The famous broadcaster - who has such a large following
and so much influence has now been accused of sexual abuse.

Will this force Jones to come out of the closet?

Or will he once again deny and fight - as he's done in the past.

Is Alan Jones really so influential?
Are his principles so profoundly truthful and realistic, that one is drawn, irresistibly, to everything he utters?
I think not.
He is just another person filling a position in broadcasting life.
And we can think for ourselves.
We don't need Alan to 'set us straight' each day.
What a horrible idea.

And the present accusations of wrong doing are not proof of anything.
I think people conveniently 'remembering' incidents from their past are not being practical.
If something significant takes place, they should report it almost immediately.
This concept of 'saving it up' for a rainy day is absurd.
And those who, subsequently, are willing to reinforce such a story, are just as bad.
So Alan is right to defend his integrity.
But there really needs to be a time limit on the kind of accusation being levied at Alan.
Which means he shouldn't be in his present situation?
I am not one of his followers, but I wish him well.

Hi Foxy,

Thanks for the topic, it seemed Jones was destined to go to his grave like Pell and McMahon with everyone knowing the truth, and with everyone turning a blind eye to that truth, and we know the reasons. I would have no problem with Jones if he was simply gay, and lived promiscuous gay lifestyle, so be it. I lived in inner Sydney at the time Jones lived in trendy Newton, we all knew of the comings and goings at the Jones mansion.

Jones was well known in my old stomping ground -
that of Parramatta where he taught at the exclusive boys -
Kings School and was also a coach. Rumours abounded about
invites to young boys for private coaching. Jones ended up
being forced to resign. Scandals followed the man - including
his London toilet episode. Still there were many defenders
who came to his aid. And he was accepted by people of influence,
including politicians.

He's quite an enigma. I saw him quite a few times on "Q and A,"
and I have to confess that I quite liked him. I find it quite
weird that in this day and age - he's still not able to come
out of the closet - and finds the need to keep on being in
denial. But I guess that I shouldn't judge too harshly because
I've never experienced the stigma associated with what it means
being gay in this country.

As for the current accusations? I'm sure that Jones is clever
enough to deal with them. Even though the end result in this
case just may be unexpected.

Should Alan Jones face Court?
Will he face court?

Can charges be brought against him after such a long
time?

I'm not clear as to what can happen in this case.

Any thoughts?

Hi Foxy,

There is a trap that the conservative self rightness like to propagate that homosexuality and paedophilia are in some way, one in the same thing. Not true, why Jones has not "come out" as a simple homosexual if true, is because he would have a lot more baggage to explain that just "I'm a gay fella!"

I have conservative gay friends and family, they simply detest the likes of Alan Jones for what he is! Jones was at one time involved with the South Sydney RL Club. Young fellas with their signing of contracts, an opportunity of a lifetime, one day I'll tell you a story of one young lad, I personally know of, from a disadvantaged background and what Jones wanted of him before the contract was signed.

Dear Paul,

For decades this man was one of our most influential and
feared commentators who counted the rich and famous
as friends and entertained them with lavish parties at his
home.

However, I didn't quite realize that he allegedly used his
position of power to prey on such a vast number of young men.
He's now denying those allegations and apparently is going
to proceed with defamation proceedings. I'm somewhat concerned
that this will add to the stereotyping of gay people.

It's interesting that when approached to speak out on his
behalf - former PMs such as Tony Abbott, Scott Morrison,
and others have declined. One who did come forward was John
Howard (he's my friend, he said), billionaire James Packer,
Peta Credlin (that's not the man I know), and John Laws.

Ray Hadley was the only colleague who's come forward and
admitted to cutting ties with the former 2GB breakfast
announcer. The rest are maintaining radio silence.

We'll have to wait and see what happens next.
Will Jones be able to survive this with his reputation
in tact?

Foxy,

I see that Jones is initiating defamation proceedings against the SMH. I hope that they have deep pockets.

Looks like another trial by media a la George Pell and Bruce Lehrmann, etc.

These cases must be nipped in the bud if the don't go through the right channels - police report > investigation > charge > public prosecutor. If the PP decides there is enough evidence to proceed then, and only then, should the press and the public hear of it.

Aftera 35 year career on Sydney talkback Alan Jones has
held people up to scrutiny. It's now his turn to be put
under the microscope.

Shadow Minister,

A very thorough investigative reporter and an entire
team has been working on the Alan Jones case for
some time now. They were thorough in their investigations
and would not have published on mere innuendo. It appears
that they have done their job well. Therefore, not sure
about the deep pockets that you're claiming they'll need
in the Jones case.

Surely no one should be above the law - no matter who
they are or how much influence they're privy to?
I'm sure you'll agree.

Hi Foxy

According to shonkyminister, any paedophilia associated with the LIBERAL PARTY, Jones was a top honcho in the LIBERAL PARTY, is nothing more than a "minor transgression", said so himself.

Is shonkyminister going to give us another one of his earth shattering legal opinions on Jones, like he did with the 'Cry Baby' Porter case, where he said; Porter had nothing to worry about, in in his opinion Porter was in for $10+ million in compensation, a groveling apology from the ABC, and 100 ABC staff sacked to pay for it all, What a jerk-off!

If you have time, look up the infamous "Woolloomooloo Wall" in Sydney, where young underage male prostitutes "rent boys" would ply their trade waiting to be picked up by paedophile men. Plenty of limousines seen cursing the area most nights of the week. People like shonkyminister in his middle class suburbia, wouldn't have a clue about the real world goings on's in some of the more seedier parts of town.

The way this is looking it is my guess that it won’t be long before they disclose a Labor/Green Leftie’s involvement of the Woolloomooloo game. Just get in with a Conservative first to soften the blow.

The village idiot claimed that kiddie fiddling was OK, that the Greens and Hamas were a great example and that rape murder etc are all minor transgressions.

What a liar he is.

Foxy,

They have done it before and will do it again. It's not the first time the SMH has been sued.

The bar for the truth defence is pretty high.

"The Sydney Morning Herald and the Age newspapers will pay former columnist Clementine Ford roughly $60,000, after defamation proceedings over comments from the mastheads’ executive editor.

On Tuesday, the federal court entered a judgment in favour of Ford in the proceedings she launched against the former Fairfax newspapers now owned by Nine, and Tory Maguire, the executive editor, with the order that Ford be paid $39,000 – an amount the parties had agreed to by compromise.

Maguire and her publishers were also ordered to pay Ford’s legal costs, which Guardian Australia understands totalled about $20,000. Nine will cover all of the agreed costs."

The Jones clone, Ben Fordham, another shock jock, like Jones from the same radio station 2GB in a rather pious moment declared that; " Alan Jones should be presumed innocent until proven guilty" How laughable is that from this sycophant, when has a presumptions of innocence every stopped this Fordham from attacking others for their "guilt" well before any trial or finding of guilty, all from behind the safety of his shock jock microphone. Well he is a buddy of Jones, after all.

Tony Abbott is furiously trying to distance himself from the Jones Boy. Like Archy Pell, Jones was once a friend and confidant of Abbotts, Like in the case of Pell, can we expect another funeral shortly where ex LIBERAL PARTY PM's stick their heads in the coffin for one last hurrah!

What Alan Jones did or did not do and what the Courts
will decide - time will tell. Personally, I learned
of Alan Jones's past history in Parramatta - a long
time ago. He and his behavior were well known.
I'm surprised that he's gotten away with it for
this long. I guess in the Jones case - his success was
the best deodorant. Now it's beginning to reek.

