Author Topic: Conviction of Cdl George Pell (Read 5323 times)

Nadir · « **Reply #15 on:** March 03, 2019, 06:55:09 PM »

Thank you, Josefa! I ask as many to sign as possible.

2Vermont · « **Reply #16 on:** March 03, 2019, 08:30:13 PM »

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/mar/02/cardinal-george-pells-conviction-the-questions-that-remain

Nadir · « **Reply #17 on:** March 03, 2019, 09:51:58 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont on March 03, 2019, 08:30:13 PM

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/mar/02/cardinal-george-pells-conviction-the-questions-that-remain

A comment on the above article:

Quote

This may seem an admission of guilt, but Richter is required to argue for a sentence based on the jury verdict, not based on Pell’s not guilty plea and maintenance of innocence. The case has been decided, so arguing Pell is innocent is useless in convincing the judge his client should get the lowest sentence possible. Richter had to accept the verdict in making his arguments.

This represents, not an admission of guilt but an acceptance that a finding is complete, and is not negotiable at this point.

Quote

Does the first trial, in which the jury could not reach a verdict, have any bearing on the outcome of the second? None at all. It’s irrelevant. Jurors in the retrial were not told about the mistrial.

The fact of a hung jury was exactly the reason for a retrial. So of course it had a bearing on the retrial outcome! Were the jurors at the retrial locked up between trials? Not at all. The results of the first trial was and is common knowledge, and it is ridiculous to pretend otherwise.

It is no rumour that the first jury was split 10 innocent - 2 guity. And no other so-called rumours have ensued.

Nadir · « **Reply #18 on:** March 04, 2019, 04:33:16 AM »

Bold text is my emphasis

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/calling-cardinal-pells-prosecution-what-it-is-religious-persecution?fbclid=IwAR0nCoCqxLtw40dpYTW8wZVqGY1IMRrZxNBT9nGOt8hKivtbxsgZHLLkr7M

COMMENTARY | MAR. 1, 2019
Calling Cardinal Pell’s Prosecution What It Is: Religious Persecution

COMMENTARY: Now that the suppression order has been lifted, we are free to state what has been evident for several years now.
Father Raymond J. de Souza
Cardinal George Pell was exactly where he should have been Wednesday night in Melbourne: in jail.
Let Henry David Thoreau explain: “Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison” (Civil Disobedience).

Now that the peculiar “suppression order” in Australia has been lifted, we are free to state what has been evident for several years now. The prosecution of Cardinal Pell has been a monstrous miscarriage of justice, a religious persecution carried out by prosecutorial means.

Cardinal Pell was convicted last December for sɛҳuąƖly assaulting two 13-year-old boys in 1996. The process that led to the convictions was, from the start, a sustained and calculated strategy to corrupt the criminal-justice system toward politically motivated ends.

And now Cardinal Pell is in jail, awaiting his sentencing next month. There is no shame that Cardinal Pell is in jail; the shame is sufficiently abundant to be worn by all those who put him there.

False Accusations

Miscarriages of justice do take place. Cardinal Pell himself was falsely accused in 2002, and, before him, Cardinal Joseph Bernardin of Chicago was falsely accused in 1993. Both those accusations were resolved with recourse to the police or courts.

The case of Cardinal Pell, though, was not a miscarriage akin to a mistake. It was done with police and prosecutorial malice aforethought.

Americans ought not be surprised by this, for the list of wrongfully convicted is very long indeed. Even some on death row have been exonerated before their executions could be carried out.

Malicious Prosecution of Prominent People
The most famous recent case in the U.S. is the 2008 conviction of Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, who lost a narrow re-election bid after a conviction for not reporting an alleged gift. Only after an FBI whistleblower revealed the grievous prosecutorial misconduct was Stevens exonerated. It came too late for his re-election, but his good name was restored. Stevens died in 2010.

