.

(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.