Cardinal George Pell released on appeal.

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Funny thing how Catholics rush in to defend child molestation

no one's defending child molestation, what people are defending is the presumption of innocence and legal due process. Care to discuss the merits, or do you just want everyone to convict on emotion?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Nobody on this thread is defending Pell, so far as I am aware.

Not remotely. But as we so often see, usually from the trumpettes and other bootlickers, some people jump straight to the personal attack when the cognitive dissonance flairs.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Those seemingly defending the decision by the court might want to answer this question. How do you feel about Michael Jackson, assuming that you saw the documentary by his two accusers? Do you believe their version of events? And have you any investment in his music? Quite difficult to be completely objective if one has such an investment.

This is precisely why we don't convict people by popular opinion, and why appeals to emotion carry no legal weight.

I feel like I woke up on mirror Earth, suddenly a bunch of normally sensible, compassionate forum regulars want to convict people without due process!

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

It seems to me that it is only the die-hard MJ fans who will defend him to the hilt and be reluctant to see him as being otherwise, when any with some knowledge of such abuse would likely know that his accusers were not lying, and his behaviour was very much confirmation for what they claimed - and there being so many accusers too. Often difficult to be completely objective.

No one's defending Pell nor Michael Jackson. The issue here is legal due process, the presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

You didn't read my linked article, did you.

I did, actually, I don't see your point. Care to try explaining it without ad homs?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

He's a child molester, are you blind to that fact, or are you just covering up for him because he's Catholic???

Prove he's a child molester, and all here will happily condemn him, Catholic or not.

No one's covering up anything. The issue, again, is presumption of innocence, and due process.

Now, care to offer proof of your claim? Or would you like to try making anti Catholic comments again instead?

 

[exchemist]

He's a child molester, are you blind to that fact, or are you just covering up for him because he's Catholic???

He may well be, for all I know - there have been a great number of them uncovered within the Catholic church over the last ten years and it is a source of shame and disgust to us all. But I'm not Australian and have not been following the case at all closely, so I really have no idea one way or the other. I do know, from recent British experience, that people with grudges or odd obsessions do occasionally make things up (e.g. the Carl Beech case). So it seems to me one does need to understand the evidence presented in court, in order to pass comment in a particular case.

My interest in this thread has been to understand what led the judges to quash the conviction, which I have tried to explain to the best of my understanding. That is all.

 

[Lyndon]

How George Pell's lawyers convinced the High Court that his convictions should be quashed

 

[lewisnotmiller]

He may well be, for all I know - there have been a great number of them uncovered within the Catholic church over the last ten years and it is a source of shame and disgust to us all. But I'm not Australian and have not been following the case at all closely, so I really have no idea one way or the other. I do know, from recent British experience, that people with grudges or odd obsessions do occasionally make things up (e.g. the Carl Beech case). So it seems to me one does need to understand the evidence presented in court, in order to pass comment in a particular case.

My interest in this thread has been to understand what led the judges to quash the conviction, which I have tried to explain to the best of my understanding. That is all.

I am (Australian) and have been (following the case) but this latest installment has left me a little cold on it. There was some discussion around the discrepancy in timing between the accusers testimony and those who surround Pell.
From what I've read at the time of the original case, the defence was a strange mix of 'what he normally did' (the assumption being that no-one remembered him doing differently on this day) and some more specific memories of the day in question.

Of the 2 alleged victims, one is dead (heroin overdose) and so it came down to 'he said - he said' to a large extent.
I don't see this as proving him innocent at all. The suggestion is that the evidentiary bar wasn't crossed. The victim's lawyers have already announced civil action against the Church, and given the lower evidentiary bar, I suspect that will be more successful.

Personally, I'm a little too invested in this to think too rationally. It's hard for me to separate the many oversights and poor decisions of the Church in the area of child safety from this particular case.
For any unaware, this isn't 'a' Catholic Priest. This is 'the' Catholic Priest, in Australian terms. Very senior figure who successfully lobbied government to allow the Church to run an investigation into it's own behaviour, rather than a Royal Commission (this was chaired by Pell). When a Royal Commission was later held, it was scathing on many fronts to the Church.

In my head, I can't get past my belief that he's likely guilty. But I do believe we need a system of justice, and we can't step past laws for expediency sake. Still, this doesn't sit right with me, at all.

 

[Deeje]

I am (Australian) and have been (following the case) but this latest installment has left me a little cold on it. There was some discussion around the discrepancy in timing between the accusers testimony and those who surround Pell.
From what I've read at the time of the original case, the defence was a strange mix of 'what he normally did' (the assumption being that no-one remembered him doing differently on this day) and some more specific memories of the day in question.

Of the 2 alleged victims, one is dead (heroin overdose) and so it came down to 'he said - he said' to a large extent.
I don't see this as proving him innocent at all. The suggestion is that the evidentiary bar wasn't crossed. The victim's lawyers have already announced civil action against the Church, and given the lower evidentiary bar, I suspect that will be more successful.

Personally, I'm a little too invested in this to think too rationally. It's hard for me to separate the many oversights and poor decisions of the Church in the area of child safety from this particular case.
For any unaware, this isn't 'a' Catholic Priest. This is 'the' Catholic Priest, in Australian terms. Very senior figure who successfully lobbied government to allow the Church to run an investigation into it's own behaviour, rather than a Royal Commission (this was chaired by Pell). When a Royal Commission was later held, it was scathing on many fronts to the Church.

