Interesting judgement.

"The Court held that, on the assumption that the jury had assessed the complainant's evidence as thoroughly credible and reliable, the evidence of the opportunity witnesses nonetheless required the jury, acting rationally, to have entertained a reasonable doubt as to the applicant's guilt in relation to the offences involved in both alleged incidents.

A lot of the history of the abuse in the Catholic Church was hinged on witnesses not being believed. Now it seems even when they are the justice system fails them.

'Andrew Bolt writes

'Sky News host Andrew Bolt says the “witch hunt” against Cardinal George Pell destroyed the man’s career, reputation and locked him in jail for 404 days “for a crime he could not possibly have committed”.
“This was one of the greatest miscarriages of justice in Australian history."
“A lot of people today should be ashamed of their role in the persecution, witch hunting and jailing - for 404 days - of an innocent man."
“The charges were inherently implausible.”

I have no time for the Catholic church however like with Lindy Chamberlain can't stand activist judges pretending to be impartial as in Victoria. I won't be holding my breath for an apology from the abc, homosexual lobby or the regressives on olo who howled for blood. The Victorian judiciary system needs a few heads to roll.

I'm looking forward to all those who asserted that, since he was found guilty, that proved he was a paedophile, now agreeing that his acquittal proves the obverse.

Looking forward to it but not holding my breathe.

I very much doubt that the Victorian Police/ABC have finished with Pell. I expect he will see the inside of a court yet again. The Victorian Police and the ABC will not let this stand. Accusations will continue to fly and attempts to discredit the High Court ruling will be voluminous.

Also expect to see individual HC judges 'outed' for their religious bias on (y)our ABC.

Overall, we had a situation where of the 3 people in the room 2 said nothing happened, yet due to societal conditioning, never-ending media bias and corrupt policing, the third was believed over the other 2.
This ruling simply reinstates the rule of 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

Whoopee! Great news. What happened to Pell could happen to any of us - Catholic, bush Baptist or atheist. When reasonable doubt is ignored there can be no justice.

One in the eye for the looney Left and the ABC. Incidentally, Loudmouth brought this up on the main Forum in a post about a preposterous little fire chief. That's how excited Joe is about it.

Dear mhaze,

You wrote;

"I'm looking forward to all those who asserted that, since he was found guilty, that proved he was a paedophile, now agreeing that his acquittal proves the obverse."

And I am look forward to all those who claimed he was innocent despite the then judgments from three different courts will now accept that many will validly consider him utterly guilty despite the judgement of this one.

It is also scary to think that the nature of this crime essentially means we have created a class of untouchable abusers given there are usually no other witnesses and there are many years from when the offence is committed and the victim comes forward.

What is very satisfying is the UNANIMOUS finding.

given time the agenda of the lying left liberal media always gets exposed. Problem is they dig in harder and move to their next target. Watch out! They are more than happy to use innocent people in order to promote their hatred. Surely Morrison will have the guts to defund the abc at some stage.

Let us not forget that 12 jurors found George Pell
guilty. It was also - a UNANIMOUS verdict.

It is equally important to note that George Pell has NOT been
found innocent. The High Court judgement unfortunately
decided there was enough " reasonable doubt,"
in the allegations.

No wonder the statue of Justice wears a blindfold.

Steele, you forgot to include the whole quote. This comes after the passage you copied and pasted: "With respect to each of the applicant's convictions, there was, consistently with the words the Court used in Chidiac v The Queen (1991) 171 CLR 432 at 444 and M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487 at 494, "a significant possibility that an innocent person has been convicted because the evidence did not establish guilt to the requisite standard of proof".

This is a good decision, and makes one a little less worried that vigilantes and mobs can send you to jail. We're seeing too many people make lurid accusations, which they then demand must be believed, because as a victim their rights are superior to the perpetrator's.

I'd love to see your attitude if you were wrongfully accused of something by a witness who appeared credible. I'm sure it wouldn't be "believe the victim".

SR,

The impression that I got was that you, Paul, and most left whingers believed he was guilty the moment he was charged and I never expected this to change when he was exonerated.

That the high court found unanimously 7-0 that there was insufficient evidence is a severe rebuke of the 2 of 3 appellate judges that held up the previous conviction.

I argued from day one that there was insufficient evidence based on similar cases where prosecutions based on a single witness were generally thrown out of court.

It is not the first time by any means that a jury has got it wrong and judgements based on emotion and not fact are often wrong.

thought your hatred would bring you out on this one Foxy. Must be terrible to know your ideologies have had a tiny bit of light put on them and are now shredded. Of course no one knows if the man is 100% innocent. It is obvious to any reasonable person that he should never have be proven beyond doubt. I thought even you socialist would be able to understand the importance of proof being needed.

ttbn just exclaimed:

"Whoopee! Great news. What happened to Pell could happen to any of us ........"

What ......... being convicted of being a paedophile?

Not me! Maybe ttbn and mates might be but definitely not me!

I understand why the High Court made his ruling, i still believe that Pell has a lot to answer for.

Will be interesting to see how public opinion goes on this one, hey buddy

Mr Opinion,

yes, it is amazing that anyone could get so excited over Pell.

i love it how some accuse others of being let wing loonies simply because they disagree about the High Court saving Pell from prison.

Did you people not watch the many documentaries where witness after witness highlighted Pell's behaviour.

The original significance of the blindfold on the
statue of justice according to the web - was that
the judicial system was tolerating abuse, or ignorance of
aspects of the law.

However, we're told that in modern times the blindfold is
supposed to represent - impartiality and objectivity of
the law which is NOT supposed to let outside factors such
as - position, wealth, or fame, influence its decisions.

The key words here are NOT SUPPOSED.

Dear Shadow Minister,

You have said of Pell.

“Personally, I believe that he is most probably guilty, however, that is my opinion only.”

Yet you say of a jury who spent days directly listening to the evidence of Pell's victim that “It is not the first time by any means that a jury has got it wrong and judgements based on emotion and not fact are often wrong. “

Dear Graham Y,

It would be interesting to know how many guilty verdicts survive an assessment by the High Court. The legal profession are at pains to qualify any assertion of fact and that propensity is evident the further up the tree we go. In other words the more removed they are from the jury the more it is pure legalese which decides the day.

I'm not sure how much this reflects a person's guilt, but I agree it provides protection to the few truly innocent even if in a messy fashion. Better to let ten guilty men walk free and all that.

The sign at the Gosford Anglican Church did a good job of recognising what many victims may be feeling right now.

It reads; Survivors We Hear You, We Believe You, We love you.

Further the post says;
Our hearts go out to survivors of clerical child sexual abuse today.
Good Friday has come early for you, and Easter seems a long way off.
Take heart, this is not the end of it for #Pell.
“the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”MLK
http://www.facebook.com/anggos/photos/a.120959381268037/3148125085218103

Chris Lewis,

Pell was found guilty and convicted of being a paedophile and has served time in prison as a criminal.

He has now been released from prison and is now free like every ex-con to return to a life in the community.

I am sure the Roman Catholic community will embrace him and welcome his return with open arms.

I read sometime ago a very moving response from a
Ballarat woman who's husband had been abused.
She wrote an open letter to Andrew Bolt.

Here it is:

http://www.thecourier.com.au/story/5934280/ballarat-victims-wife-pens-powerful-letter-to-andrew-bolt/

Could it be the vixen has recovered from the 1080 baiting? :-))

Dan

Mr Opinion,

i know. Pathetic really, but i don't think public opinion will support Pell or the Catholic Church.

but maybe some on here will excuse him because the church may have paid for his education, and not the people through public funding

This whole show is not even about Pell and his possible propensity towards fiddling with children, it is simply a question of law; the evidence was inconclusive, ticked off by seven judges of the high court.

The question will always remain, and the cloud will hang low forever over Pells head.
Circumstantial evidence forms those clouds, especially his involvement in protecting children-fiddling priests over an extended period, by transferring them to other locations for their own protection.

To me, the air around Pell stinks.
This ruling by the high court does not remove that stink!

Dan

Hi Diver Dan,

You ask

"Could it be the vixen has recovered from
the 1080 baiting?"

Perhaps "the vixen" had to make the difficult
decision to either stay in the shallow end of the pool,
or go out in the ocean. :-)

Mr. 0,

I assume you are making an attempt to be funny. I was referring to the shonky Victorian excuse for justice, and half-witted juries, not any particular offence.
Pell has been exonerated. A successful appeal doesn't make him an ex-crim. It wipes the slate clean. The verdict against him was 'unsafe'. End of story

"It is equally important to note that George Pell has NOT been
found innocent."

The accused aren't 'found' innocent. They start off innocent and are, perhaps, found guilt. If they aren't found guilty they remain innocent. Pell was finally found to be not guilty therefore he remains innocent .

But note, this is the legal status. We are all 'innocent BEFORE THE LAW until proven guilty'.

So he's innocent before the law. But innocent before the public is another issue. To me, he was always innocent irrespective of the decisions. While recognising that for a time he was guilty before the law, I felt that was wrong. Had the 7 judges found against him I'd have still felt him innocent or more exactly not guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

So its therefore open to others to think the other way. That, to them, he's guilty. But they do have to acknowledge that legally he is innocent and legally he is not a paedophile and it is invalid to say that he has been proven to be one.

The law has ultimately spoken. That doesn't mean that others can't think the law wrong, just as I did up until today.

The more important issue is to ascertain how a legally innocent man ended up spending 404 days in gaol based on the uncorroborated word of one other. In a better society that would now be a high priority issue.

(as an aside, he spent 404 days in gaol based on an error in law. Often, if there's an error in your software or on the internet, you get a 404 error. Perhaps the deity has a sense of humour after all).

GrahamY,
"I'd love to see your attitude if you were wrongfully accused of something by a witness who appeared credible."

When Kavanaugh was being assailed it was asserted that the 'victim' had to be believed irrespective of collaboration.
Biden is now being accused of rape by a credible 'victim'. The same people who went after Kavanaugh are now suddenly all very concerned about due process for the accused.

From the judgement;

"It may be accepted that the Court of Appeal majority did not err in holding that A's evidence of the first incident did not contain discrepancies, or display inadequacies, of such a character as to require the jury to have entertained a doubt as to guilt."

The only doubt of guilt came from the testimony of 4 witnesses who were essentially asked to remember what occurred on a specific day over two decades ago without the imprint on their memories of a perderist priest thrusting his genitalia in their faces.

The inimitable fox.

Personally, I visit this site for entertainment.
I find the comment here from similar visitors enlightening at times, and other times the opposite. You fit there.

I'm glad you've realised life is too short to be offended by it in the long run.

It's actually safer in the deep ocean. Most sharks won't eat you. :-)

Dan

Hi Dan.

Thank You.

Good advice.

Now back to the topic.

Our Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews said - "I have no
comment about today's High Court decision. But I do
have a message to every single victim and survivor
of child sexual abuse:

I see you

I hear you

I believe you."

David Marr has warned about the rage that will now follow
from Pell's supporters. Marr says it will be a "f$$ging opera."

Interesting times ahead.

Someone has pointed out on the web that an interesting
point to note in this case is that every court who heard
the victim give evidence convicted Pell.

It is important to remember that the High Court has found
there was not enough evidence to convict. It did not find
Pell innocent.

An essential question that someone else asked - "What is
the point of the jury system?"

BTW: Pell is now at the Carmelite Monastery in Kew.
An eastern suburb of Melbourne.

I'm very familiar with that monastery. Family members
used to attend Sunday Mass there. Beautiful chapel
and grounds.

Those dimwit journalists scrambling in a tight pack around Pell should be charged with breaching social distancing !

Opinion,

"I am sure the Roman Catholic community will embrace him and welcome his return with open arms".

Not only the Roman Catholic community but other Catholic communities as well, why do you single out the Catholic community in Rome?

Actually Pell's acquittal is a real Revelation.

I wonder what the ABC will have as a sequel?

yes, the ABC's recent series on the Catholic Church showed a lot of disgusting behaviour as portrayed by victims and a few decent figures within the church.

Already the father of the alleged victim is talking about a civil case for damages. I think the Catholic church should be doing the suing for reparations against an appalling miscarriage of justice.

I don't think it is particularly cynical to wonder whether these historical cases of abuse are all about money. There would be few things worse that could happen to a child than molestation by a pervert. But money will not fix it; and, the accused in this case has been cleared. Where is the justification for a claim for payment of money?

good move if the father and lawyers are confident wrong has been done.

A civil court rules on odds of probability. A criminal court only convicts if evidence is conclusive and beyond doubt.

"...A civil court rules on odds of probability. A criminal court only convicts if evidence is conclusive and beyond doubt.
Posted by Chris Lewis, Tuesday, 7 April 2020 5:54:51 PM"

In that case, how did Pell get convicted?

Whether you are pro or anti Pell, or separately the catholic church this case proves conclusively that our justice system is a totally biased pile of garbage.

When the most senior judges totally disagree with a bunch from lower courts, & their judgement in a very high profile case, what chance does the average punter have of getting justice.

It really is time to start electing our judges, & definitely for limited time of service only. Then giving us a process to quickly get rid of those who prove inadequate, or highly biased.

Our Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews said - "I have no
comment about today's High Court decision. But I do
have a message to every single victim and survivor
of child sexual abuse:

I see you

I hear you

I believe you."

Well we all knew Andrews was a raving ratbag, but anyone who can give such an assurance to accusers should be in a mental institution, not a parliament.

If he is not aware of many false accusations in all walks of life he must be blind deaf & pretty dumb.

As far as I am concerned, if it takes decades to make an accusation, it is highly unlikely it ever happened, & must be proved to be accepted.

Dear Hasbeen,

I know electing judges is what happens in your country or in the case of Federal Judges appointed by your president, but here in Australia we recognise how terribly toxic that is to any notions of justice.

Can I remind you that in the Pell case it was a jury of ordinary Australians who ended up convicting Pell, not those judges you are crapping on about. From then on it was all about getting around that conviction. This is were the perversion of our system lies, where money and influence can negate the decision of a sworn jury even though the witness they relied on to deliver their verdict was found at the highest level to be "thoroughly credible and reliable".

So to use your vernacular it was a bunch of ivory tower academic types who tossed out the decision of the ordinary citizenry and yet you are cheering them on.

those degenerates who went after Pell knowing they had no substancial proof have done real victims of child abuse great harm. I am sure Daniel Andrews would of believed the lying feminist making up stories against Kavanaugh. Its all about sides not justice for regressives. The abc has done more harm than good bring up old stuff that could not make it to court and presenting it as 'new' claims. What a bunch of overpaid deceptive people.

so the ABC got Pell convicted, not the jury, nor the people who complained about him, or the police that charged him.

Really, some of you are obsessed with merely bagging the ABC and forget how the situation started.

Dear runner,

How dare someone who has given unequivocal support for a member of his faith's leadership who has in the very least protected, transferred, supported, and lied for those who have raped and buggered thousands of Aussie kids?

This man is one of the true degenerates independent of whether you think he is guilty of forcing himself of choir boys.

Think of the literally thousands of poor souls he could have saved had his concerns been for those children rather than his 'Church'.

He was a base enabler of horrific acts and you have the temerity to call those whose work secured a Royal Commission degenerates?

You don't have that right and I would think many of those victims who rightly see you as an obnoxious, odious piece of apologist garbage.

After today's decision would anybody in their right mind want to take their case to the High Court for a determination?

SR,

Then bring charges against Pell of shielding pedophiles, etc., and without cooking up 'witnesses' either.

Evidence is what counts. Find some and bring it against Pell. Otherwise, end of.

Joe

The facts that Steelie is spewing out his usual garbage while pretending to care about victims of child abuse really says it all. Now the best he can do is divert from a corrupt Victorian legal system egged on by a corrupt abc putting a man in gaol while having no reasonable proof of a crime. Your outrage is only matched by the witches making up lies against Kavanaugh and then being caught out.

I wonder how the High Court judges are feeling tonight. (Nothing a bottle or two of gin might fix I suppose.)

I suppose they are asking themselves: What sort of person am I? How could I sanction such machinations? Am I really a Machiavel?

Even Tony Abbott is distancing himself from the outcome. Because he knows what was happening.

I remember He Who Talks Funny Joh Bejelke-Petersen getting off scot free because they were able to get a staunch Joh lover onto the jury panel. Every body knew what had happened but nobody could do anything about it. And the low-life scumbag got off scot free.

In the case of Pell we all know what happened and nobody can do anything about it and like Joh he has got away. But he never got exonerated, he just got his prison term shortened. He is still seen by many as a paedophile who was found guilty by an appointed jury and convicted and imprisoned.

Be very afraid. What we witness with the Pell acquittal, is the legal justice system for sale in Australia.

Judicial outcomes have a simple formula; no money, no justice. All those with any dealings with it, are very quick to recognise the benefits of "ability to pay".

Obviously in this case, it is not Pell on trial but the Catholic behemoth. Best of luck bringing that one down over a couple of youths displaying homosexual tendencies among homosexual priests.

That may sound oversimplified, but it's the closest to the truth I have read among all the above so far.

Dan

SR, in all your comments you fail to mention that the first trial of Pell resulted in a hung jury, in fact they were 10-2 in favour of acquittal.
Yet somehow, months later, after a flood of social media and mainstream media campaigns, the next jury did a total reversal and had a unanimous guilty verdict.
Please don’t tell me that the jury wasn’t influenced by media.
I’m not catholic, not even religious and I loathe pedophiles, but I do desperately want to believe in an incorruptible legal system.

