Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sex Abuse

Jump to new
SirRumpole said:
Bas,

Have you given any thought to what you will say if Pell gets off on appeal ?
Click to expand...

It's not that simple Rumpy. There might be a retrial. I don't believe he can be found "innocent". Perhaps "not proven "? The other information that has subsequently surfaced and the civil cases have reinforced teh case against the man.

As I see it Professor Parkinsons' analysis is the key. Powerful figures who abuse children rely on their prestige to deny everything and comfortable with the fact that in almost every situation their word and power will be accepted because it would be unthinkable to do otherwise.

Twelve ordinary people in a jury room have decided otherwise.
 
More observations on child sexual abuse.

Michael Jackson
Believe the victims of child sexual abuse? If only we did
Suzanne Moore
It’s taken years for people to see Michael Jackson for what he was. With abuse, the world prefers to look the other way

@suzanne_moore

Fri 8 Mar 2019 04.09 AEDT Last modified on Fri 8 Mar 2019 05.25 AEDT

Shares
5,888

5163.jpg
‘In the documentary Leaving Neverland, Wade Robson (left) and James Safechuck talk sometimes blankly, sometimes shakily, about what Michael Jackson did to them.’ Photograph: Joshua Bright/The Guardian
Here are some things I don’t really want to think about but have had to over the years: Jimmy Savile’s penchant for tracksuits, as the bottoms can be pulled up and down so easily; vulnerable 13-year-old girls in Rochdale ignored by local police; seven-year-old boys sleeping in the bed of a pop star and being introduced to masturbation; or the day long ago when I was teaching film studies and a film I showed (Terence Davies’ Distant Voices, Still Lives) produced extreme distress for one of my mature students.

Something in that film, a shot of a sofa I think, had caused a rush of terrible memories. In those days there were groups for survivors of sexual abuse and I was able to find some kind of help for them. Never for one moment did I disbelieve the distress I saw in front of me. Nor did I find it strange that sometimes people did not clearly remember what happened to them as children and that they could not talk about it till many years later.

What I find shocking at the moment is that we all know about the sexual abuse of children but we still remain in such a deep state of denial about it. The NSPCC estimates that one in 20 children in this country has been sexually abused. The police say that if they were to prosecute every case there would be no time to do anything else. Everyone who works in mental health services, or with addiction, or with the homeless, will tell you how sexual abuse is a factor in the background of so many people they deal with. The detritus of abuse is all around us. We turn a blind eye to that which disturbs us in order to protect ourselves.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/07/child-sexual-abuse-victims-michael-jackson
 
basilio said:
Believe the victims of child sexual abuse? If only we did
Click to expand...

Interesting that the Royal Commission did not examine the entertainment industry. Saville and Jackson's exposes may just be the tip of the iceberg.

Also Rolf Harris and Robert Hughes. And surely a lot of the "camp followers" of rock stars were minors eager to give themselves to their heroes.

Another group of people with power over others who abuse it. Don Burke ?

Why did these allegations take so long to come out ? Other actors, producers, directors must have known.
 
SirRumpole said:
Interesting that the Royal Commission did not examine the entertainment industry. Saville and Jackson's exposes may just be the tip of the iceberg.
.
Click to expand...

The trouble is always deciding on the practical limits of Royal Commission. They decided on looking at "Institutional response" to child sex abuse. The other examples are broader industries and individuals.

I agree with you that the entertainment industry has plenty of examples of abuse. And much of that has come out as a result of the Commission
 
Can someone tell me what the evidence was against him, or how he was proven guilty? I been too busy lately to follow news issues.
 
It's not a five minute answer @grah33

It's almost a given that anyone responding to your query will be quizzed at length by sycophants from both sides of the argument. You are better off doing your research and posting your own conclusions so that you can be quizzed at length by sycophants from both sides of the argument :D
 
Cardinal Pell was convicted on the uncorroborated testimony of one victim. There was no physical evidence available or offered. Just a single person who came forward with the story of what had happened to him and a friend in the sacristy of St Patricks Cathedral after mass one Sunday.

In the legal world, finding a Cardinal guilty of a sexual outrage over the word of teenager (but now and adult) would be unthinkable. Based on that reasoning Cardinal Pell has been steadfast in denying he ever touched the boys. His supporters have been equally steadfast in saying it was "unthinkable" and "impossible" for such behavior.

