PELL

[skippydiesel]

Pell has not been found innocent. The law requires that to be found guilty, there must be no doubt - the doubt existed - he walked but he will never be free.

There is no doubt in my mind that Pell, as a senior figure in the Australian Catholic Church, is complicit in the protection of paedophiles and the "cover up" of a thriving culture of sexual abuse within his church

Personally guilty of child sex abuse ? quite possibly but too much time has elapsed for a convincing (doubt free) verdict.

As happens all to often the senior people go free, while the offending foot soldier gets the chop. Examples;

• In the Malka Leifer case, how many of the senior members of the synagogue, who facilitated her sudden departure from Australia & avoidance of the law, have been charged with aiding a suspected criminal?
  
• The proven paedophile culture within a host of churches & allied organisations, has not seen much in the way of senior administrators having their day in court.
  

[old man emu]

But the judicial system requires proof. Beyond all reasonable doubt', doesn't it!

 

No. Pete. It is "beyond reasonable doubt". The word "all" is not included.

 

Guided by the High Court’s decision in Green v R (1971) 126 CLR 28 The only guidance provided by the Court as to the meaning of the phrase in that Case was: A reasonable doubt is a doubt which the particular jury entertain in the circumstances. Jurymen themselves set the standard of what is reasonable in the circumstances. Clearly, not every doubt is reasonable. In our system, the prosecution is not required to prove the guilt of the accused “beyond any possible doubt”.

 

In the Pell case, if the information contained in the material that the Judge disallowed, but was otherwise made public, I'm sure that the jury would have acknowledge that there was a reasonable doubt that the actions could have occurred, and returned a "Not Guilty" verdict.

 

We have to be careful when discussing this particular trial, that Pell's alleged actions at other times and in other places, do not bias the interpretation of the evidence relating only to the allegations in the indictment.

 

He's still a greasy rock spider.

[onetrack]

The problem with child sexual abuse is that it is one of the most difficult to prove - and the perpetrators of that abuse, use their superior positions of power, age and accumulated knowledge, to try and ensure they don't get caught.

 

I have been around religious groups, churches, pastors and priests, for long enough, to know that child sexual abuse exists at serious levels, within all religions.

Remember that these types of people know full well, the innocence and natural curiosity of children - and how easily they can be manipulated.

 

In virtually all cases, the child blames itself for the abuse, never says anything for years and years, or sometimes even decades - and in many cases, turns to drugs or alcohol - then crime - and then becomes an "unreliable witness".

And of course, many of these abused children ended up committing suicide - a convenient escape for the perpetrator.

 

I have numerous friends and associates who have been abused by priests and pastors. There are many notorious "religious schools/farms" in this State (W.A.) that have been proven to be hotbeds of pedophilia for over 100 years.

Katanning, Bindoon, Kalgoorlie, Tardun, Geraldton, Albany, Pinjarra - all have religious schools or farms where children were sexually abused. Many were found out, many were not.

I have friends who went to these schools, carrying a stick to bed, to bash the wandering hands of priests and other "leaders", when in their beds at night.

 

I worked with a bloke near Norseman around 1975, who told me how one particular priest blatantly fondled 9 yr old boys in the schoolyard in broad daylight, at an RC school in Kalgoorlie.

His anger and disbelief was palpable, and I have little reason to doubt, he was abused as well.

My wifes father was a Police Superintendent in his day, and she has told me how he had to arrest one parent, who had beaten the crap out of a priest in Northam, for sexual abuse of his son.

 

These perpetrators often have powerful friends in high places, who believe the perpetrators can do no wrong, such is their exalted positions within the organisations. So they gain "hidden" protection.

They utilise clubs and organisations and other powerful groups, to curry favour with important and powerful people. Many of those important and powerful people are hoodwinked, some are pedos as well.

 

This abuse has to be rooted out by education of children, and warnings about unwanted touching of private parts - there is little benefit in people relating stories of abuse they have covered up in shame, for 30 or 40 years.

[Mike Gearon]

I have great admiration for Jon Faine. Everything below is written far better than I could. I’m in complete agreement.

 

 

This article is from the April 8 issue of The Age Digital Edition. To subscribe, visit The Age Newspaper Replica /> <meta name=.

 

Jon Faine

No one in Australia has ever spent so much money trying to undo the sworn evidence of a single witness.

 

The High Court decision to allow the appeal of Cardinal George Pell will send shivers through the entire Australian criminal justice system. Their Honours have given hope to anyone who has been convicted by a jury. They have effectively said that doubt can be entertained even when the principal witness in court is unshaken in their testimony.

 

The scales of justice are being re-calibrated . The balance has shifted. Trials will be different and appeals as well. It has never before been the role of an Appeal Court to substitute their view for the jurors. Now it is.

