from the woodwork :

The day after Pell’s death, Sandro Magister, an influential and respected Italian journalist revealed that Pell was the author of a memorandum that was a scathing criticism of Pope Francis that he (Pell) wanted to be published under the pseudonym “demos” (the people).

A Jesuit priest, Fr. Thomas Reese, wrote in The National Catholic Reporter :

« … Pell seemed to have forgotten that Francis was the one who called him to Rome to be part of his team. Francis encouraged open discussion and debate but expected his team to support his decisions.

« It is one thing to argue with the pope behind closed doors; it is another thing to stab him in the back. In his memo, Pell refers to the Francis papacy as a "disaster" and a "catastrophe." You don't do that to your boss, especially when he had stood by you when you were indicted. Shame ! »

In another report, Pell was described as a “snake in the grass” !
.

Cardinal Pell was adored – Mr Pell was abhorred !

Cardinal Pell was venerated – Mr Pell was fustigated !

Cardinal Pell was glorified – Mr Pell was vilified !
.

A case of dissociative identity disorder ? The Encyclopaedia Britannica’s senior editor of biomedical sciences, Kara Rogers, explains :

« The failure to form a distinct personality can … be seen as a way of coping with or escaping from inner conflict, which in turn is frequently triggered by some trauma experienced early in life, such as being abused as a child » :

http://www.britannica.com/science/dissociative-identity-disorder

.

Question SM,

How many Liberals does it take to bury a paedophile? Judging by yesterdays performance about 500. According to the Catholic Church by their "own calculation" 2% of clergy are paedophiles (Pope Frances), others put the figure closer to 30% of male clergy. So give or take a few, with the proliferation of old white blokes dressed in skirts at yesterdays send off, about a hundred, there might have been a dozen or two of pedos in the audience.

BTW, I see the Jones Boy was there, how appropriate.

shadowminister,

I think the similarity between the Liberals and the
Catholic Church is far greater. Was there anyone
attending Pell's funeral from the Greens? Yet look
at the huge Liberal entourage in attendance. Says it all!
Where's the individualism?

Dear Banjo,

We'll never know whether Pell was ever abused as
a child. It may explain his Mr Hyde behaviour which was
disgusting as far as Pope Francis was concerned.

I have grave doubts of the church ever improving.
It's a firmly established powerful organization with all
of its factions and controllers - and heaven help any
one who tries to buck the status quo. Pell knew darn
well how the game is played. He was not only a survivor
but he thrived. I feel sorry for Pope Francis. He can only
play the cards he's been dealt.

shadowminister,

Of all your vociferous support of someone who was at the very least a paedophile enabler and whose actions destroyed many young lives this little admission from you really does complete the picture doesn't it.

"I can see a great similarity between the greens and the Catholic Church!!"

SM they got it wrong!

Archy Pell should have been buried today, Friday, according to the Mad Monk, Pell was a modern day Jesus Christ, and like Christ he to was "crucified". Keeping with tradition, shouldn't he be buried on Friday so he can rise from the dead on Sunday. Seems fair to me.

Nah! SM, no Greens there, but plenty of Liberals. Nazi Dom couldn't make it, he's only got one suit and as luck would have it, he's put on a few pounds since his 21st. He was thinking of coming in his other birthday suit, but had second thoughts. WERE YOU THERE, ME THINKS SO!

Paul,

The greens weren't there because they were ashamed that they were worse than the catholic church.

Paul, you were in a catholic school, maybe that's why you became a green.

SR,

More incoherent babble from you.

shadowminister,

Oh dear.

Those who have read your last post are now dumber
for having done so. We award you no points, and
may God have mercy on your soul.

Foxy,

As usual, you come running to defend an idiot's ranting.

Pell's name was cleared, and your personal prejudices are just that and not worth the paper they are printed on.

shadowminister,

Pell's name was not cleared. The Royal Commission
tarnished his reputation severely. As did the many
survivors of sexual abuse who were protesting outside
the churches and tying ribbons around the cathedral
and church fences and gates.

Plus, the crimes for which he was never tried (and there
are many) are still remembered by many who are still
alive. Pell's record goes back to when he was a young
priest in Ballarat in the 1960s.

Seriously, you need to stop defending a person although is
now dead - the survivors of his crimes are still alive and
bear the scars they are forced to wear.

Please stop defending the man. It does not do you any credit.
Or help in the healing that the church should now undertake.

Trust in the church and the clergy is at an all time
low. And Pell has in no small way contributed to this
dilemma by his actions. It needs to be acknowledged.
But I wouldn't be surprised if the Church decided to
get rid of Pope Francis and make Pell a saint.