Hi Foxy,

Money, power, influence, has been the Jones defence all along. "In December 1988 Jones was charged with outraging public decency after he was arrested in a London public toilet." The facts were undeniable, where the police stuffed up the defence of "entrapment" being used. In other words no offence would have occurred if it was not for the police 'sting' operation trying to catch paedophiles who frequented those particular public toilets where Jones was arrested.

Do we need a court case to prove, "The Popes a Catholic?" Me thinks not.

More gay bashing from the usual suspects?

Gay bashing?

Only from you mhaze.

The gay people we know - do not sexually assault
others without their consent.

You need to get over your stereotyping.

"Will this force Jones to come out of the closet?"

But somehow Foxy thinks she's not plying the gay card!!

mhaze,

Saying that gay people are not sexual abusers is
telling the truth, not playing the gay card.
But as I told you earlier - pick on someone else
to play with - you have no credibility as far as
I'm concerned. You're not even challenging any more
simply boring and predictable.

Now back to the subject of Mr Jones.

Mr Jones is in denial
He won't admit if he's been caught lying
He denies the young men who accuse
Claiming no one by him has been abused

He says that he has been defamed
Calling in lawyers
Who'll sue
And blame

One thing that is not a lie
Mr Jones is a powerful guy
But he's not aroused by any Venus
His arousal comes from a hard-on penis

For that he's quite prepared to linger
In places where he can use his fingers
Be it in toilets, restaurants, or cars
For which he'll even fly to Mars

He certainly has a powerful voice
But the time has come - to make a choice
Whether to fess up or to deny
And continue a life that is a lie.

He has to decide if the rich and sturdy
Will continue their support and still find him worthy
If they knew that he enjoys
Sexually abusing younger men and boys

It's a question to be asked
Please Mr Jones take off your mask
You with your influence and powerful voice
Did you ever give the young men a choice?

It's one thing to be proud and gay
But quite another to face lament
From young men who didn't give you their consent.

Oh good, no need for trial. Foxy has already decided Jones' guilt.

Either way, I hope the truth comes out (no pun intended) before he dies and the whole issue doesn't become another Jimmy Saville case.

Foxy of course is a rampant hypocrite.

AJ is not accused of rape or underage sex, but essentially harassing other men probably decades ago who have failed to come forward or make any complaint to the police against a man in his mid-80s who is essentially retired.

What Foxy is silent on is the conga line of greens accused and some convicted of child rape, and she claims that Shorten is exonerated of the accusation of rape made against him

People might realise that this is not a case of an "ordinary guy" who went astray, and should, on being exposed face the consequences. No, like a couple of others before him, Jones is a person in society who because of his position of power, influence and wealth has avoided justice that any ordinary guy would have been subjected to. The question can be asked, are we all equal under the law? The short answer is no, people like Jones through their position in society are able to avoid the justice of ordinary folk. In my lifetime this is the third case of a very powerful person, in an exalted position being able to avoid the consequences of their actions by exercising power and influence over others. The first was the Liberal Prime Minister McMahon, then years later the conservative cleric Cardinal Pell. Now we add shock jock and conservative power broker Alan Jones to the list.

Some years back, the cops raided a well known boy brothel in Sydney, they arrested several men who were there for the purpose of having sex with underage boys. All except one were arrested, the one who avoided the law, he was a NSW Supreme Court judge. His limousine and driver were discreetly parked a short distance away, the judge was taken home.

Shadowminister,

Correct. But there is no point in trying to get through to evil neo-Communists like that woman.

I'm unashamedly a fan of of Alan Jones: I watch him twice a week on ADH TV. Jones is one of group of conservative commentators on the channel - available by app - who provide an alternative to the Marxist drivel on the mainstream media: Nick Cater, Damien Coory, David Flint, Fred Pawle, Lyle Shelton and others.

I don't care about Alan Jones' sexual predilections (isn't that how his enemies say we should think about other sexual deviants: the gender-benders and the line-up of different genders?). His brain and his politics are the only things of interest to me.

If Jones has committed any crime against people who have made complaints to the media, instead of to the police when the alleged behaviour occurred, the courts are there to deal with it. It's not our business, and it is certainly not the business of a woman who still thinks that Cardinal Pell was guilty after the High Court found that he was not. Her sort are like the pitchfork carriers and witch-burners of the Dark Ages.

Alan Jones's history is well known in Sydney.
I did not decide his guilt. His actions did.
And for that he should fess up. This is not
about his sexual preferences. It's about a
person in a position of power, misusing that
power without given consent.

You guys may not find that distressing. However
so many young men have found it distressing
enough to come forward.

Calling me names for raising this subject -
says more about you than it does about me.
Surely at least some of you can do better than that.

ttbn,

Two words, one finger!

Don't know, or care too much about our dirty greens, but I do recall one Queensland Labor leader who went to jail for kiddy fiddling, followed a few years later by the then deputy Labor leader for the same thing.

The old saying that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones rings very true here people.

Dear Paul,

It's quite frustrating really that people who say they're all
for free speech, et cetera - attack different
opinions and have to stoop to name calling. Now I know
that ttbn does not like me (putting it politely). However
I find it amusing that he religiously follows my discussions
and reacts to my posts.

He loves stirring the shyte pot. He should be forced to lick
the spoon.

Hi Hassie,

Well said.

Foxy,

Shorten's history is also well known. A credible accusation of rape by a junior labor member still stands, as well as 3 senior Greens paedophiles against which you have not raised one word. The same applied to the Criminal Labor MP Craig Thompson.

Your history of hypocrisy is well known.

Shadow Minister,

To jog your memory. Bill Shorten was cleared by a police
investigation. The police found Shorten had no case
to answer.

We've discussed this on this forum in the past.

I am selective in my choice of subjects on this forum.
Ones that I respond to and the discussions that I raise.
I choose issues and subjects that are of interest to me.
Your approval is not required.

As for your reference to hypocrisy?

You play by a different set of rules to the ones most
rational, decent people adhere to. Most of these people
are not two-faced. They tell it the way it is. They're
not good at hypocrisy and they don't pretend to be someone
they're not.

I stand by my posting record on this forum.

Yours speaks for itself

Alan Jones makes no bones about being defamed
There's nothing wrong with a good grope
For that he can't be blamed
There's many who'll fiddle the night away
They don't have to ask they think it's OK
If you really believe this to be true
Don't complain when it happens to you.

Foxy wrote: "I did not decide his guilt. His actions did."

But but but...there's no evidence he did the things he's accused of. You just decided he did them based on your prejudices and therefore you have indeed decided his guilt.

You can't simultaneously assert that he did these things while saying you haven't concluded whether he did these things. Well, you can since you have. But you can't do it and expect to escape the hypocrisy being noted.

I don't know if he did what is alleged and care even less. I most certainly won't and don't make a judgement based on prejudice sans evidence.

As to Shorten, the allegations against him were much more actionable than anything currently against Jones. For a start, his victim was prepared to go to the police. Yet, the whole thing was hushed up by a compliant media until the police investigation was completed. The first time the public heard of it was when they were told he was found to not have a case to answer. Compare that to Lehrmann, Jones or Porter among others. Two tiered justice system indeed.

There's documented evidence against Alan Jones in
the book by Chris Masters - "Jonestown," 2006.
Evidence for child grooming which was well known
in Parramatta where I grew up and where Jones
taught at The King's School.

There's extracts in the book detailing the child
grooming. Other allegations include that Alan Jones sent
love letters to school boys, had boys in his room late at
night, perved on them in the shower and more.
All this caused Jones's forced resignation in 1973.

