Is Mise,

I'm not a lawyer.

Just at a guess I imagine
because a guilty verdict has been delivered in
the Pell case - the testimonies of the priests
will not be re-visited.

Is Mise,

Perjury is a crime, so people can be prosecuted, and are prosecuted, for lying in court. Opinions on it don't matter.

Oh yeah, STEELEREDUX...

I couldn't agree with you more, I reckon trying to pry the truth out of an organization as influential and powerful as the Catholic, Anglican, or other Protestant Churches would require a skill far beyond that of a police detective.

Whether by design, cultural even for ecclesiastical reasons, I would've thought many of these Priest's would do everything in their power to obfuscate or dodge any attempts at getting to the real truth. Not necessarily they're wrong or bad, perhaps they might think these crimes should be better handled in house (Rome), rather than the police? I wouldn't know, it's another consideration, though? Besides, you should never discount the 'power of conscience' of a good man or woman?

In my years of penance, spent in the police academy (devoid of any meaningful O/T) I taught a couple of law subjects (as applied to police) & I recall telling the various classes as they came through a couple of old legal dictums:

'The eminent 18th-century jurist Blackstone said inter alia - '...A hundred guilty men should go free than a single innocent man be convicted.

And finally my friend Steele, I recall an old 14th-century Latin phrase that kinda ties it all up I reckon? 'cave cave dominus Videt' meaning; ' Beware beware God sees.' Accordingly, Cardinal PEEL MUST be acquited, if the matter goes before the seven wise men, who comprise the Full Bench of the H.C.

Dear Is Mise,

Completely agree. The Justices clearly stated that the evidence from the two officials about the robse being incapable of being pulled aside was concocted rubbish, although they put it a little more kindly that that.

“The defence relied on categorical statements by Monsignor Portelli (the prefect of ceremonies to Cardinal Pell) and by Mr Potter (the sacristan) that it was not possible to pull the Cardinal’s robes to the side. The robes were an exhibit at the trial and had been available to the jury in the jury room during their deliberation. Having taken advantage of the opportunity to feel the weight of the robes and assess their manoeuvrability as garments, the Chief Justice and Justice Maxwell decided that it was well open to the jury to reject the contention of physical impossibility. The robes were not so heavy nor so immoveable as the evidence of Monsignor Portelli and Mr Potter had suggested. The Chief Justice and Justice Maxwell found that the robes were capable of being manoeuvred in a way that might be described as being moved or pulled to one side or pulled apart.”

Giving false testimony in the form of categorical statements should indeed have a penalty.

Foxy,

I'm not asking for a legal opinion, I merely ask if you think that people who lie in Court, that is commit perjury, should be prosecuted for their crimes.

Paul,

You discount the opinions of Bolt and Devine, as this is a discussion forum, would you care to tell us why you disagree with their opinions?

Perhaps you might tell us what you think of the priests who seem to have lied to the Court and if they ought to be prosecuted?

Hi Is Mise,

Of course witnesses who perjure themselves should be charged and fined - and if they are priests, jailed as well. Anybody who accuses them of lying should be believed, as an honest witness, and they should get the maximum possible sentence in solitary.

But as an atheist, with communist parents, and with childhood memories of the McCarthy era (I was about the same age as the Rosenberg kids when their parents were executed), I'm very mindful of the possible miscarriage of justice. It may well be that Pell has been abusing boys (Phillip Island and Ballarat perhaps), but justice still has to be done in this particular instance, and seen to be done. Other courts can deal with those other matters.

Seriously, we have to confront the impropriety of the principle, that someone can be found guilty on the basis of one person's testimony alone. If it can happen to some Catholic hot-shot like Pell, it can happen to anybody.

Joe