If a Republican-led Justice Department can deliberately, maliciously and wrongfully convict the longest-serving Republic senator in the land, still popular in his home state, it would be relative child’s play for prosecutors in Victoria (Cardinal Pell’s home state in Australia) to deliberately, maliciously and wrongfully convict Cardinal Pell, who has been subject to a yearslong campaign of media defamation in Australia. Such was the intensity of the vilification that it would likely be possible to find a jury of 12 people in Melbourne who would believe that Cardinal Pell had sɛҳuąƖly abused the boys, too.

Still, the case against Cardinal Pell was so grotesquely fantastical that it took the prosecutors two tries to get the convictions. The first trial, in September, ended in a hung jury, with jurors reportedly voting 10-2 to acquit. A retrial followed, with the jury reaching the necessary unanimity to convict in December.

The Supposed Facts of the Case
It is important for Catholics to know the specifics of the case, not just summary statements that it was “weak.” It was impossible.

The prosecution charged that Cardinal Pell, instead of greeting people after Mass, as was his custom, immediately left everyone in St. Patrick’s Cathedral and went unaccompanied to the sacristy. Arriving alone in the sacristy, he found two choirboys who had somehow left the procession of the other five dozen choirboys and were swigging altar wine.

Having caught them in the act, he then quickly decided to sɛҳuąƖly assault them — “oral penetration,” to be unpleasantly precise.

This he accomplished immediately after Mass, with the sacristy door open, despite having all his vestments on and with the reasonable expectation that the sacristan, the master of ceremonies, the servers or concelebrants might come in and out or even pass by the open door, as would be customary after Mass. Meanwhile, there were dozens and dozens of people in the cathedral, praying or milling about.

The whole affair took place within six minutes, after which the boys went off to choir practice and never spoke about it to anyone for 20 years, not even to each other. Indeed, one of the boys, who died of a heroin overdose in 2014, explicitly told his mother before he died that he had never been sɛҳuąƖly abused.

The supposed facts are virtually impossible to complete. Ask any priest of a normal-sized parish — let alone a cathedral — if it would be possible to rape choirboys in the sacristy immediately after Mass. Sixty seconds — let alone six minutes — would not pass without someone, or several people, coming in and out, or at least passing by the open door. Ask any priest if he is customarily alone in the sacristy immediately after Mass, while there are still people in the church and the sanctuary has not yet been cleared.

Furthermore — again, with apologies for being graphic — it is not possible to perform the alleged penetration when fully vested for Mass. Again, ask any priest — let alone an archbishop, who is more heavily vested — about the awkwardness of having to visit the bathroom, if necessary, after vesting. It requires divesting, at least in part, or engaging in an awkward handling of the various vestments, which makes using the washroom difficult, to say nothing of a sɛҳuąƖ assault.

The complainant said that Cardinal Pell had just moved his vestments aside, an impossibility, given that the alb has no such openings.

What Cardinal Pell was accused of doing is simply impossible, even if he had somehow been mad enough to attempt it. Moreover, any man who attempts raping boys in a public place with people about is the kind of reckless offender about whom there would be a long history of such behavior. There is, of course, no such history.

The Corruption of the Police
It is not astonishing that a jury of 12 ordinary citizens might be convinced, contrary to evidence and common sense, that Cardinal Pell was guilty. After all, dozens and dozens of highly trained and experienced police officers and prosecutors decided that the former archbishop of Sydney was guilty even before any charges were brought whatsoever. Such is the Australian hatred for the Catholic Church in general and George Pell in particular.

In 2013, the Victoria police launched “Operation Tethering” to investigate Cardinal Pell, even though there had been no complaints against him. There followed a four-year campaign to find people willing to allege sɛҳuąƖ abuse, a campaign that included the Victoria police taking out newspaper ads asking for complaints about sɛҳuąƖ abuse at the Melbourne cathedral — before there had been any.
The police had their man and just needed a victim.

With Australia going through the agony of a royal commission investigation into sɛҳuąƖ abuse — with the Catholic Church garnering the lion’s share of the attention — it was only a matter of time before someone could be found to say something, or remember something, or, if necessary, fabricate it altogether. That, after all those efforts, the Victoria police could only pull together such a flimsy case is itself a powerful indication that Cardinal Pell is not a sɛҳuąƖ abuser.

