PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Jet Blast (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast-16/)
-   -   War in Australia (any Oz Politics) (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/628189-war-australia-any-oz-politics.html)

ORAC 7th Apr 2020 07:31

I presume from the judge’s summing up, where he is required to remind the jury of the key points made by both sides and to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of their arguments.

If the judge didn’t mention it the appeal court can draw the conclusion that the jury did not, therefore, consider it.

dr dre 7th Apr 2020 14:22


Originally Posted by WingNut60 (Post 10742161)
Quoting Melissa Davey:- "An interesting point to note in this case is that every court who heard the victim give evidence, convicted Pell.
The first court that didn't view that evidence acquitted him."

The High Court also saw the briefest amount of info, took the shortest to decide, didn’t inspect key facts like the cathedral or the robes. It all points to them overturning on a technicality. It’s not a good look from a public perspective.

And it’s not actually a rosy future ahead for Pell either. He faces future civil and potential criminal cases, and the release of the redacted Royal Commission pages which are said to be damning. Pell’s reputation is now so ruined that he wouldn’t dare appear outside in public. He’ll be placed in a church run retirement home for the rest of his existence, kept out of the eyes of the public and only his fellow former priests (many of whom are released paedophiles) around. So in a sense he is going to be confined for the rest of his natural life.

WingNut60 7th Apr 2020 14:49


Originally Posted by dr dre (Post 10742629)
................. So in a sense he is going to be confined for the rest of his natural life.

.............a very unnatural life.

JustinHeywood 7th Apr 2020 22:00

Some of the very same people who were saying Pell must be guilty because the justice system found him so, are now questioning the justice system because they didn’t get the result they wanted.

By any fair reading, the evidence against him was always pretty sketchy. Intelligent people need to ask themselves whether their anger and this decision is less because they feel justice was not done but more that a guilty verdict better suited their personal bias.

ruprecht 7th Apr 2020 22:08

Pell is innocent, just like OJ Simpson.

I’m no fan of Pell, or the Catholic Church in general, but it seems that many saw Pell as the focal point of their anger towards the church. And that anger is justified: the Catholic Church has a long history of sexual abuse and coverups. I personally think Pell could not have risen to such a high office within the church without some knowledge of the abuse, but that was not what he was on trial for.

Just as disturbing is how this has morphed into a left vs right issue, as all things seem to nowadays... :hmm:

Ascend Charlie 7th Apr 2020 22:37

The news said it was his first night without being behind bars, but the video showed the convent had a big barred gate.

CoodaShooda 8th Apr 2020 00:26

I have no truck with the Roman Catholic Church and no opinion on Cardinal Pell as an individual; I've never met him. But I always felt that his being investigated, charged, tried and convicted smacked of being an orchestrated witch hunt. I wasn't surprised by the dissenting appeal judge's finding or the High Court's unanimous decision.

What does concern me is Daniel Andrews response that "I see you, I hear you and I believe you". It would seem that the Socialist Peoples Republic of Victoria has thrown out the concept of a fair trial and the presumption of innocence and opened the door to conviction by denunciation.

Uncle Joe would have been proud.

Pinky the pilot 8th Apr 2020 01:44


I have no truck with the Roman Catholic Church and no opinion on Cardinal Pell as an individual; I've never met him. But I always felt that his being investigated, charged, tried and convicted smacked of being an orchestrated witch hunt. I wasn't surprised by the dissenting appeal judge's finding or the High Court's unanimous decision.
Likewise. Does anyone else remember reading several articles in the Australian Newspaper, written by various Legal Affairs writers whom IIRC all argued that the conviction was 'unsafe.'

Ascend Charlie 8th Apr 2020 03:26

"That dingo's got my baybee!"
"That priest played with my ... crucifix..."

Juries make human decisions, High Courts make decisions on technicalities.

megan 8th Apr 2020 03:48

Never thought the case against Pell would get up. On the 2nd April the ABC broadcast the third and final of its "Revelation" series by Sarah Ferguson looking at sexual abuse in the Catholic church, the 3rd program dealt with Pells time at Ballarat and the alleged abuse attributed to Pell. The interviews with the boys, now men, who were the ones who claimed to have suffered abuse at Pells hands certainly gave a compelling story. They were the ones who were to have their allegations examined in the Pell court case which didn't go ahead. The ABC have now taken the program down. Having watched the program I found the mens story compelling and more than believable as to Pells guilt. Shame this court case didn't go ahead, I've little doubt he would have been convicted.

Dark Knight 8th Apr 2020 04:22

PELL AND BACK

By Harry Richardson April 8, 2020

On Tuesday, the High Court overturned George Pell’s conviction. This wasn’t just a victory for Cardinal Pell. It wasn’t just a victory for Catholics, or Christians, or Conservatives. It was a victory for all of us.

Pell, it appears, was convicted despite the fact that there was, in the words of the High Court, “a significant possibility that an innocent person has been convicted because the evidence did not establish guilt to the requisite standard of proof.”