“ The first jury trial, in October 2018, resulted in a hung jury, meaning that the jurors failed to reach a unanimous verdict. Witnesses who attended Pell’s trial said that the jury had voted overwhelmingly, 10–2, voted for Pell’s acquittal. Despite this, prosecution decided to go ahead with a second trial. It took place in December 2018. The new jury found Pell guilty of five charges of sexual abuse of minors.”

'I’m not catholic, not even religious and I loathe pedophiles, but I do desperately want to believe in an incorruptible legal system.'

Sorry Nana but the Victoria Police, the abc and the Victorian Premier along with Steelie could not give a stuff about an incorruptible system. They have demonstrated that clearly they are repulsive in pretending to care for child sex victims as a cover.

I have no time for the Catholic church but value truth and justice. Even Flannery who believed Lindy Chamberlain was guilty (due to her 'fundamentalist' belief) had the decency to apologise when the truth come out. These days the regressives how stooped to the lowest of lowest.

I'm not a Catholic. I couldn't imagine being one. However, of all the Christian denominations, they have done the most for poor and downtrodden people. I understand the feelings of loathing for paedophiles and people who abuse children in any way. But these awful people are not confined to the Catholic church. They are everywhere; in fact most children are abused by relatives. They should be dealt with.

But, the ABC and the usual Marxist gangs were not really interested in damaging Pell; it was the Catholic church they were after. Unlike the non-conformist churches who have lurched to the left in an attempt to be relevant, the Catholic church has held onto Christian doctrine and resisted all the Leftist fads - same sex marriage, gender bending, socialism, climate change, big government, politicisation of education, identity politics, abortion on demand, etc, etc.

Cardinal Pell said in his statement today that his persecution was not a "referendum on the Catholic church". Oh yes it was! Pell was just a pawn, as were the victims and alleged victims of abuse that the increasingly strident and hate-filled Left pretended to care about.

The Catholic church, despite the faults of relatively few of its priests (about 3%) is probably the last bastion against the Left barbarians who want to change our society into something pretty horrible.

Dear Big Nana,

You claim “SR, in all your comments you fail to mention that the first trial of Pell resulted in a hung jury, in fact they were 10-2 in favour of acquittal.”

That is because the numbers were never released since the judge in that case gave strict instructions to that effect. The 10-2 number was touted by a nasty rightwing commentator who has been proven in court to be a unabashed liar.

If you have any proof to the veracity of the numbers involved then go ahead and post them otherwise you really need to resist propagating unverified rubbish.

Dear Loudmouth2,

Pell not only lived with for two years one of the worst paedophiles in the history of the Catholic Church in Australia but he also was on the committee responsible for moving between 5 parishes in four years, one of which he had to leave in the dead of the night to escape questioning by the local police officer. Pell said he knew nothing.

This is Ridsdale's sad tale of offending which led to so many destroyed lives. http://www.brokenrites.org.au/drupal/node/55

Dear runner,

Calling women witches, how very bloody Christian of you little creep. Well one of your witches was Julia Gillard. She was the one who set up the Royal Commission which brought your faith's abusers out into the open and you have hated her ever since.

The NSW detective who inspired her to call it said “"I'm not politically aligned to anyone, and I haven't always been a big fan of Julia Gillard personally, but my God she's had some guts this afternoon, a lot more guts than Barry O'Farrell,". The ABC, particularly Four Corners was also instrumental in the Royal Commission being set up and your loathing for them has known few bounds.

The justice that commission brought to broken lives was immense, but you have been an apologist for the offenders and seeking to tear down any victim of abuse. Your grubby fixations, your pathetic pandering and your misogynistic views are an embarrassment. Enough.

The effects of the high court decision is that Pell has never been convicted.

That Bill Shorten never went to trial for the rape of a Labor intern is because the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness, no matter how convincing, is never considered sufficient for a conviction.

Pell is no more guilty than Shorten. That victims of rape and sexual abuse are disappointed at not claiming the scalp of a senior Catholic cleric is completely irrelevant especially since the high court essentially ruled him innocent.

This comment by Paul Kelly concisely sums up the high court decision and the folly of the Victorian Justice system:

"This is the ultimate expression of justice in Australia. The High Court has acted with a single purpose — to bring clarity, certainty and finality to this case.

Cardinal George Pell is innocent of the sexual abuse convictions against him. He was wrongly convicted, jailed and vilified.

This concludes one of the greatest miscarriages of justice in Australian history, testimony to a nation divided, agonised and weeping tears of grief and rage. The 7-0 verdict reveals a High Court that has restored legal reasoning and exposed a disreputable saga of institutional and cultural failure in this country.

Pell was not given a fair trial or appeal by the Victorian criminal justice system. But this system did not merely fail Pell, it failed his complainant, who was put through a personal trauma for years only to find the case against Pell collapsed in a decision in the final court that matters.

The problem is that Pell’s guilt or innocence became hopelessly entangled with the crimes and sins of the Catholic Church that he led and symbolised.

Pell became a hate figure in a culture justifiably angry at the church’s systemic child abuse but this situation was compounded when other institutions succumbed under pressure."

That Pell is now in the position to sue the state of Victoria for $ms should put an interesting spin on things.

SR, all the news sources relating to the first trial make a similar comment to this one, from Catholic News Agency USA.

“ The verdict came after a five-week retrial, after a jury in an earlier trial failed to reach an unanimous verdict. In October 2018, multiple sources close to the case told CNA that the first trial had ended with the jury deadlocked 10-2 in favor of Cardinal Pell.”

So, I don’t know what you are referring to, but the facts seem to be fairly widely known,

From the actual high court judgement pointing out the inconsistencies between witnesses and stated that there was "a significant possibility that an innocent person has been convicted."

"The High Court considered that, while the Court of Appeal majority assessed the evidence of the opportunity witnesses as leaving open the possibility that the complainant's account was correct, their Honours' analysis failed to engage with the question of whether there remained a reasonable possibility that the offending had not taken place, such that there ought to have been a reasonable doubt as to the applicant's guilt. The unchallenged evidence of the opportunity witnesses was inconsistent with the complainant's account, and described: (i) the applicant's practice of greeting congregants on or near the Cathedral steps after Sunday solemn Mass; (ii) the established and historical Catholic church practice that required that the applicant, as an archbishop, always be accompanied when robed in the Cathedral; and (iii) the continuous traffic in and out of the priests' sacristy for ten to 15 minutes after the conclusion of the procession that ended Sunday solemn Mass. The Court held that, on the assumption that the jury had assessed the complainant's evidence as thoroughly credible and reliable, the evidence of the opportunity witnesses nonetheless required the jury, acting rationally, to have entertained a reasonable doubt as to the applicant's guilt in relation to the offences involved in both alleged incidents. With respect to each of the applicant's convictions, there was, consistently with the words the Court used in Chidiac v The Queen (1991) 171 CLR 432 at 444 and M v The Queen
(1994) 181 CLR 487 at 494, "a significant possibility that an innocent person has been convicted because the evidence did not establish guilt to the requisite standard of proof".

This is a serious slap in the face for the Victorian appellate judges who will have this as a serious black mark for the rest of their careers.

The dissenting judge in Pell's Victorian Court appeal was Mr Mark Weinberg.

His dissent opened the door to Pell's appeal to the High Court.

The question that I ask is: Were Pell and Weinberg both aware prior to this appeal that this dissent would open the door to Pell's appeal to the High Court?

I think they were both aware that this would happen if one of the Victorian judges was to dissent. I also believe that the other two Victorian judges were aware of the ramifications that the dissent would have.

I think it is clear what was going on. I think that not only would they have known that it would open the door to a High Court appeal but that they also knew that the High Court would be compelled to acquit Pell if at least one of the Victorian judges specified that there had been insufficient evidence to convict Pell.

I believe everybody knows what has happened but nobody can do anything about it. It is now an argument over questions of ethics and morality. I can tell you that I have absolutely no respect for the courts and their officers. In my opinion, both are an absolute joke!

Mr0

While your generally fact free posts are usually at best amusing, your last post is pure fantasy.

Even if the Victorian appeal court had ruled unanimously against Pell, this would not have blocked a high court appeal. That the high court judgement was unanimous and scathing of the appellate decision shows that the result was pretty much inevitable.

What the dissenting appellate judge did was to spell out clearly and succinctly the flaws in the evidence which the other two judges should have taken seriously. That they didn't will blight their careers.

Shadow Minister,

Big comments from someone who is just an engineer.

It is all now a debate over questions of ethics and morality on the role of courts and judges.

Dear Big Nana,

"There has been speculation that the jury in the first trial was split 10-2 in favour of a not-guilty verdict for Pell but this was not published by a reputable source. The truth is, we don’t know the result and we probably will never know because jurors are not allowed to talk about it and it’s unable to be reported."

So can you give me a single named credible source please. This has just been repeated often enough it has a completely unjustified apparent veracity.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Look I get that much of the backing of the right for Pell has come because he was a confidant of your poster boy Abbott and had as a referee the right's idol Howard and well as the absolute support of the right's media darling Bolt, but the degenerates who terrorised the children around Ballarat and the Western Districts, many of them who have ended up behind bars would normally have had you lot screaming blue murder. How your ideology has twisted your normal leanings is fascinating.

The High Court said "It may be accepted that the Court of Appeal majority did not err in holding that A's evidence of the first incident did not contain discrepancies, or display inadequacies, of such a character as to require the jury to have entertained a doubt as to guilt."

But that the jury needed to set that aside because the evidence of the other four witnesses, not to the actual events on the day but the supposed events given Church practices, is in and of itself enough to dismiss the case regardless of the veracity of the witness.

So what they are essentially saying is even if the other boy had not spiraled into a life of heroin addiction within a year of the abuse ultimately leading to his death and instead had been able to testify they would have came to the same judgement.

This appears to be absurd

I'm surprised no-one's commented on the journoes' ignoring of social distancing when they scrambled around Pell ?

Chris,

"...or the police that charged him"

Aren't they the same police who advertized for complainants?

Mr Opinion,

I'd really like to hear why you singled out the Roman Catholics over all the other Catholics, especially Sydney and Melbourne Catholics, as you are so highly educated in the Arts one would suppose that you would be the last to make such a gaffe; or is your education level only a figment of your imagination?

Is Mise,

Roman Catholics, Sydney Catholics, Melbournian Catholics, Parisian Catholics, they are all Catholics to me. God bless their little hearts!

And God bless you too little Georgie Pell, even though you have been a very naughty boy. (Ooops, what's that; a message from God: God says "George, be a good boy and start playing with boys of your own age." Hmm, I wonder what he means? I'm sure George will figure it out.)

Your ongoing Left vs Right arguments to the point of stifling boredom are superfluous. It's all about politics for some of you, not man's life, not about justice. Pell is free, and rightly so. That's all that matters.

Much of the discussion in this thread and indeed in the community at large is about whether or not Pell committed the crime with which he had been charged. The High Court appeal was not tasked with determining whether Pell committed the offences. It was instead asked to determine whether The Victorian court of appeal had applied the correct legal principles. Those cracking open the champagne would be wise to keep it on ice - there is still a long way to go.

Mr 0

Being just an Arts graduate, you should stick to the skills that you have acquired and restrict yourself to flipping burgers.

Having an MBA which includes 2 years of law, I have functional understanding of the legal system and rules of evidence which your toilet paper degrees don't cover.

Judges are mandated to apply the laws of the country and the rules of evidence, and while they have some minor discretion, they are not free to deviate from the law or the rules of evidence. The morals and ethics lie in the laws and constitution the very basic requirements include the presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt.

The moment the judges ignore this and begin to rule based on their personal ethics, you get judgements based on the whim of the judge and the outcomes are solely dependent on which judge you get.

If there is insufficient evidence, the man goes free. No debate.

Mr o [small o] does not understand law, it is beyond him. He makes this claim: "He has now been released from prison and is now free like every ex-con to return to a life in the community". O fails to understand he is guilty of defamation of an innocent man. The High Court has cleared George Pell of Guilt. So he is not an ex-con as o claims.

Mr o is small minded childish with comments like this.
" And God bless you too little Georgie Pell, even though you have been a very naughty boy. (Ooops, what's that; a message from God: God says "George, be a good boy and start playing with boys of your own age." Hmm, I wonder what he means? I'm sure George will figure it out.)"

At least SR and Paul can post credible debate, even though I do not agree with them.

carry on your total deceit Steelie conflating Pell's court case with the Royal Commission. You regressives are so often dishonest you can't even see it.

People are entitled to their opinions.
But they should not make irresponsible claims that
are supposedly based on "overwhelming evidence,"
as the wife of a man who was sexually abused wrote in her
open letter to Andrew Bolt:

" Any opinion I have is irrelevant and ill informed, because
I am not privy to ALL the facts of the case."

She goes on to say:

"How about everyone stop trying to convince people of
Pell's innocence or guilt, it is not the most important issue
here."

"We have hundreds, potentially thousands of survivors throughout
Australia who have not yet come forward. And when the likes of
yourself, and other commentators, use your public profile to
cast doubt over the outcome of a trial, you make these people
even less likely to come forward and get the assistance they
so desperately need."

"If you want to support Pell go and visit him in jail. Help
fund his appeal..."

"In the meantime, here in Ballarat we are
going to try to deal with the fact that
our suicide rate among males is twice that
of Melbourne and 65% greater than the Victorian average."

" We are going to keep helping women, children, mothers, fathers,
and siblings pick up the pieces
as their husbands, fathers, sons and brothers
prematurely end their lives."

"We are going to keep lobbying for the redress scheme that the
Royal Commission recommended, so that survivors get the
practical and emotional assistance they need."

"We are going to keep trying to figure out how to reverse what
has become a cultural problem whereby males in our community
resort to suicide instead of seeking help."

"Honestly, the fact that our most senior Catholic has been
jailed is the least of our worries right now."

The letter indicates where our concerns should lie.

.

From a purely legal point of view, the High Court decision was a foregone conclusion.

In Pell’s case, any material evidence that might possibly have existed had necessarily disappeared since the sexual offences were alleged to have occurred (24 years ago).

Nevertheless, I would not be at all surprised if at least some of the High Court judges were inclined to think that he was “probably guilty”. But, of course, that is totally insufficient for conviction under criminal law. Proof “beyond reasonable doubt” is required – i.e., about 95% certainty. There was no way that could possibly be achieved.

It was just a case of “my word against yours”, which is very common in sex offences because they are committed when there is nobody around – for obvious reasons – no witnesses and no material evidence.

“Innocent until proven guilty” is the very noble principle that underpins the concept of justice in all modern democracies. It constitutes an invincible barrier of legal protection for the innocent but, unfortunately, also for the guilty.

So there we have it. Justice has been done. Pell is innocent. His name has been washed clean – as white as snow. He can walk free. He is an innocent victim. His accuser is a flagrant liar, guilty of false accusations and malicious slander.

But why did he do that ? What did he hope to get out of it ? That remains a mystery.

Could he have been telling the truth ? The High Court judgement does not rule that out. It simply declares that Pell has not been proven guilty.

Does that mean that he might be guilty ? The High Court judgement does not rule out that possibility. It limpidly declares :

« … that the jury, acting rationally on the whole of the evidence, ought to have entertained a doubt as to the applicant's guilt with respect to each of the offences for which he was convicted, and ordered that the convictions be quashed and that verdicts of acquittal be entered in their place » :

http://cdn.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgment-summaries/2020/hca-12-2020-04-07.pdf

Short and snappy.

.

In the British legal system, and its Australian derivative, a person who is charged with an offence, is innocent until proven guilty. Of course, somewhat going against this presumption of innocence, such a person may have to be detained until their trial is over. But the purpose of a trial is to find someone either guilty or not guilty beyond reasonable doubt. If they are not found guilty beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of evidence, then they are to be presumed innocent, and freed.

So it is in this case with Pell. If anybody has actual evidence against him on some other charge, then they can bring it to the attention of the police and the courts. If not, they hold their peace.

I have no affection for Pell, that holier-than-thou sanctimony has always got up my nose: why do so many of them talk like that ? So bloody holy. I think I may have Irish Catholic ancestors, but I've never been a believer, let alone a Catholic one. So I would be interested any evidence that might be brought against him of illegally shielding pedophiles or fiddling with kids, something beyond an assertion.

But not merely someone's asserton. As a Leftie, I know that sort of 'evidence' got the Rosenbergs executed in the US back in 1953, nothing more at the time by way of evidence was presented. Yes, later, much documentation was found confirming their guilt in supplying nuclear secrets to the Russians. But not up until the time of their murder.

Find evidence and bring charges on that basis. Otherwise, move on.

Joe

Dear Foxy,

Agree entirely. Daniel Andrews rightly spoke to those victims, many of whom have not come forward, who would have found this judgement very confronting. Here was one of them, someone who survived 5 hours of cross examination by one of the most astute and aggressive silks with their credibility intact and all 7 members of the highest court in the land “accepted that the Court of Appeal majority did not err in holding that A's evidence of the first incident did not contain discrepancies, or display inadequacies, of such a character as to require the jury to have entertained a doubt as to guilt." Yet the perpetrator was let off.

How unlikely are those, who do not have the ability to provide such unassailable compelling evidence due to circumstance or poor life outcomes due to the abuse afflicted upon them, to ever feel they have a hope in hell of receiving justice?

