From what I'm reading at the moment it is the pope who should have been in the dock. He has done nothing about child abuse. When asked why, the weasel said "Who am I to judge?". He is from a part of the world where communists have an 'enormous influence' on the Catholic church, and Francis certainly leans a long way to the left. And he has welcomed back into the fold priests expelled for child abuse by his predecessor, Pope Benedict, who resigned in anguish at the state of the Vatican.

The communists see the Catholic church as the force behind Western democracy more than another other institution. The future might see Francis as the last pope following his wrecking of the church.

Yes yes Foxy, all of what you say is true or at least arguable.

But the fact remains that these 12 people were ultimately tasked with deciding between two competing stories with no other evidence which allowed them to weigh one against the other.

Only three people knew what happened on the day in question. One of them went to his grave asserting nothing had happened. Yet a man is in gaol having been found guilty of molesting a man who said he wasn’t molested.
Another says nothing happened. A third says multiple assaults happened.
How to choose between these stories? Generally there’ll be some other corroborative evidence that gives weight to one over the other. But this time there was none.

The jury had the options of deciding to believe the claimed victim, believe the accused or decide that they could discern ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ between them. That they chose to believe the claimed victim based solely on his story is a miscarriage of justice, or at least of the justice that this society used to believe in.

These people came into the jury room with all the baggage of a life lived. We all carry with us prejudices based on what we’ve learnt or been told. The unrelenting attacks on the church over the past 2 decades have affected societal attitudes to the clergy. That comes into the jury room.

/cont

/cont

It’s all very well for the judge to admonish the jury to leave those prejudices out of their considerations, but it’s easier said than done. I recently visited Sydney and saw signs around challenging people to “unsee this” ie having seen or heard it, you can’t simply choose to not see or hear it. It’s interesting that the judge was confident that the jury could achieve this unseeing but not confident that they could recognise that a map of the church showing where everyone approximately was during the alleged incident was merely a representation. This will be part of the appeal.

In the end, a man is in gaol based solely on the assertions of another man. The jury decided they preferred to believe one over the other. Pell’s legal team decided that he wouldn’t testify because he didn’t need to prove his innocence and that the prosecution needed to prove his guilt. In this they were legally right and in the past it was correct. But they failed to see the new paradigm because Pell was already guilty in the eyes of an unrelenting media and anti-Christian social campaign. Pell needed to prove his innocence and failed to do so. That he shouldn’t have been required to do so is by-the-by.

This is a very significant change in our justice system. That it’ll probably be reversed on appeal only partial mitigates the disaster that has befallen our society.

George Weigel, writing in 'First Things’ refers to the “perverse verdict” in the Pell case, and asks if anyone else has noted the fact that the Cardinal “did not have to return to his native Australia to face trial”. As the holder of a Vatican diplomatic passport, he could stayed put if he was guilty. He would have been untouchable but, knowing he was innocent, he returned home to clear his name.

Weigel is a friend of George Pell, but it's a damn good question; one I have asked myself many times but haven't put to the hyena pack.

George Pell trusted Australia and Australian justice; he was wrong to do so.

Pell was first accused of sexual abuse after he became Archbishop of Sydney. He stood down - and was completely cleared of the charges.

Since then, there have been unfounded rumours, innuendo and anti-Catholic filth from the usual subjects and the unconscionable media. A “Niagara of calumnies (has been) poured over Cardinal Pell from both political and media circles”,until now, when the hyenas are picking over Pell's bones.

The justice system that Cardinal Pell trusted has let him down. He, as well as all reasonable Australians will never trust it again.

mhaze,

This case can be argued in many ways. However the
jury was given specific directions over and over
again, they inspected the robes,
they listened to the complainant, heard all the
improbabilites, and they decided according to the legislation
in place for sexual abuse trials - which are known
as "word-on-word" cases. The court of Appeal will now make
the final decision. It is very rare that ab Appeal Court
overrules that of a jury decision - but we shall have to
wait and see.

As for Cardinal Pell returning to Australia to face the
charges - he didn't in the first case - he was declared
by his doctors to be to ill to travel. However, the
Vatican may have influenced him to later make the trip
for the reputation of the Church. It can also be argued
that a man of Cardinal Pell's standing may also have
been convinced that he was above the law or alternatively
as his own lawyer pointed out in his "vanilla" statement -
so what's the big deal here - no serious damage was done.
Cardinal Pell after all did tell the Royal Commission
that sexual abuse cases were "not of much interest
to him"when he was asked why he defended and protected
his mate - the notorious pedophile -Ridsdale.
Cardinal Pell is now a convicted pedophile. Perhaps
sexual abuse cases should have been öf "interest""to him.

mhaze,

Here's a link that lists some of the allegations about
Cardinal Pell's behaviour that have followed him for years:

http://www.news.com.au/national/victoria/courts-law/allegations-about-george-pells-behaviour-have-followed-him-for-years/news-story/7fe9b7b0742e08fa8a31c9d8e35d9634

There's much more in the book "Cardinal..." by Louise Milligan.