Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sex Abuse

Jump to new
Second thoughts, do Muslim "Priests" have to be celibate? That seems to be the problem with Catholics.
 
For people who have questions about the conduct of the Cardinal Pell trial this story offers an excellent overview by a reporter who sat through the entire trial.
Cardinal George Pell's conviction: the questions that remain
George Pell’s trials on child sexual assault charges have received unprecedented public attention. Melissa Davey, one of the few reporters who sat through the entire process, answers some of the most common questions raised since his conviction
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...ge-pells-conviction-the-questions-that-remain
 
Another perspective on Cardinal Pell.

My anger with George Pell has been replaced by immense sadness
Christos Tsiolkas

I don’t see a monster. I see all the women and children and men and nuns and priests destroyed by shame, fear and lies

Sun 3 Mar 2019 07.19 AEDT Last modified on Sun 3 Mar 2019 07.21 AEDT
  • ‘I can’t help also wondering what it has meant for this man, once we strip him of the aura of his cardinalship and priestly authority, to have clearly led a life as a lie?’ Photograph: Reut

3500.jpg

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...rge-pell-has-been-replaced-by-immense-sadness
 
basilio said:
Another perspective on Cardinal Pell.

My anger with George Pell has been replaced by immense sadness
Christos Tsiolkas

I don’t see a monster. I see all the women and children and men and nuns and priests destroyed by shame, fear and lies

Sun 3 Mar 2019 07.19 AEDT Last modified on Sun 3 Mar 2019 07.21 AEDT
  • ‘I can’t help also wondering what it has meant for this man, once we strip him of the aura of his cardinalship and priestly authority, to have clearly led a life as a lie?’ Photograph: Reut

3500.jpg

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...rge-pell-has-been-replaced-by-immense-sadness
Click to expand...

What a croc. He is filled with anger.
One thing though he knows it looks like a fit up.

What annoys me about the whole thing is that it is an obvious way to attack him and despite the obvious lies in most of the testimonies, no one got charged for perjury.

One managed to get through despite the dead persons Mum saying she asked and was told that no incident occurred and the obvious strangeness of the incident which doesn't fit with paedofile methods or with reality within a cathedral.
and they are already holding out their hands for money.
 
Knobby22 said:
What a croc. He is filled with anger.
One thing though he knows it looks like a fit up.

What annoys me about the whole thing is that it is an obvious way to attack him and despite the obvious lies in most of the testimonies, no one got charged for perjury.

One managed to get through despite the dead persons Mum saying she asked and was told that no incident occurred and the obvious strangeness of the incident which doesn't fit with paedofile methods or with reality within a cathedral.
and they are already holding out their hands for money.
Click to expand...

Wow Knobby ! So you were part of the closed court that heard the complainants testimony over a number of days ? Really ? And you believe that this million dollar defense counsel of Cardinal Pell was unable to nail all the obvious lies in the various testimonies. Big call.

As far as the obvious strangeness of the incident which makes the crime impossible? Thirty years ago something like this would have been unthinkable. But then 10's then 100's of cases of child sexual abuse by religious came before the courts. And don't kid yourself. The capacity of these people to openly assault children in the presence of family was also unbelievable. After these experiences courts have realised what was unthinkable in fact happened time after time.

As far as the dead persons mothers comments. Yes she did ask. Yes he did say "nothing happened" .
But the facts are that thousands of people who were sexually abused denied it while they were trying to cope with the trauma it provoked. There was an article on their situation which I posted.

Perhaps one could have it both ways. If someone denies having been abused they are telling the truth. But if they say they have been abused it is a monstrous lie and they are clearly lying. But we wouldn't accept that surely ?

By the way did you read my post 279 ? In many ways it addresses your comments but I'll post some particular ones in full

On top of this straw-clutching is a layer of active disinformation, lying and irrelevance. It is not true that priests rarely abuse their victims without grooming. It may be true that Pell is a “lively conversationalist” but he is not on trial for being a bad raconteur. As for the man of high office, the man that I knew, the man who is so privately charitable, the man who would never … These words already appear in tens of thousands of case files. How many more are needed?

Those files also find priests who raped children not just in the sacristy but at the altar. They molested children not only in public but in front of their own family members, sometimes in the same moving car. They raped them while wearing vestments, not only orally but anally as well. That same untieable cincture has been used to bind the hands of a 16-year-old boy, who was then raped so viciously he needed corrective surgery. Opportunistic priests have acted in windows of time not just after mass, but on school excursions in public toilets. They have snuck into a hospital to rape a seven-year-old girl. They have molested every daughter in a five-daughter family.

So what about Pell’s case is implausible, or even unusual? For anyone willing to look, it is almost humdrum, once compared to the vast, prolific compendium of international crime his institution has compiled.

Unthinkable? What his defenders really mean is that they cannot bear thinking about it.
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...rge-pells-defenders-just-displays-their-power
 
Chill Bas. Christians by nature and ethos are generally very caring people. It's only the requirement for celibacy of Priests which entices those without enough restraint to commit these atrocities.
 
Another slow motion horror story of children raped by sadistic priests.
But it gets worse when you recognise the efforts the Catholic Church went to, to keep this quiet.
Sexual abuse survivor sadistically raped by a priest as an altar boy fought for 15 years to get justice
As an 11-year-old, Marco Fabbro was whipped and brutally raped by a sadistic Jesuit priest. It became a rapid downfall for the young boy.

https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/r...e/news-story/baca519cd2896ae34c3c11150fcde848
 
Great article in The Age/SMH by crime reporter John Sylvester pointing out the problems with the conviction.
On phone so haven't got link.
 
