This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sex Abuse

Jump to new
cynic said:
Yes!

I fear you may well be correct in that.

Hence my intense dissatifaction with the Victorian judicial system in allowing a case, with such inadequate evidence, to be brought to trial etc.
Click to expand...

If it had been allowed to stand it would be a very dangerous precedent in law.

I grew up in Newcastle, one of the worst places for this abuse, I personally know people who were abused by these mongrels (Catholic teachers) and it still affects them today.

It was a disgrace and has blighted the reputation of the Church immensely but the case presented simply was not anywhere near as strong as those in Ncle
 
A jury listening to weeks of evidence found no reason to doubt the claims of a witness and reached a unanimous decision of Pell's guilt. An appellant court upheld the decision.

Pell further appealed and the High Court, in reviewing matters, found their Honours' analysis failed to engage with the question of whether there remained a reasonable possibility that the offending had not taken place, such that there ought to have been a reasonable doubt as to the applicant's guilt.

In terms of logic it would be almost impossible to disagree with the High Court's decision because most cases of sexual abuse and rape rely on the credibility of the witness and the judgement of reasonable people hearing the matter. The alternative view is that it never happened, for any number of reasons.

Extending the logic of Pell's case to similar convictions, we could reasonably conclude that other priests never had the "opportunity" to do what was claimed because their routines and practices precluded such an event from happening.

However, the real world is not like that, and paedophiles are adept at finding ways to conceal their behaviour. What would make Pell any different?

Pell has powerful friends and as a result we again have Australia's vile media turning a victim into a perpetrator.

This might be a win for Pell and the Church, but is a heavy blow to the many each year who will never press charges against those who abuse them, in order to seek justice, because of verdicts handed down by the Highest Court in Australia.
 
Professor Greg Craven provides some interesting counterperspectives to certain victim narratives that had been promoted, and/or popularised, by mainstream media (including, and perhaps even notably, by the ABC!).

 
Last edited:
cynic said:
Professor Greg Craven provides some interesting counterperspectives to certain victim narratives that had been promoted, and/or popularised, by mainstream media (including, and perhaps even notably, by the ABC!).
Click to expand...
That Craven considers that the acts of a paedophile which, inter alia, leads victims to suicide should not be pursued in criminal proceedings really says enough about the quality of his commentary.
His comments about the ABC suggesst he is a bit unhinged.
It is widely known that Pell has a history of dealing with young boys, but Craven has deliberately overlooked this aspect of his life. He also overlooked how Pell has done his best to hide the sick acts of some of his colleagues.
I reckon Andrew Bolt is more credible than Craven!
 
rederob said:
That Craven considers that the acts of a paedophile which, inter alia, leads victims to suicide should not be pursued in criminal proceedings...
Click to expand...
Craven most certainly did not say that(in the interview linked to my post)!
 
SirRumpole said:
Can you prove that ?
Click to expand...
It was proven in the courts. You might want to speak to the parents of the suicide victim if you remain in doubt.
But you missed the point.
Criminal court proceedings exist to prosecute the charges against Pell, so straight off the bat Craven's comments were a nonsense.
I believe the victim here has asked his lawyer to now proceed with charges against Pell in a civil action.
 
You could see some other holes earlier on. Quality bishops out there, who would have made negative comments about Pell if he truly was found guilty, but had nothing to say. Or the priest in the media (the defector ) . He also thought the case was flawed, going by the comments he made.

We shouldn't rashly judge anybody. It goes against human dignity.
 
Pell's acquittal was based on a legal technicality.
 
rederob said:
Pell's acquittal was based on a legal technicality.
Click to expand...

That was a complex but very significant analysis. Obviously all his supporters are happy he is out of jail.
At least now he can come to terms with the ruined lives of the thousands of children abused by Catholic priests under his watch and their families.

How George Pell won in the High Court on a legal technicality
April 7, 2020 12.23pm AEST
https://theconversation.com/how-george-pell-won-in-the-high-court-on-a-legal-technicality-133156
 
rederob said:
Pell's acquittal was based on a legal technicality.
Click to expand...