Now five young men have come forward. Including his
butler who worked for Jones for 18 years and claims he
has stories to tell that would make your hair curl. Plus
another employee who's willing to testify.

A Royal Commission should be held to investigate this
matter - and if all these allegations are false - lets
see Jones vindicated.

As for Bill Shorten? That case was closed and the woman in
question did not have grounds for the police to proceed.

This is the perfect thread for the forums serial paedophile poster. The strange one who has posted 100's of references to paedophilia and paedophiles on here.

Then there was James Hayward (55) COALITION MP from the NATIONAL PARTY jailed in October 2023 for 2 years and 9 months for molesting a six year girl over a period of 2 years. The poster shadowminister described Hayward's revolting behaviour as a "minor transgression" the Judge didn't think so describing it as "serious offending". shadowminster, why do you believe old men sexually molesting young children is only a minor transgression?

Foxy,

"If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging." ~ Will Rodgers

Paul follows Peter Singer in the Greens - say no more.

mhaze,

Stop trying to dig holes in my path.

I know how to jump.

It's interesting. You rallied around Cardinal Pell.
Donald Trump, and now Alan Jones. Yet not Joe Biden,
or Bill Shorten. I wonder why that is?

You need to put down your shovel.

"You need to put down your shovel."

No second prizes

mhaze,

"No second prizes?"

Not when you're The Best.

Flattery will get you everywhere.

Flattery will get you everywhere?

Not always to the places that you need
or want to go.

Now back to the topic of Mr Jones.

It will be interesting to see whether his lawyers
will pursue a defamation suit and whether Jones will
be called upon to testify and answer questions. He's
always managed to let his lawyers take care of matters.
Avoiding the witness box and having to answer questions.

Being cross-examined is something he appears not to want
to do.

But then that's showbiz.

Foxy,

Shorten was never cleared by the police. His case was not taken to court due to insufficient evidence. That Pell had even less evidence against him shows the partisanship of the Vic police and Judiciary.

Foxy,

All of Jones' accusers will also have to face court for questioning.

Shadow Minister,

Shorten was indeed cleared because of insufficient
evidence. The Police investigators stated there was
no case to answer.

Pell got off on a legal technicality.

As for Jones's accusers? They want their day in court.
Whereas Jones will ide behind his lawyers, as he's done
in the past.

The man made a career out of holding others to account.
He now needs to stand up and face the music himself.
And who knows - he may just be cleared of all charges.

Shadow Minister,

Talking about the partisanship of police and the juditiary?

Apparently fresh allegations have been discovered against Alan
Jones. A 17 year old schoolboy went to the police six
years ago with allegations of sexual assault.

Jones denies all allegations.

Any unwanted touching of a person's private or sexual parts or
proximate areas is sexual assault. That would include touching
of the genitals, buttocks, and areas close to those parts such
as the inner thigh as well as kissing without consent.

Children are taught not to let anyone touch them in their
private parts and to report if someone does.

This should not be hard for any adult to grasp.

Foxy,

The "legal technicality" that exonerated Pell was the same "legal technicality" that saved Shorten i.e. insufficient evidence for a conviction.

Any competent or unbiased Judge would have tossed the case against Pell out of court.

As far as sexual harassment is concerned that is also a needed lesson for Labor and the Greens

Foxy,

The police did not clear Shorten. The Police stated that the prosecution would not proceed based on insufficient evidence. This was due to the sole evidence being only the accuser's word against Shorten's not being sufficient to achieve a conviction.

The Victorian prosecutor decided this was sufficient for Pell and got the case thrown out by the high court.

Paul is the serial paedophile poster as he can't seem to manage to brush the convicted green paedophiles under the carpet.

shonkyminister

"Paul is the serial paedophile poster as he can't seem to manage to brush the convicted green paedophiles under the carpet."

As I've said on numerous occasions on this forum, when YOU, have without provocation made reference to paedophiles in the Greens, I HAVE NO TRUCK WITH SUCH PERSONS you have jack sh!t, one Jonathan Doig, a failed candidate at the 2019 federal election, got what he deserved, JAIL. The other you refer to was some person who was a failed candidate at the 2012 local government elections. I don't know that persons name, and what I was told was he had exploitative images on a computer, I was also told the case didn't proceed to a conviction as the police couldn't establish the age of those people involved.

YOU SIR, on the other hand very much get your rocks off by posting hundreds of references to paedophilia and paedophiles on this Forum. YOU recently claimed the convicted paedophile JAMES HAYWARD a sitting MP of the NATIONAL PARTY in WA, who in October 2023 was sentenced to 2 years and 9 month prison for sexually assaulting a 6 year old girl for a period of 2 year, YOU described HAYWARD'S actions as a "minor transgression" the judge didn't agree with you calling it "serious offending". You've been told by others on the forum, several times, you don't look good with this fetish of yours about paedophilia.

Its unfortunate that this web site has allowed you to vent your preoccupation with paedophilia and paedophiles for years despite its claim that it has zero tolerance for such behaviour. You bring it up unsolicited on any thread, whenever you can. Have you ever noticed even those with the same political bent as you, don't back you up, they obviously don't want to be associated with you or your fetish.

Village idiot,

I am glad that you are getting help for your fixation with the convicted green paedophiles and understand that their crimes were not minor transgressions as you claimed.

I hope you spread this message to others in your party.

shadowminister,

I understand what you are doing, you are trying to goad me into retaliation by labelling you for what you most likely are. I'm not going to do that. Then you will run off to the moderator with another of your complaints "Look sir he's calling me a name", you've done that before with a reference I made to you and the Christchurch terrorist Brenton Tarrant, like a public school boy brat you had a bitch to the moderator,
oh boo-hoo.

Shadow Minister,

Cardinal Pell was found guilty by unanimous jury verdicts
further supported by a Court of Appeal majority of two
judges. The High Court decision undermined confidence in
our legal system especially in child sexual abuse
prosecutions..

Pell got off on a legal technicality. And it left a substantial
body of public opinion totally disheartened - including the
families of victims.

As for Shorten? - no charges were laid in this single accusation.
The police found there was no case to answer.

It's a different story with Alan Jones. Which is what this
discussion is all about. Jones like Pell - has a history of
abuse allegations. Not a one of accusation.

He's faced accusations many times in the past not only in this
country but also in the UK. He's also been forced to resign
from positions of trust in several jobs. Now, more than just
one person has come forward with accusations that refuse to
die down. Hopefully in Jones's case - he will face trial
and we shall see what the courts decide.

Jones has made a career of holding others to account.
He now should be man enough to face his accusers in court.

Foxy,

Pell was found innocent by all 7 high court Judges. The original trial Judge and the Victorian appeal court verdicts were erroneous and undermined the fundamentals of the criminal justice system.

Your claim that the police found that Shorten had no case to answer is a lie and we have been through this before. The statement from the police is that there was insufficient evidence.

"Bill Shorten — who had been subjected to a decades-old rape allegation — was told Victoria Police would not proceed with the case for lack of evidence and identified himself."

As for the case against AJ, all we have is the SMH article and rumours. Not one accuser has actually come forward. Apparently, for you actual evidence is irrelevant.

I have yet to see one word of criticism from you of the two Greens convicted of paedophilia.

"Cardinal Pell was found guilty by unanimous jury verdicts"

Verdicts. Only one found him guilty. Or is that too technical for you?

" Court of Appeal majority of two judges".