We have an independent legal system which has been developed to provide every opportunity for a person to receive a fair trial. The system is devised so that it is always on the prosecution to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. The defendant doesn't have to prove their innocence. They only have to create reasonable doubt in the minds of at least a couple of jury members.

We also have an appeals process which allows a convicted person the opportunity to ask another court to review their conviction if they believe there has been a failure in the court process. So far so good.

I can understand people being concerned that such a notable person as Cardinal Pell being found guilty of child sex abuse. So sure. Go for an appeal.

What I don't like is this clamor of outrage that says Cardinal Pell can't be guilty, that it is all a mistake, that somehow "the courts are rigged"..

For a second just turn the result over. Imagine Cardinal Pell was found Not Guilty. What would/should the response be if people starting saying exactly the same thing in reverse ?

On everything I have read to date the Judge conducted a very fair trial. He repeatedly told the jury they wern't trying Cardinal Pell for anything except the case at hand. He never gave any direction to the jury of his view, if any.

The defense was truly the best that money could buy. They used every opportunity they could to create doubt in the minds of the jury. In the end the jury accepted the tested, rigorously cross examined testimony of the accused. Doesn't that count for something ?

Anyway lets see what an appeal brings. But using the power of the press and particular conservative opinion to create pressure for another result seems so, so wrong.
 
What did you think of the article Bas?
The trouble in my view is that a jury can be tainted by bias. In the past it was the opposite way as we all know.

Also just because the Guardian doesn't support it doesn't make it right wing. Not everything is left right.

The accusor stands to make big money and let's just say he isn't a pillar of society.
 
Last edited:
basilio said:
They used every opportunity they could to create doubt in the minds of the jury. In the end the jury accepted the tested, rigorously cross examined testimony of the accused.
Click to expand...

I find it strange that the defendant did not actually appear at this trial. His testimony and the cross examination from a previous trial where there was a hung jury was used instead.

I wonder if the defence objected to this. It just seems a bit odd to me.
 
SirRumpole said:
I find it strange that the defendant did not actually appear at this trial. His testimony and the cross examination from a previous trial where there was a hung jury was used instead.

I wonder if the defence objected to this. It just seems a bit odd to me.
Click to expand...

From Knobby's article:

"Much has been made of the fact that Pell did not take the witness box to defend himself. His lawyer, Robert Richter, QC, who is about the best in the business, has only ever let two of his clients take the box. One was the colourful Mick Gatto, charged and acquitted of the murder of hitman Andrew ‘‘Benji’’ Veniamin. I asked Richter why he allowed Gatto to testify and he replied, ‘‘Because he insisted.’’ Wise move.

It should also be recorded that when he was interviewed by police, Pell answered all questions and didn’t choose to invoke his right to silence.

In all probability Richter thought the case was so weak and, as Pell can come over as cold and aloof, that his testimony could do more harm than good."
 
Darc Knight said:
From Knobby's article:

"Much has been made of the fact that Pell did not take the witness box to defend himself. His lawyer, Robert Richter, QC, who is about the best in the business, has only ever let two of his clients take the box. One was the colourful Mick Gatto, charged and acquitted of the murder of hitman Andrew ‘‘Benji’’ Veniamin. I asked Richter why he allowed Gatto to testify and he replied, ‘‘Because he insisted.’’ Wise move.

It should also be recorded that when he was interviewed by police, Pell answered all questions and didn’t choose to invoke his right to silence.

In all probability Richter thought the case was so weak and, as Pell can come over as cold and aloof, that his testimony could do more harm than good."
Click to expand...

Sorry, I made a mistake there.

I should have said "complainant" not defendant.

The complainants testimony from a previous trial was used , he did not appear at this one.

"
The complainant did not appear in person at the trial but footage of his testimony and cross-examination from an earlier trial, which resulted in a hung jury, was shown instead."

https://www.news.com.au/national/vi...g/news-story/c2737320de6619d82f101973eb02e96f

e1b0d4f7c2d19c1ca83ee79b1ada3cc9?width=650.jpg
 
Knobby22 said:
What did you think of the article Bas?
The trouble in my view is that a jury can be tainted by bias. In the past it was the opposite way as we all know.

Also just because the Guardian doesn't support it doesn't make it right wing. Not everything is left right.

The accusor stands to make big money and let's just say he isn't a pillar of society.
Click to expand...

Knobby the article was fairly restrained in my view. It made the points that historically sexual abuse cases are very hard to prove with only the uncorroborated testimony of the victim and no supporting forensic evidence. In fact this "reality" has been the cornerstone of historical unwillingness of police and prosecutors to press sexual assault charges.

So this was a pretty historic case. "The Cardinal" versus "The Kid". I'm quite certain that then as well as now no one would have given The Kid a chance in hell of being believed. But in 2019 we have a new history of behaviours by clergy, people in power, famous stars and so on that has informed us of how the rich and powerful can get away with almost anything the care to do.

Knobby you suggest that somehow this complainant isn't that savory a character. And that he is after money.

I have not heard a whisper of money. All the observations to date have been that The Lad has in fact survived his ordeal quite well. He is not, it seems, the traumatised person who has self medicated to disaster. If you have evidence of anything different send it to me. But even so lets leave this to the court processes rather decide without benefit of being in the trial itself what was impossible and so on. Clearly 12 people heard all the cross examined evidence and came to the unanimous conclusion that The Kid was telling the truth.

Of course the real problem is that if indeed The Kid is telling the truth The Cardinal is truly from hell. And that is a big call..
 
Top