A technicality of insufficient evidence.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Catholic and dislike what they have done throughout history and Pell himself is an arrogant sod who likely enabled the abuse of many children by ignoring complaints and moving pedophiles around, but you can't convict people on allegations alone in our judicial system.
 
SirRumpole said:
A technicality of insufficient evidence.
Click to expand...
Completely wrong.
The High Court considered that the majority judgment of the appellant court failed to consider whether there was a reasonable possibility the offending had not taken place.
That kind of logic can be applied to the vast majority of decisions where the only evidence is from a victim.
 

That is not what he was on trial for............. He was charged with personally committing an illegal act.

He readily admits that the Church has a lot to answer for, he was the one who started looking into the disgusting behaviour within the Church

In Newcastle when they started a court case against a priest there were usually numerous other boys/men that came forward to make statements to support the accusations.

In this case the only other statement was from a boy who said that nothing happened.

Right there is reasonable cause for doubt, on top of that there was very little opportunity for it to have happened in that location at that time.

As posted before, I personally know men who were abused at school by Priests, these priests have been convicted and imprisoned and I sure as hell won't be saying anything in their support.

The case was legally faulty from the start, it was weak and poorly run, they got caught up in their enthusiasm to make Pell a scapegoat for all the mongrels dressed as priests.

I understand their hatred for the Church but an individual was put on trial and that individual is entitled to a fair trial according to the law, he did not get it, now the case is thrown out.

If this case had been upheld it would mean that anyone could make an accusation and even without corroborating evidence, even if the probable time line was very unlikely, one could still be found guilty.

I could accuse anyone of anything and using this as a precedent I would not need evidence at all
 

That is actually the job of the juries and appeal judges to do, not a technicality, so the High Court found that the appeal judges hadn't done their jobs properly.
 
SirRumpole said:
That is actually the job of the juries and appeal judges to do, not a technicality, so the High Court found that the appeal judges hadn't done their jobs properly.
Click to expand...
The respective courts did their jobs to the best of their ability.
Based on the evidence presented to a jury of reasonable people the witness testimony was credible.
The defence QC was no lightweight in the jury trial, so any flaws in the witness testimony would certainly have provided grounds for reasonable doubt. Instead the defence was based on lack of opportunity.
The High Court decision appears to have given credibility to this type of defence in that if there is a chance something did not take place then that chance takes precedence over testimony.
 
Was the altar wine white or red?

That aspect of the complainant testimony alone, could have raised reasonable doubt as to the dependability of same!
 
Last edited:

Agreed. Cardinal Pell was charged on the grounds of personal sexual abuse.

However he was also ultimately responsible for hundreds of priests and teaching brothers in his roles at Ballart and Melbourne diocese. The Royal Commission was not kind in its assessment of lack of protection of the Catholic Church for the children under its care (and Cardinal Pell). And by the way - George Pell was singularly incurious about sexual abuse of children in the Church. He saw nothing.

George Pell was also the architect of the Melbourne response. The Royal Commission examination of this is scathing.
https://www.royalcommission.gov.au/...16_-_findings_report_-_melbourne_response.pdf
https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/religious-institutions
 

Bas,

I am not saying that Pell is snow white, far from it ! But if the police wanted to charge him with concealing or enabling these disgusting acts then that is what he should have been charged with.

I am saying the legal impact of this current case is very important, it has been shown to be a weak case with terrible implications if established as a precedent.

If it had been upheld it would literally mean that any person could accuse any other person of sexual abuse and the accused person could be deemed to be guilty on the evidence of that single complainant.

Any person who did not like another person could simply go to the Police, make a statement and the accused could be judged to be guilty.

What about a teacher ? Imagine if a student they have disciplined or reported to the Headmaster decides to make a complaint............. dozens of innocent peoples lives ruined by vexatious accusations

Very, very dangerous situation.
 
rederob said:
The High Court decision appears to have given credibility to this type of defence in that if there is a chance something did not take place then that chance takes precedence over testimony.
Click to expand...

That's a good summary Rob
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...