Convicted Catholic Archbishop sentenced

[Bob Crowley]

This is a summary of why the conviction was overturned.

How did former archbishop Phillip Wilson get his conviction overturned?

Basically the judge was saying that ...

He acknowledged Mr Creigh gave an honest account but he questioned the accuracy of his memory given the length of time that had elapsed.

He also pointed to the evidence of memory expert Professor Richard Kemp who raised the potential for false memories.

"It is not inconceivable that in looking back Mr Creigh convinced himself that he had complained, rather than asking himself why he didn't complain," Judge Ellis told the court yesterday.

Judge Ellis also took issue with 12 inconsistences Mr Creigh made during his statements to authorities, including whether the conversation with Father Wilson was before or after Easter, whether it was between 15-20 minutes or 30-40 minutes or whether he referred to Father Wilson as "Philip" or "Father Wilson".

"The inconsistencies neither individually nor in combination prove that the alleged conversation did not take place, but they are capable of raising reasonable doubt," Judge Ellis told the court.

The other point is that Archbishop Wilson

"... said he would only believe an allegation if he heard a confession or if it was proven in a court of law."

Put yourself in his place - at what point would you believe an allegation or allegations? And without hard and fast proof what would you do about it? Remember Archbishop Wilson wasn't charged with abuse himself, but allegedly covering up allegations of abuse.

 

[Paidiske]

I take the point about reasonable doubt, although it leaves me feeling the victim has been treated fairly shabbily.

At what point do you believe an allegation? The moment it is made. And you report it and leave it to the police and courts to work the rest out. It's not for any of the rest of us to investigate.

 

[Halbhh]

This is a summary of why the conviction was overturned.

How did former archbishop Phillip Wilson get his conviction overturned?

Basically the judge was saying that ...



The other point is that Archbishop Wilson

Put yourself in his place - at what point would you believe an allegation or allegations? And without hard and fast proof what would you do about it? Remember Archbishop Wilson wasn't charged with abuse himself, but allegedly covering up allegations of abuse.

Good question! While in the criminal trial the question addressed is whether it's 'beyond a reasonable doubt' (Reasonable doubt - Wikipedia), with the bishop as regards his position in the church we have (and should have) a different standard. Consider the parallel: when the situation is not about criminal conviction at all, but about a supreme court seat, which is akin to whether a bishop should be in a special position to oversee others, then the question is not 'beyond a reasonable doubt' at all, but instead something more like 'is the accused honest and also is the accused very likely to be reformed if he was guilty in some lesser manner?' and for that (not at all the criminal court trial situation, but about whether the accused should be in a special position of authority and power) it's relevant to know more of what memory research says:

They Say Sexual Assault, Kavanaugh Says It Never Happened: Sifting Truth From Memory

even though this strong possibility that both sides were entirely truthful in itself only one piece to consider, not the entirety. See, I expect from this research both Kavanaugh and Ford told the truth, and I'm more interested then in Kavanaugh's character right now, today. Did he truly reform of his general attitude and tendencies (very drunken parties, not only occasional), or is he unreformed, still in denial (that is, even if he got drunk enough he could not remember that evening in the past, does he admit the possibility of not only getting drunk, but of significant wrong behavior, and is there true reform in his heart from the past?)?

Put another way: "Is he honest?" (both with others, sure, but also with himself)

See, to me, if Kavanaugh was entirely guilty of attempted sexual assault, in the exact way Ford testified, still I'm ok with him being on the Surpreme Court if (and only if) he has truly reformed in his heart/mind in a complete way. In the situation that a more thorough FBI investigation (less limited than even the last one) still could not support nor invalidate either side, then I'm only left with the two sides, neither side proven nor disproven, and then I'd want to see various other signs of whether he is truly reformed, and if I was not convinced so, then I would have passed over him to find another candidate. (For those wanting better than usual information about precisely how drinking affects memory and levels of blackout and such: Opinion | Kavanaugh and the Blackout Theory)

Note this judgement the judge in the criminal trial of the bishop made:

But on Thursday Judge Ellis described Father Wilson as a "very honest and forthright" witness.

That's a key thing -- the judge decided additionally the bishop seems truly honest today.

There was a very telling moment (for me) in the hearings on Kavanaugh in which Kavanaugh appeals (and more than one time) to other factors like so: "I was at the top of my class".... And for me, this suggested to me that he may feel all that hard work justified getting seriously drunk, and he still thinks so today. That means that while I would not convict him into prison (not even close), I would pass over him for a special privileged position of unusual power and authority.

Anyway, we know for sure from this memory research that if a seeming victim cannot remember various extraneous details accurately it does not at all weaken the ultimate credibility of their main claim (at least not in the understanding of those aware of how long term memory of traumatic events works).

 

[Zoii]

IMO - and I'm no fan of institutions or individuals who perpetrated these crimes over decades - that being found not guilty is the end of it and the Archbishop should be given due respect. The Archbishop I suspect will be doing some significant reflections (I hope). He may now want to consider the damage done to his credibility. I am certain he has thought on the matter of his role as a priest and perhaps he may consider this an opportunity to retire with greater dignity that his conviction is over-turned. That said - if he chooses not to, then thats his choice and right.

That said, I acknowledge for the sake of the victim, that not guilty is not a slur upon the victim. This is not a statement from the court that what witnesses or the victim stated was untrue. It is a statement that the evidence was insufficient for a conviction.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I cannot defend Wilson's failure as a young man to report the sexual abuse to police, but nor do I ignore the many good things he did in his role as Archbishop such as setting up a child protection council bringing in experts from outside the church and an audit system of parishes to ensure compliance.

