George Pell has been aquitted

Or if you have powerful friends and don't get desired outcome by jury.

There are more of Pell's victims coming forward now, hopefully he will be back in jail in the future.

 

Are you saying the full bench of the High Court is corrupt?

 

Exactly!

But no such direction was given, so the first judge was obviously okay with the evidence and allowed the jury to make a finding, as did the Appeal judges, but then along comes a new cast of justices which inevitably has their own opinion.

An example: we toss a coin, I say it is heads, you say it is tails. 12 witnesses agree it is tails, but 7 lawyers enter the ring and say we never saw the toss so it is reasonable to assume in all probability it wasnt heads ........

I have said all I am going to say on the subject.

 

In this case that was a matter of very nuanced interpretation, which is why it ended up in the high court, and the supreme court agreed with the jury. That and the money to back up the substantial legal fees.

 

If only the world were that black and white.

Do you believe, Bob the janitor from Frankston, would have been acquitted under the same circumstances?

 

I don't think Bob would have been charged in the first place. Or the charges dropped before trial.

If anything the fact that Pell was senior church figure probably influenced the police and other authorities towards pressing the prosecution more than if it was just a random.

 

History has shown the opposite to be true, over and over again. But bless ya, the world needs believers.

 

You can make that argument both ways. You may say that he's a person in a position of power and that gives him influence in the courtroom.

It's also not too hard to find people who are anti-Catholic, anti-religion, anti-establishment. I dare say some of them are quite zealot-like in the way they go about this.

 

Without seeing any/all of the evidence, people (including me) believed Lindy Chamberlain was guilty.

But her convictions was quashed.

Without seeing any/all of the evidence, people believe George Pell is guilty.

His conviction is quashed.

I don’t personally know but I am prepared to trust our legal system.

Does it get it right 100% of the time? Probably not.

Has it convicted innocent people? Probably yes.

Has it left off guilty people? Probably yes.

It is run by humans and most of us are NOT infallible (except some PC posters ).

BTW:- I spent 5 years at an all-boy Catholic boarding school (late 1960’s to early 1970’s). Allegedly, our school had a priest “who loved young boys”. One night, after performing a misdemeanour, I was told to get into my PJs and wait out his room to receive my punishment (after waiting until midnight, I went to my bed).

What the Catholic Church did to children around the world is horrific!!!

Sending an innocent person to jail is horrific!!!

I am prepared to trust the Australian legal system (even though it is run by humans).

 

Do you think this was the case with John Jarratt as well?

 

I have visited St Patrick’s in Melbourne.

The layout of the whole cathedral made it clear to me that the chance of things occurring exactly as alleged was extremely unlikely, if not impossible.

Obviously, memories can be unreliable after many years. Or after trauma. There were inconsistencies in Joanna Lees’ testimony after the Peter Falconio disappearance yet her evidence was sufficient for a conviction.

I do not disbelieve the complainant. Clearly he suffered abuse even if his memory of exact days and times was not definite enough in this instance.

 

I think putting Pell on trial straight after Me Too and RC into Child Abuse meant that he was going to get a Trial By Media. As long as we have confessions by priests in the archives (see ABC TV, for example, if a link to Pell is relevant. I wont be watching the series myself) he can be charged for other crimes more likely to progress through the legal system. I totally agree that there was reasonable doubt given my own experience. "Do you want us to press charges?" "No, criminals don't usually hand their victims any photos or evidence".

 

Not really.

This has always been the reality for many women in rape cases.

 

Seems to be how this case happened. Lots of money, the best barristers. Appeal after appeal. Especially in a case where one persons account vs another's and no witnesses. Prosecution team was not the best getting around either.

 

A good summary below. Just because someone is honest or reliable, doesn't mean that their memory can't fail them, especially after 30 years!

The Jury finding that Pell was guilty "beyond reasonable doubt" is just simply illogical.
Also, there was plenty of other witnesses that sided with Pell.

"Importantly, the High Court did not suggest that the witness was dishonest or unreliable.

Rather, it is the case that in criminal proceedings the prosecution has to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt and it is difficult to reach this threshold when there is evidence suggesting that the complainant's evidence may not be plausible given objective constraints associated with the narrative.
"

George Pell's successful appeal hinged on a tricky legal question

 

He's far from the only person to come forward about being molested by Pell. Two more last week:

Two new accusers say George Pell abused them when they were boys

 

I grew up in Ballarat in the 70s & 80s. My family regularly attended Catholic mass at the cathedral and another churches. The allegations of some priests and monks were an open secret. My parents refused to let their sons be altar boys as a result. Everyone knew.

What's interesting is there's been blame placed on the priests, the church, the police and other authorities who either participated, did nothing or covered it up. Yet I haven't heard any criticism of the parents that allowed their children to be placed in harms way. I can't imagine that they hadn't heard the gossip.

On the other hand I also recall the attitudes of the time. For many the church was beyond question. You might know about it, you might even see it first hand, but they were the authority figure and you didn't speak out against it. In essence people simply refused to believe that it was even happening, even though they knew it was happening.

Frankly I don't really think anything has changed. Humans still refuse to acknowledge the mistakes of their past. Today some or our world leaders are trying to handle the CV-19 crisis. History will judge those who did well and those who were incompetent. I doubt the later or their supporters will ever recognise this or apologise for it.

 

Why do we give massive, freaken massive, tax breaks to these institutions?