Testimony — or Not — of the Complainants
In Victoria sɛҳuąƖ-abuse cases, the victim testifies in closed court, so the public does not know, and cannot evaluate, the credibility of what was said.

In the first trial, the complainant testified before the jury. They voted not to convict. In the second trial, the complainant did not testify at all, but the records of his testimony in the first trial were entered instead. It appears that the first jury, who heard the complainant live, found him less credible than the second jury, which did not encounter him live.

Cardinal Pell was thus convicted on the testimony of a single witness who presented an incredible story, without corroboration, without any physical evidence and without any previous pattern of behavior, over the strenuous insistence by the alleged perpetrator that nothing of the sort ever took place. That, almost by definition, meets the standard of reasonable doubt.

Even more astonishing, the jury convicted Cardinal Pell of assaulting the second boy, even though he had denied to his own family ever being molested. The second supposed victim died in 2014. He never made a complaint, was never interviewed by the police and was never examined in court.

Absent the public hatred for Cardinal Pell, such a case would never have even been brought to court. But just as the police had their man before they had any allegations or evidence, the prosecutors knew that they had a good chance of getting a jury that was so determined to get Cardinal Pell that they only had to give them a chance.

A Secret Trial
Under Victoria law, a judge can issue a “suppression order” that bans any and all reporting on a case if it is thought necessary to protect a trial from undue public pressure. The “suppression order,” which meant that even the charges against Cardinal Pell were not revealed until this week, more than two months after his conviction, was ostensibly to protect Cardinal Pell’s right to a fair trial.

In effect, it protected the prosecutors from having to defend the weakness of their case in the court of public opinion. If, almost two years ago, the prosecutors had had to argue in public that Cardinal Pell had raped two choirboys in a crowded cathedral immediately after Sunday Mass, there would have been at least some pressure on the Victoria attorney general to review whether mob justice was afoot, as it was last year in Australia, where Archbishop Philip Wilson of Adelaide was convicted of covering up a sɛҳuąƖ-abuse case. He was convicted, and though he did not want to resign before his appeal was heard, pressure from the Vatican, his brother bishops and the Australian prime minister forced him out.

Only months later, he was acquitted on appeal, with the appellate court judge ruling that the jury who convicted him was likely swayed by the public fury at the Catholic Church.
It happened again.

Father Raymond J. de Souza is the editor in chief of Convivium magazine.

2Vermont · « **Reply #19 on:** March 04, 2019, 06:26:28 AM »

Nadir, it seems that you are certain that this man is innocent. I provided a link of an article that seemed to me to handle the situation in a balanced way. In addition, the reporter answering the questions was also a reporter that was in attendance throughout the whole process and I don't think that was the case of any of the other reports provided in this thread up to that point.

Have you ever been a juror on a criminal jury trial (or any other kind of trial)? I have. An unanimous decision between 12 people is very difficult to attain. The fact that this decision was unanimous holds a lot of weight in my book.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #20 on:** March 04, 2019, 08:09:32 AM »

Quote from: 2Vermont on March 03, 2019, 07:44:35 AM

This was an unanimous verdict. All of the members of the jury were in on this so-called miscarriage of justice? That gives me pause.

Unfortunately that happens, especially when the nature of the crime is abhorrent. People get wrongly convicted of murder all the time because the crime was so heinous that they felt the psychological need to convict, to punish the person who did it, blurring in their minds the fact that the person on trial before them may not have been the actual perpetrator.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #21 on:** March 04, 2019, 08:19:34 AM »

Traditio will pounce on anything that might make the Novus Ordo (or SSPX or non-sedevacantists) look bad, and they can hardly be considered an objective source on this.

