Dear ALTRAV,

Mate your attention seeking really does get tiresome.

And you keep trotting out lines like this;

“My angst is with this country, it's moronic people and their moronic views and beliefs, it's moronic laws, and the list goes on and on, like you and Foxy at the best of times.”

This so call moronic country has a per captia ratio of Nobel Prizes which is a third higher than Italy. If we are as thick as you are trying to make out where does that leave your mob?

A less kind person might say you don't need a degree to become a mafioso, possibly Italy's most prominent export.

Hi Foxy,

I have much more faith in the jury system, than a judge sitting alone where it is appropriate. In the Pell case a jury is entirely appropriate. you would think it was a toss of a coin that decided the outcome, the way some carried on about the verdict. Should Pell manages to wriggle out of it, that's justice, and his good luck.

Do you think the pork chops here would be going on as they are if the perpetrators name was say; Gough Whitlam, and not George Pell. I put up another thread 'Good Labor Men Finally Receive Justic' about Macdonald and Maitland who have had their guilty verdicts quashed by the Appeals Court, after two years in jail. Their cases are far more advanced than Pell's. I don't see the 'Usual Suspects' jumping up and down on that discussion, in fact they are totally silent. Either they love paedophiles, or hate Labor, maybe both.

Dear Joe,

As for being convicted on the evidence of one person
and whether or not this is fair?

It's been explained that there were 14 witnesses
called by prosecutors. But there was only one first
hand witness who gave evidence - the complainant.

A large part of the prosecution's case necessarily hinged
on his testimony. This is not unusual in sexual abuse
trials which are known as "word on word cases."

You have to be aware surely that it used to be that the
law could not give weight to a single complainant's
evidence unless there was also a witness who said the
victim told them about the abuse at the time, or unless
there was evidence showing the victim was distressed
immediately after the attack.

This may be why Pell's lawyer Richter made so much of
the fact that the victim did not speak out until he was
an adult.

But courts have been frustrated by the lack of successful
prosecutions against sex offenders and the unfairness to
victims so you need to know that evidence requirements
have changed.

There is overwhelming evidence that shows many victims do
not speak about their abuse until decades later. The vast
majority of sexual assault cases now come down to the
complainant's word.

To ensure trials are still fair - legislation now requires
the judge to give jurors specific directions to balance
any unfairness against the defence or complainant when it
comes to word on word cases.

Jurors are commonly told they must consider that the
defendant may be deprived of an alibi (if the complainant
cannot specify the time of the alleged offence) and is at
significant forensic disadvantage due to the passage of
time. They are told it is up to prosecutors to prove guilt,
not up to the defence to prove innocence.

They are told it is not uncommon for child abuse victims to
forget exact dates and peripheral details, or to report only
as an adult.

The jurors in the Pell case were given clear directions along
these lines.

cont'd ...

cont'd ...

Dear Joe,

The robes Pell wore during the offending were brought
into court and tendered as an exhibit. The jurors were able
to examine and hold these robes in their jury room
during deliberations.

Monsignor Charles Portelli demonstrated to jurors how the
cincture was tied around the waist. It was pointed out that
having a cincture around the waist did not restrict movement
from the waist down. The jurors saw the robes, were able to
hold them and heard all the evidence from both parties
as to their manoeuvrability.

Allegations from Pell's past have continued to surface over
the decades. In 2017 he was charged with historic sex offences
against multiple complainants which lead to last year's
conviction.

You can go on insisting that there was a lack of evidence
but how would you know unless you were in the room every
day, heard everything the jury heard, had access to all
the information the jury had. Denying the conviction is
doing a disservice to our democratic jury system
which followed the letter of the law as it currently stands
in sexual abuse cases.
You're also disrespecting the victims.
We shall have to wait and see what
the Appeals Court decides - whether it will uphold the
jury's conviction or acquit Cardinal Pell.
Only time will tell.

People want the leaders to speak frankly about the
problems and the desire to get greater transparency within
church structures.

The most important issue now is not just reforming areas
of the Church relating allegations of child sexual abuse but
increasing transparency across the entire institution.

Foxy,

"Pedophilia is a psychiatric
disorder..."

Then should we not be treating paedophiles as suffers as well?

Dear Steele,

Regarding Australia?

The Economist runs a survey every year in order to mark
the most liveable countries and cities in the world.
According to these surveys - Australia and her multiple
cities make it every year on the best lists in the
world. No wonder so many people want to come here to
live.

We have stability, health-care, some of the world's best
hospitals, culture, great environment, education, and
infrastructure. Our economy is solid, we have one of the
strongest and safest currencies - and the list goes on.
And I haven't even talked about our food (and coffee), or
our theatre, arts, and films.