Dear Banjo Paterson,

I have been reflecting on just how circumstantial the defense's evidence really was. Firstly Pell did not testify so the veracity of the things he claimed in his police interview were never fully tested in court. But more importantly the testimonies were not about what actually happened on that day but more to what was assumed to have happened given Church practices that virtually all of them conceded were not iron clad.

It should also be noted that three of the four witnesses were obviously very tied to the Church and would have been at pains not to think or act adversely toward it. Whether this subvertly or even overtly impacted their testimonies we will not be able to tell as the prosecutor did not directly challenge them on my reading of the case.

Leaving aside Pell's guilt or otherwise this judgement will undoubtedly give succour to many evil perpetrators who have been responsible for permanently damaging so many Aussie kids.

Dear loudmouth2,

First hand testimony is evidence and it was more than what was offered in Pell's defense.

Opinion,

Tut, tut! How can you as an Educated and Enlightened former Arts Graduand make such a gaffe, in English, as to use a diminishing qualifying adjective with Catholic, which is a word that cannot be qualified in the sense which you used?

Did you get your degree from a foreign Degree Mill by mail order?

Well sanity has prevailed and the man charged without evidence is free. He should never have been brought to trial, because of lack of evidence

He should be adequatly compensated for his wrongful jailing.

However, until Victorian laws are changed, that state remains the only one where a man can be convicted on sexual charges on allegations alone.

Even now the Premier is saying If you make any accusation you will be believed. Such a State.

SR,

You are talking bollocks again. I have fully supported the royal commission into child abuse, and I might note, that Abbott suggested in parliament a royal commission before Juliar actually put it to parliament.

Secondly, I was always careful to separate the merits of the case from my opinion even (as you mentioned)to the point where I noted that my opinion leant towards him being guilty whereas I believed the prosecution's case was insufficient for a conviction.

Thus for you to claim that I supported Pell because he was a friend of Abbott's is rank dishonesty on your part unless you are suffering from schizophrenia. What pisses you off is that you hated Pell for what he stood for and judged him guilty irrespective of the evidence. That I was right just rubs it in your face.

Foxy,

Welcome back.

Just a few questions: What is the relevance of your last post? Are you trying to suggest that the people damaged by a handful of vile priests deserve to see an innocent one jailed? That being a Catholic Cardinal is a felony in itself or that the trial of Pell should be based on public opinion? etc..

One wonders why, as Pell was so against practising homosexuals being given the sacrament of Communion, that he was, in the opinion of many, protecting practising homosexual priests who daily received Communion?

Anti Catholic morons defaced a cathedral last night.

Dear Steele,

Witness J's lawyer Vivian Waller told ABC News Breakfast
this morning that it had been - "a very long journey for her
client."

"He is disappointed but respectful and relieved it is all over.
He is experiencing some relief that the process has come to an end
but he is also very respectful of the High Court and he accepts
the decision," she said.

Witness J said he respected and accepted the court's decision and
thanked the police for their work. He said he understood
"Why criminal cases must be proven beyond all reasonable doubt."

"No one wants to live in a society where people can be
imprisoned without due and proper process. This is a basic
civil liberty."

"But the price we pay for weighting the system in favour of the
accused is that many sexual offences against children go
unpunished."

"I would like to re-assure child sexual abuse survivors that
most people recognise the truth when they hear it. They know the
truth when they look it in the face. I am content with that."

"My journey has been long and I am relieved that it is over.
I have my ups and downs. The darkness is never far away.
Despite
the stress of the legal process and public controversy
I have tried hard to keep myself together.
I am OK."

"This case does not define me. I am a man who came forward for
my friend who sadly is no longer with us."

I am a man doing my best to be a loving dad, partner, son,
brother, and friend."

He said he hoped the outcome would not discourage
abuse survivors from reporting cases to police.

It is important to remember that this case was not about
a man who was a "lightning rod" for dissent in
his church. Nor was it about the different strands of
Catholicism, nor ideology. The case was about
child protection. Yesterday - child protection lost.

Daniel Andrews, head Commissar of the People's Socialist Republic of Victoria and People's Republic of China representative for China's 'belt and road' incursion into Australia:

"There’s been a decision and I don’t want to find myself in contempt of the High Court, so I won’t make any comments about that …"

Foxy I agree:
'child protection lost'
There are those who wish to make this all about the Catholic Church but it is about much more than that.
Our legal system is ill-equipped to deal with cases of sexual abuse for usually there are no independent witnesses. It becomes one person's word against another.
As a society we are more inclined to believe the adult and when the event happened a long time ago it becomes even more difficult.
In this case Pell never took the stand to give his version. Instead he called witnesses who argued that it was impossible to have occurred.
Impossible? No. Unlikely? Yes. But as someone familiar with the rituals I simply cannot reject the possibility that it happened.
Yet here we have a case of someone who simply had far too much to lose. I know many Catholic Priests who have known Pell for a long time - they had no opinion about his guilt but were not surprised that he was charged.

Haunting pictures showed a small red tricycle tied
to the Carmelite Monastery's front gates where
Pell stayed the night, surrounded by colourful
ribbons. It's been since removed.

Pell has since left the Carmelite Monastery this
morning headed for Sydney. His swift departure comes as
police investigate the vandalism of St. Patrick's
Cathedral.

"Rot in Hell Pell,"was emblazoned on the doors of the
Cathedral and -

"The Law Protects The Powerful," was also spray-painted
on the Cathedral forefront.

Arch. Bishop of Melbourne Peter Comensoli stated he was
not surprised by the vandalism.

"There's such strong emotions around all these matters."
The community is divided.

Pope Francis has offered up a mass for the victims and
survivors of abuse. His statements thus far have been
measured.

Interesting times ahead.

Steve Kate's in Catallaxy Files agrees that it's all about politics, not about paedophiles or their victims.

"For the left it is symbolism alone that matters. In the right it is that justice has finally been done".

He says that the left will "attack you for your class membership in whatever way they wish to define you". The left are "totalitarian through and through". Ideological thugs who "hunt in packs". Pell was guilty just because he was a Catholic Archbishop. The left's justice is that of the "Lubyanka ….. the show trial and the bullet to the head".

'He says that the left will "attack you for your class membership in whatever way they wish to define you". The left are "totalitarian through and through"'

so true ttbn. Who do you think their next target will be? They hunted and hated Abbott. They started it with Morrison during the bushfires although thanks to Murdoch and others their has been a push back by quite Australians to this nasty, ugly and deceitful bunch.

Dear Shadow Minister,

I accept that Abbott gave his support to the RC but this was how the right wing press reacted to the announcement of that Royal Commission.

Paul Kelly stated: “The dismal, populist and doomed quality of Australian governance has been on display this week with Julia Gillard announcing an in-principle royal commission into child sexual abuse, a panicked Tony Abbott falling into line and an ignorant media offering cheer upon cheer. Rarely has an Australian government embarked on such a sensitive and vast project in profound ignorance of what it was doing, with virtually no serious policy consideration and driven entirely by politics.”

Miranda Devine said; “It’s hard to separate the royal commission into child sexual abuse from politics and anti-Catholic agendas, in the fetid atmosphere that currently exists in Canberra.”

Andrew Bolt claimed the Royal Commission was the result of “a great onslaught of hate in the media directed at the Catholic Church – its traditions, its practices and its most effective advocate [Cardinal George Pell] in this country” and that “It is a pity that Tony Abbott seems too worried about being trapped politically as Captain Catholic to defend the church: ‘Opposition Leader Tony Abbott also said priests should tell police when they knew a child was being sexually abused’”

So please don't give the impression the right were for this at all, they plainly were not.

The Royal Commission that the right were so against “handled over 41,000 calls, 25,000 letters and e-mails and held over 8,000 private sessions. More importantly it made 2,559 referrals to police.”

See runner, your own man Bolt conflated Pell with the bloody Royal Commission you dolt. You have so little true regard for the abused children of this country don't you.

"It is important to remember that this case was not about
a man who was a "lightning rod" for dissent in
his church.Nor was it about the different strands of
Catholicism, nor ideology. The case was about
child protection. Yesterday - child protection lost. "

No it was about this one man. A man who was a symbol of a hated section of society was gaoled based on the uncorroborated word of one other man.

The SR's of the world can rant all they like about how much they despise the Catholic church in Australia, how much damage they perceive it to have done etc etc.

But if we have a justice system where a man from a presently out-of-favour group can be gaoled despite the lack of overwhelming evidence (or even underwhelming evidence), then we have a very different society to that which previously applied and to which we previously aspired. The Catholics are the current disfavoured group but that won't always be the case. Which symbol of the next hated group will be persecuted based on uncorroborated assertion?

These things once unleashed rarely remain controlled.

Ultimately Pell was a scapegoat for all the perceived sins of the church. His guilt or lack thereof on this specific accusation was almost incidental to the issue for most people. Just read SR's rants to see that.

But it wasn't incidental to 7 HC judges and for that we can be, for the moment, thankful.

'See runner, your own man Bolt conflated Pell with the bloody Royal Commission you dolt. You have so little true regard for the abused children of this country don't you.'

yep steelie using the usual deceitful garbage that regressives resort to in justifying the unjustible. Of course they are the only 'compassionate' one. Please give me a bucket.

SR,

Thanks for conceding that you got both my motivations and TA's wrong.

However, choosing Bolt as a representative of the center right is as ludicrous as choosing adam bandt as the representative of the center left.

Paul Kelly did get it right in that the RC set up by Juliar was a horse's arse with such broad and undefined parameters that it took years and cost about $350m to produce what could have largely been achieved at a fraction of the cost and in a far shorter time.

As for the anti catholic agenda of the left whingers, one can see it vividly displayed on OLO.

Foxy,

I am disappointed in you. First you want to ditch two of the fundamental human rights protections in:
1 The presumption of innocence,
2 The need for a prosecution to prove its case conclusively before stripping a person of his liberty.

What would be left would be a kangaroo court similar to China's where the defendant needs to prove their innocence and the verdicts are largely predetermined.

The very nature of sexual assault is complex.

It regularly occurs in private, the victims themselves are
often the only witnesses. There are generally long delays
before disclosure. There is rarely any physical evidence
and the case often centers on issues of credibility.

Then there is also the entrenchment throughout our society
of misconceptions and stereotypes about victims/survivors.
Often the victims are blamed for their own victimisation.
Children routinely lie. And so on.

These aspects pose a unique set of challenges to the
traditional judicial processing of cases.

Reforms need to move towards addressing how the judicial
system can be more responsive to victim/survivor justice
needs

Many people have somewhat concluded that Pell was tried for the sins of the catholic church. I have gone along with that theory to a degree. However the regressives went after Pell long before many of the gross paedophille cases in the Catholic church were revealed. The more probable reason the regressives went after him and demonised him is the same reason they lie and go after anyone who is anti baby killing, anti feminist agenda, anti promotion of the homosexual agenda and more recently expose the hopelessly deceitful gw religion. Simple put regressives turn to hatred, smearing and vindictiveness when they can't win a logical arguement. Instead they turn to their usual deceitfulness in using identity politics to label people. The abc are schooled in this tactic.

Dear Foxy,

Clearly there is nothing much to be gained for any of us by just trying to apportion blame and guilt where they may not be deserved. Clearly what are needed are fundamental institutional changes within the churches.

First, to allow priests to get married. I don't know what the pedophilic rate is amongst Orthodox or Protestant clergy but I assume it is much lower than for the Catholic clergy. Even same-sex marriage of clergy, as long as they keep away from the kids.

The Church should catch up on two thousand years and admit women to the priesthood, right up to the office of Pope.

And obviously, mechanisms must be put in place to rule out private access by teachers, priests, etc., to children: no child should be alone with any member of clergy or staff, just like it should be in schools and other institutions.

I'm sure you have other constructive ideas :)

Joe

Is Mise,

You noted in your own words that I am a "former Arts Graduand. Yes you are correct: I stopped being a graduand the very day I graduated,

Guess there is a new expression in Australian English. 'As innocent as Pell!'

Opinion,

"You noted in your own words that I am a "former Arts Graduand. Yes you are correct: I stopped being a graduand the very day I graduated,"

Well you did learn something, did you look "graduand" up on Google; however that did not stop you from ending a sentence with a comma.

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

You have some very valid suggestions in how
things can be improved.

Barney Zwartz, religious editor of The Age,
2002 - 2013, points out:

" No fair-minded person would want Pell in jail
if he did not commit the crime, or, as the court
found - there is reasonable doubt."

At the same time Zwartz also says that:

"It's hard to claim he's faced an injustice,
at least in the technical sense that he was granted
every opportunity the legal system provides, including
some of the finest barristers and appeals right up
to the High Court. A privilege not granted to many."

Zwartz reminds us that:

"Pell's travails have unfolded before several audiences
who have reacted differently."

"The various views polarised from the start have scarcely shifted.
The wider community settled firmly against Pell after his
testimony to the Royal Commission where he blamed the
demented, the dead and denied any responsibility."

"Nevertheless Pell has had prominent defenders ranging from
Archbishops to former PMs, to columnists like Andrew
Bolt."

However,

We're told that "Despite Pell's criminal conviction
being overturned Pell's legal tests may not yet be over.
Further civilo cases may be brought against the dioceses
of Ballarat and Melbourne and Pell could be a witness to
those cases."

If these battles ensue they will ensure that Pell's
life will not be a peaceful one in his retirement in
Sydney.

Is Mise,

Doh!

does not Pell watch the ABC.

he tried to pay with cash.

and he has been trying to write a book. that should be rivoting.

Opinion,

Is that the best that a former Graduand can do?

You are ignoring your terrible reasoning in thinking that the Catholic community in Rome has any special significance re Pell, if that was not your meaning in the use of the erroneous term "Roman Catholic" is bad English as "universal" cannot be qualified by using an adjective that would diminish it to a non-universal.

Not a good reflection on one so well educated as yourself.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Alright that is it.

I let the lazy, low grade bloody straw man effort slide the first time but not after this rubbish.

“Thanks for conceding that you got both my motivations and TA's wrong.”

You initially put “You are talking bollocks again. I have fully supported the royal commission into child abuse, and I might note, that Abbott suggested in parliament a royal commission before Julia actually put it to parliament.”

But I hadn't mentioned you and the Royal Commission nor had I mentioned Tony Abbott and the Royal Commission had I. You created these connections where there weren't any.

It is really tiresome stuff and you need to try and refrain from using kindergarten level nonsense to make a point.

Dear Is Mise,

I doubt there is much Roman going on with any of the Italian Catholics at the moment.

A bit of trivia. In all reports from the ABC about the successful appeal, not one mention has been made that the finding was UNANIMOUS.

Stele,

"I doubt there is much Roman going on with any of the Italian Catholics at the moment"

So true, the Italians have been hard hit, unfortunately for them, they do have some very highly concentrated living conditions.

" …. this was a superb judgment. It was short. It was clear. It walked the Victorians through the concept of reasonable doubt. It was not a footnote-infested doctoral thesis. And it left no one in any doubt that Cardinal Pell had been the victim of a serious miscarriage of justice." (James Allan, Garrick Professor of Law at the University of Queensland)

That beats all the amateur opinions here.

ttbn,

Whom are you so desperate to protect: Pell or yourself?

Mr.O,

What? I'll have to do a Pauline on that one - please explain.

yep a 7 nil judgement by left leaning judges and the regressives just show how much they really believe in the rule of law. Being caught out as wrong so many times on some many issues just makes the regressives deranged as see here on olo. Spiteful hateful rhetoric is their go to while still trying to virtue signal their 'compassion'. The secularist have achieved their goal in producing such a generations happy to live in deception.

Those who've been convinced of Cardinal Pell's
innocence will believe that justice has been
served while the High Court's decision will
be devastating for others.

It is important however to remember that the verdict
was about one case only and there are larger
problems both within the Church and our justice
system that need to be addressed.

For example -

The Church needs greater transparency and to
more broadly reform the way it deals with
allegations of sexual abuse.

At the same time reforms need to move
towards addressing how the judicial system
can be more responsive to victim/survivors
justice needs.

SR,

I have never been a fan of Pell or the catholic church, but from the point where the Victorian police were advertising for potential complainants against Pell, it was evident that there was a target on Pell's back. The Victorian left considered him guilty and all that remained was to determine what of. My position was always that the case against Pell was weak and it is clear given the scathing High court findings that I was right.

Your response: "Look I get that much of the backing of the right for Pell has come because he was a confidant of your poster boy Abbott ... How your ideology has twisted your normal leanings is fascinating." Was to attack my values, your typical ad hominem.

Foxy,

You are right, "The very nature of sexual assault is complex. It regularly occurs in private, the victims themselves are
often the only witnesses. There are generally long delays
before disclosure. There is rarely any physical evidence
and the case often centers on issues of credibility."

The rape case against Shorten was a prime example, if the #MeToo standards of evidence were applied, he would be in jail.

.

Dear Foxy,

.

You wrote :

« The very nature of sexual assault is complex.

It regularly occurs in private, the victims themselves are
often the only witnesses. There are generally long delays
before disclosure. There is rarely any physical evidence
and the case often centres on issues of credibility.

Then there is also the entrenchment throughout our society
of misconceptions and stereotypes about victims/survivors.
Often the victims are blamed for their own victimisation.
Children routinely lie. And so on.

These aspects pose a unique set of challenges to the
traditional judicial processing of cases.

Reforms need to move towards addressing how the judicial
system can be more responsive to victim/survivor justice
needs »

You have summed it up nicely, Foxy and I totally agree that the key to viable long-term improvement is justice reform.

