Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sex Abuse

Jump to new
orr said:
I

I have to say something here;
I offer absolutely no defence for those you mention. And shine upon them every aspect of inquiry and due response.
In regard Pell; Accusations of offences by him directly on others, is now before the court.
The much bigger tradgity is that the institution of the Catholic church has protected 'Historically' deeds by offenders under their control so heinous and protracted and then facilitated the further ghastly and evil perversions to be perpetrated by those in their employ; And then persecuted to the grave individuals damaged by the arrogant high handed and dismissive attitude of an institution that assumed itself to be above the law; The injured souls in their hundreds and thousands.
Pell embodies the ethos of this god awful institution, irregardless of the outcome of the ruling that awaits of the above mention accusations.

The pithy blatherings of some in the News Corp press that attempt to argue this as a distraction to Victoria's presumed current crime trouble, seem completly unable to quantify the magnitude this multi generation national disaster perpetrated against the most vulnerable.

By the last census results Jews and Muslims make up about a combined %4 percent of the Australian population. Catholics make up over a quarter ... Just hold that as a metric. And the damage is done.
Click to expand...

Thanks mate,

Totally agree.

Abuse is abuse.

gg
 
Pell sounded pretty perky at his press conference.

Either:

1. he's bluffing.
2. he's really innocent and thinks he can prove it.
3. he has a lot of confidence in his lawyers paid for no doubt by the bottomless Vatican pit.
4. he thinks he can drag it out indefinitely untill the prosecution gives up.
5. he know's it's a matter of his word against someone else and no one can prove anything either way.
6. he will suddenly get 'very ill' and claim persecution of an old sick man.
 
SirRumpole said:
Pell sounded pretty perky at his press conference.

Either:

1. he's bluffing.
2. he's really innocent and thinks he can prove it.
3. he has a lot of confidence in his lawyers paid for no doubt by the bottomless Vatican pit.
4. he thinks he can drag it out indefinitely untill the prosecution gives up.
5. he know's it's a matter of his word against someone else and no one can prove anything either way.
6. he will suddenly get 'very ill' and claim persecution of an old sick man.
Click to expand...

Mate,

You have no idea about how the Vatican works.

It's a state, like the USA or Australia.

Plus he has the presumption of innocence as an a Australian.

He has agreed to come back to face the allegations.

If so, due process will be followed.

Uninformed comment is prejudicial to a fair trial.

gg
 
Garpal Gumnut said:
Mate,

You have no idea about how the Vatican works.

It's a state, like the USA or Australia.

Plus he has the presumption of innocence as an a Australian.

He has agreed to come back to face the allegations.

If so, due process will be followed.

Uninformed comment is prejudicial to a fair trial.

gg
Click to expand...

Please note my point 2. It could well be that he is actually innocent and is the victim of a beat up. We shall see.

And what does the status of the Vatican have to do with it ?
 
SirRumpole said:
Please note my point 2. It could well be that he is actually innocent and is the victim of a beat up. We shall see.

And what does the status of the Vatican have to do with it ?
Click to expand...

Thanks Rumpole,

The status of the Vatican has little to do with it.

gg
 
The trial and processing of Cardinal George Pell is going to be the Trial of the Century. So the following questions come to mind as far as the process goes.
1) How will a jury be chosen ? How can one find either an inpartial juror or one that has not seen/heard of the Royal Commission into institutional child abuse ? AND if by some miracle there is a person who isn't even aware of the commission would lawyers be properly concerned about such lack of knowledge ? How will questions of religious affiliation be addressed. After all the defence only has to find one person to say no and stick to the decision to ensure a Not Guilty result. And on this point who is going to accept being on such a jury with all the pressure this will entail ? From my limited experience people who end up on juries are not the sharpest pencils in the box. Why ? Because lawyers attempt to get rid of the more intelligent people in the jury pool and the more intelligent people try to get out sticky cases..

2) How will a judge be appointed ? This is such an important case the choice will be agonised over. What should be the religious background of the Judge ? How much weight will be put on the judges history ? Will they be a "conservative" judge "or a "liberal" one? What will that mean anyway ? Will judges have a choice in taking on the case with all the attendant publicity ?