The Court of Appeal majority found that there was no legal reason to overturn the jury verdict. They made no findings on his guilt or otherwise. Or is that too technical for you?

" The High Court decision undermined confidence in our legal system "

Well it certainly upset those who seek retribution rather than justice. But for most of us, the HC decision overturned a massive Victorian miscarriage of justice.

" including the families of victims."

Again the plural. Only one person claimed victimhood.

"Pell got off on a legal technicality. "

Just some background here. Foxy was, from the get-go, anxious that Pell be punished for the crimes she was sure he'd committed. That there was no evidence for the crimes didn't worry her, just s she's not worried that there is currently no evidence of supposed Jones crimes. So when Pell was found guilty she was cock-a-hoop. Doubly so after the Court of Appeal decision. She claimed vindication and demand that all doubters recant and accept that Pell was a paedophile. So the HC decision was devastating for Foxy, proving that she not only didn't understand the evidence (or lack thereof) but didn't understand the Australian legal system. So she went searching for a salve and found some equally clueless dolt who wrote a fact free opinion piece making the claim that it he got off on a technicality. I've explained to Foxy several times why that's wrong but she just wants it to be true and that Trumps all good sense.

"As for Shorten? - no charges were laid in this single accusation."

There was no evidence against Shorten other than the accusation itself. Just as for Pell. But the accusation was from a woman. Whatever happened to "Believe all Women"? As I've said before, we have to believe all women but only when they are accusing people the left don't like

Gentlemen:

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

It's should not be that difficult to understand.

Hi Foxy,

The forum goose saying "Pell was found innocent by all 7 high court Judges" is wrong Pell was acquitted. The say goose who said 'Cry Baby' Porter had nothing to worry about, and was in for $10+ million in compensation, a groveling apology from the ABC, and 100 ABC staff sacked to pay for it all. He made similar rants in the 'Beat Up' Bolt case where he declared an arrest was imminent!

It is important to observe that the Court does not criticise the evidence of the complainant and reaches its decision of acquittal assuming that the complainant’s evidence was credible and reliable.The reasonable doubt about guilt is created by the opportunity evidence, and not the evidence of the complainant.

I assume after his acquittal Pell went somewhere private for a celebratory suck of the lolly pop! Anyway, can't now be concerned about a dead paedophile like Pell!

Joe Hildebrand has written an excellent Opinion piece
where he points out that "perhaps it is a sign of
the times that in the lead up to the purest and
happiest holiday of Christmas, the news is awash with
stories of sorrow and shame."

On the global scene we have the horror of war
between Israel and Gaza. We've got the Brittany Higgins
case being brought up again with Bruce Lehrmann seeking
vindication. And we've now got allegations against
Alan Jones - the conservative icon. The once undisputed king
of the media giant's radio arm and a former Liberal
speech writer and star rugby coach.

These sexual assault allegations go to someone who's
been at the very heart of public life in both media and
politics. Who's been brutal against others and held them
up to scrutiny and account.

Hildebrand tells us that the allegations are still untested
in a court of law. And whether they ever will be we have to
wait and see. Yet these allegations have as Hildebrand
says ensnared the most ardent prosecutors of public
debate.

Hilderbrand points out that it is brutal, but aa fair cop.
If anyone in public life believes that they are revealing
ugly truths or are prepared to accuse others of
ugliness - then it is inevitably only a matter of time
before they are cast as ugly themselves and in the case of
Alan Jones - he should be prepared to face his many accusers.

Of course he is like Cardinal Pell was, a very powerful man,
with many powerful friends. It will be interesting to see
if everyone is equal under the law.

There mus be a reason why Justice wears a blindfold.

Dear Paul,

The allegations against Alan Jones have been around
for ages. The fact that he's gotten away with it for so long
speaks to the dark side of society - where power and
money and influence matters.

It will be interesting to see where the case ends up.

I suspect his lawyers will handle it for him.

After all with people like John Howard, Peta Credlin, John Laws,
James Packer, supporting him - how can he possibly lose?

Foxy is correct. Pell was acquitted on a legal technicality that centred on the principle of reasonable doubt. Specifically, the technicality related to whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient for the jury to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt.

Pell was not acquitted because new evidence emerged or because he was found innocent, but because the High Court determined that the evidence at trial was insufficient to meet the high standard required for a criminal conviction, thereby casting reasonable doubt on his guilt.

Those who want desperately to believe that Pell was innocent don’t seem to understand that the above does not mean that he was guilty. It’s possible to acknowledge the above and still maintain your belief that he was innocent.

Syoksya,

So what you are saying is that the evidence was insufficient for a conviction. Just what I was saying. The same was the case for Bill Shorten, except the case was not brought to court, just as the case against Pell should never have been brought to court as there was never enough evidence to convict.

Shorten got off on a legal technicality he was not found innocent.

Foxy links to the article she relies on to claim Pell got off on a technicality. That of course was the article I was referring to. Its written by a highly partisan journalist (not a lawyer) who, like Foxy was seeking to salve their butt-hurt that one of their nemeses was found not guilty.

We see a lot of this these days. You can pretty much find something somewhere on the WWW which will tell you what you want to hear no matter how crackpot the view might be. If you're looking for the truth, the trick is to filter these myriad views to sort the wheat from the chaff. If, like Foxy, you're looking for something, anything, to give your prejudices a veneer of impartiality, then the trick is asking Mr Google the right questions to find that one piece that you can pretend is definitive. Foxy has mastered that approach.

shadowminister,

No, you started your last comment off claiming that Pell was found innocent by all seven High Court judges, which is not true.

An acquittal on a legal technicality typically occurs during or after a trial where a court finds that there's a flaw in the legal process, or some aspect of the law has not been appropriately applied, leading to the dismissal of charges.

In Shorten's case, the matter did not proceed to a trial, as the police found insufficient evidence to lay charges, which is a common outcome in many investigations when the available evidence does not meet the required legal standard to support a charge or a potential conviction. In other words, Shorten’s case did not even reach the point where he could get off on a technicality.

In Pell’s case, however, it was determined by the police that there was sufficient evidence to lay charges, and the court determined that there was sufficient evidence for the matter to proceed to trial.

You claim that Pell’s case also case lacked enough evidence for any charges to be laid, but do not explain why. You can’t possibly be basing your opinion here on the outcome of Shorten’s case, because Shorten’s case never went to trail and so the specifics of it are not known.

"claiming that Pell was found innocent "

Australian, indeed all British-based legal systems, don't find people innocent. They start off innocent and are found guilty or not guilty. If not guilty then their previous status of innocent remains unchanged. Having worked its way through the legal system, the system found Pell not guilty. Therefore he remained innocent.

The difference between Pell and Shorten was the actions and decisions of the Victorian Police. In neither case did they have evidence to satisfy a guilty verdict, but in one case they proceeded anyway. To my mind its impossible to view the different decisions as anything but political, with one being from a favoured group and one not. Using the decisions of the police to excuse the decisions of the police is rather fraught.

mhaze,

You again appear to be conflating the presumption of innocence with a positive affirmation of innocence.

Pell maintained only a presumption of innocence. Once charges have been laid and a matter has gone to court, the individual in question can, at best, only be found not guilty, and, by extension, maintain a presumption of innocence as a shield to protect them from being treated as guilty. There is never a positive affirmation of innocence. Therefore, it is inaccurate to say that Pell "remained innocent".

It is not the job of police to obtain a level of evidence sufficient to "satisfy a guilty verdict." Police only need to find enough reason to lay charges, which is a far lesser standard than the reasonable doubt required to find an individual guilty in a court of law.