In my head, I can't get past my belief that he's likely guilty. But I do believe we need a system of justice, and we can't step past laws for expediency sake. Still, this doesn't sit right with me, at all.

We should never forget that the God whom Pell purportedly worships, knows the truth and will act accordingly. If he is guilty, he will not get away with it forever. No one can lie to God or plead innocence if they are guilty.

 

[Milton Platt]

Haven't studied the story enough to offer an opinion yet, but this doesn't appear based on new information, or on the jury not following instruction.

Strangely it seems that the high court case suggested the jury simply got it wrong...

Please note, this website is reputable, but generally sits centre-left in case that matters. Some other centre right options I was going to put up sit behind paywalls.

Courts are reluctant to overturn jury verdicts — so why did Pell's appeal succeed?

It states right in the beginning of the article that it was overturned because the jury decision was unsound because it was not open to the jury to find Pell guilty beyond reasonable doubt. So we know exactly why it was overturned.
You statement that courts are normally reluctant to overturn an existing verdict doesn't carry much weight. that is exactly what appeals courts are for.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

In my head, I can't get past my belief that he's likely guilty. But I do believe we need a system of justice, and we can't step past laws for expediency sake. Still, this doesn't sit right with me, at all.

Here is where I'm making a stand on principle. I personally think Pell is probably guilty, and I further personally dislike him because of the way he handled the treatment of other abuse victims (aside from the one's he's accused of). However, I have spent a lot of time here and elsewhere arguing about the importance of due process and presumption of innocence, and saying I would rather see guilty people go free rather than risk punishing the innocent. It would be pretty hypocritical if I suddenly started demanding someone I dislike be sent to prison based on popular opinion rather than judicial due process.

I'm pretty disenchanted with the Australian legal system generally, and I personally suspect Pell is guilty. But I'm not a lawyer, and I can't pretend to be impartial, so I'm not going to start making pronouncements on whether or not the HC got this one wrong because they disagree with my uninformed, untrained, emotionally charged gut instinct.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

We should never forget that the God whom Pell purportedly worships, knows the truth and will act accordingly. If he is guilty, he will not get away with it forever. No one can lie to God or plead innocence if they are guilty.

Whilst I know you honestly believe that, I honestly don't.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Here is where I'm making a stand on principle. I personally think Pell is probably guilty, and I further personally dislike him because of the way he handled the treatment of other abuse victims (aside from the one's he's accused of). However, I have spent a lot of time here and elsewhere arguing about the importance of due process and presumption of innocence, and saying I would rather see guilty people go free rather than risk punishing the innocent. It would be pretty hypocritical if I suddenly started demanding someone I dislike be sent to prison based on popular opinion rather than judicial due process.

I'm pretty disenchanted with the Australian legal system generally, and I personally suspect Pell is guilty. But I'm not a lawyer, and I can't pretend to be impartial, so I'm not going to start making pronouncements on whether or not the HC got this one wrong because they disagree with my uninformed, untrained, emotionally charged gut instinct.

I think this is a pretty good post.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

It states right in the beginning of the article that it was overturned because the jury decision was unsound because it was not open to the jury to find Pell guilty beyond reasonable doubt. So we know exactly why it was overturned.
You statement that courts are normally reluctant to overturn an existing verdict doesn't carry much weight. that is exactly what appeals courts are for.

No, it's quite rare.
Verdicts are commonly overturned for procedural or evidentiary reasons. What's rare is a verdict being overturned where those elements were not factors.

 

[Deeje]

Whilst I know you honestly believe that, I honestly don't.

Does Pell believe that? Apparently its quite common for these predators to assume that God isn't seeing what they are doing?

Did you watch Sarah Ferguson's expose' on the ABC regarding the pedophile priests? It was over two nights. The first episode really flawed me with the admission of one serial offender saying that a vow of "chastity" pertained only to sex with women, not children.....

 

[exchemist]

No, it's quite rare.
Verdicts are commonly overturned for procedural or evidentiary reasons. What's rare is a verdict being overturned where those elements were not factors.

Yes, that is a fair point.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Let's not pretend that commitment to a forgone conclusion lies solely on his defenders. As for the Michael Jackson case, I know nothing about it.

Nobody on this thread is defending Pell, so far as I am aware.

I'll answer both here. Perhaps I'm overreacting, and I know the legal process is what counts and the accuser has accepted this latest verdict, but I think this will rebound upon Pell even if the Highest Court has the best of intentions, with the new allegations coming out. And I can see that many are just commenting on the legal process rather than suspicions as to his guilt or not. All too often it is the case that justice is lopsided when some have the influence and power to affect such, and perhaps surprising that he was initially convicted. I suppose like many cases that tend to end rather messily this is one such.

 

[exchemist]

I'll answer both here. Perhaps I'm overreacting, and I know the legal process is what counts and the accuser has accepted this latest verdict, but I think this will rebound upon Pell even if the Highest Court has the best of intentions, with the new allegations coming out. And I can see that many are just commenting on the legal process rather than suspicions as to his guilt or not. All too often it is the case that justice is lopsided when some have the influence and power to affect such, and perhaps surprising that he was initially convicted. I suppose like many cases that tend to end rather messily this is one such.

Yes it's fair to observe that those that can afford a good barrister stand a better chance of obtaining justice than those that do not. That is a weakness of the justice system.

 

[Cooky]

There is huge backlash happening on this at the moment. I'm pretty disenchanted with the Australian legal system, so I don't really want to venture an opinion either way.

I talked to Paidiske about you today. She said she misses you.