 

No one in Australia has ever spent so much money trying to undo the sworn evidence of a single witness. Millions of dollars were invested – no stone left unturned. Legions of lawyers, researchers and investigators trawled through every possible source to discredit one man telling what he alleges happened all those years ago. But in the end, none of that investigatory effort into the complainant was what made the difference. Instead, it was the evidence of witnesses on the periphery that swung the case.

 

The overwhelming majority of criminal trials before our courts are funded by legal aid. In every trial, pragmatic corners are cut, compromises are made. Not every point can be pursued, not every possible doubt explored. Now, with Pell’s case, we can all see what can happen when you do have the money, the backing to chase every possible angle.

 

The police relied upon one witness who was stress-tested multiple times even before charges were laid. Then his version was checked again by multiple prosecutors. Then he was crossexamined at committal by the best in the business, Robert Richter, QC, and emerged unshaken. That gruelling process was repeated at trial. His evidence was still unshaken. The jury believed him.

 

But now the High Court judges say that is not enough. Other witnesses who gave evidence that they thought the Cardinal would not have had the opportunity to commit the lewd acts ought to have been taken into account, even though they could not give a first hand account or provide personal evidence of what happened to those boys on that day.

 

Bizarre. One witness swears on oath: this is what happened to me at this place on this day. Other witnesses say: I do not know what happened on that day but that is not what usually happens – and that creates a doubt and voids the conviction. Compounding improbabilities become ‘‘ reasonable doubt’’ .

 

It has taken decades to get the legal system to address how deeply it was failing victims of historic sex abuse. Profound changes have been engineered, taking great care to maintain the rights of an accused but also to confront the shocking scourge of clergy abuse and the silence and cover-ups that go with it.

 

The lawyerly response will now be to counsel clients to go down the compensation path and avoid the trauma and emotional turmoil involved in a criminal trial, especially one that is less likely to secure a conviction.

 

Like it or not, it was not just the Cardinal who was on trial. The jury system and the Victorian courts have been on trial as well. They have not emerged well. The High Court has raised its eyebrows at Victoria. The Lawyer X/Nicola Gobbo scandal has brought the Victorian legal system into disrepute – mostly because of the actions of Victoria Police but it has reflected also upon the Director of Public Prosecutions and the courts. Reputations have been shredded. The clubby and cliquey world of the criminal bar has been left scandalised. Their Honours in Canberra think the Victorians need a reality check.

 

While George Pell can sleep in a different bed tonight – and presumably in COVID-19 selfisolation for two weeks – he will never recover his standing or reputation.

 

His imperious combative manner and arrogant display at the Victorian State Parliamentary Inquiry that predated the Gillard royal commission came to embody the Church’s sense of entitlement and privilege. His undisciplined annoyance and quick temper at being held to account made it imperative he not give sworn evidence at trial.

 

The trial Judge, Peter Kidd, in sentencing Pell reminded us all that the Cardinal was not on trial for the collective sins of the Church, but only for those specific matters that were presented in evidence. That is true for a court of law. It is not at all true in the court of public opinion.

 

As the dust settles, the until-now secret sections of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse that were withheld until Pell had exhausted his appeal rights can and must be made public.

 

The Attorney-General , Christian Porter, can now let us read material that has not seen the light of day.

 

This throws into question how future criminal trials relating to accusations of historic sexual abuse will be conducted.

 

And Malka Leifer’s lawyers will be watching with great interest.

 

Jon Faine is a former presenter on ABC 774.

 

 

Copyright © 2020 The Age

[Yenn]

I just wonder about the original court case. Was it prepared by the prosecution properly. We know that a large part of the population are catholic and that they do not want to se their religion brought into disrepute. Could it have been possible that the case was brought to court with the intention that if it got up, there would be grounds for throwing it out later. The same case cannot be tried a second time and a non conviction is as good as a not guilty.

[old man emu]

Who knows? But there may be enough anti-Catholics in the DPP to want to grasp the chance to wring Catholic necks. Convicting a Prince of the Church would be a big feather in someone's cap.

 

It would be good to read the arguments relating to the time and motion analysis of Pell's getting from the steps of the cathedral to the sacristy and carrying out the alleged acts. If the Court is the seeker of truth, then that analysis should have been put before the jury. It was their duty to weigh its value.

[skippydiesel]

................................................. We know that a large part of the population are catholic and that they do not want to se their religion brought into disrepute. ..............................................

 

I must have missed something - is this statement just a little too late. As I heard one commentator say today, if this was any other large international business (eg Microsoft) with its history and behaviour (right up to the Popes latest arrogant communique) it would not be allowed to operate within Australia.

 

What I find astonishing, after all the revelations and the lack of any real accountability by senior management, is that there are so many people who still call themselves Catholic and follow the ridiculous mumbo jumbo espoused by this criminal cult.