I don't know how, to your mind, it could be impossible to view the different outcomes in the two cases to be anything but political when we don't know the specifics of one of them.

Syoksya,

The Aus legal system has only two outcomes, guilty or innocent and one is innocent until proven guilty. The 7 high court judges unanimously found that there was insufficient evidence to reach a guilty verdict and threw the case out.

The Legal technicality was the incompetence and political bias of the Victorian judges and prosecutors who should have known better and waved through a flawed decision of the jury. "legal technicalities" normally mean because of illegally gained information or procedural missteps none of which occurred here.

The police can lay charges on the basis of a complaint, but the prosecution is not supposed to take a case to court unless there is sufficient evidence for a conviction. That there was a stronger case against Shorten but still insufficient to convince the DPP to prosecute. The same DPP decided to prosecute Pell with a substantially weaker case.

In the case of Higgins, again there was only the word of a single witness with a wildly inconsistent story and the DPP proceeded with the case even against the advice of the police. Fortunately, here the ACT attorney general got fired for this.

As for Jones, there is not one named witness or charge laid.

"There is never a positive affirmation of innocence. Therefore, it is inaccurate to say that Pell "remained innocent"."

Of course when I wrote: "Australian, indeed all British-based legal systems, don't find people innocent" it might have occurred that indeed I was saying there is never an affirmation of innocence.

Pell was never found innocent. He was innocent until proven guilty. And he wasn't proven guilty.

QED.

Outside the courtroom there is also the general public's perception of the issue and of similar issues. In Shorten's case the general public's perception was massaged by being kept completely in the dark by compliant media and politically motivated police force. Then they were presented with fiat accompli that rejected the claims of the purported victim. Contrast that with the very public investigation into Pell and the very public agitation from the ABC and Fairfax media expounding his purported guilt to the point where it was no longer possible for Pell to receive a fair jury trial in Victoria.

We see a similar gearing up of the hate in regards to Jones.

shadowminister,

No, in Australian criminal law, a verdict is either 'guilty' or 'not guilty', and 'not guilty' does not equate to 'innocent'.

'Not guilty' means the prosecution has not proven the defendant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. A 'not guilty' verdict reflects the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty', but it does not serve as a positive assertion of innocence. Nor does it equate to general state of innocence, if equating a more general state of innocence with 'not guilty' is what you are attempting to do here to justify your earlier claim.

There can of course be other outcomes, such as a dismissal or a mistrial, but these also never serve as a positive assertion of innocence, or preserve a general state of innocence.

As for Shorten and Pell, their cases were distinct and unrelated - one of which we don’t know the specifics. So, again, we cannot determine if a double-standard occurred in the reviewing of the two cases.

I often wonder what lawyers, judges and other professionals who are actually involved in these decisions, and qualified to make them, would think of this ignorant blather from half a dozen anonymous windbags and graduates of Google and the mainstream media.

We have a 24/7 media cycle and we see all sorts of
dark unseemly characters in the stories dominating
the headlines. The past couple of weeks have been
awash with some very hard hitting news and the recent
allegations against Alan Jones which are still untested
in a court of law.

Yet these allegations as we can see from the news coverage
have ensnared the most ardent prosecutors of public debate.
From legislators, commentators, reporters, media personalities,
politicians, policymakers, and members of the general public.

This case has attracted attention because the allegations go
to someone who's been at the very heart of public life in the
media and politics. It's understandable that the allegations will
be newsworthy and attract so much attention from a vast spectrum
of commentators especially on discussion forums such as ours.

Syoksya,

Actually in Aus Law innocent is synonymous with not guilty hence the "innocent until proven guilty"

Scottish Law includes a verdict of not proven but not English Law or Australian law.

There is never any need to prove innocence in Australian Law.

Foxy,

The allegations against Jones have not been tested in any way let alone in court. I wonder how many are hoping for a $2.4m taxpayer payout from Labor.

shadowminister,

As lawyer working in Australia, I have reasonable grasp of Australian law.

Your claim that "innocent" is synonymous with "not guilty" in Australian law is not quite complete and suggests that you are confusing the legal definitions and the colloquial use of these terms.

In legal terms, "not guilty" is a verdict that means the prosecution has not proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This does not necessarily confirm the defendant's innocence. Rather, it indicates that there was insufficient evidence to meet the stringent standards of criminal proof. The "not guilty" verdict is a cornerstone of the presumption of innocence, which is a fundamental principle in Australian law, as well as in many other legal systems. This principle asserts that a person is considered innocent until proven guilty.

On the other hand, "innocent" in its everyday usage implies the absence of wrongdoing. Legally, however, courts do not declare a defendant "innocent." Instead, they determine whether the evidence is sufficient to surpass the high threshold of proving guilt. The distinction here is subtle but significant. A "not guilty" verdict does not equate to a declaration of innocence; it simply means that the evidence was not strong enough to convict.

While innocence and ‘not guilty’ intersect in the principle of "innocent until proven guilty," in a strict legal context, they are not synonymous. The legal system operates on the presumption of innocence as a safeguard against wrongful conviction, but this presumption is a starting point for legal proceedings, not a final declaration of a person's moral or factual innocence.

//There is never any need to prove innocence in Australian Law.//

I don't know where you get the idea that I need this explained to me. This has been implied consistently throughout my comments here.

Shadow Minister,

I have already stated several times -
that the recent allegations concerning Alan Jones
have not been tested in a court of law.
I also do not understand your need to
repeat this for me.

Shadow Minister,

As for people hoping for substantial pay outs?

That will depend on the courts won't it.
In the past, as we've witnessed - some receive
payouts, others have to pay out, some end up
in jail, and so it goes.

Be patient. The Jones case will take time to resolve.
He too may just get off on a technicality.

S,

Now who is getting pedantic about semantics?

In a criminal case even if the defendant were proven 100% innocent the verdict would be "not guilty". There is no "completely innocent" verdict possible. Until proven guilty there is a presumption of innocence and logically the verdict of non-guilty merges entirely with innocence and the defendant is treated as such irrespective of his actual innocence.

When in the case of Pell there is one person claiming rape and one denying it, with zero other evidence either scenario is possible and without corroborating witnesses or physical evidence, not guilty is the only logical verdict. Any idiot who tries to claim that he was not proven innocent is spouting a personal opinion that is valueless.

"When in the case of Pell there is one person claiming rape and one denying it, with zero other evidence either scenario is possible and without corroborating witnesses or physical evidence, not guilty is the only logical verdict."

Actually there was one other person in the room that day. A second boy who, it was claimed, was also assaulted by Pell. By the time of the trial, that boy was dead from an overdose, accidental it was asserted.

As the boy spiralled out of control in his late teens, his parents, looking for reason asked him out-right if he'd been abused by anyone. On multiple occasions, he flat out denied that he had be abused by anyone.

So if the event happened (and that's a big if) then there were three people in the room that morning. Two of the three said nothing happened. Nothing happened. Yet 12 jurors were able to be convinced to believe the third despite what the high court called the ‘compounding improbabilities’ of the boy's account. It was due to these ‘compounding improbabilities’ that the court found the jury hadn't acted rationally and vacated Pell's guilty verdict.

Again three in the room. Two say one thing. One says another and despite contrary evidence, he's believed and Pell spent 404 days in gaol. Such is Victorian justice in the age of Andrews.

"Pell got off on a legal technicality."