3) How do we deal with public and political comment ? Traditionally the procedure before a trial is a voluntary black out of any public discussion to enable a fair trial. But at this stage we already have politicians like Tony Abbott declaring what a fine man George Pell is. Andrew Bolt likewise is calling this a witch hunt . Miranada Devine is also questioning the charging of George Pell. Will the judicial system attempt to stop such public utterances and threaten them with contempt of court charges ? How will the judges/judicial system respond to these attempts to "pervert the course of justice" ?

4) How will the Catholic community/heirarchy respond ? Will it be accepted that there is now a trial to properly investigate well founded charges or.... what ?

5) What will be the fate of the complainants ? Cardinal Pell has, to date, protested his complete and total innocence of all charges. No grey. No if's ,buts. From that premise it seems as if the main defence will be total denial and by definition presenting a case that each complainant is a liar.

6) Going back to the Catholic community . What will be the thoughts of remaining senior religious leaders. Do they really want the trial to go ahead ? What will be the impact on the Church's credibility if Cardinal Pells credibility is picked apart piece by piece ? Who has a say in deciding how far Cardinal Pell will be defended ? What legal steps will be taken to present a case for the defence that essentially has to destroy each and every complainant ? How ugly would it look to mount such a defence get a Not Guility and then be faced with the damage they have done.

7) Let's say the trial happens and for all sorts of reasons a jury cannot find beyond reasonable doubt and acquits George Pell. A week later the complainants lodge a civil suit alleging personal damages. In a civil court cases, I understand, are decided on "balance of probabilities" rather the much stricter "beyond reasonable doubt." How would this turn out?

8) How will the court process cope with countless online discussions, blogs, internet click bait. Should these be suspended/banned until the trial is over to try and keep some semblance of a fair trial ? How would that work ? Would such a process be accepted as part of allowing a fair trial to take place ?

My guess is that George Pell and any legal counsel is well aware of these issues and are acting accordingly. In that sense the complete and total denial or any culpability is part of a process to make this trial one of the most difficult ever mounted.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/a...l/news-story/8f5c5487292a06ecdace84a3a275c896
 
basilio said:
My guess is that George Pell and any legal counsel is well aware of these issues and are acting accordingly. In that sense the complete and total denial or any culpability is part of a process to make this trial one of the most difficult ever mounted.
Click to expand...

Maybe there should be an all Muslim judge and jury ? ;)
 
As I was noting..


News Corp's Miranda Devine says police are 'hunting Catholics' after George Pell charges
Columnist launches attack on Victorian police chief as force insists investigation of cardinal followed usual procedure for allegations of historical sex offences


3428.jpg
The News Corp columnist Miranda Devine says the media is pre-judging Cardinal George Pell and he will not be able to get a fair trial.

Shares
1,388

Amanda Meade

Thursday 29 June 2017 14.18 AEST Last modified on Thursday 29 June 2017 14.56 AEST

The News Corp columnist Miranda Devine has defended George Pell on Twitter, saying his charges have been drummed up by Victoria police as a distraction from a supposed crime epidemic in that state.

After Pell was charged on Thursday morning, Devine said on Twitter that the media was pre-judging Pell and said he could not possibly get a fair trial.

“Victoria police chief Graham Ashton desperate for a distraction from the crime epidemic he’s incapable of stopping #HuntingCatholics,” Devine said.

“How would you like to be labelled a pedophile,” she asked. “Pell is supposed to be charged with exactly what I don’t know.

“But a fair trial can’t be now. Let due process prevail not Christian hate. I don’t defend churches’ shameful history of child sexual abuse. I am objecting to the feral prejudging of Cardinal Pell.

“Cardinal Pell is not charged with what you say but congratulations on the smear which ensures no fair trial.”

The Daily Telegraph columnist is a practising Catholic and has characterised the investigation of Pell as a witch-hunt of Catholics in particular and Christians in general and has used the hashtag #HuntingCatholics.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2...e-hunting-catholics-after-george-pell-charges
 
SirRumpole said:
Due process but not now ?

How do people like this become journalists ?
Click to expand...

Her father got her her job. In her ****-eyed view of the world, "due process" is this...

saying his charges have been drummed up by Victoria police as a distraction from a supposed crime epidemic in that state.