This is worth a read:

http://johnmenadue.com/george-pell-leaves-a-diminished-church-to-successors-hardly-better/

SM,

I know it was very crowded around the old fellas box on Thursday down at the big house, with all those luminaries from the LIBERAL PARTY trying to get their heads in for one last hurrah, I believe the Mad Monk was exceptionally greedy in that regard, elbowing Little Johnny Howard out of the way to get in first. I hope YOU didn't miss out.

One very important court where Pell was found guilty on all charges is the Court Of Public Opinion, and public opinion is still running strongly denouncing Pell as a paedophile. The legalistic outcome may be interpreted by you and others of the conservative right as indicating Pells innocence, but the inescapable fact which even you cannot deny is, at best Pell was a paedophile enabler, at worst a paedophile of the worst order. Your choice given your love of the old slagger!

You called me an idiot again, that's not nice, our truce may not last.

Foxy, Paul,

The police, the judiciary the state etc all were "enablers" who turned a blind eye to what was going on. The Labor party and the greens had sexual predators against which suspicions were ignored for many years. Bill Shorten had a live and coherent accusation of rape against him and with more evidence than Pell but was protected by the political left who appear to make up most of the court of public opinion to which you refer.

Paul, the truce applies only to me as you have no problems breaking it.

As for defending Pell, I am no fan of him or the catholic church, however, whenever I see the rabid left attacking anyone purely because of a position he holds with little or no evidence I will call it out.

Notably, these atrocities also occurred in public institutions, the Salvation Army and plenty more with not a peep coming from the rabid left. That the JC's call for any witnesses against Pell came with the carrot of potential compensation was the trigger for a plethora of unsubstantiated and vague accusations against him.

shadowminister,

It was Pell's actions that are being judged.
And his record speaks for itself.
You can make it political - but the facts don't
change. The man was an abomination and got off
lightly. Our legal system needs reforming.

I see no further point in going around in circles
regarding Pell. Whether you like the man or his
church to me is irrelevant. Both have a lot to
answer. Both are tarnished. Reforms are needed.

Foxy,

He died without a single charge against him. His record is clean. Unlike some labor and green figures that are in jail.

I don't think your desire for kangaroo courts is going to catch on.

shadowminister,

I have more faith in today's Australians - who are
different from the narrow-minded ones of the past.
Change is happening in this country, unfortunately
slower than it should - but considering this
country's history - I guess that's to be expected.
But it is and will continue to happen. Change is
inevitable - which gives many of us hope.

As for Pell's reputation?

That has been lost a long time ago.
And it's something that even the High Court
can't succeed in restoring. It managed to
release from jail - but it didn't elevate him
in the court of public opinion. There will
always remain -a question over his innocence
as long as his victims survive and continue to tie
ribbons around church fences and gates - including
around the cathedral in whose crypt he lies.

.

Dear shadowminister,

.

You wrote :

« He died without a single charge against him. His record is clean … »
.

Not so, shadowminister, in 2022, the father of choirboy B who was allegedly abused by Pell launched legal action against Pell and the Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne. In August that year, the case was allowed to proceed :

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-24/catholic-church-george-pell-court-case-can-continue/101366566

Cardinal Bell died on 10 January 2023 knowing full well that he had that “single charge” both against himself and the Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne.

His record is not clean. Too late now. He has already gone down in history as having been convicted by a jury of twelve on five counts of sexual assault of two thirteen-year-old choirboys in St Patrick’s Cathedral in Melbourne conviction that was confirmed by the Supreme Court of Victoria before being quashed by the High Court of Australia.

The guilty verdict was based on the testimony of the one surviving choirboy, judged by all courts as reliable – which even the High Court did not contest.

The High Court overturned Pell’s conviction, declaring that the jury should have had what it (the High Court) considered to be a “reasonable doubt” – without any precision as to what exactly it considered to be a “reasonable doubt”.

As I previously indicated on this thread, not only is there no universal definition of what constitutes the legal term “reasonable doubt”, it is even highly recommended that judges abstain from offering one to the jury.

Consequently, “reasonable doubt” is a purely subjective notion, specific to each individual. The “reasonable doubts” of each of the twelve members of the jury are no less valid than those of the seven members of the jury.

Interestingly, the trial jury and the High Court both produced unanimous decisions – but, of course, the jury outnumbered the High Court 12 to 7.
.

As for your recurrent comment on “kangaroo courts”, shadowminister, I see that the OED indicates that a “kangaroo court” is one that is “so controlled as to render a fair trial impossible”.