I know Foxy isn't interested in the truth here but I just thought I'd share this to show that the claims of it being a legal technicality are rubbish. The article is written by a rooly-trooly barrister rather than a partisan who tells Foy what she wants to hear.

http://lsj.com.au/articles/understanding-the-high-courts-acquittal-of-cardinal-george-pell/

eg "Even assuming that the jury assessed A’s evidence as ‘thoroughly credible and reliable’, the ‘compounding improbabilities’ caused by the unchallenged evidence required the jury, acting rationally, to have a doubt about Pell’s guilt (at [119]). Put another way, notwithstanding that the jury found A to be credible and reliable, the evidence as a whole was ‘not capable of excluding a reasonable doubt’ as to Pell’s guilt (at [58]). Echoing the formulation used by Deane J and later Mason CJ in years past, the Court referred at three points in the judgment to the ‘significant possibility that an innocent person has been convicted’ (at [9], [119], [127])."

Read the full paper to see what those 'compounding improbabilities' were.

Reasonable doubt isn't a technicality. It's the very basis of our judicial system although some, who just want to convict based on who they hate, might wish it otherwise.

shadowminister,

These are important distinctions in law, not mere exercises in pedanticism. I haven't suggested any pedanticism on your part, either, so I'm not sure why you would word your opening question to me like that.

You are correct in saying that even if a defendant were proven 100% innocent the verdict would still be "not guilty", and that there is no such thing as a "completely innocent" verdict. These are well known principles in law.

However, you then shift to mere logic to assert that a "verdict of [not]-guilty merges entirely with innocence". This is incorrect and somewhat contradicts what immediately preceded it. A verdict of 'not guilty' intersects a presumption of innocence, it does not merge with it - let alone "entirely".

Hopefully now you understand why Pell was not found or proven innocent by the High Court, and that pointing this out is not indicative of a personal opinion that is valueless.

S,

A tenet of criminal law is that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. It is not presumed not guilty until proven guilty.

Thus as Pell was not proven guilty he is presumed innocent. Was that too hard?

Several posters on OLO assume that a defendant in a trial is guilty until proven innocent and automatically assume that a verdict of not proven guilty is a legal technicality to protect the guilty.

While not practising as a lawyer I did a few semesters of law focusing mostly on commercial law but with a few months focusing on the principles of evidence wrt civil and criminal law. The time spent on the reliability of witnesses, especially children was very interesting.

shadowminister,

Your first sentence is correct and is what I have been saying all along.

Your second sentence is irrelevant to anything I have said, so I don't know why you have said. It doesn't even help to setup you conclusion:

//Thus as Pell was not proven guilty he is presumed innocent.//

This contradicts nothing I have said. It does, however, contradict your initial claim, which I took issue with, that "Pell was found innocent by all 7 high court Judges."

As I have pointed out repeatedly now, there is a difference between factual innocence and the presumption of innocence - the latter of which you have only acknowledged to be the case in more recent communications.

Hi Syoksya,

The following link may be of interest:

http://crikey.com.au/2023/01/13/george-pell-child-abuse-accusations-conviction/

On three separate occasions in the HC judgement they express the fear that "there is a significant possibility that an innocent person has been convicted."

They righted that wrong.

S,

You have repeatedly claimed that "As I have pointed out repeatedly now, there is a difference between factual innocence and the presumption of innocence" While this is true in the purest sense, in the case of Pell where there was zero evidence other than the word of a person who stood to gain financially from a guilty verdict and zero witnesses or physical evidence the difference between fact and presumption is pure conjecture more fitted to Schrödinger than OLO.

As Mhaze has pointed out the High Court has frequently used the term innocent related to Pell without any differentiation between not guilty or innocent. In most criminal trials the terms are also used pretty much interchangeably and I remain unconvinced that in criminal trials there is any substance to your arguments.

In fact, the only justification for using this semantic trivia is to enable a partisan view that the defendant was not found innocent and is therefore guilty but has escaped punishment.

Cardinal Pell's case showed that our justice system
needs an overhaul -especially - in cases of child sexual abuse.
Pell was not an ïnnocent man. The High Court simply went by
the current laws of having to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt"
a person's guilt in criminal cases. Pell's case rested on one
person's testimony against his own. His past abuse was not a
consideration.
He was a man with a record of abuse.
Who like Alan Jones used his position of power and influence
to his own advantage. His record of past abuse - was
discounted by the High Court.

Alan Jones also denies his indecent assault charges and we
don't know whether he will sue for defamation or not.

On the law of averages in both these cases - if you have one
complainant - perhaps two, but when the numbers start to
mount up - to three, four, five and keep going up - something
is not quite right.

But again - our current legal system may just work in Jones's
favour as it did in Cardinal Pell's

shadowminister,

Whether my distinction between factual innocence and the presumption of innocence is true in the “purest” sense (whatever that means) is of no interest to me. I’m concerned with what is true in the legal sense, and the claim that “Pell was found innocent by all 7 high court Judges” is a statement concerning a legal procedure.

More to the point, the distinction between factual innocence and the presumption of innocence is never "pure conjecture" nor is it comparable to Schrödinger's thought experiment. Factual innocence refers to the actual state of not having committed a crime, while the presumption of innocence is a legal principle where an individual is considered innocent until proven guilty. These are distinct concepts and are foundational in law.

The High Court's use of the term "innocent" in relation to Pell must be understood in its legal context. The legal system often uses "innocent" to mean "not guilty" within the confines of a trial. This does not equate to a factual declaration of innocence; it means the prosecution failed to meet the standard of proof required for a conviction.

Your assertion that in criminal trials, the terms "not guilty" and "innocent" are used interchangeably is a misunderstanding. Legally, a verdict of "not guilty" does not affirmatively establish innocence; it merely signifies that the prosecution did not prove its case to the requisite legal standard.

Finally, the suggestion that distinguishing between factual innocence and legal innocence (presumption of innocence) is merely "semantic trivia" used to support a partisan view is a misrepresentation. This distinction is crucial in understanding the legal system and ensuring fair trials. It is not a partisan issue but a legal one. The presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of justice, ensuring that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution and that individuals are not treated as guilty without proper evidence and legal process.

"Reasonable doubt isn't a technicality. It's the very basis of our judicial system although some, who just want to convict based on who they hate, might wish it otherwise."

Foxy proves my point..."Cardinal Pell's case showed that our justice system needs an overhaul -especially - in cases of child sexual abuse.
Pell was not an ïnnocent man. The High Court simply went by the current laws of having to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" a person's guilt in criminal cases." I hate him, therefore he should be gaoled.

_____________________________________________________________

"He [Pell] was a man with a record of abuse."

Actually he was a man with a record of being accused of abuse based o unproven and/or fabricated claims.

______________________________________________________________

"The legal system often uses "innocent" to mean "not guilty" within the confines of a trial. "...."Your assertion that in criminal trials, the terms "not guilty" and "innocent" are used interchangeably is a misunderstanding. "

In a multi-universe system, I'm sure there's a version of Earth where that makes sense....unfortunately this isn't it.

S,

You are tying yourself in knots.

You said "The legal system often uses "innocent" to mean "not guilty" within the confines of a trial." My point exactly, and visa versa.

Foxy made my second point by saying:

"Pell was not an ïnnocent man. The High Court simply went by the current laws of having to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" a person's guilt in criminal cases. Pell's case rested on one person's testimony against his own. His past abuse was not a consideration.