Presumption of innocence was designed to provide an invincible barrier of legal protection for the innocent not for the guilty. Sex offenders have been taking advantage of it far too long. The handling of sex offences by police and justice is so poor that the large majority of cases are never reported and conviction rates of those that are reported are shockingly low.

National statistics, in 2018 provide the following details of sex victims :

• the majority were female (84%)
• about half were aged between 10 and 19 years
• since 2010, sexual assault increased by 40%

Conviction rates are hard to come by. A News.com article in 2017 indicated the following conviction rates :

VIC (2009-2010) : 8.9% of reported sex offences
NSW (2015) : 8.5% of reported sex offences

Nothing indicates that the situation is any better in the other states and territories, nor that there have been any signs of improvement since.

The least we could do would be to make no presumptions whatsoever regarding innocence or guilt in cases involving the most vulnerable amongst us :

• children under the legal age for consensual sex (age 16 except SA and TAS age 17)
• mentally and physically handicapped people

Each case should be judged on its merits.

.

Banjo and Foxy,

Presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt are the two most fundamental cornerstone protections for individuals against the abuse of power by the state dating back to habeas corpus in the 13th century.

The major reason that sexual assault has such a low rate of conviction is precisely because of the low level of reporting. In cases where the victim goes directly to the police and there are physical photographs and corroborating evidence such dna, photos etc, then the conviction rates are far higher.

Even with these protection there are many cases where innocent people have been convicted and served years even decades before being proven innocent. Many if not most of these convictions were based on flawed witness testimony. There have been more than few lives ruined by claims of rape that later proved deliberately false.

Weakening these protections will certainly improve conviction rates not only for sexual crimes but all crimes and will be open for abuse and corruption with many innocent people punished.

Boy, how this thread has mushroomed with strong, and I must say, legitimate opinions both ways. I'm certainly no supporter of the Catholic Church, rather evident from my previous postings. Although baptised a Catholic at the age of one week, and now 66 I've not been a practising member of the Church in over 50 years. I wrote this on the forum shortly after the verdict of the High Court;

"Ultimately in this case the evidence against Pell was not strong enough....Pell was right about one thing, his case was not a referendum on the wrongs done by the (Australian) Catholic Church against children, and they are many, but a case against him personalty, on that score we must respect the decision of the High Court. This particular matter brought against Pell may now be closed, but there are many more things that await a legal outcome. An interesting read will be what is contained in the Royal Commission report concerning Pell when the redactions are removed."

cont

cont

The vast majority of paedophile Catholic clergy have not spent a minute in jail. The vast majority will never be brought to justice, and the vast majority of victims will never receive justice. The legal system is inadequate in dealing with what are very personal matters for some. You could not attend a Catholic boys school in the 1960's and early 70's, and not be "touched" by paedophilia in some way, physically or mentally. It was not paedophilia that drove me from the Church, although it didn't bind me to it, it was more the absurdity and brutality of the institution itself, and some of those within. Has the Church, "seen the light" and attempted to reform itself, in my view no it has not. It has become clever at protecting itself, to much has been exposed for the Church to simply hide it all away, as it did for decades. Although I suspect little has changed in the Catholic third world, in places like the Philippines, South America, etc, places where paedophilia by clergy is ignored or simply hidden away. Institutionally the Church machinery for selecting and producing its clergy has not changed, is it reasonable to expect that some miraculous transformation has taken place in regards to paedophilia abundance within the Church, I think not!

Paul unfortunately you are uninformed of what Churches have done to compensate victims. This has included all denominations. They have agreed to establish a fund to pay out victims that have lodged claims against the Church. You cannot now enter an area of children without a Working with Children clearance, this is a police check. This fund does not cover the person who committed the crime, they must face the justice of the court.

It is a compensation fund that is payable to persons abused by members of staff or leaders. It does not cover abuse by a member [not staff or leaders] of a Church in situations not organised by the Church. That is a private matter for which the person is responsible.

It is unfortunate that a percentage of single Priests are homosexual that is why being celebrate has some appeal. This leaves them exposed to vulnerable boys while in close contact.

When Mr. O is asked to explain one of his wild statements, he is stumped. For a person claiming to be highly educated, he is pretty thick. Another one to scroll past because he has nothing of interest or importance to say.

ttbn,

It's self-explanatory - you're Catholic, aren't you? So aren't you trying to protect what it is to be Catholic in the light of the behaviour of the Catholic clergy?

Josephus, unfortunately you are the one who is uniformed, to say "what Churches have done to compensate victims", that is the limited use of money in an attempt to redress a problem that is still evident. True recompense by the Catholic Church would be to correct their fundamentally flawed system of recruitment. As for the police 'working with children' its nothing more that a clearance showing the person does not have a past history, it's no proof that person in not a paedophile. BTW what is the situation in the bulk of Catholic countries, I dare say absolutely nothing has changed, church paedophile is not exclusively an illness afflicting rich developed countries like Australia. The great savour of children in developed countries has been the substantial decline in enrolments for all branches of the Catholic clergy.

You say "a percentage of single Priests are homosexual" not all Catholic clergy that bugger boys are necessarily homosexual. Most paedophiles in the Church, admitted to making use of pornographic material for their own pleasure, magazines and videos mostly. Even though they were engaging in homosexual acts with boys, their pornographic material was almost excursively heterosexual, they also rarely admitted engaging in homosexual acts with other adult males, other paedophiles at hand, other clergy. Leading one to believe it was opportunity rather than sexual orientation that motivated them in most instances.

The Pope pontificating to his band of little green men, was useless. It was nothing more that an exercise in being seen to be doing something. Most likely many of the little green men sitting, listening, to the Pontiff were paedophiles themselves.

Someone posted a figure of 3% of (Australian) Catholic clergy being paedophiles, the Church itself put the figure at 7%, which included female clergy. Remove the female component, look at the historical evidence, and the true figure is most likely 20% of priests and brothers etc were/are paedophiles

Dear Banjo Paterson,

Thank You.
As always, I look forward to reading your comments.

Archbishop of Melbourne Peter Comensoli said he
hoped people would consider the High Court judgement
and see the decision in its legal context.

The witness J - in Pell's case has stated that he
respects the High Court decision and that he understood
" Why criminal cases must be proven beyond all
reasonable doubt."

"No one wants to live in a society where people can be
imprisoned without due and proper process. This is a
basic civil liberty. But the price we pay for weighting
the system in favour of the accused is that many sexual
offences against children go unpunished."

Archbishop Commensoli added that he expects people will
keep their original positions about the cardinal.

Certainly we can expect that victims and survivors and
their families will find it hard to change their
positions and Catholics have to face the fact that
there were people who moved predators across parishes.
The Church cover-ups, the protection of abusive clergy and
the refusal to admit egregious mistakes are
unjustified.

What's next remains unclear. The Church will require
genuine leadership and a willingness to confront both
the difficulties and opportunities that it now faces.
Will anything change? It's past record is not good.

As for Cardinal Pell?

Pell's position as Vatical Treasurer was filled in his
absence, putting him effectively in retirement.
What happens next is up to the Vatican to decide.

Somebody mentioned Bill Shorten. But I think that, unless some evidence is presented as to his arrest in (presumably) the reputed assault case, that issue should be left alone.

So it is with Pell: with no material evidence, merely someone's say-so, there shouldn't ever have been reason to charge him. Just as there need not be any charges laid against Tony Abbott for leaning against a wall, unless some more incriminating evidence is presented.

And although it is a bit late now, the Rosenbergs shouldn't have been executed on someone's say-so back in 1953. Nor the fifteen million-odd women burnt as witches during the Middle Ages on some priest's say-so.

Joe

Dear Paul,

My connection to the Catholic Church was (and is)
very strong. A shared religious belief and
the rituals that went with it were (and are) an important
part of my life.

Today in all the copious debates about religion
and society and the intense interest in some of
the Church's poor legacies like sexual abuse have
forced me to question so many things.

I love the Church's ritual life, it's routine
generosity, it's road map for the soul's journey through
life.

I've always believed that there's more to
life than meets the eye.

I don't have the answers to all
the really difficult questions in life. All I can do
is live in hope, like so many others, that the Church
will make changes. Otherwise it will not survive.
It is beginning to wither on the vine for so many as
it is.

Mr. O,

Your Mickey Mouse degrees, if you really do have any degrees at all, obviously didn’t include reading.

“I'm not a Catholic. I couldn't imagine being one.” (This thread, 7th. April).

I have no denomination; I have not been inside a church for 60 years. I was raised a Protestant, but decided that institutional religion was not for me. My interest in this case is the injustice wrought on Pell by Victoria police and Victoria's court system. Everyone on any legal matter is at risk of being treated the same way in that state.

So you are totally wrong - as usual.

And, the fact that you can draw such a stupid conclusion from my mere citing of of a law professor’s opinion of a High Court judgement, puts you firmly in the idiot category.

Dear Josephus,

Why are you again segueing to homosexual priest? We are talking about Pell's culpability in covering for pederists priests of any stripe.

"1980: the case of Emma and Kate Foster

Emma and Katie Foster were both raped by their parish priest Father Kevin O’Donnell during the 1980s. During this time, Pell was principal of the Institute of Catholic Education.

The impact of the abuse was catastrophic. Katie took to drinking heavily, and Emma committed suicide in 2008. In 2004, the Foster family decided to bring formal charges against the Church, and were awarded $450,000 in compensation.

Anthony and Chrissie Foster say Pell treated the whole incident with a “sociopathic lack of empathy”. Pell strongly denies these allegations."

Dear Shadow Minister,

Too right I was attacking your values and those like you on the right. How Pell has become more of a victim in the eyes of you lot rather than the thousands whose live were dramatically impacted because of the virtually unfettered abuse by Catholic clergy is in my view perfectly placed to be challenged. Look at how many of your lot just in this thread attacked Daniel Andrews for thinking of the thousands of victims of that abuse.

Disgraceful.

SR,

1. I suggest that Pell be charged with a “sociopathic lack of empathy” when it becomes an offense and made retrospective. He certainly should be charged with shielding pedophiles if evidence for that can be presented. Or for fiddling with kids in a Ballarat pool, or Bayside football clubrooms IF material evidence can be presented.

2. Children were dreadfully wronged by members of the Catholic clergy, and have been for probably two thousand years. That's one issue. Pell, by being jailed for an offence that he did not commit, was also wronged. That's another issue. But it's commendable that you find it in your heart to condemn at least one of those wrongs so passionately and virtuously.

So what do you reckon about the Rosenbergs ? Mind you, given that under Socialism, there will always be workers as well as executioners, which would you prefer to be ? [No, don't surprise us].

Joe

ttbn,

You seem to get very upset about being called a Catholic. Do you have something against Catholics?

I see that SR is doing what many of the left have done, substituted Pell for the catholic church. This is a typical left attitude, brought on perhaps by their hate of everything & everyone not left.

It is utterly disgraceful that they allowed their hate to totally blind them to the wrong they were doing, but even worse that they are still defending this action.

I have no high opinion of the catholic church, & would not be at all surprised that Pell was guilty of helping to cover up the pedophilia of some priests. If you believe that, by all means press charges for aiding & abetting pedophilia, not some trumped up charge that the evidence proves he could not have committed.

Trying to use the law falsely to harm someone or an institution you don't like is approaching dictatorial states where those not liked just disappear. The USSR with themselves does appear to be the socialists preference, with themselves as rulers of course. Not quite as bad as the greens, who want us back in a feudal society, provided of course, they are the lords, not the surfs.

Dear loudmouth2,

You said;

“Children were dreadfully wronged by members of the Catholic clergy, and have been for probably two thousand years. That's one issue. Pell, by being jailed for an offence that he did not commit, was also wronged.”

How do you think that set of scales would look.

As to being in jail for an offence he did not commit, he wasn't. He was in jail for an offence which had a credible victim but like many such child abuse cases did not have sufficient evidence to over ride opportunity witnesses creating some degree of doubt as to the safeness of the conviction.

I personally believe the victim and consider Pell a pederist and am quite comfortable that he spent time in jail as a result.

I think the response of the victim has been gracious and worthy of respect. I think Andrews' response was mindful of those victims who are still struggling with the impact of the abuse yet if you scan the posts on this thread he was viciously attacked for doing so.

The thing about Pell is it is the right who are normally so dismissive about courts applying the burden of proof rules and not convicting those the right feel should be behind bars, Dr Haneef is a case in point, yet on this particular case have been goaded into rallying around rightwing pundits in defense of a man who the weight of all the evidence would say is likely an abuser or at the very least and enabler of abuse.

As I put to Shadow Minister it is really disturbing how easily manipulated you lot are. Born again Trumpeteers supporting a pussy grabbing President is another example. Why do you personally think you have suddenly found yourselves on the other side of the fence?

There's a host of journalists who have reported on
Pell that are under attack by News Corp commentator
Andrew Bolt, and other Pell supporters.

Their claim
is that the ABC colluded with the Victorian Police to
have Pell charged.

The ABC is standing by all of its programs and
articles about Pell.

The ABC investigative journalist Louise Milligan who broke
stories about abuse in the Catholic Church for the ABC TV
programs 7.30 and Four Corners, says her award-winning
book - "Cardinal: The Rise and Fall of George Pell," will
not be withdrawn from sale.

She says -

"I stand by it 100% and so does my publisher. I am
proud of the journalism in it, which exposed a dark history
in the Catholic Church how a generation of children were
let down and continued to be let down when they came forward
to tell their stories as adults."

"I am in awe of their bravery. I am thinking of every single
one of them and hoping they are OK."

" They deserved better. They still deserve better."

The response of those who cheered Pell's original sentence and their dismay that justice for the man has been achieved is really rather revealing and educational.

Effectively their view is that Pell is/was the symbol of a hated group and as such he deserved to be punished irrespective of whether the particular charge was valid.

We have Foxy adopting a no-harm-no-foul view that all's well because he was finally released from false imprisonment. I wonder if Lindy Chamberlain thought all was fine as she was finally released?

And the reprehensible SR who wants the man further punished for the crime of being in a hated group.

Its all very educational. These responses aren't particularly unusual. Throughout history the hatred of the other has been used to justify the unjustifiable. Thucydides talks about it in regards to Corcyra. Robespierre understood it. And Goebbels, obviously.

But part of the genius of the English legal structures is that it protects the individual in a hated group. The individual is tried and his group affiliations is immaterial to the result. That's the ideal.

But here, not only did it not apply, but those who hate the group have applauded the rejection of that most noble of aims. They want the group to be punished via the scapegoat of Pell. And they think that's justice.

What history also teaches us is that, once the principle of punish the group via the individual is established, other groups will also be targeted. The old "First they came for the Jews..." poem... http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/first-they-came-for-the-jews/

We claim to aspire to being a just society. But the primitive instincts lurk just below the surface.

just like lying feminist did great harm to true victims of sexual assault in the Kavannaugh case so have abc and other journalist done to true victims of child abuse. If they really cared about truth rather than displaying their shear hatred they would be demanding aboriginal communities shut down long ago. No its all about hatred.

I do not think it is of any use pursuing George Pell. The horse has bolted.

Everybody knows what happened but nobody can do anything about it. I drew the parallel between what happened with appeal and the trial of Joh Bjelke-Petersen to show how things might be seen to be stacked in favour of those accused of being in the wrong.

The big questions now are those surrounding the ethical and moral conduct of the courts.

Despite the fact that the High Court decision has shown the world what an embarrassing and incompetent bunch of Leftist monkeys the Victorian government, it’s police, and its judicial system are, Police Minister, Lisa Neville, has “full confidence” in the Victorian circus. Well, I suppose she wouldn’t be a minister in Dastardly Dan’s pro-China, belt and road government if she thought differently. Like Dan, she probably believes people claiming to have been abused umpteen years ago without question. “I believe you, poor baby, I believe you. I’ll send the boys in blue out to fit someone up”.

Dear mhaze,

Please show me where "And the reprehensible SR who wants the man further punished for the crime of being in a hated group."?

Look Labour MP Craig Thompson was acquitted of 95% of the charges brought against him and was ultimately fined for misuse of just $3,500 of union funds. If legal justice was served in Pell's case, and ultimately it probably was, then it was served in Thompson's case too.

That doesn't mean natural justice had its day by any means in either case.

Not lacking in public support
A prince of the church had his day in court
Many wished the high prince well
Others wanted him to rot in hell

The accusations many decades go
Told by all those in the know
Although cleared, the doubt remains
For the ageing prince life's not the same

He's now worldwide a familiar face
Living his last years out of place
A lesson lies when you're stained with taint
You'll never end your life a saint.

(Inspired by the poetry of Francis Duggan).

Mark Powell, PROTESTANT cleric, gives some mention of the Leftist hack scribblers who persecuted George Pell, as well as the lack of “integrity or competence in Victoria Police and that state’s legal system” but mainly, he blames the ABC - the largest, richest and most implacable of them all, and “key to the media witch-hunt”. And so say all of us who don’t belong to the looney Left. What a disgraceful organisation to be receiving a billion dollars a year to smear and ruin peoples lives and reputations.

George Pell has behaved like a man who knows there is no God.

Mr Mark Weinberg has behaved like a man who knows a man who knows there is no God and who was also not dressed for the occasion.

Now that the innocent Cardinal has left Victoria, all other Catholic clerics - all Catholics for that matter - would be advised to seek refuge in other states.

Cardinal Pell will live at the Good Shepherd Seminary
in the Sydney suburb of Homebush.