However the victim has stood by his testimony through police interrogation, DPP interrogation, the commital trial and finally the full trial. He was cross examined by the best barristers of the land for two days in front of the jury of his peers. His life was investigated to the last inch by private detectives.

In the end the jury believed the kid was telling the truth and found Cardinal Pell guilty. It's worth noting that Cardinal Pell had the absolute Rolls Royce of a legal defence team. This was financed by his personal friends not the Catholic Church. They apparently undertook every possible step to undermine the case against Pell - and failed.

Check out what the Chief Justice Peter Kidd Judge had to say in his sentencing.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-13/-george-pell-being-sentenced/10879958
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...y-four-years-in-jail-for-child-sexual-assault
 
Anyone can view the full explanation of the Chief Justice on ABC Facebook.
It is an excellent example of how the legal process works and the reasons behind the Judges acceptance or otherwise of defense arguments.
The final presentation of the sentence and the various factors in play is also a learning point.

Put aside an hour and understand why George Pell was convicted and what the jury accepted he had done.
 
Firstly, I do not know if you agree with the outcome or not, Basilio, so I will give my interpretation of the facts :

HE WAS FOUND GUILTY, he has the right of appeal.

basilio said:
Cardinal Pell was convicted on the uncorroborated testimony of one victim. There was no physical evidence available or offered. Just a single person who came forward with the story of what had happened to him and a friend in the sacristy of St Patricks Cathedral after mass one Sunday.
Click to expand...

The court found he was guilty

basilio said:
In the legal world, finding a Cardinal guilty of a sexual outrage over the word of teenager (but now and adult) would be unthinkable. Based on that reasoning Cardinal Pell has been steadfast in denying he ever touched the boys.
Click to expand...

He was found guilty and based on that fact he has always denied doesn't mean he was innocent.

basilio said:
His supporters have been equally steadfast in saying it was "unthinkable" and "impossible" for such behavior.
Click to expand...

F--k me, the church has turned a blind eye to these sins, actually criminal offenses since the creation of this religious order.

Unthinkable - maybe, for me it is unthinkable that there is a god without evidence, he was found guilty on evidence.
Impossible - nothing is impossible, nothing is 100%, there is always a chance. For his supporters to support this train of thought seems stupid to me, when it is very clear, he was well aware of the crimes committed by his institution but choose not to do anything. For that alone he should be sent to hell - but that doesn't include that he should be found guilty of crimes other committed.

He was found guilty of crimes he committed.

basilio said:
However the victim has stood by his testimony through police interrogation, DPP interrogation, the commital trial and finally the full trial. He was cross examined by the best barristers of the land for two days in front of the jury of his peers. His life was investigated to the last inch by private detectives.
Click to expand...

This to me is the most important evidence, find me a child who has become an adult after being f--kd up the arse, who is sound and reasonable and not gone off the rails. This witness is 1 in a Million and should not be discredited, well he hasn't hence why Pell was found guilty.

I am sure there are other witnesses, but after being abused turned to drugs/alcohol/crime and so were not found to be credible.

basilio said:
It's worth noting that Cardinal Pell had the absolute Rolls Royce of a legal defence team. This was financed by his personal friends not the Catholic Church. They apparently undertook every possible step to undermine the case against Pell - and failed.
Click to expand...

Again, this is worth note, even with the best of the best and no expense, could he avoid the truth.

The church leaders are devoid of being human and are all guilty for allowing this to happen in the name of God.

I feel for the believers who have been let down by their leaders.

 
Also like to add, if this was not someone so high up in a religious institution, that the masses believes is correct in it teachings, would so many come out to support Pell.

I think not, this about people coming to grips with their own beliefs and it is impossible, some who is divine could be a Pedo.
 
satanoperca said:
Firstly, I do not know if you agree with the outcome or not, Basilio, so I will give my interpretation of the facts :
Click to expand...

In my view justice was done in this trial. As I said it really is worth viewing the Chief Justices summary to understand what happened and how the Chief Justice arrived at the final sentence.
 
Bigger picture view of the history of teh Catholic Church losing it's untouchability in Australia.

