Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sex Abuse

[SirRumpole]

The nub of this technicality is that the High Court considered the claimant was dishonest.

That's your conclusion that the High Court decided that the claimant was dishonest. They left open the possibility that he was mistaken.

 

[SirRumpole]

Courts with juries assess the evidence and determine the burden of proof.

The burden of proof is clear, juries don't determine it. The burden of proof is on the prosecution.

The High Court determined that the jury had not properly considered the "alibi" evidence put forward by the defence.

 

[cynic]

Again to refresh the failing memory of the one pushing the incredible credibility argument:

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!

Not really!

It is merely another work of fiction by someone who is either unwilling, or unable, to comprehend and entertain the actual facts of the High Court ruling.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-04...t-of-australia-full-judgment-summary/12128468

Did you fail to notice the last sentence (of the linked article reporting the summary of that High Court ruling), which ended with the following quote:

"a significant possibility that an innocent person has been convicted because the evidence did not establish guilt to the requisite standard of proof".

"...
The High Court found that the jury, acting rationally on the whole of the evidence, ought to have entertained a doubt as to the applicant's guilt with respect to each of the offences for which he was convicted, and ordered that the convictions be quashed and that verdicts of acquittal be entered in their place.
..."

...
There does exist a difference between mendacity and paedophilia!
(Pell was charged and tried for the latter, not the former!)

 

[rederob]

That's your conclusion that the High Court decided that the claimant was dishonest. They left open the possibility that he was mistaken.

Seriously?
It's farcical to think a person could mistake being violated and recount the details as well as he did.

The burden of proof is clear, juries don't determine it. The burden of proof is on the prosecution.

Again, the only way such cases can be prosecuted is on credibility. If we took your stance then it would be futile to bring such cases to court.

The High Court determined that the jury had not properly considered the "alibi" evidence put forward by the defence.

Not quite.

"The Court held that, on the assumption that the jury had assessed the complainant's evidence as thoroughly credible and reliable, the evidence of the opportunity witnesses nonetheless required the jury, acting rationally, to have entertained a reasonable doubt as to the applicant's guilt in relation to the offences involved in both alleged incidents"​

As a jury member, if the complainant is credible, and the defence witnesses can only describe an unlikely opportunity, rather than impossible one, then acting rationally their conclusion is naturally with what is credible. It is ironic that this is the exact opposite of the Lindy Chamberlain case in that she was not considered credible and the "dingo" defence was regarded as impossible.

 

[cynic]

Seriously?
It's farcical to think a person could mistake being violated and recount the details as well as he did.
Again, the only way such cases can be prosecuted is on credibility...

Seriously?!!!

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!

 

[rederob]

Seriously?!!!

The appellant court had no doubt about the credibility of the witness, having regard to all the arguments.
Paedophiles are "opportunists" and will know if what they are doing is likely to be found out.
Most individual acts never get to be heard until the paedophile's pattern behaviour is investigated, and brave young people have an authority to represent their allegations.
In Pell's case the complainant had nothing to gain.
To this day we do not know who he is.
But we all know who Pell is, and his propensity for dishonesty.

In overturning this jury verdict the High Court sets a new low bar for defence lawyers: simply line up enough "opportunity witnesses" and don't even worry about the facts in play.

 

[SirRumpole]

The appellant court had no doubt about the credibility of the witness, having regard to all the arguments.

Wrong again.

"
In his dissenting judgment, Justice Weinberg found that, at times, the complainant was inclined to embellish aspects of his account.

He concluded that his evidence contained discrepancies, displayed inadequacies, and otherwise lacked probative value so as to cause him to have a doubt as to the applicant's guilt.

He could not exclude as a reasonable possibility that some of what the complainant said was concocted, particularly in relation to the second incident.

Justice Weinberg found that the complainant's account of the second incident was entirely implausible and quite unconvincing.