The word Seminary comes from the Latin word "seminarium"
meaning "seed plot."

The Seminary of the Good Shepherd, according to the web,
is a place to prepare young men to be priests.

We're told that the seminary is a seed-plot where the
ideals of priestly ministry are nurtured.

Time spent at the Good Shepherd is described as an
"opportune time" of intense formation, not just philosophical
and theological study, but in human virtues, social graces
and spiritual values.

The seminary brings young men into the world of the Church -
rich in human and spiritual tradition.

" I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd is one who lays
down his life for his sheep." (John 10,11).

Fr. Danny Meagher is the Rector, a long time supporter and
friend of Cardinal Pell.

The Cardinal should feel very much at home.

There are quite a few boys schools within close range
of the Seminary. St Patrick's College is an independent
Catholic single-sex primary and secondary day school for boys
within walking distance. Perhaps they will provide altar boys
and choir boys for the seminary?

Kindly ignore my last comment. It was sent
accidentally while preparing a draft on another
issue. My apologies.

Dear Foxy,

I hope you are not implying what I think you are implying.

Dear Foxy,

Indeed.

One would have thought Pell might have been more comfortable in his old alma mater where he was part of the alumni and later rector.

"Corpus Christi turned out scores of child abusers over its history. In the worst year, the infamous Gerald Ridsdale’s graduation class of 1961, five out of 18 priests - more than a quarter - were ultimately convicted or accused of committing offences. The others were Kelvin Sharkey, Philip Green, Barry Whelan and Wilfred Baker."

http://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/how-a-melbourne-seminary-became-the-breeding-ground-for-paedophile-rings-20190917-p52s1n.html

I think everything will be fine as long as social distancing rules are enforced. As the Chaser have put it so succinctly;

"The High Court has overturned the guilty verdict against George Pell, but experts are still advising that children stay at least 1.5 metres away from the Catholic Cardinal.

The warning came after the seven judges on the High Court found themselves to be better judges of the testimony of the victim they didn’t hear than the 12 jurors on the original case.

Experts say that the only way to deal with the outbreak of George Pell into the community is by social distancing from the disgraced Cardinal.

While 1.5m is the minimum recommended distance, many experts said 1.5km is probably a better idea."

http://chaser.com.au/national/children-urged-to-stay-at-least-1-5m-away-from-george-pell/

yep the total grubs supported by Andrews have been found out. Hopefully we will get some real justice now that the totally regressive grubs in the Victorian courts and Police we be dealt with.

Dear runner,

Yes our Dan has called for the release of the redacted matters from the Royal Commission regarding Pell. Christian Porter has agreed to do so in a few weeks. They were redacted because they were deemed likely to prejudice Pell's case and not in a good way.

This will reveal more of the grubby machinations of Pell regarding his involvement of moving abusing priests around. The Royal Commission uncovered many grubs and it will undoubtedly do so when these documents are aired.

Are you looking forward to them too runner? Or will you keep siding with the abusers and their enablers?

just waiting for the Police to advertise for more victims Steelie. Thank God the High Court does not agree with your grubby tactics of making up lies. I mean they could be out catching real paedophiles but as you know your identity politics would not allow that. You and the other grubs are more interested in framing a guy than child victims. We know who the true enablers are and it ain't those concerned with justice.

The thing about evil deeds is that they just never go away and they hound the evil doer until the day he dies.

Dear runner,

The High Court did not say anyone lied. In fact they were at pains to say the victim's testimony "did not contain discrepancies, or display inadequacies, of such a character as to require the jury to have entertained a doubt as to guilt."

All they found was that reasonable doubt could not be discounted.

The victim has more courage, grace and respect for the law in his little finger than you would have in a lifetime.

You are one sick little piece of work mate.

Paul.

"...Someone posted a figure of 3% of (Australian) Catholic clergy being paedophiles, the Church itself put the figure at 7%, which included female clergy."

Could you give a reference to when the Catholic Church started to ordain women?

'The thing about evil deeds is that they just never go away and they hound the evil doer until the day he dies.'

a few Victorian Police and judges won't be getting much rest if that's the case Mr O.

My prayers and those of many others have been answered. Let there be humble thanks to God for delivering George Pell from this horrible predicament he was in.

From the Jewish central prayer (http://www.sefaria.org/sheets/7166?lang=bi):

"He sustains the living with loving kindness, resurrects the dead with great mercy, supports the falling, heals the sick, RELEASES THE BOUND, and fulfills His trust to those who sleep in the dust. Who is like You, mighty One! And who can be compared to You, King, who brings death and restores life, and causes deliverance to spring forth!"

Dear Steele,

An article in The Age, deals with how the Catholic
Church is re-thinking seminary training after the
child abuse scandal.

We're told that -

Multiple Catholic sources say that church leaders are
discussing dismantling the seminary system in favour
of a broader model of priest apprentiships with more
inter action with the community.

We're told that at the moment becoming a priest generally
requires living in an exclusive male-dominated
residential college and an investigation by The Age and The
Sydney Morning Herald has thrown fresh light on the role
seminaries have played in the abuse crisis.

Church leaders are looking at past practices - such
as poor vetting, inadequate lessons in celibacy and
ministry, and a clerical culture that has shunned women and
has contributed to the church's abuse problem.

Evidence to the royal commission and subsequent legal
cases have shown that a number of seminaries had become places
where repressed young men would experiment sexually
with one another with little consequence, before some
of them turned their attention to children in their parish.

This is a step in the right direction.

.

Dear Shadow Minister,

.

You wrote :

« Presumption of innocence … [dates] back to habeas corpus in the 13th century »

Perhaps, Shadow Minister. This is what Shannon Kelly, Senior Legal Editor of The Laws of Australia encyclopaedia, has to say :

« The presumption of innocence is as old as law itself. When Lord Blackstone [1723-1780] postulated that it is “better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer”, his Lordship was drawing on a long and distinguished line of legal jurisprudence including Genesis [10th century BC- 70 AD], the Code of Hammurabi [1792-1750 BC] and the Codex Justinianus [529 AD]. »

Other scholars have suggested it dates from the Law of the Twelve Tables (around 450 BC), the earliest written legislation of ancient Roman law.
.

You will recall that I suggested in my previous post that, in order to reduce some of the current injustices, we should make no presumptions regarding innocence or guilt in cases involving the most vulnerable amongst us (minors and the mentally and physically handicapped).

Another problem that needs to be addressed is our so-called adversarial trial system which allows the accused to remain silent. Pell’s trial is a good example. He remained silent and was acquitted without pronouncing a single word. The jury and judges never heard his version of events, nor was he ever cross-examined.

It was his accuser who was on trial, not Pell.

Pell’s trial is typical of most sex cases that boil down to “my word against yours”. The presumption of innocence combined with the adversarial system of justice assures quasi-legal impunity to the alleged offenders.

That does not qualify as justice. For it to be slightly more even-handed and still maintain the sacrosanct principle of presumption of innocence, either the adversarial system should be replaced by the inquisitorial system, or the right of the accused to remain silent should be abolished.

But, whatever the system, adversarial or inquisitorial, in my view, there should be no presumptions of innocence or guilt in cases involving vulnerable people (minors and the mentally and physically handicapped).

.

Banjo Paterson,

I think Mr Mark Weinberg pointed out that doubt existed because George Pell wasn't dressed for the occasion.

I wonder how that would work in other cases:

"Your Honour, I would like to point out that my client could not have robbed the bank because he was just not dressed for the occasion."

or

"Your Honour, I would like to point out that my client could not be the murderer because he has never dressed for that sort of an occasion."

It seems to work because Pell had his prison sentence cut short.

SR is once again selective in his recollection of the high court judgement.

The high court never claimed that any of the witnesses lied. However, they clearly noted that there were substantial discrepancies in the testimony of the victim and other prosecution witnesses.

This created doubt beyond just reasonable doubt.

It has been proven a number times that human memory is fallible and that the mind has a tendency to fill in the blanks and that people in recalling events, even recent ones can get salient details wrong. This is further exacerbated with the passage of time and people do give testimony in which they firmly believe and still get some of it wrong. This is even before the propensity for involved persons to embellish the truth. which is why single person testimonies are not considered sufficient to convict without corroborating evidence such as a second witness or physical evidence.

Secondly, the requirement for reasonable doubt is because the state generally has far more resources than an individual, and for those that point to Pell's barristers, the state had equally qualified barristers and an entire Pell task force to gather evidence.

Finally, to those that still steadfastly believe in Pell's guilt, you have the right to do so just as catholics have the right to believe in the infallibility of the Pope.

Rabbi Marianne Williamson wrote:

"No conventional therapy can release us from a deep
and abiding psychic pain. Through prayer we find what
we cannot find elsewhere - a peace that is not of this
world."

At this time I'm wishing you all the very happy things
that this special time of Easter brings and I hope that
your Easter basket is filled with joy, blessings, and love
for you and your family.

May we pray that all church leaders carry out their
promise to protect and pledge to heal the most vulnerable
in their dioceses.

May we pray that all parish communities affected by abuse
find healing and reconciliation.

May we pray that those who've been abused and their
families find comfort, healing, and peace.

On a lighter note here's a few Easter bunny jokes to
share:

What do you call a rabbit with fleas?
Bugs Bunny.

What do you get when you pour hot water into a
rabbit hole?
Hot cross bunnies.

What did the Easter bunny say to the carrot?
Nice gnawing you.

What is the Easter Bunny's favourite kind of music?
Hip-hop.

How does an Easter bunny keep his fur looking so good?
Hare-spray.

Please remember to treat everyone with kindness and respect.

Stay safe.

Dear Shadow Minister,

You wrote; “clearly noted that there were substantial discrepancies in the testimony of the victim and other prosecution witnesses. This created doubt beyond just reasonable doubt.”

This is patently untrue and represents a disgraceful attempt to rewrite the judgement.

How on earth do you get by each day when you are so intent on denying huge chunks of reality?

I repeat, 7 out of 7 judges of the High Court agreed “that A's evidence of the first incident did not contain discrepancies, or display inadequacies, of such a character as to require the jury to have entertained a doubt as to guilt."

Therefore it was not the discrepancies in the witness's testimony at all that created doubt but rather the testimonies of the opportunity witnesses did not allow a judgement of beyond reasonable doubt. That is all. Get over it.

I am happy to accept that in the eyes of the law Pell there is not enough evidence to convict him. But the court did not find he was falsely accused, nor did it find he was wrongly charged, only that the burden of proof had not been met.

Like the judges I believe that A's evidence of the first incident did not contain discrepancies, or display inadequacies, of such a character as to require me to entertain any doubt as to Pell's guilt, especially as it was accepted by 12 good citizens who listened to it.

For that reason I personally still regard Pell as a pederist who was lucky to escape natural justice on this occasion.

SR,

Perhaps what the seven Justices meant was discrepancies BETWEEN the testimony of the claimant and those of other prosecution witnesses, not discrepancies in the testimony of the claimant.

Joe

HAPPY EASTER everybody or as we say in my house HAPPY CRUCIFIXION DAY.

We used to just say Easter but we noticed how all the multifunctionals coming from non-Christian backgrounds seem to equate Easter with Xmas as a joyous occasion by saying "Happy Easter!" all the time so we thought that 'crucifixion' must be multifunctional.

The Canberra Times has an article worth reading
describing how George Pell won in the High
Court on a legal technicality.

"The prosecution of Cardinal Pell has been
socially explosive and legally complex."

"The Cardinal's convictions by unanimous jury verdicts
were landmark events in Australian history."

"The High Court's decision both for the legal world
and for society more broadly for many will be
impossible to understand how the unanimous jury verdicts
of guilty, further supported by a Court of Appeal, majority
two judges, can be overturned."

"The High Court decision may undermine confidence in the
legal system, especially in child sexual abuse prosecutions."

The article reminds us that:

"Civil legal actions against Pell are ongoing, so his
legal battles aren't over yet. More civil lawsuits may
well follow, especially after the release of the
royal commission's findings about his conduct in
Ballarat."

One thing the article makes very clear is that

"This High Court appeal did NOT ask whether Pell
committed the offences. It asked whether the two majority
judges in the Victorian Court of Appeal, in dismissing Pell's
earlier appeal, made an error about the nature of the
correct legal principles, or their application."

The article gives a summary of key events that explains
and is worth reading.

Finally we're told that only with:

"Careful analysis of the full reasoning of the High Court is
required to fully assess the court's decision. But for now,
this extraordinary outcome is strange justice indeed."

"Pell has won on a legal technicality. But he will continue
to be assailed by multiple lawsuits."

"In contrast, the complainant has been believed by a jury,
by a majority judgement and by a substantial body of
public opinion."

You can read more at:

http://www.canberratimes.com/story/6715000/how-george-pell-won-in-the-high-court-on-a-legal-technicality/

My apologies. I left out the "au" in the link.
Here it is again:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6715000/how-george-pell-won-in-the-high-court-on-a-legal-technicality/

Foxy,

"The Canberra Times has an article worth reading
describing how George Pell won in the High
Court on a legal technicality.

"The prosecution of Cardinal Pell has been
socially explosive and legally complex."

"The Cardinal's convictions by unanimous jury verdicts
were landmark events in Australian history."

If the rest of the article has as many mistakes as the opening small paragraphs then it is a waste of time reading it.

Firstly, he did not win on a legal technicality but because the Judges of the High Court applied the law.

Secondly, he was not convicted by unanimous jury verdicts but by one verdict.

Thirdly, they were not landmark events as the event was not repeated.

Fourthly, No one is ever convicted in two separate trials for the one offence, if found guilty by one trial then they go to gaol, as Pell did.

Sloppy journalism.

Accusations of sloppy journalism unfortunately is
one well worn tactic used by some of Pell's supporters.
That and of course the "witch-hunt"scenarios.

Reading a summary of the key events such as:

The Jury decision

The Court of Appeal decision

The case goes to the High Court

What did Pell argue in the High Court

And finally:

Pell won on a legal technicality

Reading these summaries would
certainly go a long way towards a better grasp
of the issues involved. For most people.

Hi Foxy, I'll tell you about a particular Marist Brother, Br Romuald, real name Francis Cable, and my school encounter of nearly 50 years ago with this cretonne. For the first time I told my son about it a couple of nights ago over the phone. Its nothing really, we joked about it. The year 1969/70, I was at Marist Brothers HS Pagewood in Sydney, Romuald a sadistic bastard, held several positions at the school, Master of Discipline, Cadet Master and Science Master, Br Kevin was the headmaster, all this can be checked. In 2nd Year you could "volunteer" for The Cadet Unit, this was done by having Romuald come into the classroom grab the class roll, read out names, tick off the "volunteers", only I and one other had the nerve not to "volunteer".

Was that the end of the matter, no way. I had Romuald for Science class, where he made my life hell, regular caneing there and at his office for very trivial offences. One day I was out of class for a reason, a note to the office, Romuald was in the office, as I returned rather slowly to class, who should unexpectedly come up the other stairs, none other than Romuald and cut me off. Away from the class rooms he pushes me up against the wall by the throat with his forearm. The short conversation; Br "Wont join the cadets, make a man of ya!"..."No Brother." Br "Are ya one of them?"..."What Brother"...Br "FANCY BOY!"..."No Brother" with that he tried to grab my testicles with his other hand. Me; "F off C" (words that would get you expelled)... then a door opened near by and kids came streaming out of that class room early. They probely saved me, Romuald backed off and back down the stair he went. He still made my life hell, but I learnt that paedophiles targeted the meek and vulnerable boys mostly. Isn't there a saying in the Bible; : "The paedophiles shall inherit the meek," or some such thing.

Dear Foxy,

I'm afraid I will have to agree in part with Is Mise on this one.

To call it a technicality would be a stretch I think. The protections afforded to those who face our courts need to be robust and the avenues for recourse to have decisions tested is very much part of that.

I don't have a problem with how this played out given our legal system at the moment. Banjo discussed altering the way we handle historical child sex cases including having the accused forced to testify at trial. I would certainly support some modification for how these trails and investigations are handled. We most definitely need to do better.

What does rankle is that for 99% of criminal cases funding this type of review of ones case would not be possible. But that is a whole different story.

Foxy,

You should apply for a journalistic position with that paper as you seem to have equal trouble differentiating between singular and plural and you have absolutely no idea of legal processes if you think that a convicted person serving time in gaol will be tried again for the same offence.

Don't you think that it is sloppy journalism to use the plural when something is obviously singular, something that one might expect in First Class but not in the second year of primary school?

Dear Paul,

Thank You for sharing your story.

My husband went to a Christian Brothers school.
At the time their Principal was also a sadistic
monster. One day my husband was called into
the man's office - nothing happened but when my
husband came out of that's man's office there
were several of my husbands class mates waiting
for him and they asked - "Did he do anything to
you?" "Did he lock the door?"and so on.
My husband was lucky.

However there was a young lad in the class who was
the Principal's favourite. My husband does not speak
about it in detail only to say the young lad killed
himself.

Dear Steele,

I understand your reasoning.

Those who have been convinced of Cardinal Pell's
innocence will believe that justice has been served.
The High Court's decision for others is devastating.

The verdict was about one case only and there are larger
problems within the Church. The church needs greater
transparency and to more broadly reform the way it
deals with allegations of sexual abuse.

I agree with the comments that Banjo Paterson made.

I found the article in The Canberra Times worth reading
due to the fact that it was written by a law professor and
a senior law lecturer. I thought the issues raised were
worth discussing.