That doesn’t mean that he didn’t commit the crime. It doesn’t mean that he didn’t commit other crimes or that he wasn’t complicit in covering up other crimes. It doesn’t mean that he isn’t a bad person or that he doesn’t hold views which others find objectionable.

What it does mean, is that at 78 years of age, he spent a year of his life in solitary confinement, when there is “reasonable doubt” that he didn’t commit the crime he was accused of.

What is more, when the the conviction is overturned, and when the High court at 7 – 0 releases the accused from prison it means that he has been found innocent of the crime.

Had his conviction not been overturned, he might have rotted for the rest of his life in there.

The reason that is important is because you DO NOT EVER want to live in a society where people can be tried and punished for crimes which haven’t been proven “beyond reasonable doubt.”

You certainly don’t want to live in a society where people can be tried and convicted on the accusation of one other person without any corroborating evidence as appears to have happened to George Pell.

These are bedrock principles of English Common Law and have been for centuries. They have been adopted by all other civilised countries – and with very good reason.

You may think that this could never happen to you. You might think that you are a good person. Perhaps you have never been in a property boundary dispute with someone who is powerful or well connected.

Let me tell you, that these things can happen – and they can happen to you.

Perhaps you don’t realise just how powerful the State is. They have the manpower, they have guns, police, soldiers. You don’t stand a chance against the State.

They can fine you into poverty. They can imprison you or execute you. There are rumours that the Chinese State is amputating the organs of prisoners without anaesthetic and then leaving them to die in excruciating agony.

There, but for the grace of God go you.

Thinking that someone may have gotten away with horrible crimes may be galling. Despite that, it is imperative that the State should not have the power to punish people for crimes that cannot be proven “beyond reasonable doubt.”

That is one pandora’s box you don’t want to open.

Ordinary folk don’t always grasp the importance of concepts such as this. It is disturbing to talk to people who think that Pell should have been made to suffer because of crimes (often horrible crimes) which were committed by others in the Church.

Some think he may have covered up the crimes of others or have been guilty himself. If he did – and it can be proven BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT – then he should be punished. But not otherwise.

In the past, our elites, and particularly our legal elites, did understand this principle. What is more, they were prepared to defend it.

Today, we have Julia Gillard tweeting that the decision raised “some pretty big questions.” Like “Did we learn as a nation from the Royal Commission into child sexual abuse?” and “Is it worth survivors coming forward to seek justice?”

Gillard is a former Prime Minister and a former lawyer. When elitists like her are no longer prepared to defend our bedrock principles (or don’t even appear to understand them), is it any wonder that our society is breaking down in so many important ways?

A fish rots from the head down.

You may remember the case of the “Catch the Fire” ministries where Daniel Scott, a friend of mine from Pakistan, and Danny Nalia were convicted in Victoria of insulting Islam.

This was despite the fact that the court could find nothing untruthful about what they had said, and that Islam is not a person, but a belief system.

If we should have a Royal Commission into anything, it should be the Victorian Courts which have become hopelessly politicised and corrupted to the point where they have abandoned bedrock legal principles.

dr dre 8th Apr 2020 05:11


Originally Posted by JustinHeywood (Post 10743039)

By any fair reading, the evidence against him was always pretty sketchy. Intelligent people need to ask themselves whether their anger and this decision is less because they feel justice was not done but more that a guilty verdict better suited their personal bias.

Considering that no one accept the original Court and the the appeals court saw the testimony of the victim (as stated above the high court didn’t) then no one apart from them has seen the full evidence, so you can’t say you know enough of it to call it sketchy.

He got punished anyway. Maybe he should’ve just accepted it. He would’ve been out in just over a year if he had accepted his original sentence. He would’ve been at a minimum security prison farm and been enjoying some fresh country air with his friends like Ridsdale who are stored out there. And then he would’ve been carted off to a church run retirement home to basically live the same existence, confined to that home with his fellow former priests and not let out in public until he kicked the bucket.

Instead via an appeal he spent about 14 months in solitary confinement which would have put an emotional and physical stress on an 80 year old. He’s probably cut a few years of his life due to that. And he’ll still be confined to that retirement home for ex priests anyway. A civil case pending against him. Won’t be doing any more masses. Maybe occasional visits from Tony and John to keep him happy, especially when the redacted Royal Commission reports are released.

It’ll be a lonely and pathetic existence for whatever little time he has left on this earth.

JustinHeywood 8th Apr 2020 05:51


Originally Posted by dr dre (Post 10743283)
Considering that no one accept the original Court and the the appeals court saw the testimony of the victim (as stated above the high court didn’t) then no one apart from them has seen the full evidence, so you can’t say you know enough of it to call it sketchy.

.

Oh come on Doc, if you’re now claiming that no-one except the court has seen the evidence, and I presume you’re including yourself, why have you and the entire Guardian set spent so much time and energy damning him? Obviously you saw enough of the evidence to have an opinion; perhaps you’d already made up your mind?