Nevertheless, Justice Weinberg stated that in relation to the first incident, if the complainant's evidence was the only evidence, he might well have found it difficult to say that the jury, acting reasonably, were 'bound' to have a reasonable doubt about the Cardinal's guilt.

He went on to note, however, that there was more than just the complainant's evidence.

In Justice Weinberg's view there was a significant body of cogent and, in some cases, impressive evidence suggesting that the complainant's account was, in a realistic sense, 'impossible' to accept."


To his mind, there is a significant possibility that the Cardinal may not have committed the offences.

In those circumstances, Justice Weinberg stated that in his view the convictions could not stand.

Nevertheless, the appeal on the unreasonableness ground was dismissed because the other two judges took a different view of the facts."

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08-21/george-pell-appeal-judgment-summary-transcript/11434304

 

[cynic]

The appellant court had no doubt about the credibility of the witness, having regard to all the arguments.
Paedophiles are "opportunists" and will know if what they are doing is likely to be found out.
Most individual acts never get to be heard until the paedophile's pattern behaviour is investigated, and brave young people have an authority to represent their allegations.
In Pell's case the complainant had nothing to gain.
To this day we do not know who he is.
But we all know who Pell is, and his propensity for dishonesty.

In overturning this jury verdict the High Court sets a new low bar for defence lawyers: simply line up enough "opportunity witnesses" and don't even worry about the facts in play.

How do you know that the complainant had nothing to gain?
And even if he did have nothing to gain, how does that absence of agenda guarantee a correct recounting of events?
Again I remind you that mendacity and paedophilia are not synonymous!

Based upon your own oftstated reasoning, it would seem that you believe otherwise.

Given that the complainant altered parts of his testimony when factual errors were pointed out to him, that would make the complainant guilty, in your personalised universe, of the crime for which Pell was on trial (i.e.mendacity=paedophilia according to your twisted logic).

 

[rederob]

How do you know that the complainant had nothing to gain?
And even if he did have nothing to gain, how does that absence of agenda guarantee a correct recounting of events?
Again I remind you that mendacity and paedophilia are not synonymous!

Based upon your own oftstated reasoning, it would seem that you believe otherwise.

Given that the complainant altered parts of his testimony when factual errors were pointed out to him, that would make the complainant guilty, in your personalised universe, of the crime for which Pell was on trial (i.e.mendacity=paedophilia according to your twisted logic).

You write nonsense - your points are not about the matter at hand as you cannot come to grips with the concept of credibility (which is the exact opposite of mendacity), which gave rise to the jury verdict.
The complainant was seeking justice.
Furthermore, your surmise is both dishonest and incorrect.
You seem to have a very poor understanding of how courts operate and the jury system. For example, the complainant was not being tried!

 

[rederob]

In Justice Weinberg's view there was a significant body of cogent and, in some cases, impressive evidence suggesting that the complainant's account was, in a realistic sense, 'impossible' to accept."

Did I mention the Lindy Chamberlain case?

(Dissenting views are always good to read.)

 

[SirRumpole]

Did I mention the Lindy Chamberlain case?

(Dissenting views are always good to read.)

What has the Chamberlain case to do with the Pell case ?

The dingo wasn't the appellant !

 

[rederob]

What has the Chamberlain case to do with the Pell case ?
The dingo wasn't the appellant !

It was regarded as "impossible" that the dingo could have taken the baby.
Chamberlain was convicted.
The dissenting judge in the appellant case had a mindset of Pell's offending to be "impossible."

 

[SirRumpole]

It was regarded as "impossible" that the dingo could have taken the baby.
Chamberlain was convicted.
The dissenting judge in the appellant case had a mindset of Pell's offending to be "impossible."

The jury made a mistake in the Chamberlain case and they made a mistake in the Pell case by not considering all the evidence.

 

[cynic]

You write nonsense - your points are not about the matter at hand as you cannot come to grips with the concept of credibility (which is the exact opposite of mendacity), which gave rise to the jury verdict.
The complainant was seeking justice.
Furthermore, your surmise is both dishonest and incorrect.
You seem to have a very poor understanding of how courts operate and the jury system. For example, the complainant was not being tried!

