Cardinal Pell's appeal has been dismissed.

Cardinal George Pell's application for an appeal to the High Court has been granted.

Here's what happens now the High Court has agreed to hear George Pell's appeal bid

He won't be able to attend the hearing himself apparently.

In a twist, the High Court did not formally grant Pell special leave to appeal against his conviction, it simply agreed to hear (in front of the full court bench) arguments for and against his conviction.

Click to expand...

deleted

Paidiske said:

Judgement summary here: Pell v the Queen Judgment Summary | Reasonable Doubt | Burden Of Proof (Law)

I hope that this brings the matter to a close.

Click to expand...

Hopefully.

Abraxos said:

What a strange sequence of events to convict Pell. I can't help feel that he is being set-up.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what strange events you're talking about...

As far as I know, he raped a kid, the kid told authorities, those authorities wisely and carefully investigated him...and found evidence. This is a pretty standard sequence of events.

Ana the Ist said:

As far as I know, he raped a kid, the kid told authorities, those authorities wisely and carefully investigated him...and found evidence. This is a pretty standard sequence of events.

Click to expand...

No one, other than the individuals involved, actually knows what happened.

The fact that reasonable people had strong differences of opinion (the hung jury in the first trial and the dissenting judge in the appeal) shows that this is an unusual case.

creslaw said:

No one, other than the individuals involved, actually knows what happened.

The fact that reasonable people had strong differences of opinion (the hung jury in the first trial and the dissenting judge in the appeal) shows that this is an unusual case.

Click to expand...

You can watch his interrogation online. People don't want to believe their moral teachers aren't moral. There's nothing unusual about that.

Lots of arguments in this thread:

Catholic Cardinal guilty of child sexual assault

Ana the Ist said:

You can watch his interrogation online. People don't want to believe their moral teachers aren't moral. There's nothing unusual about that.

Click to expand...

... which as nothing to do with the case ... though perhaps the reverse has.

creslaw said:

... which as nothing to do with the case ... though perhaps the reverse has.

Click to expand...

What is the "reverse"?

Paidiske said:

I believe creslaw is suggesting that some people want to believe that clergy (or perhaps some, or this particular member of the clergy) are immoral. It's the "This poor innocent man is being smeared by people who can't stand that he stands up for the truth!" kind of thing.

Click to expand...

Ahhhh...

Thanks Paid.

Ana the Ist said:

What is the "reverse"?

Click to expand...

Seems we have some posters who go in for mind reading ... and misrepresentation.

I have never said Pell is guilty or innocent but I think there is very strong pressure in the present social climate to believe all sexual abuse complainants.

Justice Mark Weinberg, the dissenting judge in Pell's failed appeal, explained: "The High Court has observed that it can be dangerous to place too much reliance upon the appearance of a witness rather than focusing, so far as possible, upon other, more objectively reliable matters."

creslaw said:

Seems we have some posters who go in for mind reading ... and misrepresentation.

I have never said Pell is guilty or innocent but I think there is very strong pressure in the present social climate to believe all sexual abuse complainants.

Justice Mark Weinberg, the dissenting judge in Pell's failed appeal, explained: "The High Court has observed that it can be dangerous to place too much reliance upon the appearance of a witness rather than focusing, so far as possible, upon other, more objectively reliable matters."

Click to expand...

Ahhhh...ok.

Well the charges were brought against him in 2017? So there was definitely some "believe the victim" stuff going on. To be honest though, I don't think it really applies to underage victims of abuse. We've always wanted their accusations taken seriously and seriously investigated.

Then there's the point where it becomes difficult to imagine any reason why a young teen boy would level a false allegation against such a well known and highly regarded figure. Money? That's really more of an adult concern...

Then there's the point where it becomes difficult to imagine any reason why a young teen boy would level a false allegation against such a well known and highly regarded figure. Money? That's really more of an adult concern...

Click to expand...

He's not a young boy any more. The abuse allegedly took place in 1996, which is 23 years ago. So if he was a young teen then eg. 13, he'd be 36 now.

The period in which the abuse allegedly took place was a five to six minute window immediately after mass. One writer in "Quadrant" had this to say -

"In satisfying themselves that there was a five or six minute of opportunity - an unlocked and traffic free door - the majority deployed a reference to in the sacristan's evidence to "five or six minutes". They not only ignored other evidence from him and other witnesses that the moving of stuff from sanctuary to sacristy would begin immediately the procession left the sanctuary - but also failed to see that any window of opportunity was eliminated by what they themselves were without demur recording as the sacristan's actual proposition: that during the whole "five or six minutes" the sacristy door remained locked."