Dear Steele,

You may find the following link interesting:

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/apr/09/child-sexual-abuse-victims-should-not-be-put-off-by-george-pell-decision-experts-say

Is Miss,

Yes. The principle in law of reasonable doubt is not a technicality; and the Court found, unanimously, that there was a high probability that that Cardinal Pell was not guilty. He is still Cardinal Pell: not Pell or George Pell, as he is called by ignorant grunts who ape the ABC and Leftist rags; the grunts who believe in the rule of law, now restored by the High Court unanimously, only when it goes the way they want it. Truly horrible people - modern versions of witch-burners and lynch mobs of more unenlightened and barbaric times.

.

Dear Foxy, Is Mise & ttbn,

.

You, Foxy, posted a link to an article written by Ben Mathews and Mark Nicholas Bernard Thomas in The Canberra Times dated 7 April 2020 in which it was stated :

« The High Court has given claims about lack of opportunity an elevated technical legal status that outweighs the jury's belief in the complainant's testimony and their evident discounting of Pell's claimed lack of opportunity. This appears perilously close to re-trial by the court … Pell has won today on a legal technicality … »

About which, you, Is Mise, wrote to Foxy :

« He [Pell] did not win on a legal technicality but because the Judges of the High Court applied the law – sloppy journalism »

And, you, ttbn, wrote to Is Mise :

« Yes. The principle in law of reasonable doubt is not a technicality; and the Court found, unanimously, that there was a high probability that that Cardinal Pell was not guilty »
.

The “legal technicality” the authors are referring to is complex and I am sure that you, Is Mise and ttbn, are not the only ones who have misinterpreted it.

Perhaps you will have noticed that the authors are not journalists but eminent professors of law at the Queensland University of Technology (as indicated at the bottom of the article) :

http://staff.qut.edu.au/staff/b.mathews

http://au.linkedin.com/in/mark-thomas-5a8a3379

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

They explain in the article :

« The High Court allowed "special leave to appeal". This is unusual, as special leave applications arguing an unreasonable verdict are frequently refused, including in child sexual offence cases.

It can only grant leave if the case involves a question of legal principle, or if - as found here - there's a question of the administration of justice.

Pell claimed the Court of Appeal misapplied the legal test, causing a miscarriage of justice.

The question for the High Court in whether to give special leave was not whether Pell was guilty, or whether the jury was right.
It was whether the case involved an issue engaging the interests of the administration of justice.

The High Court found the interests of the administration of justice required their involvement. This does not itself indicate any view about Pell's guilt »
.

The “legal technicality” to which the authors refer is the fact that the High Court “can only grant leave if the case involves a question of legal principle, or if - as found here - there's a question of the administration of justice”.

Here is the text of the “legal technicality” to which they refer :

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ja1903112/s35a.html

As the authors indicate :

« This does not itself indicate any view about Pell's guilt »
.

I hope this clarifies matters for you.

.

SR,

First you substantially misrepresent the judgement then try to admonish me for doing the same, but as usual manage to cock it up. How do you live with yourself?

To quote:"The unchallenged evidence of the opportunity witnesses was inconsistent with the complainant's account."

For context, opportunity witnesses are those not necessarily witnesses to the crime or involved with either part, but can bear witness to events surrounding the event and the context and can be called by either the prosecution or defense. These witnesses are generally used to corroborate or challenge given by the main witnesses.

That there were significant discrepancies between the account by the main and sole witness to the "crime" and several opportunity witnesses and that the prosecution was unable to challenge their accounts meant that credibility of the main witness was damaged and without positive corroboration was well short of being sufficient for a conviction.

A competent trial judge would have recognised this and would have advised the jury. That the judge failed to do so is a blight on his reputation, that two Victorian appellate judges made the same blunder calls for an inquiry into the Victorian justice system.

To all,

The Catholic church has a lot of blood on its hands, and it deserves to be punished not just for covering up the crimes of its deviant priests, but in enabling them to continue their crimes. I personally would have no truck in prosecuting anyone who perpetrated or covered up these crimes and putting them in jail for the rest of their lives and fining the church bodies that did this in penury.

However, this does not justify in any way the orchestrated attempt to railroad Pell. This travesty of justice blew up in the face of the Victorian justice system and has not only damaged their credibility, but has damaged their ability to convict future felons plus having wasted $ms in taxpayer money.

If Pell sues the Vic legal system he could walk away with more $ms and tie up the system for years.

To top it up, this cock up falls firmly at the feet of Daniel Andrews who is actively blocking any review but may be forced into it if Pell chooses to challenge.

Dear Shadow Minister,

I certainly defy you show where I have even slightly misrepresented the judgement. I didn't.

Your take on it however I robustly and justifiably derided.

The opportunity witnesses were there to support Pell's assertion that he did not have the 'opportunity' to commit the offence.

They made a number of categorical statements about the conduct of the mass. They could not and did not attest to exactly what happened on the day.

There was one of their categorical statements that could be directly tested and that was regarding Pell's vestments. From the appeal;

“Reliance was placed on categorical statements by Portelli and by Potter that it was not possible to pull the alb to the side while the cincture was tied at the waist.97 145 In response, senior counsel for the Crown invited the members of the Court to try on the robes. They were an exhibit at the trial and, we were told, had been available to the jury in the jury room during their deliberation. Counsel for Cardinal Pell did not demur.

In final address, the prosecutor invited the jury to feel the weight of the alb and ‘assess its manoeuvrability as a garment’. This gave the jury the opportunity, counsel submitted, ‘to assess whether what [A] described as having occurred is physically possible or impossible.’ Having taken advantage of that opportunity ourselves, we consider that it was well open to the jury to reject the contention of physical impossibility.98 The alb was neither so heavy nor so immoveable as the evidence of Portelli and Potter had suggested. To our observation, it was well capable of being manoeuvred — while the cincture was firmly tied at the waist — in a way that might be described as being moved or pulled to one side or pulled apart.”

If I were in the jury and found that a major categorical statement by two prime witnesses for the defense were patently untrue I would most certainly have given the rest of their evidence less weight.

Everyone here who believes Pell is guilty need to get together and establish their evidence to condemn him to prison; If they cannot gather enough evidence then they need to close their mouth of accusations; instead of propagating false witness against what 7 Judges consider an innocent man. Put real evidence before the Court.

Dear Josephus,

The 7 judges did not deem the victim a false witness indeed they found his "evidence of the first incident did not contain discrepancies, or display inadequacies, of such a character as to require the jury to have entertained a doubt as to guilt."

I believe the 7 judges. Why don't you?

If Pell had been charged in China, he would be presumed guilty and - if he were a bit younger - his body parts would be now scattered across the developed world.

But he was charged in and by a system which deems him innocent until proven guilty in a fair trial, if somewhat detainable in the meantime. The highest court unanimously has now found him not guilty, which I think means 'innocent'.

In such a system, an accused doesn't have to prove his innocence, or even say a word in his own defence: it is up to the prosecution to find him guilty, and supposedly not up to him to prove himself innocent. He doesn't have to give any damn testimony if he doesn't want to.

As an ex-Maoist and lifetime atheist, I would have preferred some material evidence to be presented and Pell to be found guilty. But there wasn't any. So he's innocent. End of. Move on. Find some other witch to burn.

Joe

OLO is never short of angry, disappointed people trying to make others feel as miserable and as insignificant as they are. Yet, despite them; despite the China virus and the awful loss of jobs, a hapless government wrecking the economy and our future, what passes for a miracle in Australia has occurred - justice has overcome Marxist persecution of our highest ranking Christian priest: significantly, at Easter.

i really don't get why some have to attack contributors as being supposedly useless for expressing an opinion

Professor Gideon Boas, a barrister and Professor
of law at La Trobe University in Melbourne
stated that:

"... the Pell case had a set of unique and complex
circumstances that would not necessarily be a
factor in other jury trials."

He continues with:

" ... what's to say the high court had it right?
You had a jury process that functioned, you had a
court of appeal that by majority agreed with them,
and gave it serious consideration, and a high
court who saw it differently."

" There is no system that is flawless. Some juries
will give verdicts that are perverse or unreasonable
and, sometimes, so will judges."

Dr Tyrone Kirchengast, a barrister and solicitor
of the high court telle us that:

" I think we have to also understand that justice is
not perfect and it cannot always be perfect.
It's the case that sometimes innocent people are
convicted and guilty people aren't and what we strive
for in Australia is a system that eliminates errors as
far as possible."

"But it is impossible to think of criminal trials as a
process of a perfect case put to a perfect jury."

He adds that:

"Trial procedures are being continually reformed to
assist jurors to do their jobs and to lesson chances
of error."

Essentially the high court's decision does not mean
that Cardinal Pell did not perpetrate the abhorrent
acts of which he was convicted earlier. It means instead
that the available evidence could not prove the crimes
"beyond reasonable doubt."

There will be many more chapters in the Pell case, and
the arguments and the agony will continue.

My charge of accusers here as false witness still stands. they have no physical evidence that the boys who accused George Pell may got their identity of the person wrong. Their evidence may have been believable but not have the situation it was George Pell correct.

Will you people please stop with the Pell Postmortem!

It's over, and the horse has bolted. Everybody knows how he was helped to get his sentence shortened but there is nothing anybody can do about it,

So let's now concentrate on discussing the ethics and morality of those and their actions that led to Pell getting his sentence shortened.

An excerpt from Cardinal Pell's open letter for Easter:-

"I have just spent 13 months in jail for a crime I didn't commit, one disappointment after another …. But with every blow it was a consolation to know I could offer it to God for some good purpose like turning the mass of suffering into spiritual energy".

Compare those words with the vicious snapping and snarling of his hate-filled enemies here, on the ABC, in the Leftist press and the ignorant in society.

Dear Josephus,

I put to you;

"The 7 judges did not deem the victim a false witness indeed they found his "evidence of the first incident did not contain discrepancies, or display inadequacies, of such a character as to require the jury to have entertained a doubt as to guilt."

I believe the 7 judges. Why don't you?"

And with respect you haven't answered the question. Why not?

Kristos voskres! (Christ is risen)

Vostinu voskres! (Truly He is risen)

I again wish you all feel the hope of new beginnings,
love, peace, and happiness, during this joyful holiday,
and plenty of colourful Easter eggs.

It's now time for me to go colour ours and begin the
preparations for tomorrow's lunch.

Stay safe.

SR, because the time frame to bring charges does not indicate the victim's real injury. Because it was a emotional public conviction against the Catholic Church led by the ABC and others. I do not have much sympathy for the Catholic Church and its barbaric history, but in this case it was a public trial that convicted him.

Hi Foxy,

You observe that

"Essentially the high court's decision does not mean that Cardinal Pell did not perpetrate the abhorrent acts of which he was convicted earlier."

Although the obverse seems to have been their unanimous view: as you write,

'It means instead that the available evidence could not prove the crimes "beyond reasonable doubt.""

Yes, indeed, Foxy: in a system where innocence is presumed and guilt has to be proven, 'beyond reasonable doubt' means just that, that the accused is innocent right up to the point when there is no longer any 'reasonable doubt'.

So an accused is either innocent, or proven guilty 'beyond reasonable doubt.' There is no in-between, no matter how dreadful the crime might have been. Not enough evidence means the person has to be found 'not guilty', or 'innocent'. So it has been with Pell, by the unanimous verdict of the highest court in the land. Let's move on.

Love,

Joe

ttbn,

The difference is that those you claim as "vicious snapping and snarling of his hate-filled enemies" are not liars.

Pell may have spent 13 months in gaol but at least he would have been dressed for the occasion, which I think would bring great pleasure to any dissenting judge

Mr. O,

Not sure why I grant you an honorific when you continue to snarl, 'Pell'. My manners are better than yours, I suppose, having been brought up in a more polite and dignified era than you were. Raised in a cave by wolves, were you?

As for lying: you have just told the obvious lie that you and your motley crew don't lie. It doesn't get more dishonest than that.

As Christians celebrating Easter some of us may
forget that Jews around the world are celebrating
Passover (8th April - 16th April 2020).

The movie "The Ten Commandments" will be screening
this evening on Ch. 92 at 7.00 (the classic film
with Charlton Heston, Yul Brynner, et al).

The timing is ironic. Passover and Easter
are about miraculous deliverance. But this year we all
will be making it in the midst of coronavirus, a
pandemic whose end is nowhere in sight.

We shall all be forced to celebrate apart. Many of us
have been shaped by our traditions and by memories of
generations sitting around the table sharing
those traditions.

However, there are lessons we can learn here. Lessons
such as compassion. This experience can teach us
to expand our concern for others who are vulnerable.
Especially towards those without loved ones,

The challenge during this difficult time is to
genuinely care and show our concern for others.
So, let's open our hearts, even if we cannot open our
doors.

Stay safe.

Dear Foxy,

The people of medieval Europe didn't put off Easter performances in 1347 when the Black Death came to them from China so why should we change our ways when also confronted with another unwelcome visitor from China?

Because Mr O. there are restrictions put in place
by our government that we have to comply by in
order to save lives. Our own and those of others.

wow ttbn, you are impressed with Pell's writing.

says it all really.

Dear Foxy,

Nothing stopping someone from putting together a good old fashioned virtual Passion Play on the Web for us all to login. (Mario and Luigi could stand in for Gestas and Dismas.)

Chris Lewis,

Says what "really"? You use snappy phrases, but I'll bet you don't know what they mean. As a matter of fact, I'm not impressed with his writing, which is stilted and clumsy. It's the sentiment he expresses, proving again that he is much better than his critics as a human being.

really Pell is better than his critics.

Big call

Dear Josephus,

Again with respect you haven't answered the direct question I put to you. I will repeat it;

"The 7 judges did not deem the victim a false witness indeed they found his "evidence of the first incident did not contain discrepancies, or display inadequacies, of such a character as to require the jury to have entertained a doubt as to guilt."

I believe the 7 judges. Why don't you?"

Mr O. People around the world are finding ways
to spend both Easter and Passover as
during this period that many countries remain under
lockdown to limit the spread of corona virus.

Many people have been, and will be, attending various
services online.

Thank You for your concern.

.

Dear Joe (loudmouth2),

.

You wrote :

« The highest court unanimously has now found him [Pell] not guilty, which I think means 'innocent' … As an ex-Maoist and lifetime atheist, I would have preferred some material evidence to be presented and Pell to be found guilty. But there wasn't any. So he's innocent. End of. Move on … »
.

In the vernacular, “not guilty” and “innocent” are synonymous but not in legal terms. Verdicts in criminal courts are either guilty or not guilty. There is no such thing as a verdict of “innocent”.

The only reference to innocence in a court of law is the term “presumption of innocence” which means that the accused is presumed (at least until the final verdict) to have not committed the crime of which he is accused.

However, the final verdict does not go that far. It does not declare that the accused did not commit the crime. It simply concludes that he has not been proven “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt”, declared “not guilty” and “acquitted” (discharged, set free) – irrespective of whether he committed the crime or not.

Pell’s accuser, Witness J, graciously accepted the High Court’s decision, adding :

« I understand their view that there was not enough evidence to satisfy the Court beyond all reasonable doubt that the offending occurred … But the price we pay for weighting the system in favour of the accused is that many sexual offences against children go unpunished … I would hate to think that one outcome of this case is that people are discouraged from reporting to the police.

« Most people recognise the truth when they hear it. I am content with that.

« My journey has been long, and I am relieved that it is over ... this case does not define me. I am not the abuse I suffered as a child.

« I am a man who came forward for my friend who, sadly, is no longer with us »

As you say, Joe : “End of.” He has “moved on …”.

.

SR,

Where did you misrepresent the judgement?

"The only doubt of guilt came from the testimony of 4 witnesses who were essentially asked to remember what occurred on a specific day over two decades ago without the imprint on their memories of a perderist priest thrusting his genitalia in their faces."

This is patently untrue. There was a single witness for the prosecution with no corroborating evidence, there were 4 other witnesses whose recollection of the day's events clashed with the prosecution witness and that the routine of the service meant that Pell was accompanied at times, and his time in the side room was so short as to make the main witnesses recollection improbable.

The reality is that the witnesses memory was also >20yrs old, and while he might remember the salient details, his recollection of the peripheral details was the weak link in the case.

Banjo,

The issue with verdicts of not guilty vs innocent are a complete furphy as even when the defendant is proven innocent, the judgement is not guilty and given the presumption of innocence, the judgement of not guilty assumes this.

Proving innocence where there is no physical evidence and no outside witnesses is also pretty close to impossible, which is the basis for the presumption of innocence. That posters have used this pretext to salvage their dignity is amusing because they also react when it is pointed out that their claim that Bill Shorten was cleared of rape is also bollocks.

Shadow,

You say; "other witnesses whose recollection of the day's events". The four defence witnesses had no particular recollection of that particular day, as it was an ordinary church day for them, like so many other days around that time.

The prosecution witness on the other hand, might have a clearer recollection of that particular day, it was not an ordinary church day for him. No one would find a day when a cardinal is thrusting his penis up ones rectum, dress in his finery, inside a cathedral, an ordinary church day. Although it is the Catholic Church, it might be something they do after Sunday service to get their rocks off, after a stressful week of kiddie fiddling!

Foxy, no probs. Actually I got the idea from watching Mario and Luigi.

Paul,

For starters no one was rectally abused, so you are even worse, secondly I was discussing the routine followed during the service, and finally it was SR that said "The only doubt of guilt came from the testimony of 4 witnesses who were essentially asked to remember what occurred on a specific day over two decades ago".