For each Novus Ordo pervert who has rightly been convicted, there's probably one that has been railroaded. There's been a veritable #metoo movement in this area where there's a presumption of guilt in the face of any such accusation ... which is largely fueled by the hatred of Catholicism. Statistics demonstrate that the incidence of such crimes is as high among other religious groups, Orthodox, Protestants, Jєωιѕн rabbis ... as in the Novus Ordo. But the Novus Ordo (masquerading as the Catholic Church) is singled out by the media due to their contempt for the Church. And then they're always trying to blame celibacy for this, whereas celibacy would hardly account for men being unnaturally attracted to young boys. Sure, I could see a certain number of celibate men falling into sin with consenting adult women ... but to suddenly turn into ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ pedophiles? Hardly. And then other such accusations are motivated by the prospect of financial gain, as dioceses have been very quick to pay out settlements (and even "hush money" in the past) to make these go away. I could go in there right now and claim that I was molested 40 years ago as an altar boy by an old priest (now deceased), and I would likely get a payout from the diocese here.

2Vermont · « **Reply #22 on:** March 04, 2019, 08:41:33 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on March 04, 2019, 08:09:32 AM

Unfortunately that happens, especially when the nature of the crime is abhorrent. People get wrongly convicted of murder all the time because the crime was so heinous that they felt the psychological need to convict, to punish the person who did it, blurring in their minds the fact that the person on trial before them may not have been the actual perpetrator.

My experience as a juror has shown me that most folks selected as a juror take the job seriously and impartially...as they should. Given this jury deliberated for days, it sounds to me that they did the same.

Added: Also, from what I have read, under Victorian law, a 11-1 verdict would have convicted him too. And yet, the jury came back unanimous.

josefamenendez · « **Reply #23 on:** March 04, 2019, 11:04:13 AM »

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #24 on:** March 04, 2019, 12:02:37 PM »

Quote

Unfortunately that happens, especially when the nature of the crime is abhorrent. People get wrongly convicted of murder all the time because the crime was so heinous that they felt the psychological need to convict, to punish the person who did it, blurring in their minds the fact that the person on trial before them may not have been the actual perpetrator.

I agree with 2Vermont, that most jurors look at the facts pretty impartially. Your above explanation is not my experience and i've been on 2 murder trials. My experience is the exact opposite - fear of sending a person to jail. In both murder cases, we could not reach a verdict because 1 person couldn't bring themselves to condemn the defendant. They didn't question the evidence, they just said they couldn't vote guilty. A shame.

(The good news is, in case 1, the defendent accepted a guilty charge for a plea deal...so they were actually guilty (as most of us knew). In case 2, our lack of unanimous ruling meant a re-trial. After the case, the prosecution shared with us a bunch of evidence that had previously not been allowed, but would be allowed in the re-trial. I'm convinced the re-trial would convict but I never checked the status of the 2nd case.)

However I would add that a murder case usually involves more hard evidence than abuse cases, which are more circuмstantial. So, on the one hand, it's easier to sway a jury in an abuse case (if you're a good lawyer) because the evidence is based around a "story" vs a murder trial, where you at least have SOME evidence on the body and the "story" is not "he said, she said", which is usually the situation for abuse trials.

Secondly, in Austrailia, what is the level of guilt required? "Reasonable doubt" or just "more than likely"? This would make a big difference.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #25 on:** March 04, 2019, 12:26:43 PM »

After reading the Guardian article, Pell was convicted by, basically, 1 accusor (all the other accusors were not first-hand accusations) and using a legally-undefined "reasonable doubt" standard (Austrailia law does not define what "reasonable doubt" means, so I say it's a worthless standard). Seems like a pretty weak case which a good prosecutor manipulated because the standards were low.

This is why so many people are sued civilly in the US after a criminal trial is over (i.e. OJ Simpson lost in a civil trial) because the standard for guilt is much lower in a civil trial.

2Vermont · « **Reply #26 on:** March 04, 2019, 02:39:53 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on March 04, 2019, 12:02:37 PM

I agree with 2Vermont, that most jurors look at the facts pretty impartially. Your above explanation is not my experience and i've been on 2 murder trials. My experience is the exact opposite - fear of sending a person to jail. In both murder cases, we could not reach a verdict because 1 person couldn't bring themselves to condemn the defendant. They didn't question the evidence, they just said they couldn't vote guilty. A shame.