Devine said on Twitter that the media was pre-judging Pell and said he could not possibly get a fair trial.

“Victoria police chief Graham Ashton desperate for a distraction from the crime epidemic he’s incapable of stopping #HuntingCatholics,” Devine said.

“How would you like to be labelled a pedophile,” she asked. “Pell is supposed to be charged with exactly what I don’t know.
Click to expand...

If you don't know, Miranda, maybe you should stfu until you do. That is, if you really do believe in due process rather than just trying to silence anyone whose opinion differs. Perhaps she should preface her opinion by declaring her Catholicism, I'm sure she'd expect the same transparency.
 
McLovin said:
Perhaps she should preface her opinion by declaring her Catholicism, I'm sure she'd expect the same transparency.
Click to expand...

Do you think she's doing her best to create an atmosphere where a fair trial is impossible ? ie deliberatlly trying to influence a potential jury in Pell's favour rather than just being incompetent ?

It would be interesting to know just how far she could go without being in contempt.
 
SirRumpole said:
Do you think she's doing her best to create an atmosphere where a fair trial is impossible ? ie deliberatlly trying to influence a potential jury in Pell's favour rather than just being incompetent ?
Click to expand...

I don't think she has the readership for that to be of concern. I haven't seen any reporting of Pell now, or when he appeared at the Royal Commission, that hasn't been fair and balanced. Courts in Australia very rarely postpone a trial because of media attention, and there have been far worse examples of media bias than poor ol' Pell has recieved. If worse came to worse they could just go for a judge only trial (not sure if Victoria has those).
 
justice.jpg
SirRumpole said:
Do you think she's doing her best to create an atmosphere where a fair trial is impossible ? ie deliberatlly trying to influence a potential jury in Pell's favour rather than just being incompetent ?

It would be interesting to know just how far she could go without being in contempt.
Click to expand...


Justice is blind to bias apparently....I think I just made a funny ...blind to bias hahaha.



7c9b8afe95b409efc9285539c9f426fc.jpg
 
This article by David Marr gives an insightful view into Cardinal Pells career and the skills and strengths that have taken him so far. Well worth a read in the context of the investigation into child sexual abuse.

George Pell profile: the pope's Australian hardman faces the fight of his life
David Marr on the long and often controversial career of a ‘bright kid’ who rose from rural Australia to the highest reaches of the Catholic church

Shares
433

David Marr

Thursday 29 June 2017 21.09 AEST Last modified on Friday 30 June 2017 08.59 AEST

A bright kid from an Australian bush town, George Pell kept his nose clean as he rose through the ranks to become chief of the Vatican’s finances. Despite a notably hard heart he was always a valuable asset to the church as a fearless conservative ideologue and a fine administrator.

Young Pell was plucked from Australia to train in Rome and at Oxford for the big career that was always beckoning. He returned to serve briefly and unhappily in a remote parish on the Murray before being brought into the heart of the diocese of Ballarat which was a hell of child abuse.

Pell swears he saw little or nothing in those years.

Strange that the career of a man who would climb so far and so fast was marked early on by such a want of curiosity. He would explain to Australia’s royal commission into institutional responses to child sexual abuse: “It was a sad story and of not much interest to me.”

He sat on a committee that transferred Father Gerard Ridsdale from parish to parish. The crimes of this vicious paedophile were notorious in Ballarat, known to the bishop and familiar to other members of the committee. But by his own account, Pell never asked why this priest was always on the move.

Pell was a big man who awed the faithful and impressed politicians. Even in Ballarat he began to display an almost magical ability to extract money from governments. This was to stand him in excellent stead in his Australian career.

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...ustralian-hardman-faces-the-fight-of-his-life
 
Cardinal George Pell is indeed entitled to a presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a properly constituted court of law. (God that all sounds so old fashioned in 2017 )

Indeed amongst the strongest advocates for such a principled view are writers in the News Ltd Press ( unless of course they are banging on that no fair trial will be possible because of the media witch hunt against Cardinal Pell.).

First Dog On the Moon has produced his own masterly reminder of just how principled News Ltd has been in its approach to other people in conflict situations. Enjoy it. As always Priceless.