[Mike Gearon]

I must have missed something - is this statement just a little too late. As I heard one commentator say today, if this was any other large international business (eg Microsoft) with its history and behaviour (right up to the Popes latest arrogant communique) it would not be allowed to operate within Australia.

 

What I find astonishing, after all the revelations and the lack of any real accountability by senior management, is that there are so many people who still call themselves Catholic and follow the ridiculous mumbo jumbo espoused by this criminal cult.

2 things here.

 

1. I’m very happy for people to take comfort in their religion and God of choice. I have family members I’d never discuss religion with.

 

2. On a personal level...

 

. It has defied my sense of logic and common sense since about 15 y.o. that there can be so many God’s and so many religions that all claim to be the true one.

I still don’t understand this and have a deep suspicion people simply want to fit in with their social group. Then again the religious bits light up when you put deeply religious people in an MRI and show them religious items. Maybe it’s tribal and devotion to the tribal chief somehow distorted into devotion to a mystical being. Maybe in the physics double slit experiment the second electron coming from seemingly nowwhere and behaving oddly when observed (Schrodinger’s cat ) is Gods gotcha moment and I’ll be sent with Pell to the other place.

 

. I attended a catholic funeral a few years ago and was shocked that there were men in frocks and black shoes performing rituals dating back from centuries ago. Growing up I never noticed this. I’m sure there are good men in the Catholic Church same as good people everywhere. If I see the dog collar I tend to go straight to disgust. I’m unfairly judging them all based on the horrific sins of what we hope are the few. I wish I could do better. I find them collectively upsetting. Maybe it’s the Christian brothers fault. Little f%$#rs.

[red750]

Everyone is asking how he managed to travel interstate while there are supposed to be locked borders and travel restrictions. What I want to know is how TV crews were able to tail him and film him at a Glenrowan petrol station. They don't have many TV crews resident in Glenrowan.

[facthunter]

I doubt there's any particular anti catholic power base in Vic Police. In most police forces here in the past, if any, It's been the opposite .Senior and powerful entities in the Catholic clergy NOW want the Vic Police investigated. I've been a bit of a fan of the current POPE until the other day when the true colours emerged. I think they should lay low and count their blessings as they have a terminal disease in their ranks they just MUST deal with. To cry and demand pity for having these "nasty victims who come after me" and ruin my reputation and lifestyle when collectively they have had their lives ruined without any sense of care, responsibility or redress is hypocrisy. How can they believe in God who knows all things and be so deceptive and unrepentant.? Where their personal welfare and the good of the Church is concerned it comes first, Last and always as it always has and always will. Heavens gate keepers are in it for themselves. Nev

[Yenn]

Further accusations have been made about Pell. I wonder if they will be pursued. The catholic church has vast amounts of money, to use to denigrate people who bring up what they don't like, or to look for dirt to throw.

Now that Pell has been found innocent, there remains the people who brought the case up. They must have been lying, will they be charged with perjury. maybe it will be like Alan Bond and Joh Bejelke Peterson.

Alan Bond was convicted of bribing Joh. But Joh was never convicted of being bribed. It just got too difficult for the lawyers.

[skippydiesel]

Nev how can you be a fan of anyone who believes that they speak to an unseen god and then that god then speaks back to and through them, to the great unwashed.

 

ALL holy-men/women are unhinged period! No exceptions! Yes a few do good and those deeds can be respected/admired/supported but not the insane spring from which they claim their inspiration comes. They are nutters as simple as that.

 

I am not against personal faith & respect the very few who not only have it but actually live/practice it.

 

I can not abide organised religion and the people who administer/promote it. Time and time again, throughout history, they have been shown to be the very evil they claim to appose.

 

I am against all state supported religious organisations (including schools). I defend the right of those that wish to set up/support a religious organisation (cult) or school but to have any relationship between the state & religion is anathema to me.

 

That Australia still has special tax/financial/legal provisions for the religious is an insult to me and just demonstrates the venality of our leaders in courting votes wherever they may be found.

 

Rant over - I feel better now, even a bit spiritual

[skippydiesel]

Yenn - I doubt very much that Pell has been found innocent. Having charges dismissed/found unsustainable is not the same as being found innocent, no matter the Papal propaganda.

[facthunter]

He is "acquitted" of the original charges with no further legal process available to change the verdict. He wasn't found to have committed any crime "beyond reasonable Doubt". Nev

[skippydiesel]

He is "acquitted" of the original charges with no further legal process available to change the verdict. He wasn't found to have committed any crime "beyond reasonable Doubt". Nev

 

Exactly! in other words there was insufficient/strength of evidence to prove he committed the crime he was accused of - this is far from being exonerated/declared innocent. This is a technical acquittal not a deceleration of innocents or false accusation - this will hang over Pell's head for the rest of his miserable life.

[red750]

There are good and bad in any group - good cops and bad cops, good plumbers and bad plumbers, and good priests and bad priests. I have been lucky - I have only met good priests.