George Pell's jailing defies the might of Rome but his fall is too appalling for celebration
David Marr
Pell’s sentencing showed he was accountable to the law – and the bravery of his accuser must be acknowledged

• Cardinal George Pell to spend nearly four years in jail for child sexual assault

Wed 13 Mar 2019 00.36 GMT Last modified on Wed 13 Mar 2019 00.45 GMT

Shares
1,207


3500.jpg
Cardinal George Pell has been sentenced to six years in prison with a non-parole period of three years and eight months. Photograph: Con Chronis/AFP/Getty Images
In the squalor of this moment there is little to celebrate. Few are jumping for joy that George Pell may spend at least three years and eight months in prison. His fall is too appalling for celebration.

But by jailing a cardinal for these sordid crimes Australia has demonstrated once again that the rule of law runs in this country. Getting here hasn’t been easy but no other country stares down the Catholic church as we do now. This is a day to be proud of that record.

In their rage and confusion, Pell’s supporters have declared their man a martyr to the mob, a victim of press vendettas, a great priest whose reputation has been sullied beyond repair by the left. But that’s not what his fall is about. Somewhere in the past few years, Rome lost the power to protect men like him.

This secular country at the far end of the Earth stood up to Rome to hold the first national inquiry in the world into the role of faiths – particularly the Catholic faith – in a systematic, old and hidden regime of child abuse.

Pell led the opposition to any such inquiry for decades. He was always there saying it wasn’t necessary. And he was backed to the hilt by John Howard, who declared the other day that he still reckoned this convicted paedophile was a man of “exemplary character”.
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...but-his-fall-is-too-appalling-for-celebration
 
PZ99 said:
It's not a five minute answer @grah33

It's almost a given that anyone responding to your query will be quizzed at length by sycophants from both sides of the argument. You are better off doing your research and posting your own conclusions so that you can be quizzed at length by sycophants from both sides of the argument :D
Click to expand...

More than twelve angry men in this place :)

Grah33: to answer your question I will need to know how you define "the separation of powers", "evidence" and "beyond reasonable doubt". :)
 
satanoperca said:
He was found guilty and based on that fact he has always denied doesn't mean he was innocent.
Click to expand...

I am half way through the sentencing video, but this question confuses me. Perhaps those with a better legal understanding than me could explain.

During the trial and even after being found guilt, Pell always claimed innocence. But the judge in his summation stated that Pell's counsel tried to suggest that Pell was not of a rational mind at the time as there was a high probability that someone could walk in on him during those acts and also that there were lockable rooms close by that would have been less risky. Doing it under those circumstances indicated a lack of rationality. The judge rejected those claims for several reasons, one of which was that no medical evidence had been put to the court to suggest that Pell had any mental impairment at the time in question.

Although I have heard people say in letters to the press that Pell couldn't have done it because the sacristy was too open to conceal such an act, from what the judge has said, it seems that on this point Pell's counsel was not arguing his innocence but that he was not of rational mind when he committed the acts.

So my question is: How can Pell argue innocence (that he has not committed those acts) when his counsel seems to be arguing that he had done those acts but was not of rational mind at the time?
 
bellenuit said:
I am half way through the sentencing video, but this question confuses me. Perhaps those with a better legal understanding than me could explain.

During the trial and even after being found guilt, Pell always claimed innocence. But the judge in his summation stated that Pell's counsel tried to suggest that Pell was not of a rational mind at the time as there was a high probability that someone could walk in on him during those acts and also that there were lockable rooms close by that would have been less risky. Doing it under those circumstances indicated a lack of rationality. The judge rejected those claims for several reasons, one of which was that no medical evidence had been put to the court to suggest that Pell had any mental impairment at the time in question.

Although I have heard people say in letters to the press that Pell couldn't have done it because the sacristy was too open to conceal such an act, from what the judge has said, it seems that on this point Pell's counsel was not arguing his innocence but that he was not of rational mind when he committed the acts.

So my question is: How can Pell argue innocence (that he has not committed those acts) when his counsel seems to be arguing that he had done those acts but was not of rational mind at the time?
Click to expand...

An addendum to this post.

As I progressed another 15 minutes or so, the judge stated (to Pell) "The argument by your counsel that this crime was committed by you, George Pell, the man, and not by you, George Pell, the Archbishop should be soundly rejected"

Again an admission by Pell's counsel that Pell did commit the deeds. So why the claims of innocence by Pell? Surely his counsel should be arguing his innocence if that is so.
 
Top