"Anyone who knows how crowded and open is the sacristy at St Patrick’s Cathedral after Sunday mass must know the accusations are implausible. “Only a madman would attempt to rape boys in the sacristy immediately after mass,” said Pell’s legal team. It is the word of one man, codenamed AA, against the word of Cardinal Pell.
There are no witnesses and evidence was given that the second alleged victim, who died long ago, told his mother that he had not been sexually abused while a chorister. Victoria police had already begun an investigation into Cardinal Pell, before receiving a single complaint. AA came to them after seeing an ABC story in 2016 containing fantastic allegations that Cardinal Pell had sexually assaulted boys in full view of everyone in a public swimming pool in the 1970s.
According to AA, after mass he and another choirboy escaped from a procession and dashed into the sacristy to drink the altar wine when Pell came in, parted his robes and forced them to perform oral sex. Pell’s legal team had told the jury that there were several flaws in the evidence. Firstly, Pell was always at the front of the cathedral greeting parishioners after mass, after which he would return to the sacristy with assistants to help him disrobe. He was never alone.
His Master of Ceremonies, Monsignor Charles Portelli, testified that the assaults could not have happened because “I was with him the whole time he was robed on those days”. There was testimony also that the sacristy was bustling after mass with at least a dozen people coming in and out, tidying up and getting changed. The liturgical vestments Pell wore could not have been parted or moved to the side for oral sex to occur, as described by AA.
No one saw the boy sopranos leave their place at the front of the choristers’ procession or return shortly afterwards to a room for rehearsal that someone would have had to use a swipe card to let them in. The court was told neither boy ever talked about the attack to each other or to anyone else. Yet a jury has convicted Pell. The verdict came before Christmas, in a retrial after the jury in an earlier trial could not decide. Several jurors in that first hung trial burst into tears when the result was announced.
I’m very sorry if my defence of Pell upsets victims of child sexual abuse. What has happened to them is monstrous and no punishment is enough for the evil paedophiles who infiltrated the church, masquerading as men of God and preyed on its innocents.
But making a martyr of an innocent man won’t right those wrongs. It just compounds the evil."
Re: Guilty or not
Posted by John on March 2, 2019, 5:51 am, in reply to "Re: Guilty or not"
In answer to your first question, Pete, namely, guilty or not: NOT and yes, may God help him.
A number of writers, like Miranda and Andrew Bolt, have wondered how the uncorroborated evidence of a single man in a quite implausible scenario, could have resulted in a guily verdict, but it did.
Mirana refers to the "rot in hell" screams of hatred directed at the Cardinal outside the court. Perhaps a lot of people might rot in hell over this matter, but the Cardinal will not be one of them.
Divided we stand
Posted by Alex Caughey on March 2, 2019, 4:42 pm, in reply to "Re: Guilty or not"
Freedom of the press (the media) is a pillar of a democratic society wherein all may offer opinions that reflect a person's perspective on any given matter.
When a "celebrity" church person is "processed" through media outlets influencing judges, lawyers, and juries with malice aforethought prior to the legal process there is the thought that courts of law are rendered redundant.
I am waiting for the appeals process to take a second glance at the earlier judgement, for one might surmise that the jury had formed its decision prior to appraising the "facts of the matter."
Trial by media outlets, and highly prejudiced blogs might well encourage each of us to ponder on the thought that justice should be equal for all including those in high office who might well represent perspectives that do not sit well with our own.
Extreme justice is often injustice ~ Jean Racine
end
Re: Guilty or not
Posted by Pete on March 2, 2019, 7:44 pm, in reply to "Re: Guilty or not"
It seems there are good prospects for a successful appeal, but I suppose in these strange/disturbing times nothing can be taken for granted. Given Cardinal Pell's somewhat precarious health and the enormous stress of all this, it's to be hoped he survives the duration of the appeal which I believe could take upwards of 10 months.
In answer to your first question, Pete, namely, guilty or not: NOT and yes, may God help him.
A number of writers, like Miranda and Andrew Bolt, have wondered how the uncorroborated evidence of a single man in a quite implausible scenario, could have resulted in a guily verdict, but it did.
Mirana refers to the "rot in hell" screams of hatred directed at the Cardinal outside the court. Perhaps a lot of people might rot in hell over this matter, but the Cardinal will not be one of them.
The facts
Posted by Faz on March 5, 2019, 11:24 am, in reply to "Divided we stand"
Previous Message
I am waiting for the appeals process to take a second glance at the earlier judgement, for one might surmise that the jury had formed its decision prior to appraising the " facts of the matter."
I think you need to keep to the sentiment expressed in the first part of this para, rather than the second, Alex.
Nobody, I repeat nobody, outside the jury and the legal officers directly involved in the case comes close to knowing the 'facts of the matter'. That is a fact.