(The good news is, in case 1, the defendent accepted a guilty charge for a plea deal...so they were actually guilty (as most of us knew). In case 2, our lack of unanimous ruling meant a re-trial. After the case, the prosecution shared with us a bunch of evidence that had previously not been allowed, but would be allowed in the re-trial. I'm convinced the re-trial would convict but I never checked the status of the 2nd case.)

However I would add that a murder case usually involves more hard evidence than abuse cases, which are more circuмstantial. So, on the one hand, it's easier to sway a jury in an abuse case (if you're a good lawyer) because the evidence is based around a "story" vs a murder trial, where you at least have SOME evidence on the body and the "story" is not "he said, she said", which is usually the situation for abuse trials.

Secondly, in Austrailia, what is the level of guilt required? "Reasonable doubt" or just "more than likely"? This would make a big difference.

I still think that there's an awful lot of conclusions/assumptions being made against the jury by folks who never heard/saw what the jury heard/saw. Maybe, just maybe Pell was convicted because....he was guilty.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #27 on:** March 04, 2019, 02:51:15 PM »

Certainly. But the journalist you linked to said that there was only 1 out of 8+ accusers who were abused first hand. Meaning that all but 1 were testingfying based on heresay. That’s weak.

2Vermont · « **Reply #28 on:** March 04, 2019, 02:55:00 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on March 04, 2019, 02:51:15 PM

Certainly. But the journalist you linked to said that there was only 1 out of 8+ accusers who were abused first hand. Meaning that all but 1 were testingfying based on heresay. That’s weak.

If the one accuser is a strong case, what does it matter? Again, we weren't there. Anything we are hearing is still not the transcript of the trial. We were not part of the jury. Monday morning quarterbacking.

I have to wonder whether this is just wishful thinking on the part of those who are still attached to the Novus Ordo one way or another.

Jaynek · « **Reply #29 on:** March 04, 2019, 03:02:32 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont on March 04, 2019, 02:39:53 PM

I still think that there's an awful lot of conclusions/assumptions being made against the jury by folks who never heard/saw what the jury heard/saw. Maybe, just maybe Pell was convicted because....he was guilty.

It is very hard to imagine what extra information could make the case against Cardinal Pell plausible. He is alleged to have committed this sɛҳuąƖ assault in a sacristy immediately after Mass. It is a situation in which people are constantly coming and going. sɛҳuąƖ predators isolate their prey and do not attack them where they will probably be caught.

And this is only one of the factors which, taken together, make the allegations seem unlikely to the point of being virtually impossible. It is far, far easier to believe that anti-Catholic feeling has reached the point that a jury could convict a man in spite of there being no good reason to do so.

Quote from: 2Vermont on March 04, 2019, 02:55:00 PM

I have to wonder whether this is just wishful thinking on the part of those who are still attached to the Novus Ordo one way or another.

It has nothing to do with wishful thinking. It is a logical assessment of the information that is available. Your inability to see this makes me wonder if you are engaged in wishful thinking.

Author Topic: Conviction of Cdl George Pell (Read 5323 times)

Nadir

Re: Conviction of Cdl George Pell

2Vermont

Re: Conviction of Cdl George Pell

Nadir

Re: Conviction of Cdl George Pell

Nadir

Re: Conviction of Cdl George Pell

2Vermont

Re: Conviction of Cdl George Pell

Ladislaus

Re: Conviction of Cdl George Pell

Ladislaus

Re: Conviction of Cdl George Pell

2Vermont

Re: Conviction of Cdl George Pell

josefamenendez

Re: Conviction of Cdl George Pell

Pax Vobis

Re: Conviction of Cdl George Pell

Pax Vobis

Re: Conviction of Cdl George Pell

2Vermont

Re: Conviction of Cdl George Pell

Pax Vobis

Re: Conviction of Cdl George Pell

2Vermont

Re: Conviction of Cdl George Pell

Jaynek

Re: Conviction of Cdl George Pell