Anyone at all like to air their views on the two perjuring priests?

Should they get away with it?

Hi Is Mise,

Clearly, it is maintained, the testimony of one person was enough to convict Pell. The countervailing testimony of a couple of witnesses in Pell's favour not only didn't matter, but, as you point out, those false testimonies should mean that the 'witnesses' for Pell should now be charged with trying to pervert the course of justice. Being priests or whatever, any other charges by anybody of sexual offences against those liars should be taken into account and believed. Those cronies of Pell should also be jailed.

Anybody who disbelieves the testimony of someone against a member of the priesthood should be charged and also jailed. Nobody would bring charges of sexual assault against a member of the priesthood without honestly believing them. Special courts should be set up forthwith to summarily jail any members of the priesthood if they are accused, to save the court's time. All accusations against them should be believed and any doubters should be fined, if not more severely punished.

That would serve the bastards right.

So ..... what was the definition of a 'kangaroo court' again ?

Joe

Dissenting Judge Weinberg's support for the overturning of Pell's judgement has reportedly given the Cardinal's defence team reason for hope for the High Court appeal. Weinberg is so highly regarded that " a decision not to test his views would be a surprise". Weinberg's "genuine doubt" should be regarded as very significant by the High Court. There are huge questions as to the credibility of the witness.

There are many, many reasons why a High Court appeal should be successful, not the least being the future credibility of our judiciary. Genuine Christians should be praying hard; the rest of us should be doing what we usually do in the face of such dreadful injustice. What has happened to Pell is not about religion or what we think about religion; it is about humanity, justice in general, and whether or not we can still respect the country we live in and its institutions and laws.

Dear mhaze,

You write;

“Its interesting to ponder how two juries can see the same evidence but reach wildly different outcomes. (10-2 for acquittal, 12-0 for gaol)”.

You keep banging on with the completely unsubstantiated figure on 10-2 for acquittal. It is a figure pushed in rightwing pundit circles but has absolutely no validity.

However given your reaction to the 12-0 guilty verdict of the next trial it would not have mattered if the first were 10-2 to convict because you still wouldn't have had a bar of it.

Dear o sung wu,

You write;

“ Though my old detective's nose tells me there's a lot more to this matter, then we'll ever know.”

I'm wondering if this experience related by this Victoria police officer rings true with you?

Quote;

Doug Smith was the sergeant overseeing Taskforce SANO's investigation into Pell.

He told Four Corners that, over the years, the police tasked with investigating child sex abuse cases in the Catholic Church found the church "difficult" to deal with.
"They were openly saying that they would cooperate, but I think you could almost say that the way that they classed their cooperation would be similar to a protester lying on the ground in the middle of the street not resisting the police, but the police would have to pick that person up and drag them off the street," he said.
"I think that that's the level of cooperation that the Catholic Church gave us."

End Quote.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-04/george-pell-abuse-victims-family-police-speak-to-4-corners/10856998

Dear HenryL,

You write;

“Now ,Victoria at least, has introduces a system where a conviction can be made on accusations alone without supporting evidence.”

Still nary a word from you about the victims of sexual abuse but be that as it may a witness's sworn testimony is evidence, what you should be saying is it is uncorroborated.

Dear Fester,

Inspiration? Hardly. The American case had the motivation of a $5 million dollar windfall. This was not a factor in Pell's case at all.

What is essential is that the law be allowed
to do its work.

We need to wait and see how it plays out.

Foxy,

"What is essential is that the law be allowed
to do its work. "

Admirable, now would you like to comment, as you were asked, on the perjury by the two priests?

Do you think that people who lie in Court should be prosecuted?