 

I was baptised Presbyterian. My wife is Catholic and we were married in the Catholic Church by the parish priest and my mother's step-brother who was a Methodist minister. Our kids went to a Catholic school, and the parish priest invited me to join a committee, even though I was not Catholic. I decided to convert to the Catholic faith, more for the sake of the kids than anything else.

 

When our parish priest retired, he was replaced with one of the nicest people I have met, who did a tremendous amount for the parish, and for me personally. He invited me onto the parish finance committee. When I was retrenched from the bank, he created work for me in the parish and paid me a wage to support the family. He then referred me to a businessman who was looking for an office manager and I got the job.

 

When he was promoted to run a large parish in a regional city, and my work situation changed again after my employer was bough out, I drifted away and haven't been inside a church for over 10 years. I still attend and work at the parish fete.

[skippydiesel]

There are good and bad in any group - good cops and bad cops, good plumbers and bad plumbers, and good priests and bad priests. I have been lucky - I have only met good priests.

 

I was baptised Presbyterian. My wife is Catholic and we were married in the Catholic Church by the parish priest and my mother's step-brother who was a Methodist minister. Our kids went to a Catholic school, and the parish priest invited me to join a committee, even though I was not Catholic. I decided to convert to the Catholic faith, more for the sake of the kids than anything else.

 

When our parish priest retired, he was replaced with one of the nicest people I have met, who did a tremendous amount for the parish, and for me personally. He invited me onto the parish finance committee. When I was retrenched from the bank, he created work for me in the parish and paid me a wage to support the family. He then referred me to a businessman who was looking for an office manager and I got the job.

 

When he was promoted to run a large parish in a regional city, and my work situation changed again after my employer was bough out, I drifted away and haven't been inside a church for over 10 years. I still attend and work at the parish fete.

 

Hi Red - much of the great caring story you relate could be attributed to almost any club and that is how I view the various organised religions CLUBS!. The main difference is of course, you stop paying your dues to the local flying/golf/sailing club, you dont go to hell.

 

You may be able to find the very odd flying instructor who acts as if his/her word is handed down from god but this would indeed be rare.

 

Religious clubs are ultimately run by complete nutters who believe they are the conduit by which god imparts his word to the proletariat. The administration is set apart & above the common herd. They answer to different rules (and we let them) and almost everything is hidden behind a veil

of secrecy.

 

I accept that humans have extraordinarily divers world views but find in quit extraordinary that great swathes (fortunately diminishing) of people actually believe that priests are somehow beings that have a special connection/contact with a god - mass (pun intended) insanity!

 

It is this blind faith in the priesthood (of all faiths) that allows them to behave in such abominably ways - ultimately the Pells, et al are the result of the unquestioning/brainwashed support of the faithful.

[Yenn]

How can you say that Pell is not innocent. You are supposedly innocent until found guilty. In his case the guilty finding was incorrect, so he must be innocent.

There is also the possibility that he did what he was accused of but legally that is not guilt.

[spacesailor]

" You are supposedly innocent until found guilty. "

NO longer true !.

The A T O. Is now making all adversaries PROVE THEIR INNOCENCE !.

You ARE Guilty, in their eyes unless you can prove . Against their unlimited $ funds, that they are Wrong !.

spacesailor

[skippydiesel]

How can you say that Pell is not innocent. You are supposedly innocent until found guilty. In his case the guilty finding was incorrect, so he must be innocent.

There is also the possibility that he did what he was accused of but legally that is not guilt.

 

Fair observation BUT in the adage "innocent until proven guilty" does not apply to the individual who has charges dismissed on a technicality alone. For Pell to be proven innocent, it would have to be demonstrated that the accusers lied/falsified their statements. This is a most unlikely scenario.

 

In the Pell case, the accuser has been found to be a credible witness of good character.

 

In my opinion it is more than likely Pell committed crime(s) against children and or aided and abetted paedophiles within the ranks of the clergy he was associated with and or administered (crimes in themselves).

 

Due to the length of elapsed time, between the offence(s) and the accusation, it was always going to be difficult to make the charges stick.

 

The law is of necessity extremely pedantic - a person may not be guilty in law but never the less have committed the crime(s)

[facthunter]

It has serious implications for the future of Judgement by a "jury of your peers". Now it may be by a JUDGE alone. Pity it's not an Italian style "investigative Judge" . They visit the crime scene(s) and ask any questions of whomever they choose to .Nev

[spacesailor]

Here i suspect its a monetary thing.

If you have it in large enough piles you can order your own justice

spacesailor

[old man emu]

Having large piles is an injustice in itself.

[facthunter]

They say they are like some Immigrants...... Come out easily but hard to get to go back. Something to do with 10 quid or something . No more clues. Nev

[pmccarthy]

Ice helps.