He wasn’t released on a ‘technicality’ as someone suggested above.

From the SMH (Fairfax, so not exactly neutral)
”...The prosecution relied entirely on the truthfulness and reliability of the complainant's evidence.

That was upheld by the Victorian Court of Appeal, which described him as a witness of truth.

The defence relied on evidence from people who worked in and around the cathedral, whose evidence suggested the opportunity for the alleged offences was unlikely”




dr dre 8th Apr 2020 06:17


Originally Posted by JustinHeywood (Post 10743301)
why have you and the entire Guardian set spent so much time and energy damning him?

Ok firstly to debunk “you and the Guardian bit, don’t think one second think it’s only those of a left leaning bias who ”damn” Pell whilst the “silent majority” of Aussies must love him. If indication on social media and at the workplace is any barometer even marginally consevative Aussies are outraged and think that Pell should’ve been executed painfully for the crime of covering up the abuse alone. The vast majority of Aussies hate Pell, which is why he won’t be able to show his face freely in public and will have to remain in a virtual state of confinement for his entire life.

For me it’s the years of cover ups, movement of priests, the remaining silent (except to bribe or threaten victims into remaining silent) and the numerous allegations that have been made over 4 decades from multiple parties with no connection to each other that has caused him to damn himself. Plus the upcoming civil case and release of the redacted Royal Commission report.

His damnation has already been suffered, 14 months of solitary at such an elderly age would’ve mentally and physically destroyed him and wiped years off his life expectancy. To quote something he would understand:


Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.
Ephesians 5:11

CoodaShooda 8th Apr 2020 06:22

Big call Dr Dre.

Pell is hardly an item of heated discussion in these parts. If anything, the general consensus is that he shouldn’t have been convicted in the first place.

Then again, we’ve had past experience with Lindy Chamberlain.

JustinHeywood 8th Apr 2020 06:40

What if G. Pell was, say, I dunno, an airline pilot. And one day some bloke accuses him of molesting him in an airplane many years ago. Other people in the plane at the time say it couldn't have happened in the way described (no time, not enough room etc). There are no other witnesses. Would you expect him to be found guilty and sent to prison? I wouldn't, not in Australia, anyway.

Pell should not be locked up because he's hated on social media, nor for the collective crimes of the Catholic church. He should be locked up if there is strong evidence that he committed the crime.Apparently the evidence isn't/wasn't strong enough.

Just because you don't like him and his church does not mean that he should not have the benefit of presumed innocence until proven otherwise.
Ironically, the 'hang him high' brigade are often the very same people who sneer at the redneck 'Islamophobes'. But they themselves aren't bigots, no sir.

Lookleft 8th Apr 2020 07:47


Ok firstly to debunk “you and the Guardian bit,
You take that generalisation to task but then go for your own sweeping generalisation

The vast majority of Aussies hate Pell, which is why he won’t be able to show his face freely in public and will have to remain in a virtual state of confinement for his entire life.
In fact he already has been seen in public at a service station on the Hume Highway, so there goes yet another of your theories.

dr dre 8th Apr 2020 08:10


Originally Posted by Lookleft (Post 10743383)

In fact he already has been seen in public at a service station on the Hume Highway, so there goes yet another of your theories.

No doubt with security around off camera to protect him. They won’t be at his side forever, hope he enjoys his future trips to the servo for snacks, big fall from the Vatican eh George....

I should also ask why he’s allowed on a non essential road trip in these times???

But one of my theories has been proven correct. Wow, look at how much he has deteriorated! Even I didn’t expect him to have declined that much already!

I’m pissing my pants laughing at the old geezer after seeing those photos :ok:

parabellum 8th Apr 2020 08:36

Wouldn't surprise me if the Vatican didn't find him a nice little sinecure somewhere, 'far from the madding crowd' as they say.

layman 8th Apr 2020 11:16

Perhaps the old Scottish judgement of "not proven" rather than "guilty" or "not guilty" would be more appropriate in cases such as these.

One v one testimony (no other direct witnesses) is always hard to 'prove' (or disprove), particularly after the passage of many years.

As for George Pell's actions, I don't know enough to say the following is the most accurate report, but there have been a series of allegations made against George Pell over a number of years.This report outlines the 1961, 1970's, 1980's and cathedral allegations.
https://www.news.com.au/national/vic...31c9d8e35d9634

There is a civil case for damages, involving allegations of sexual misconduct by George Pell and others in the 1970's, before the courts in Victoria.

After this length of time, each case on it's merits may not result in a guilty verdict if brought to trial, but it would appear there is either a conspiracy or he has committed similar acts over many years.

I tend to think a conspiracy unlikely given the number of locations and witnesses separated both physically and by time.

I'd hate to be a jury member trying to sort out the veracity of evidence in any of these cases.



All times are GMT. The time now is 20:23.


Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.