Dear HenryL,

Despite having been told from his own words that he doesn't intend to sue the Church, which was completely at odds to your assertion that he was, you are still claiming him to be a con man?

To what ends?

As to his truthfulness the justices specifically said;

“Throughout his evidence, [the complainant] 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.”

It would take a high degree of skill to make it past not just every single juror in the original case but also highly skilled Justices.

The Justices did however give an opinion of the truthfulness of two of the witnesses though.

“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.”

Lying to cover one of their own? It would seem they were rather practiced at it. I wonder why the need has arisen in the past?

Leave it mate. Justice has been served.

.

Dear Foxy,

.

Having read the “Supreme Court of Victoria, Court of Appeal written reasons for judgement in Pell v The Queen”, I am satisfied that our justice system has rendered the best possible decision in this case, given the circumstances.

Here is the transcript :

http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2019/08/supreme-court-of-victoria-court-of-appeal-written-reasons-for-judgement-in-pell-v-the-queen.html?cid=6a0177444b0c2e970d0240a47900bb200c
.

My only regret (which is not specific to this particular case but applies to all trials relating to sex crimes) is that the three Court of Appeal judges emphasised that Cardinal Pell did not have to prove anything in the trial. Rather that, at all stages of the trial the burden of proof rested with the prosecution.

Court decisions are tantamount to imposing a double punishment on victims. It is a cross they have to bear psychologically and socially for the rest of their lives. It is not surprising that the large majority deliberately turn their back on justice considering that it is not only useless but does more harm than good.

As a result, in the US, 97% of rapists never spend a single day in jail. In Italy, a 2006 survey found that 91.6% of rapes were not reported to the police. In Australia, in 2005, it was found that 81.1% of sexual assaults, including rape, were not reported to the police.

The sacrosanct principle of presumption of innocence is an effective means of guaranteeing legal immunity to sex offenders and denying justice to the millions of victims it was designed to protect. In its present form justice is counterproductive. It achieves exactly the opposite result to that for which it was intended. Instead of preventing and punishing crime, it encourages and facilitates it. It is headed in the wrong direction.

The perverse effect of the presumption of innocence in sex-related crimes is usually due to the lack of material evidence and/or of a credible eyewitness and the impossibility of proving that the victim was not the instigator or had given her (or his) consent. Any doubt is to the benefit of the offender. The victim is presumed to be lying.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

In Shakespeare’s tragedy, King Lear, Gloucester’s bastard son, Edmund, quotes Edgar, Gloucester’s legitimate son as having replied when he (Edmund) threatened to expose him (act 2, scene 1): “You penniless bastard! Do you really think that if it came down to my word against yours, anyone would believe you? No. I’d deny whatever evidence you had against me - even if it were in my own handwriting - and turn it all into evidence against you and your plans for treachery”.

My word against yours has always been and continues to be the nemesis of justice.

Nothing has changed since Shakespeare wrote that dialogue over four centuries ago, in 1606.

In my humble opinion, in the case of sex crimes, there should be no presumptions of any sort whatsoever. Plaintiff and accused should be placed on an equal footing and each case judged solely on its merits.

Commenting on the presumption of innocence, the English philosopher and jurist, Jeremy Bentham, noted in “A Treatise on Judicial Evidence” which he published in 1825 :

« At first it was said to be better to save several guilty men, than to condemn a single innocent man; others, to make the maxim more striking, fixed on the number ten, a third made this ten a hundred, and a fourth made it a thousand. All these candidates for the prize of humanity have been outstripped by I know not how many writers, who hold, that, in no case, ought an accused to be condemned, unless the evidence amount to mathematical or absolute certainty. According to this maxim, nobody ought to be punished, lest an innocent man be punished »

.

Justice will be served, no doubt, but not here on earth.
Yuyutsu,
If Justice were served on Earth, there'd be a lot less crime & cruelty !

12 Jurors had no doubt about the mans guilt
Our Prime Minister said these words to victims, I, we, your country believes you
In this thread some, clearly, undermine our whole system of justice
Because their bias over rules [in their mind] justice

As one of the forums long term critics of the Catholic Church and the horrendous behaviour of its operatives towards children, both the physical acts of depravity towards those in their care, and the mental anguish the Church hierarchy caused by their denials and cover ups, I am pleased that our court system has succeeded, at long last, and against the odds, in convicting without question a putrid piece of filth.

BTW, the forums bush lawyers, paedophile apologists and right wing know all's, certainly have egg on their faces after this outcome.