Epic fail Paul.

Mr 0,

The bubonic plague was not contagious, it was a bacteria spread by fleas carried by rats. Attending church would not significantly increase its communicability.

Shadow Minister,

I don't recall ever saying that the bubonic plague was contagious.

I have said somewhere that it was caused by a virus carried by fleas that had a preference for black rats as their primary host and when the rats all died from the disease the fleas jumped on the next dirtiest host, being us humans.

Maybe you have me mixed up with someone else. Or maybe you envy me so much for being an Arts graduate who knows all about the Arts things like history, sociology, archaeology, anthropology, philosophy, etc., that you take any and every chance to rub dirt in my face. I have worked in the engineering game for 50 years so I just put your behaviour down to being the sort of thing I expect to see from someone like you who is just an engineer.

A Melbourne PhD student says she was groped by a professor and is handed $700,000. Good money for someone who knows she will never get a job with her useless doctorate. And, it's pretty clear that money is what these complaints are about. It could turn into a growth industry, particularly in Melbourne, where Chairman Dan says, "I believe you".

If there has been an offence, the perpetrator should be punished. Nobody should gain financially.

tbbn has no idea about the real world.

yes, you can get employment with PhD's, and yes you can get money when you are wronged either through settlements or the the courts.

go back to sleep ttbn.

From The New York Times:

" The world may never be able to assess whether
the high court's reasoning was sound."

"Legal experts say that the case made clear just how
much power judges in Australia have to suppress public
oversight and overrule jury verdicts raising questions
about whether the system adequately values citizen
participation at every stage critics argue."

" Australian courts exhibited a penchant for secrecy
and insular decision making that resembled the
Catholic Church's flawed and damaging responses to
sexual abuse within its ranks."

"The case has been a model of opaque operations,
starting with judges who dismissed related allegations
early on, followed by gag orders preventing media coverage
and a refusal to release evidence - even when a jury
verdict is dismissed as unreasonable."

http://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/07/world/australia/cardinal-pell-acquittal.html

Chris,

The French has a good term that describes ttbn: Resentement. We might simply call it sour grapes.

My apologies for my mistake.

Here's the link again:

http://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/07/world/australia/cardinal-george-pell-acquittal.html

Hi Foxy,

So ...... the New York Times is a higher legal authority in Australian legal affairs than the unanimous decisions of our High Court ?

Interesting point of view :)

Joe

For all his "higher education", the barely literate Chris Lewis continues to jumble up his letters: it's ttbn, Christopher, not tbbn. And, yes, I do know that you CAN extort money via the courts. I am saying it's wrong. It should not happen. Why you 'no understand da English'?

As for that other halfwit, Mr. Opinion, no, I am not "sour grapes" because I haven't been sexually assaulted and missed out on being paid for it.

These two characters are excellent examples of the failure of our education system.

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

The New York Times, just like a host of other
newspapers, journalists and commentators who
reported on Pell and like his supporters and
critics, and people here on OLO,
are merely expressing opinions. Opinions are
like butt holes - everyone has one. The difference
with the New York Times article is - that it
cites the opinions of legal experts and presents
facts not just opinions.

Talking about financial compensation regarding
sexual abuse victims.

It should be made quite clear that witness J in
the Pell case was not after money. He was put
through a brutal and horrendous interrogation
and very bravely did it for his friend who died.

His journey was a long one and he's relieved that
it's over. He's said that he respected and
accepted the court's decision and he thanked the
police for their work.

Witnesses who do come forward and testify are very
brave. It takes tremendous courage to do so.
Having to re-live the abuse, the stress of the
long and arduous legal process and the public
controversy - takes its toll.

Hi Foxy,

Yes, and (although I hate to say it about the NYT) more crap comes out of some butt-holes than others :)

Love,

Joe

ttbn, OLO's resident keyboard warrior and thug.

a conservative bully boy.

Loudmouth,

Someone should take you by the ear and wash your mouth out with soap.

Please don't bring your pub-speak onto The Forum and may I suggest in future you leave your vulgarity at home where it belongs.

Hi Joe (Loudmouth),

You said:

"...although I hate ti say it about NYT -
more crap comes out of some butholes than others."

You may hate to say it - but it isn't true about
the NYT. The paper's motto is "All the News that's
Fit to Print." It doesn't cover crap.

On the contrary the paper has world wide influence
and readership and the paper has won 127 Pulitzer
prizes (not small feat). More than any other
newspaper.

But to go back to your comment of "more crap comes out
of some butt holes than others."

Yes Joe, but it's really nothing a little soap and
hot water can't take care of.

Good Luck.

Thanks, Foxy :)

Joe

Dear Shadow Minister,

Why the hell are you being so churlish about this? You are wrong but can't bear the thought.

I put "The only doubt of guilt came from the testimony of 4 witnesses who were essentially asked to remember what occurred on a specific day over two decades ago without the imprint on their memories of a perderist priest thrusting his genitalia in their faces."

You claimed it was “patently untrue”.

Let's break it down. Given the judges categorically stated “A's evidence of the first incident did not contain discrepancies, or display inadequacies, of such a character as to require the jury to have entertained a doubt as to guilt." the it follows “The only doubt of guilt came from the testimony of 4 witnesses”.

Was the offence on a specific day over 2 decades ago? Yes.

Were the 4 witnesses asked whether there was any deviation from standard practice on that particular day? Yes.

Did they not have the 'disadvantage' of not having Pell's penis thrust in their faces? Yes.

So what is the issue with what I put?

The judges did not claim the other 4 witnesses evidence made the testimony of the victim improbable as you claim. There is a huge difference between probability and possibility. Their judgement said given the burden of proof was not met there was a "a significant possibility that an innocent person has been convicted because the evidence did not establish guilt to the requisite standard of proof". This in no way reflected on the victim's testimony because it could have been the most utterly believable testimony ever given in the history of Australia but while it remained uncorroborated and given the testimonies of the 4 opportunity witnesses, the judges would still have had to acquit.

So step up mate and tell me why you think differently. Don't just fire off a glib answer like you usually do.

so glad we believe all victims and especially all women. Obviously means Joe Biden is guilty of sexual harassment. Have not heard anything from Paul, Steelie or Foxy. Oh that's right hypocrisy comes with Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Dear Steele,

Francis Sullivan who's
executive chair of Mater Group Ltd and the former
chief executive of the Catholic church's truth,
justice and healing council, as well as the
previous Secretary-General of the Australian
Medical Association writes:

" Cardinal George Pell's acquittal was legally
the correct decision. His relief and that of his
family and many supporters will be palpable.
He - not the Catholic church - was on trial and
the high court has seen fit to ensure justice
was served."

However, Francis Sullivan also points out that:

"It is not possible to divorce the acquittal from
the broader context of the Catholic church's history
of child sexual abuse."

"With the matter concluded the Catholic bishops
should end their obsession with Pell
and take up their moral responsibility to the
victims of church perpetrators and those who
obfuscated and concealed on their behalf."

"Context is everything and perspective even more so.
The Catholic church has a shameful and confronting
history of the sexual abuse of children. The
royal commission made that clear."

"By 2017 nearly 5,000 people had made allegations of
abuse against church personnel. The largest number
for any single institution. Sadly those numbers have
likely grown by now."

We're told that:

"There was extraordinary evidence that some church
authorities expended far more money defending abusers
than compensating their victims."

"Often the compensation they received was a pittance."

"...For decades victims of the Catholic church have
chosen to settle outside the courts knowing that
the alternative was useless."

" Until the royal commission those settlements were
shrouded by confidentiality clauses designed to
conceal the details of abuse, the abuser, and the
money exchanged."

Sullivan tells us that restoring the image of the church
will only happen when the church's integrity becomes
linked with a just and compassionate treatment of
its victims. That means believing them. Walking with
them as they slowly restore their lives.

Hollow words and a pittance in compensation
don't mean much.

What does is placing the
welfare of the victims before the interests of the
institution and making genuine reforms such as changing
outdated practices.

runner,

As far as child sexual abuse by the Catholic church
is concerned the situation has only improved
because of the public scrutiny. The royal
commission heard that often victims were not believed
by the church. Rather they were interrogated by
lawyers and subjected to psychiatric assessments to
justify their claims.

Francis Sullivan has pointed out that:

"Sexual assaults on children usually occur in secret.
There are rarely any witnesses. This leads to their
claims being doubted as one word is pitted against
another. For decades therefore victims of the Catholic
church have chosen to settle outside the courts knowing
that the alternative was virtually useless."

" Until the royal commission those settlements were
shrouded by confidentiality clauses designed to conceal the
details of abuse, the abuser and money exchanged."

"There were extraordinary evidence that some church authorities
expended far more money defending abusers than compensating
victims."

As I stated earlier restoring the image of the church will
only become a reality when the church's integrity becomes
inextrically linked with a just and compassionate treatment
of the victims. That means believing them. Walking with
them as they slowly restore their lives.

Dear Foxy,

From your quote; "He - not the Catholic church - was on trial and
the high court has seen fit to ensure justice
was served."

I think this is patently untrue. A person learning of another victim's suicide felt compelled to come forward about the abuse he and the other victim suffered at the hands of Pell.

The High Court did not represent his testimony as anything other than sound, nor did they say the charges brought were in error.

The only way the case that this was all about the Church can be made is if all 12 jurors took the view that Pell represented the Church and decided to totally ignore a egregious miscarriage of justice to convict him.

Doesn't fly I'm afraid.

How is the Catholic clergy coping with social distancing? Not very well I suspect.

Even though Pell is a cardinal, he is still only a small fish in the large Catholic see. The outcome in his particular case, is when viewed in its proper context somewhat minor. Pell being a cardinal does make it more newsworthy than it otherwise would be. However in no way does the verdict absolve the Catholic Church from its responsibility, firstly to victims, and secondly to refocus its attitude and procedures to correct what still is an untenable situation within the organisation. The verdict in noway was a victory for the Catholic Church. It was a loss for victims, many will continue to have little faith in the justice system to deal with their unique issues. Over many years on the Forum I have been one of the consistent protagonists when it comes to paedophilia in the Catholic Church, and when the opportunity arises I will call it out again as it so richly deserves.

The following article deals with sexual harassment, but applies equally to paedophilia.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/the-compassion-chronicles/201711/why-dont-victims-sexual-harassment-come-forward-sooner

Steele,

"... A person learning of another victim's suicide felt compelled to come forward about the abuse he and the other victim suffered at the hands of Pell."

But the other told his mother that it didn't happen so the one who came forward either thinks that his friend lied to his mother or that his dead friend's mother is a liar.

Reasonable doubt.

Dear Steele,

Francis Sullivan said that the high court's decision
of Cardinal George Pell's acquittal was legally the
correct decision and that the high court had seen
fit to ensure that justice was served -Sullivan
was referring to the decision by invoking the core
principle of the criminal justice system - guilt must
be established "beyond reasonable doubt."

He was not approving of the decision. And he goes on
to talk about the church's responsibility to victims
of child sexual abuse with the hope that the Pell
trial may perhaps result in an acknowledgement by the
church that radical change from within is required.
One that hopefully will produce genuine reform.

.

Dear Shadow Minister,

.

You wrote :

« The issue with verdicts of not guilty vs innocent are a complete furphy as even when the defendant is proven innocent, the judgement is not guilty and given the presumption of innocence, the judgement of not guilty assumes this »
.

No, not “a complete furphy”, Shadow Minister. That is a sweeping statement that is not true in all cases. When the defendant is proven innocent without the slightest shadow of a doubt, it becomes indisputably clear to everyone. The situation is quite different when the prosecution simply cannot prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (as in the case of George Pell). Yet the defendants in both cases are equally declared “not guilty”.

While the George Pells of this world would have us believe that they too are innocent without the slightest shadow of a doubt – and the general public, in its large majority, takes this for granted – professional judges tend to be far more reserved in their attitude. Sex offenders are often repeat abusers. They are not very surprised when they see some of them back in their courts again.

A verdict of “not guilty” due to lack of evidence does not necessarily mean that the accused did not commit the crime. “Not guilty” does not necessarily mean “innocent”, despite popular belief to the contrary.

As I indicated in a previous post :

Pell’s trial is typical of most sex cases that boil down to “my word against yours”. The presumption of innocence combined with the adversarial system of justice assures quasi-legal impunity to the alleged offenders.

That does not qualify as justice. For it to be slightly more even-handed and still maintain the sacrosanct principle of presumption of innocence, either the adversarial system should be replaced by the inquisitorial system, or the right of the accused to remain silent should be abolished.

But, whatever the system, adversarial or inquisitorial, in my view, there should be no presumptions of innocence or guilt in cases involving vulnerable people (minors and the mentally and physically handicapped).

.

Banjo,

Guilt is defined as the state of having committed an offense, by extension, not guilty is the state of not having committed an offense. this is commonly known as innocence. You are trying to fabricate another state of "not innocent".

SR,

As I made clear in an earlier thread, a single involved witness without a single shred of corroborating evidence is seldom considered sufficient evidence for a conviction no matter how convincing a witness especially decades later. The charge against Shorten was prime example.

Foxy,

Appeal courts are reluctant to overturn juries except in extreme cases. Do you still believe that Bill Shorten is innocent when the evidence against him is similar in quality?

.

Dear Shadow Minister,

.

You wrote :

« Guilt is defined as the state of having committed an offence, by extension, not guilty is the state of not having committed an offence. this is commonly known as innocence. »
.

That’s correct, Shadow Minister. It is “commonly known as innocence”. That is the point I was making when I wrote :

« When the defendant is proven innocent without the slightest shadow of a doubt, it becomes indisputably clear to everyone. The situation is quite different when the prosecution simply cannot prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (as in the case of George Pell). Yet the defendants in both cases are equally declared “not guilty”.

« While the George Pells of this world would have us believe that they too are innocent without the slightest shadow of a doubt – and the general public, in its large majority, takes this for granted »

The general public take it for granted because they think that not guilty is “commonly known as innocence”.

Professional judges, however, do not. They make a distinction between those who are “not guilty” due to empirical evidence of innocence and those who are “not guilty” due to lack of empirical evidence of guilt.

As I indicated in my previous post, sex offenders are often repeat abusers. Judges are not surprised to see some of them back in their courts again – after having been found “not guilty” in a previous case due to lack of empirical evidence of guilt.

.

Despite the 7/7 judgement of the High Court, lunatics of the Left are never going to leave Cardinal George Pell alone. They will continue to hound him, commit acts of vandalism and talk ignorant rubbish. All encouraged by Dirty Dan the Dunny Can Man, and their Australian Bloody Communist (ABC) broadcaster, which is followed by a miserable one third of Australians at huge cost to all Australians.

Of the 20 or so charges brought against the Cardinal by the hillbilly Victorian police and prosecutors, not one has been successful. All of those people should be in the Centrelink queues now. DD the DC Man should see to that, then he should resign.

This debacle and serious miscarriage of justice is a other reason why Victoria should allow trial by judge alone, at least for highly emotional cases like child abuse allegations, where baying mobs and the ABC run amok, and 12 people who, as far as the law goes, don't know their arses from their elbows, decide whether or not a person is guilty.

ttbn,

I wouldn't trust a judge or magistrate as far as I could throw one?

Dear Shadow Minister,

You write; "As I made clear in an earlier thread, a single involved witness without a single shred of corroborating evidence is seldom considered sufficient evidence for a conviction no matter how convincing a witness especially decades later. The charge against Shorten was prime example."

And I think I have agreed in principle but that hardly leads directly to the conclusion the act never happened does it. In fact it makes the case that no matter how impressive the victim's evidence is it is unlikely to result in natural justice being served.

I think it was significant the second victim's life spiraled into a heroin addiction within a year of the attack ultimately costing him his life. I think despite his denial to his mum she was overwhelmed with a sense that something had happened is also significant.

I feel the gracious manner in which the victim has conducted himself throughout and the convincing way he gave his testimony all point to a believable person.

i think ttbn would prefer fascism. he loves elite opinion.

When all is said and done we can only hope that
the Pell trial may result in at least an
acknowledgement by the Church that radical change
from within is required.

Francis Sullivan, executive chair of Mater Group
Ltd and the former chief executive of the Catholic
Church's - truth justice and healing council and
the previous Secretary-General of the Australian Medical
Association pointed out that:

"is time for an investigation,
one that produces genuine reform.
One that demands changes to Canon law, doctrine and
practice characterised by accountability to and
an understanding of, the world outside the Church."

"If priests were allowed to marry,
modern attitudes to contraception, ordination of women,
and greater empowerment of the laity, are just some of the
things that would help the Church and its people move
forward."

"The Catholic Church has a shameful and confronting
history of the sexual abuse of children. The royal
commission made that clear."

"The situation has only improved because of the public
scrutiny. The findings of the royal commission indicated
that there was extra ordinary evidence that church
authorities expended far more money defending abusers than
compensating the victims."

"the image of the church will only become a
reality when the church's integrity becomes inextrically
linked with a just and compassionate treatment of its
victims. That means believing them. Walking with them
as they slowly restore their lives. It means placing
their welfare before the interests of the institution.
It also means changing practices - how the church governs
itself."

" Not lacking in elite support
A prince of the church had his day in court
Many wished the high prince well
Others wanted him to rot in hell

The accusations many decades go
Told by all those in the know
Although released, the doubt remains
For the ageing prince life's not the same

He's now worldwide - a familiar face
Living his last years out of place
A lesson lies when you're stained with taint
You'll never end your life a saint.