Cardinal Pell is entitled to the presumption of innocence. Unlike some people
First-Dog-on-the-Moon-L.png

First Dog on the Moon
According to News Corp everyone is entitled to the presumption of innocence unless they are not
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...e-presumption-of-innocence-unlike-some-people
 
basilio said:
Cardinal George Pell is indeed entitled to a presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a properly constituted court of law. (God that all sounds so old fashioned in 2017 )

Indeed amongst the strongest advocates for such a principled view are writers in the News Ltd Press ( unless of course they are banging on that no fair trial will be possible because of the media witch hunt against Cardinal Pell.).

First Dog On the Moon has produced his own masterly reminder of just how principled News Ltd has been in its approach to other people in conflict situations. Enjoy it. As always Priceless.


Cardinal Pell is entitled to the presumption of innocence. Unlike some people
First-Dog-on-the-Moon-L.png

First Dog on the Moon
According to News Corp everyone is entitled to the presumption of innocence unless they are not
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...e-presumption-of-innocence-unlike-some-people
Click to expand...

Another witchhunt? :Bligh, Gillard, Rudd and Shorten must be sh!tting themselves, being the traditional targets they will eventually be blamed by the LNP.:smuggrin:
 
http://www.organicandhealthy.org/2017/06/catholic-church-raping-children-is.html

Deny, Minimise, Blame

In a depraved and disturbing statement by the Archdiocese of Milwaukee, a high-ranking cleric from the Catholic Church, he claimed that pedophilia is granted by God for priests. The vile comment was made by Cardinal Timothy Dolan after being found to have transferred church finances into a trust to keep them from being sued for clergy child abuse.


The Catholic Archdiocese of Milwaukee kept $55 million dollars in church funds from lawsuits started by victims of priestly sexual abuse, and transferred the money to a separate trust to take care of the archdiocese's cemeteries and mausoleums, stated a letter by Timothy Dolan, the then-Archbishop of Milwaukee. When victims came forward to seek compensation in a bankruptcy proceeding, the archdiocese made claims that their ability to sexually molest children is a right of religious liberty and that no money should be compensated to victims of clergy child sex abuse.
Church and State finds the allegations against the Archdiocese in Milwaukee to be shocking and it involved 45 priests that had been accused of molesting around 200 deaf boys. Think Progress reports that the $55 million from the bankruptcy proceedings went into a trust for mausoleums and cemeteries. They then used their religious freedom as a defense against victims. It worked when a court ruled that religious freedom ensured their right to not compensate the victims in 2013. The first court was overruled by the Seventh Circuit Court, yet it doesn’t imply that victims will be compensated, but an appeal will follow.

The church states the money is needed to fund mausoleums and cemeteries, and if they have to compensate victims, their obligations to service the deceased will be unfulfilled. Religious freedom has become quite an issue after the archdiocese says it had a Canonical obligation to “properly maintain in perpetuity” the mausoleums and cemeteries that rely on funding from the trust. If victims of sexual abuse and creditors are compensated, the archdiocese states, “there will be no funds or, at best, insufficient funds, for the perpetual care of the Milwaukee Catholic Cemeteries,” therefore the archdiocese claims it won’t be able to complete its religious obligation.

With the rejection of this claim that the archdiocese having the religious right to transfer trust funds on burial places and only there, the 7th Circuit explained many reasons why religious freedom can’t over sway the rights of victims of clergy sex abuse and the archdiocese’s creditors. The court ruled the archdiocese’s claim for religious liberty would fail under constitutional scrutiny.
The court ruled churches do not have the right to be exempt from paying taxes into Social Security, and that public interest can replace religious freedom: Drawing a comparison to a Supreme Court decision holding that religious objectors may not opt out of Social Security taxes, the court notes that federal bankruptcy law, like Social Security, “serves the public interest by providing a comprehensive … system with a variety of benefits available to all participants’ nationwide.”


Just as Social Security “aids those who have reached a certain age or are disabled, the Code aids those who have reached a certain financial condition and who need assistance repaying or recovering a debt.”
It was warned by the court that if this becomes a precedent, there will be no way to predict where it will end up. Anyone at any time can join or create a cult to “gain economic advantage” or businesses can rely on their religious beliefs, no matter what the case, to violate or discriminate laws in ways the Catholic Church has justified pedophilia.
Click to expand...
 
Top