That Pell had no previous convictions or even police complaints, this is scurrilous and completely irrelevant. The high court clearly showed that there was no proper evidence and legal process.

mhaze,

Please tell me what you find confusing about what I had said there and I'll be happy to explain it. I have re-read what I said and see nothing ambiguous or contradictory.

shadowminister,

I am simply stating the facts. Nothing in what I have said should indicate that I am tying myself in knots. You, on the other hand, appear to be poking prodding, altering your wording ever-so-slightly each time, in the hope that something will eventually get through or slip past unnoticed.

Saying that "the legal system often uses 'innocent' to mean 'not guilty' within the confines of a trial" is very different to saying that "Pell was found innocent by all 7 high court Judges" for reasons I have already explained.

mhaze,

One clarification I probably should make is that while the terms "innocent" and "not guilty" might be used interchangeably during a trial, they are never used interchangeably in a judge's decision.

I believe shadowminister is suggesting that the latter is the case. If so, then he is incorrect.

clarification or correction?

______________________________________________________________________

Kathleen Folbigg had her convictions squashed today based on the new evidence which created a level of reasonable doubt that she killed her kids. Lucky Foxy didn't have her way, otherwise Folbigg would still be behind bars! Oh wait, I forgot...you only discard reasonable doubt for people Foxy hates.

I do not hate Cardinal Pell.

It's his behaviour that I found shocking.
And the fact that he got away with the harm he did
due to an outdated judicial system.

I do not believe that the Cardinal was an innocent
man. The legal technicality on which he escaped
did not exonerate him in my opinion.

The abuse allegations against him go way back to the 1960s.
And in Ballarat his reputation was also well known.

I challenge anyone to read the book - "Cardinal: The
Rise and Fall of George Pell," by Louise Milligan. With
a Foreword by Tom Keneally. And still insist that the man
was innocent.

In any case - hopefully, the Cardinal's case will force
the Church to not brush complaints of sexual abuse by merely
transferring its clergy to other parishes to continue their
work. Perhaps stronger action will result. As it should.

Although I won't be holding my breath. Sexual abuse seems to be
a part and parcel of the Catholic Church for decades.
I know - I've grown up hearing about it for most of my life.

There was no evidence found to clear Cardinal Pell.
There was in the case of Kathleen Follbigg.
Big difference. And I was overjoyed when she was cleared.
Not when Pell got off on a legal technicality.

And mhaze, if you are going to persist in hurling insults
at me and stirring the shyte-pot - at least have the
decency to lick the spoon.

In a world of partisans that Foxy falls for, Louise Milligan is a the top of the list. She never met a complainant against anyone remotely associated with the church that she didn't believe. Little wonder Foxy falls for it....yet again.

The HC found in favour of Pell by 7-0 thus earning Louise the nickname Seven-nil-again.

"There was no evidence found to clear Cardinal Pell."
I am coming around to the view that this really is beyond for intellectual capacity. There was no need to find evidence to clear Pell, the state is required to find conclusive evidence that he did what was claimed. Indeed the HC addressed that very issue in its judgement, which of course you managed to ignore...as usual.

Again Folbigg was released because the case against her didn't prove she killed her kids beyond a reasonable doubt.
Pell was released because the case against him didn't prove he molested anyone beyond a reasonable doubt.

And haters like Foxy will twist and turn to try to hide from that.

Foxy,

Kathleen Follbigg was freed on appeal because she introduced reasonable doubt. She was not cleared at all.

"Kathleen Folbigg was pardoned and freed in June on the recommendation of retired judge Tom Bathurst, who re-examined all the evidence put to her 2003 trial and found “reasonable doubt” as to her guilt."

So she got off on a "legal technicality" too.

Syoksya,

In the high court judgement, the term innocent was used in reference to Pell more than once.

Gentlemen,

I have no control over your beliefs.

Louise Milligan - an award-winning author and an
investigative reporter. She has a law degree and has
reported on courts for 2 decades. Early in her career
she was the High Court reporter for The Australian.
She worked for 7 years for 7 News until she became an
investigative reporter for ABC, 7.30 and 4 Corners.

As she explains - "Everything had to be very carefully
fact-checked. Every word, every story had to be
carefully thought through."

We're told that Milligan went from reporting on
the Pell story to being front and centre when she was
called as a witness during the committal hearing and spent
six and a half hours of being cross-examined by Pell's
barrister, Robert Richter.

An experience she said had
given her an insight into how brutal the legal process
can be. She said her words were being twisted and she felt
a huge responsibility to the complainants who had come
forward to her, as well as to their families. Not to let
them down.

As stated earlier, Milligan does have a law degree and has
reported on courts for two decades and despite having the
ABC behind her - she still found it all traumatic - and all
she could do as she said was think about what it would be
like for the surviving choir boy or other complainants giving
evidence. She stayed with the story.

Her book - "The Cardinal: The Rise and Fall of Cardinal Pell,"
was certainly a very disturbing read. And while it was enormously
difficult for Milligan at times. Milligan says she felt
compelled to stay with the story for the sake of those she's
met who felt abused and failed by the church.

"This is not about vindication. This is about the little kids
whose lives were destroyed and whose families were left to
pick up the pieces and I still feel enormously sad about it."

Her thorough investigations were aired on "4 Corners," and iview.

Gentlemen,

I feel that there's nothing to be gained by
further conversation with you.

"Her thorough investigations were aired on "4 Corners," and iview."

And the HC found she was wrong. There's a vast difference between using the compliant media to carry forth a vendetta against the church and proving wrong-doing in court. Although it seems that is beyond the understanding of some here.

The editorial in the Australian that targeted ABC's
Louise Milligan was inaccurate and unfair. The
Australian Press Council found:

http://theguardian.com/media/2023/sep/05/the-australian-newspaper-editorial-louise-milligan-inaccurate-unfair-press-council-finding

Here's more on the book:

http://mup.com.au/books/cardinal-paperback-softback--2

There's another book by Louise Milligan that is worth a read.
"Witness."

There's more at this link:

http://theconversation.com/review-louise-milligans-witness-a-devastating-critique-of-the-criminal-trial-process-148334

"And haters like Foxy will twist and turn to try to hide from that."

Well it certainly doesn't change things in the bigger picture.
The catholic church is stained with pedophilia and abuse
(salvation for some, but a living hell for many others)
- And apologists like mhaze will twist and turn to try to hide from that.

'Do unto others' How sad it truly is.
Not even the churches own 'best and brightest' higher-ups could comprehend the 'Do unto others' idea.
Too busy buggering the altar boys and beating the other children.
- Must be a lot of sinners going to church right?

"The catholic church is stained with pedophilia and abuse"

Yes I think that is part of the problem. People wanted to use Pell as a symbol for the church and by punishing him for things they couldn't prove he did, they'd punish the church for things they thought it had done.

A million miles from any notions of justice, but hate tends to cloud thinking.

Hi Armchair Critic,

If you're interested the two books that I mentioned by
Louise Milligan - "Cardinal: The Rise and Fall of George
Pell," and "Witness," are compelling reading.

This is the actual finding of the High Court in the Pell case. Those interested in the facts will read it.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VSCA/2019/186.html

Meanwhile those interested in being told what they want to hear or being led down the garden path will read Milligan's works of fiction. Although given that they've been completely debunked by the court rulings, one wonders why anyone would bother with them.

Louise Milligan's books raise some difficult questions.
The George Pell case triggers a re-think on the
laws governing child sexual abuse cases.

The books are not fiction. They are written by an
investigative reporter with a law degree who's spent
decades covering law trials, and interviewing victims
of abuse.

The books are compelling reading.