To 'surmise' anything beyond what due process has found runs the risk of unjustly demeaning the legal process -- a process in which the Cardinal, arguably, had the best representation money could buy (as is his perfect right in our system) -- and, most importantly, the victim in this case.
The legal system is, of course, imperfect but it has many more checks and balances than the court of public opinion.
There may be 'the thought' that cases like this 'render' courts 'redundant' but it's the best we've got.
The conspiracy theories and righteous indignation surrounding this case are as vociferous and unreasonable for those who think Pell is guilty as they are for those who think he is an innocent victim. They just don't help.
And while those who respect and love the Cardinal are, understandably, upset about his fate, let us never forget it pales into insignificance compared to the life sentence many victims have to endure.
Or, simply the assertions
Posted by John on March 5, 2019, 3:39 pm, in reply to "The facts"
The “court of public opinion”, sometimes referred to as the pub test.
And it doesn’t pass the pub test. That’s the problem. Yes it is true that nobody “outside the jury and the legal officers directly involved in the case comes close to knowing the 'facts of the matter'. That is a fact.” But why? In particular, why was the court closed for a day while evidence was heard in secret? So much lurid detail has been published; what more was there that could be so bad that we were not allowed to hear?
And the evidence was not corroborated. Corroboration of evidence seems to me to have been central to our judicial system for centuries. Why did it not apply in this case? In fact one writer has claimed to have attended all public sessions of both trials, the first one in which the jury are reported to have been 10 to 2 in favour of acquittal, and the second one where the Cardinal was convicted, and is reported in this article SPECIAL EDITORIAL Has Cardinal George Pell been wrongly convicted?, by Patrick J. Byrne, as follows:
Peter Westmore – former president of the National Civic Council, publisher and regular contributor to the NCC’s News Weekly – attended all public hearings of the two trials of Cardinal Pell. He was interviewed on Andrew Bolt’s Sky News program, The Bolt Report, and on American EWTN television. Having twice heard the evidence of 25 people brought as witnesses by the Prosecution, Mr Westmore said that not one corroborated the statements of the complainant. He said he was shocked by the guilty verdict and concluded that the “well of public opinion” had been so poisoned that it was not possible for the Cardinal to get a fair trial.
Pardon? Not one of the 25 witnesses for the prosecution corroborated the statements of the complainant? If this is true, how did he get convicted? That is what has people worried, Faz – who will be next to be accused, by a single person, without corroboration, in a seemingly implausible scenario? That doesn’t seem to pass the pub test.
How do those engaged in the mythical 'pub test' know any more than anyone else with an opinion. How does anyone actually assess what the 'pub test' is saying?
People in pubs saying that Pell is guilty are as reliable as people in pubs saying he's innocent. They're entitled to their views, but it's not a reliable test of fact.
Previous Message
Yes it is true that nobody “outside the jury and the legal officers directly involved in the case comes close to knowing the 'facts of the matter'. That is a fact.” But why? In particular, why was the court closed for a day while evidence was heard in secret? So much lurid detail has been published; what more was there that could be so bad that we were not allowed to hear?
Interesting speculation, but it has no particular bearing on the facts of the case.
Previous Message
And the evidence was not corroborated.
Corroboration of evidence seems to me to have been central to our judicial system for centuries.
If your assertion is right about non corroboration in particular and its role in the judicial system in general, then an appeal should be a 'Lay Down Misere'. Time will tell.
Previous Message
That is what has people worried, Faz – who will be next to be accused, by a single person, without corroboration, in a seemingly implausible scenario? That doesn’t seem to pass the pub test.
Time may prove you essentially correct in your assessment but, to me, relying on the 'pub test' to get to the truth doesn't pass the 'pub test'.
Pardon? Not one of the 25 witnesses for the prosecution corroborated the statements of the complainant? If this is true, how did he get convicted? That is what has people worried, Faz – who will be next to be accused, by a single person, without corroboration, in a seemingly implausible scenario? That doesn’t seem to pass the pub test.
Well, Faz,
This is why I am waiting for the result of the long appeals process, for there would appear to be unanswered questions that I will not pretend to address...not being a fan of pubs. I will confess to drinking a coffee at my local village καφενεῖον where the patrons discuss all the world's problems each morning I visit. Consensus is rare.
You may wish to read this report published in that paragon of liberal virtue, the BBC website illustrating the public's need not to rush to judgement when finger pointing is in fashion.
Again, Alex, I have no issue at all with the notion of keeping our fingers 'down' until the appeal process is exhausted, but your BBC story has such a tenuous link to the story here in Australia that I wonder what you're doing with your finger.
I have read in various accounts that the matter of secrecy of the hearings was, in fact, something that Pell's lawyers wanted and the court agreed. Presumably they regarded the publicity of salacious details would prejudice their case?
Specifically, the suppression order was designed to prevent influencing a third trial in the near future. A key witness in that trial died, so the trial itself was abandoned, then the suppression order was lifted.