There's nothing more for us to say
Except to link our hands and pray
That the pope will see things in long-range
And ensure that victims aren't short-changed.

Paedophilia in the Catholic Church is a global social pandemic that has come to be known as CARDINAL-19 and these god-fearing people who have become infected by this Vatican virus have become known as PELL'S ANGELS. You can always identify a PELL'S ANGEL by fact that they are all dressed similarly in order to comply with a certain judge's criterion that they should be dressed for the occasion.

Mr Opinion I am recommending you to George Pell's defense barrister Robert Richter, that they take you to the Defamation court. You will not let up in your constant intention to defame.

http://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/defamation.html

Internet defamation refers to false or reputation-harming statements made on the Internet. It is a specific form of defamation, which is a cause of action available when an individual makes an express or implied claim about someone that is designed to produce a negative reaction. Jul 28 2019.

Foxy I suggest you start your own religion. Personally I left the Catholic church a long time ago for various reasons. It seems somewhat arrogant to want everything your own way. I am not going to join the Jehovah's witness and then tell them how they should run the show. No one is keeping people attached to the Catholic church by force as long as I know (at least not anymore). Personally I find the feminisation of the state school system disgusting and sending out all the wrong message. I chose to take my kids out. Most institutions that have pushed the feminist dogmas have either had to dumb entry standards down, lower physical requirements and have had the organisation adopt horribly woke causes. So many people who hate the Catholics wanting to tell them how to run their affairs.

Josephus,

"Mr Opinion I am recommending you to George Pell's defense barrister Robert Richter, that they take you to the Defamation court. You will not let up in your constant intention to defame."

Don't bother....he'd get off on the grounds of insanity.

_________________________________________________________________

Another interesting fact that I hadn't come across previously was that the complainant had a history of psychological problems that required treatment. The court forbade the defence from advising the jury of that. Whatismore, the court also forbade the defence from even looking into the nature of those psychological problems.

But somehow people still argue that the system is weighted against the accuser. Go figure!

Hi Foxy, so glad you are back, and contributing with your much needed positive remarks. Stick around, take it easy, let it all be water off a ducks back. Remember the Armadillo Principle.

Your degree of optimism shown above is encouraging, only if the Catholic Church would bend itself to a position of understanding of what is a sorry indictment of the whole Church, its clergy and its hierarchy. The Catholic Church needs to realise it response to paedophilia within has not just been inadequate, it has been criminal. The Churches methods of enlistment of clergy, and then given those peoples circumstance they are placed in by the Church, what is expected from those recruits when placed in a position of power and dominance in the community is not human, but unreasonable in the extreme. I am pessimistic about change, I see no substantive change within the organisation which would indicate that a new direction will be taken. Lots of platitudes, but little real resolve from the conservative old guard within for any meaningful change, and that includes the Pope himself.

One thing that the Pell saga tells us, is don't upset the homosexual lobby.

Is Mise

'One thing that the Pell saga tells us, is don't upset the homosexual lobby.'

I think that is what upset the Victorian Judicial system more than any child abuse. I mean they sanction murdering babies if they are covered by skin. Inconvenient truth.

Hi Paul,

Thank You for your comments of encouragement.

As we know the Pell case had a set of unique and complex
circumstances.

Even overseas newspapers pointed out that -
This case has been a model of opaque
operations, starting with judges who dismissed related
allegations early on, followed by gag orders preventing
media coverage and a refusal to release evidence.
The courts exhibited a penchant for secrecy and insular
decision making that resembled the Catholic church's
flawed and damaging response to sexual abuse within its
ranks.

Anyway, what the future holds is unclear.

I'm hoping for reforms from my church. I'm hoping that
the church will confront the difficulties and the
opportunities that it now faces. It's now up to the Vatican
on what it does next.

I agree with what Banjo Paterson has written in his posts.
He's put it so well on what needs to now be done.

It's been an interesting discussion.

But as Joe (Loudmouth) stated - perhaps it is time to
move on.

Take care and stay safe.

Josephus,

Only statements of fact can be libel.

Jokes, opinions, and even statements that an
author mistakenly believes to be true are
protected. It's tough to prove a libel claim.

Dear Foxy,

I could get mhaze to defend me and get me off on the grounds of insanity plus I don't think there is a jury in Australia that would find me guilty. I don't think there would be too many citizens serving as jurors who would side with the judiciary on any matters related to Pell; I think Australia's judges have really put themselves against society after they are perceived to have orchestrated the acquittal of Pell.

But apart from that Pell could avenge his 'good' name by putting a medieval spell on me and get his buddy Il Papa to excommunicate me or have me burned at the stake or whatever it is those sort of people like doing to other people. That'll be alright by me just as long as I'm dressed for the occasion.

Foxy's. Steelies, Mr O and Pauls pile on an innocent man says far more about their characters then Pell. Their hatred, lies and misrepresenting is consistent with the abc.

.

Pell’s legal battles are not yet over.

The deceased choir boy’s father’s lawyer has confirmed that his client’s claim in the civil court against the Catholic Church will now go ahead on the basis that it was the [alleged] sexual abuse his son suffered from George Pell that resulted in his son’s drug addiction and death by overdose.

His lawyer emphasized that the civil case is not reliant or dependent on the outcome of the criminal case.

The major difference is that the standard of proof required for conviction in a civil case is “on the balance of probabilities” (more than 50% certainty), whereas in a criminal case the standard of proof required is “beyond reasonable doubt” (at least 95% certainty).

It will be interesting to see the outcome of the civil case :

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/survivors-in-shock-after-high-court-quashes-george-pell-s-sexual-abuse-convictions
.

In the meantime, Pope Francis tweeted (on 7 April 202) :

« In these days of #Lent, we've been witnessing the persecution that Jesus underwent and how He was judged ferociously, even though He was innocent. Let us #PrayTogether today for all those persons who suffer due to an unjust sentence because of someone had it in for them. »

The Holy See issued the following statement :

« The Holy See, which has always expressed confidence in the Australian judicial authority, welcomes the High Court’s unanimous decision concerning Cardinal George Pell, acquitting him of the accusations of abuse of minors and overturning his sentence.

« Entrusting his case to the court’s justice, Cardinal Pell has always maintained his innocence, and has waited for the truth to be ascertained.

« At the same time, the Holy See reaffirms its commitment to preventing and pursuing all cases of abuse against minors. »

Neither the Pope nor the Holy See could have ignored that the deceased choir boy’s father had already instigated the civil court action when they published their declarations.
.

And the moral of the story according to the bible is :

Isaiah 57:21 New King James Version (NKJV) :

“There is no peace,”
Says my God, “for the wicked.”

.

There really is some ignorant garbage spouted by posters. Only 3% of Catholic priests have been found to have been in involved in child abuse. The claim that "Paedophilia in the Catholic Church is a global social pandemic …. " Is the biggest garbage of the lot. Despite what Josephus suggests, the idiot who said this is unlikely to be done for defamation because the idiot is anonymous, and the Catholic church is highly unlikely to want to waste time on an idiot anyway; it is far above such juvenile nonsense.

If the idiot could be identified, and the Catholic church was so minded, he could be sued for defamation, and he would be found guilty because he has made an untrue statement. Only if a claim is true and can be proven to be true, can the person making the claim be safe from defamation proceedings.

Unlike professional journalists and the media, who can be readily identified - and sued - there is nothing stopping posters on social media saying what they like. This fact comes up regularly in the media, often driven by lawyers and, if certain idiots are not more circumspect, it would not be surprising to see a crackdown, or even the total loss of a valuable outlet for ordinary people to express their views.

It would be good to hear what Graham Young has to say about this.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

What happens next remains unclear.
Pell's position as Vatican treasurer was filled in
his absence putting him effectively in retirement.

Archbishop of Melbourne Peter Comensoli said he hoped
people would consider the high court judgement and see
the decision in its legal context but he expects people
will keep their original positions about the cardinal.

Certainly we can expect that victims and survivors
and their families will find it hard to face the
fact that there were people who moved predators across
parishes.

I agree that despite Pell's criminal conviction being
overturned Pell's legal tests may not yet be over.
Further civil cases may be brought against dioceses
of Ballarat and Melbourne and Pell could be a witness
to those cases. If those battles ensue they will
ensure that Pell's life will not be a peaceful one.

"No rest for the wicked" as the old adage says.

Perhaps it would have been better if the Church
would have followed a different direction rich
in human and spiritual tradition:

"I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd is one who
lays down his life for his sheep." (John 10,11).

runner,

For a self-proclaimed Christian why do you
see hatred everywhere?

Your constant attacks on people reflect a
troubled soul.

Seeking counselling might clear your irrational
thoughts. Your mind affects your health and that
is not good and we are all concerned for you.

Take care and stay safe.

SR,

I think that you are confusing "natural justice" with mob rule. In English law, natural justice is technical terminology for the rule against bias and the right to a fair hearing.

The problem with jury trials is ensuring that 12 people free of prejudice are selected. Given the vast coverage of the Catholic church's involvement in child abuse, the chances of selecting 12 people with no preconceived ideas was close to zero.

Given that you accept my principle of the single involved witness, then you should have no doubt as to the correct outcome of the trial as opposed to the one you would have preferred.

While I also hope for radical changes in the Catholic church, I also hope for similar changes in the Victorian justice system, where prosecutions seem to have a political bias.

.

Dear Foxy,

.

You wrote :

« Perhaps it would have been better if the Church
would have followed a different direction rich
in human and spiritual tradition:

"I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd is one who
lays down his life for his sheep." (John 10,11). »
.

That takes me back to my childhood, Foxy. I never understood why anyone could possibly like that idea. I instinctively rejected it. It aroused a diffuse feeling of discomfort and revolt in me.

I felt that the gregarious metaphor of treating people like sheep was highly despicable. I did not see myself as a lamb in a flock of sheep, led by some priest as though I was incapable of personal thought and reason, finding my own way in life. Just the suggestion seemed like an insult to me.

And who was this priest, bishop or archbishop with his pastoral staff elevating himself to some superior rank, above all others ? What justified his pretention of superiority ? What made him think he was not a sheep himself ? I wondered if he might be a goat or maybe a “big bad wolf”.

Why did he want me to renounce my humanity and act like a lamb, to retrograde myself to the level of an animal, instead of progressing to some higher form ?

As a child I thought as a child and it’s a thought that continues to haunt me whenever it’s evoked.

The child must still be there, somewhere, I guess.

.

Woe is me!

One little parody of the universal church and the peasants with the pitchforks want to burn me at the stake.

Hypocrites! In the eyes of Josephus and others of his irk it seems to be alright for the Catholic clergy to abuse children but anathema for anyone to confront this practice.

"Mr Opinion goes to Hell, Heaven is for Pell" seems to be today's catchcry of the devout Catholics who believe in a clergy that cannot do wrong

Meanwhile in Indigeneous communities child abuse is rampart. You would never know as your abc is more intent on justifying its witch hunt that proved totally false. What a despicable bunch.

More libel from the idiot. The Catholic clergy DOES NOT abuse children. Only tiny minority of priests have been found guilty of the crime. None recently.

Dear ttbn,

You just contradicted yourself. You should try applying logic to your statements before posting them.

Facts are not illogical, Mr. Idiot. The vast majority of Catholic clergy are not child abusers. The more you post, the more shonky your claimed educational standards look. Any common garden coward can talk bullshite and tell lies anonymously. You get top marks for that.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

My father was raised by Jesuits. He attended a
seminary in his youth. Our family connections
were strongly linked to two priests and two
monsignors. Dad gave up the priesthood when he
met and married mum. However, he never forced
religion onto me. I was a believer on my own.
It gave me a sense of security and calm.

I did not look at things from the perspective
you mentioned. I simply took for granted that
priests were holy people and could be trusted.
That was then.

I look at things somewhat differently now.
However, I still feel that the role of a priest
is to protect not abuse. And I have hope in my
heart that the Church will make their seminaries
places where they prepare young men to be priests
where the ideals of priestly ministry are nurtured,
not just philosophical and theological study, but
in human virtues, social graces, and spiritual
values rich in human and spiritual tradition.

I don't think that the quote I cited was intended
as you interpreted it. I think it was meant to be
understood in a loving manner.

"The deceased choir boy’s father’s lawyer has confirmed that his client’s claim in the civil court against the Catholic Church will now go ahead on the basis that it was the [alleged] sexual abuse his son suffered from George Pell that resulted in his son’s drug addiction and death by overdose."

That should be an interesting case. The boy in question, now deceased, told his own mother that nothing had happened and that he hadn't been abused by Pell.

So the court case is going to involve the father asserting that his own son lied. Good luck with that one. The case will last about 15 minutes....and that's only because it'll take the judge 10 minutes to stop laughing.

But people want Pell punished and they'll continue to fantasise about how that can happen.

Dear mhaze,

Yes it should be good as evidence from other of Pell's victims can be aired as well as the redacted Royal Commission testimony. I look forward to having this brought out in the open. Hopefully the parents get the justice they deserve.

The father of one of the choirboys believes his
son suffered post-traumatic stress disorder
because he had been abused. That's why he turned
to drugs. Apparently it is very common for
survivors of sexual abuse to turn to drugs as a
way to block out the abuse.

The son died of an accidental heroin overdose in
2014, aged 30. He never spoke to his parents about
being abused. But his father believes that was
the reason his son turned to drugs.

It will be interesting to see how this case will
go in court and what legal principles will apply in
civil cases.

We all know that survivors of abuse need to be
shown that it doesn't matter how important an
abuser is, they can still be held to account.
Survivors need to feel that they will be
believed and listened to. The more we start
talking about this, the safer kids will be.

At the same time - these cases are complex and
anything can happen. We'll have to wait and see
in the matter of this civil case. Either way,
I doubt if anybody will be laughing, most of all
Cardinal Pell.

Foxy, Can you see the discrepancies in these events:

The son died of an accidental heroin overdose in
2014, aged 30. He never spoke to his parents about
being abused. But his father believes that was
the reason his son turned to drugs.

How does his father Know, and how can he conclude?
He has not got evidence!

Josephus,

Maybe God told him about it.

"The deceased choir boy’s father’s lawyer has confirmed that his client’s claim in the civil court against the Catholic Church will now go ahead on the basis that it was the [alleged] sexual abuse his son suffered from George Pell that resulted in his son’s drug addiction and death by overdose."

That would be the most ridiculous insult against our divine gift of free will.

Even if the alleged rapes occurred as claimed, nothing in the world can cause anyone to willingly abuse their own body with drugs and alcohol. Further, no allegation was ever made as if drugs or alcohol were physically shoved down the victims' throat.

Despite suffering far more horrendous tortures, for years, not just minutes, hardly any holocaust survivor (including children) or those freed from Stalin's Goulags or Pol-Pot's camps, became an alcoholic or a drug addict.

The only possible reason for the boy's drug addiction and eventual death was his own poor character and misapplication of his own intellect. Further, according to the same allegations, the "victims" were in the sacristy to begin with in order to steal wine. Rape or no rape, their character has always been wanting!

I suppose we have to have one idiot!

Yuyutsu, Totally agree. A single sexual abuse does not lead to drug abuse and alcoholism.

Josephus,

When you say "I suppose we have to have one idiot!" are you referring to me or God?

Dear Yuyutsu,

What utter dismissive tripe mate.

This was from evidence at the Royal Commission.

“From the witness box Philip Nagle held the black-and-white picture aloft – his grade-four photo from St Alipius Primary School in 1974.
There were rows of boys in uniform, the taller ones smiling and standing up the back, the little ones seated and cross-legged at the front.

They should all be middle-aged by now, like Philip Nagle, 50. But instead, a third of the boys in the image are dead, believed by suicide. “

And

“Andrew Collins, 46, was abused between the ages of seven and 14 by four different men in Ballarat, and is now a spokesman for the Ballarat and District Survivors Group who seek redress and openness.
Mr Collins said his group mostly struggled with poor relationships and substance abuse, receiving help only in emergencies as they "lurch from one crisis to the next".

Ten members of his group have killed themselves in the past 12 months.

"It's a living hell."

Mr Collins himself had a breakdown a decade ago, and still suffers from depression and PTSD. Some days getting out of bed is all he can do – or can't.”

http://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/suicide-common-among-clergy-sex-abuse-victims-in-ballarat-20150519-gh535a.html

Every single teacher at the St Alipius Primary School in 1974 was abusing children.

You are belittling the victims deaths, claiming it to be moral failings on their behalf. That is terrible and disgusting blame shifting. I didn't really pick you as one of the loathsome apologists that slink around OLO. Please reflect on what you have said.

- rates of abuse still continue at massive rates in Indigeneous
- despite lies from abc and Victorian Police advertising for victims no solid proof presented
- even left leaning High Court 7 nil saying innocent man gaoled for over 400 days

yep the haters and liars dig in. Just love to believe their own lies while trying convince everyone that they are the virtuous ones who care for victims while demonstrating they could not care less about truth or justice. Keep it up guys!

runner,

Everyone knows what you are trying to do.

We know that paedophilia extends beyond the Catholic clergy but we don't need you trying to draw our attention away from the crimes committed by the Catholic clergy and get us to focus our attention onto another group in order to take the heat off the Pells Angels.

And the shameful part of what you are doing is that the group you want people to focus on is one of the most victimised groups that history has ever recorded. How can you live with yourself? Is protecting paedophile priests so important to you that you are willing to sacrifice your own humanity? SHAME ON YOU!