Click to expand...

It boils down to an argument about "five or six minutes" during which a lot of stuff was being moved around the vicinity, and the cardinal was still wearing long robes and other gear.

Or as another writer put it in another issue of "Quadrant" put it -

"For those of us who are not Catholics, there is still another equally important issue at stake: the fundamental principle that an accused person is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. As has been argued several times in this journal and website, this was not how George Pell was treated. The jury made their decision not on the weight of evidence presented in court, which demonstrated that Pell could not possibly have done what the complainant said. Instead, the jurors accepted the sole evidence of the complainant, given in camera, with his identity shielded, and lacking corroboration of any kind."

Click to expand...

The emphases are mine.

Not only that - Pell would have had to have gone from the psychological state of mind of having just celebrated mass in the Cathedral, presenting the body and blood of Christ with hundreds of parishoners present, and then sought out a five to six minute "window of opportunity" for a brief sexual encounter, with a very high risk of discovery as other moved stuff around, while still wearing the heavy robes of office.

You might believe it - I don't. Not for a minute.

No point of law has been violated, so I doubt the Supreme Court will accept the case.

Bob Crowley said:

He's not a young boy any more. The abuse allegedly took place in 1996, which is 23 years ago. So if he was a young teen then eg. 13, he'd be 36 now.

The period in which the abuse allegedly took place was a five to six minute window immediately after mass. One writer in "Quadrant" had this to say -



It boils down to an argument about "five or six minutes" during which a lot of stuff was being moved around the vicinity, and the cardinal was still wearing long robes and other gear.

Or as another writer put it in another issue of "Quadrant" put it -



The emphases are mine.

Not only that - Pell would have had to have gone from the psychological state of mind of having just celebrated mass in the Cathedral, presenting the body and blood of Christ with hundreds of parishoners present, and then sought out a five to six minute "window of opportunity" for a brief sexual encounter, with a very high risk of discovery as other moved stuff around, while still wearing the heavy robes of office.

You might believe it - I don't. Not for a minute.

Click to expand...

Neither you nor your Quadrant writer nor anyone else, apart from court officials, have heard the testimony of the victim. In the first trial some of the jury believed Pell to be guilty, In the second trial all of the jury believed Pell to be guilty. In the appeal two out of three judges believed Pell to be guilty.

Under the circumstances it would make sense for you and others to withhold judgement and back off on insinuations about unfair treatment.

OB

Bob Crowley said:

You might believe it - I don't. Not for a minute.

Click to expand...

I can't go quite that far but I do have strong reservations about the evidence proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt ... and we have now had access to all the pertinent evidence.

Whether the "ring of truth" argument, in the light of factual evidence that indicates improbability, is sufficient for convicting anyone leads us down the path of guilt by accusation. I sincerely hope that is not the future of 'justice' in this country.

While I'm a bit sick of this thread, this article shows that it also boils down to who does the jury believe - the Archbishop's minder or the plainant. According to Mr. Portelli in this article, the then Archbishop was standing on the steps of the Cathedral during the time the offence was supposed to have taken place.

Pell's appeal pitted word of former choirboy against priest

I also note the other choirboy, who became a heroin addict and died in 2014, aged 30, never spoke to his parents about being abused. Despite this, his father believes he became a heroin addict due to the hypothetical abuse.

Father of Pell victim plans to sue Catholic church and cardinal after son's death

The son died of a heroin overdose in 2014, aged 30. He never spoke to his parents about being abused. But his father now believes that was the reason his son turned to drugs.

Click to expand...

His father is now launching a civil compensation case against Pell, so money is involved there. And this is all on the testimony of one man, despite all the evidence that indicates Pell could not have done what he is accused of doing.

I know this much - both of them will appear before the Almighty on the day they die. And one of them is going to give an account - it will either be Cardinal Pell for abusing a choir boy and possibly others, or it will be the former choir boy for lying and putting an innocent man in jail. Take your pick - but one of them will pay for it. We can be absolutely sure of it.

Paidiske said:

Judgement summary here: Pell v the Queen Judgment Summary | Reasonable Doubt | Burden Of Proof (Law)

I hope that this brings the matter to a close.

Click to expand...

Do you think that God's forgiveness extends out for all type's of evil that humans do? What evil has anyone done on this earth that your God can not forgive?