Of course they will be brushed aside by supporters of
the status quo. That is to be expected and is predictable.

As the Festive Season approaches I'd like to wish
everyone on the Forum Many Happy Hours. Enjoy every moment.
And I wish you Many Happy Days in the New Year.

Take care.

Ultimately I don't think Pell was a decent human being.
He was the treasurer for the Vatican, and with that would've had a finger on all the expenses and the goings on there.

If he wasn't a pedophile himself, he would've known about and covered up for others that were.
His claim of innocence, is that 'the witnesses somehow died'.
- 'Yeh righto mate, I see where you're at';
Whatever helps you get to sleep at night right?
- Now go cosy up to some petrified Altar boy you sick freak...

Doesn't matter what the court found.
It's what the people actually think that matters.

Knowing about these Vatican expenses and goings on and keeping it under one's hat gives power of blackmail and leverage over others to do as they're told.
- What a seedy place full of informers, backstabbers and perverted debachery it must be.

It's well known by locals in the area about young men being prostituted inside the Vatican.
- Might be your cup of tea mhaze, but doubtful to be a place many others would care to be.
The Vatican may actually be the perfect venue for a gay Mardi Gras, truth be told...

Hi Foxy

"As the Festive Season approaches I'd like to wish
everyone on the Forum Many Happy Hours. Enjoy every moment.
And I wish you Many Happy Days in the New Year."

- Same to you, and to all.

Post-truth mhaze,

From the judgement you linked to the decision of the majority included:

“It is sufficient for present purposes to say that we saw nothing in A’s answers under cross-examination to suggest that he had been caught out or had tripped himself up. “

“A further indication of A’s credibility, in our view, was his admitted uncertainty about a number of matters which, if the story had been invented or was an entrenched fantasy, he might have been expected to describe with confidence. “

“Throughout his evidence, A came across as someone who was telling the truth. He did not seek to embellish his evidence or tailor it in a manner favourable to the prosecution. As might have been expected, there were some things which he could remember and many things which he could not. And his explanations of why that was so had the ring of truth.”

“The impression we gained from reading the transcript of A’s cross-examination reinforced the impression we had gained from watching the recording of him giving evidence. Nothing about his answers under cross-examination suggested that he was concocting, or embellishing, or ‘fantasising’. On the contrary, both the content of what he said and the way in which he said it — including the language he used— appeared to us to be entirely authentic.”

“Nothing about A’s account of the events suggested that it was either fabricated or a product of his imagination. “

SR was convinced by A's testimony even though there was zero corroborating evidence. That A could have been carefully coached and lying through his teeth eluded him. Millions of people have been scammed by well-spoken conmen whom they "believed". There is a sucker born every minute.

The Victorian judges should be sacked or re-educated on evidentiary law.

Many of us find it difficult to reconcile the High Court's
decision given the fact that a jury made a difficult
conclusion which was further supported by the Appeal Court
majority judgement's careful and extensive evaluation
of the same evidence.

A jury found the Cardinal guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
5 offences. In doing so the jury assessed the testimony and
credibility of the complainant. The jury saw and heard all the
evidence of the trial. It was their legal function to make this
decision.

Careful analysis of the full reasoning of the High Court is
required to fully assess their outcome.

But this extraordinary outcome is strange justice indeed.

Pell may have won on a legal technicality
but in contrast the complainant was found to
be believed by a jury, by a majority
judgement and by a substantial body of public opinion.

Standard SR there.....cherry-pick some quotes and pretend they are the whole story.

Those who read AND understood (sorry to leave you out Foxy) the HC ruling (remember it was 7-0), would know that., although the HC found person 'A' to have been probably convincing to the jury, that the jury should have used the 'compounding improbabilities' in A's story to have reached a decision of reasonable doubt. You know, like the law requires.

But in the two tier justice system that is/was Andrew's Victoria, notions of western justice no longer count. Thankfully, the innocent still, for the moment, are able to appeal to people outside the Victorian system and receive their due justice.

Foxy,

Pell was freed on the same "legal technicality" that freed Shorten. There wasn't sufficient evidence for a conviction.

The DPP's and the presiding judge on the trial's responsibility was to decide whether the evidence was sufficient for a conviction. So too was it the duty of the appellate judges.

The unanimous decision of the 7 most senior judges in the high court was essentially that the Vic judges had been negligent/incompetent in their duties.

That you are struggling with HC applying the law says much about you.

Shadow Minister,

Shorten was never put on trial. The police said there was
not a case to answer. In Pell's case there was. He was found
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of not one - but 5 offences
and that was further supported by the Appeal Court majority
judgement's careful and extensive evaluation of the
evidence.

I trust that judgement as I trust my own judgement.
What you believe does not matter. I know the truth and that
is all that matter to me.

I will not be responding to you any further.

Foxy,

The police never said that there was no case for Shorten to answer. I have read the statement which said that there was insufficient evidence to achieve a conviction (i.e. reasonable doubt)

Clearly, your judgement is as flawed as the Victorian judges and Jury.

post-truth mhaze,

You claim: "Standard SR there.....cherry-pick some quotes and pretend they are the whole story."

Yet offer not a singe quote of your own in rebuttal. Typical.

"Yet offer not a singe quote of your own in rebuttal. Typical."

I already posted the link to the full HC findings AND invited people to read the reasons why the jury should have found reasonable doubt. Sorry that was beyond you capabilities.

To assist, go to the section headed "(13) Compounding improbabilities re the first incident"

where you'll see a list of the improbable events that 'compound' to make the whole claimed incident spectacularly improbable.

eg"840 Mr Richter submitted that each of a large number of independently improbable, if not ‘impossible’, things would have had to have occurred within a very short timeframe (perhaps 10 minutes or so), if the complainant’s account of the first incident were true.

841 The matters relied upon by Mr Richter in support of that ‘compounding improbabilities’ submission were:...."

Its quite complex and detailed and I know that's not your thing, but give it a try.

Dear Steele,

The following link may be of interest:

http://smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/he-was-only-28-alan-jones-defends-cardinal-george-pell-on-qa-20160307-gncymh.html

Birds of a feather?

Shadow Minister,

You say that my judgement is flawed?

I trust my own judgement. You can't change people's
minds about you. People believe what they want to.
I know the truth about me and that's all that matters
to me.

Dear Steele,

http://crikey.com.au/2023/01/13/george-pell-child-abuse-accusations-conviction/#:

The evidence against both Pell deceased, and Jones soon to be, is rather overwhelming. Pell was a roomy of the notorious Catholic paedophile priest Gerald Ridsdale. Remember Ridsdale had a stack of pornographic magazines in the room, Pell claimed he never saw them, more likely he never had his head out of them. Jones has a very long rap sheet but through power and influence, particularly in the Liberal Party both had avoid conviction. I don't know why anyone is bothering to defend this pair of grubs.

Foxy,

By MAEVE MCGREGOR's argument, Bill Shorten was never found innocent nor any of the 1000s of people found not guilty or whose case was dismissed for lack of evidence. No court ever finds anyone innocent as the assumption is that anyone who is not guilty is innocent.

In short, it is a facile argument by someone with no substance.

100% of the judges outside the Victorian bubble found that the evidence was well below the standard needed for a conviction and that there was a very high probability that an INNOCENT man had been convicted. Moreover, it was a severe indictment of the Victorian judge's competence.

Hi Soap Box.

Welcome to the Forum.

I agree with your take on Pell and Jones.

As for their supporters?

I give their opinions all the consideration that they
deserve. (smile).