It is you, not I, who has repeatedly, and dishonestly equated paedophilia with mendacity!

Do not blame me for your faulty logic.

Consider the following hypothetical:

(i) All thieves are known to be liars.
(ii) Rederob has been known to tell lies and as such is a known liar.
(iii)Therefore Rederob is a thief, and is simply lying when he denies same!

Now substitute the word thief/theives with pedophile/s, and the name Rederob with Pell, and, hopefully, even you, will be able to recognise the deficit in the logic underlying your argument!

 

[explod]

It is you, not I, who has repeatedly, and dishonestly equated paedophilia with mendacity!

Do not blame me for your faulty logic.

Consider the following hypothetical:

(i) All thieves are known to be liars.
(ii) Rederob has been known to tell lies and as such is a known liar.
(iii)Therefore Rederob is a thief, and is simply lying when he denies same!

Now substitute the word thief/theives with pedophile/s, and the name Rederob with Pell, and, hopefully, even you, will be able to recognise the deficit in the logic underlying your argument!

Absolute disgusting rubbish. You are on different plains of understanding and belief. Rederob is a sincere gentleman with strong community concerns at the base level.

 

[rederob]

It is you, not I, who has repeatedly, and dishonestly equated paedophilia with mendacity!

Do not blame me for your faulty logic.

Consider the following hypothetical:

(i) All thieves are known to be liars.
(ii) Rederob has been known to tell lies and as such is a known liar.
(iii)Therefore Rederob is a thief, and is simply lying when he denies same!

Now substitute the word thief/theives with pedophile/s, and the name Rederob with Pell, and, hopefully, even you, will be able to recognise the deficit in the logic underlying your argument!

I am putting you ignore after this post as you have poor comprehension skills, unsound logic, yet continue with your mindless characterisation.
You are completely wrong.
A charge was laid against Pell.
Evidence was offered by the parties.
Jurors determined that the witness testimony was credible and found Pell guilty.
Pell did not take the stand.
Your claims are consistently erroneous.

 

[cynic]

Absolute disgusting rubbish. You are on different plains of understanding and belief. Rederob is a sincere gentleman with strong community concerns at the base level.

Plod, perhaps you do not recognise the close relationship between, my posted hypothetical, and the argument that rederob has been promoting.

Or could it be that, you, like your "gentleman" friend, have chosen not to recognise it!

 

[explod]

Plod, perhaps you do not recognise the close relationship between, my posted hypothetical, and the argument that rederob has been promoting.

Or could it be that, you, like your "gentleman" friend, have chosen not to recognise it!

Having been a former prosecutor, senior manager and university graduate as well at one time studying to be a priest I do feel that I know. And I was in the same dioses as Pell and do know a lot. You are in dreamland my good son and should pull your head in.

 

[cynic]

Having been a former prosecutor, senior manager and university graduate as well at one time studying to be a priest I do feel that I know. And I was in the same dioses as Pell and do know a lot. You are in dreamland my good son and should pull your head in.

And what, pray tell, do you know about the charges brought against him?

Were you called as a witness for the prosecution?

If not, why not?

And, even more importantly, what has any of this to do with the importance of the presumption of innocence, until guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt?

 

[basilio]

There is petition being circulated to ask that Cardinal Pell be defrocked because of his failure to take appropriate action against child sex abusers under his jurisdiction. It was started after the full release of the Royal Commission report came out highlighting his failure to act.

Check it out.
https://www.change.org/p/defrock-cardinal-george-pell?pt=AVBldGl0aW9uANHwTwEAAAAAXsX2hFako+piYmE3ZGVhNg==&source_location=topic_page

On the same topic the the third episode of Revelation covers the career of George Pell .
Powerful story. Goes for 100 minutes and it builds up to some devestating exposes.

https://iview.abc.net.au/show/revelation