Never seen that, shadowminister ?

.

BTW:

Pell died having been found guilty by a court of 12
supported by a majority judgement - and the court of public
opinion. He did not die with a clean slate.
The High Court let him off on a legal technicality - it did not
exonerate him. His slate was not clean by any stretch of the
imagination. It was a mis-carriage of justice!

.

Oops, I meant :

Consequently, “reasonable doubt” is a purely subjective notion, specific to each individual. The “reasonable doubts” of each of the twelve members of the jury are no less valid than those of the seven members of the High Court.

Sorry about that.

.

Foxy,

The high court exonerated him. Look it up. You pegged him as guilty even before the trial started yet claimed that Shorten was exonerated. It would appear that for you, guilt is dependent on your political status.

Banjo,

Reasonable doubt is far from being purely subjective. There are very clear precedents and guidelines that judges should know and educate the jurors. The trial judge failed to do this either through incompetence or bias. The High court's unanimous judgement was damning to this twit.

"The hostility of victims and parents of child sexual abuse towards Pell is understandable given the crimes of the church and the desecration of the sacred. Pell should have displayed far more sensitivity towards the victims, but it is time to recognise his innocence of the charges laid against him.

Pell was the target of a preposterous campaign of vilification, charges and conviction. He was subject to a “Get Pell” investigation by Victoria Police, a prosecution that should never have been brought, and a failure by the highest court in Victoria, and received justice only when his case was removed from Victoria and went to the High Court, where a 7-0 judgment found in Pell’s favour.

Even then, the denialists were everywhere. Critics falsely claimed the High Court decision was based on a technicality. Victorian Premier Dan Andrews, having attacked Tony Abbott for visiting Pell in jail, defied the court, saying victims had to be believed – confirming he didn’t believe in justice and a fair trial in Victoria."

shadowminister,

We have already covered all of this with you.
You believe one thing we believe another.
Pell is now dead and buried. We should all
hope that things will improve for sexual abuse
victims in this country. Let us all work towards
trying to achieve that end. In which case something
positive would have come out of all this.

That would be a worthwhile aim for us all.
I've written to so many people begging for changes to
be made. Hopefully someone, somewhere will pay attention.

.

Dear shadowminister,

.

You wrote :

« Reasonable doubt is far from being purely subjective. There are very clear precedents and guidelines that judges should know and educate the jurors. »
.

I’m afraid you’ve been misinformed on that, shadowminister.

If you’d like to send me details of the source of your information, I’d be happy to check it out.

.

Foxy,

Your opinion and beliefs are yours alone. I will stick to the facts.

Banjo,

There are libraries of evidentiary law dating back to Roman times. I know a law professor whose specialty was exclusively in such law. I wouldn't know where to start. I would suggest before spouting more drivel you look it up yourself.

However, if you want to believe that for millennia, the law has been a crap shoot and years of law training lets judges make decisions on feelings then you are lost.

.

Dear shadowminister,

.

I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt but, apparently, it was not necessary as you very deftly side-step the question, evoking the existence of such a plethora of evidence “dating as far back as the ancient Romans” that rendered it absolutely impossible for you to indicate even one single reference.

You declare : “I wouldn't know where to start” – adding : “I would suggest before spouting more drivel you look it up yourself ” !

Naturally, I am grateful to you for that kind suggestion, but quite frankly, if you who are so well versed in such matters “do not know where to start”, I’m afraid a poor fellow like me who is only capable of “sprouting drivel” would be even more hopelessly lost and totally incapable of finding whatever it is you would like me to find.
.

Never mind, shadowminister, in the absence of any concrete indication on your part of the source of your affirmation that “reasonable doubt is far from being purely subjective”, I am left with the idea that “reasonable doubt” is a variable that may differ not only from one individual to another but even for the same individual according to the circumstances – in other words, that “reasonable doubt” is a purely subjective notion.

In fact, one article on the net indicates that there are over 120 different definitions of “reasonable doubt”.

The Australian federal Criminal Code Act 1995 states :

« (1) A legal burden of proof on the prosecution must be discharged beyond reasonable doubt.

« (2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the law creating the offence specifies a different standard of proof. »

The code does not define the term “beyond reasonable doubt” yet does define another term, that of “evidential burden” :

« evidential burden, in relation to a matter, means the burden of adducing or pointing to « evidence that suggests a reasonable possibility that the matter exists or does not exist. »
.

Here is an article on the subject that is worth reading :

http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1387&context=auilr

.