Without knowing every detail, perhaps there were mitigating circumstances such as you bring up and some kind of deal could have been made we don't know of.
He probably wouldn't have lasted very long in a prison, but, I think he deserved to spend at least some time there.
In either case, he got a heck of deal, but he, like the rest of us that believe, will eventually have to face the great Judge and Lawgiver.....Jesus the Christ

Daniel 7:
9 “I watched till thrones were put in place, And the Ancient of Days was seated;
His garment was white as snow, And the hair of His head was like pure wool.
His throne was a fiery flame,Its wheels a burning fire;
10 A flood of fire is proceeding and coming forth from before Him, a thousand thousands do serve Him, and a myriad of myriads before Him do rise up,
the Judge is seated, and the books have been opened

Revelation 20:12
And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God,[fn] and books were opened.
And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life.
And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books.

.

 

[Bob Crowley]

I take the point about reasonable doubt, although it leaves me feeling the victim has been treated fairly shabbily.

At what point do you believe an allegation? The moment it is made. And you report it and leave it to the police and courts to work the rest out. It's not for any of the rest of us to investigate.

Perhaps, but what about the character of the plaintiff? Suppose for argument's sake the plaintiff had a reputation for being vexatious (just hypothetical), not entirely truthful etc. I'm not saying the people complaining were like this, but we need to take into account other factors that might have been relevant.

It's not as straight forward as we'd like to think. And these were events that took place nearly 40 years ago.

 

[Paidiske]

Perhaps, but what about the character of the plaintiff? Suppose for argument's sake the plaintiff had a reputation for being vexatious (just hypothetical), not entirely truthful etc. I'm not saying the people complaining were like this, but we need to take into account other factors that might have been relevant.

It's not as straight forward as we'd like to think.

I disagree. It's not up to Joe or Jane Public to assess character. It's up to us to report allegations and let the authorities deal with them.

I will agree that 40 years ago that perhaps was not so widely a community standard as it is today. But today, it's really really clear that the right thing to do is believe and report.

 

[Alithis]

Today Catholic Archbishop Phillip Wilson received a twelve-month sentence for the deliberate cover-up of child sex abuse of paedophile priests. Archbishop was found guilty of concealing the crimes of several paedophile priests including notorious paedophile Father Jim Fletcher. Archbishop Wilson concealed evidence, knowingly did not report the priests' crimes, moved the priests to other precincts where he knew the paedophile activities continued.

In sentencing, the judge said "there is no remorse or contrition showed by the offender"

The Archbishop escaped gaol and instead the judge has imposed home detention.
Archbishop sentenced to 12 months' detention for child abuse cover-up

My Questions for discussion:

1. Is it appropriate that the convicted Catholic Archbishop remain a priest?
2. Should He at least be stripped of the title Archbishop?
3. Given that his activities allowed the continued rape and gross sexual offences against minors over 40 years, is home detention appropriate?

Was never a priest of God in the first place..just a preist of Rome

 

[creslaw]

It seems the Director of Public Prosecutions is now considering whether to challenge Judge Ellis's decision in the NSW Supreme Court. I hope it does proceed further to fully establish that having a grievance against the Church does not justify the vindictive prosecution of an individual without substantial evidence. The stress placed on Philip Wilson could have caused others to commit suicide.

 

[Paidiske]

Really? We'll worry about the potential for suicide by the guilty, rather than actual suicides by the victims?

I doubt the DPP will take it further unless they're reasonably confident of winning. I have no view on whether or not they should. But I think making this about the accused is to stunningly miss the point.

 

[Reconciliation and Truth]

Was never a priest of God in the first place..just a preist of Rome

Christians can easily make and express judgment.

I don't. I live in fear and trembling of my judge.

 

[Reconciliation and Truth]

This is a summary of why the conviction was overturned.

How did former archbishop Phillip Wilson get his conviction overturned?

Basically the judge was saying that ...



The other point is that Archbishop Wilson

Put yourself in his place - at what point would you believe an allegation or allegations? And without hard and fast proof what would you do about it? Remember Archbishop Wilson wasn't charged with abuse himself, but allegedly covering up allegations of abuse.

If anyone has more information, I would be interested. How do you get convicted based on a conversation from decades ago?

"During Wilson's two-day appeal last week, prosecutor Helen Roberts urged Ellis to consider how the magistrate had the benefit of watching both Wilson and Creigh - the main witness - during the trial. The magistrate had raised doubts about the cleric's credibility before finding him guilty.

Stone found Creigh had been a genuine and truthful witness who had no motive to make up the conversation he said he had with Wilson in 1976."
Australian archbishop cleared of child sex abuse cover-up


Please tell me that's not it. Kangaroo court?
I am not interested in defending the guy. I am seriously concerned.

 

[Alithis]

Christians can easily make and express judgment.

I don't. I live in fear and trembling of my judge.

before judgment can be passed ..facts are presented

 

[Reconciliation and Truth]

before judgment can be passed ..facts are presented

And those facts are? The ones of your judgment?

 

[Alithis]

And those facts are? The ones of your judgment?

The rcc and its hierachy is not in scripture old or new.

 

[Reconciliation and Truth]

The rcc and its hierachy is not in scripture old or new.

Of course a Church would not exist in the Old Testament. What became the Church began as the Way. This Church later were called Christians as individuals, after the Resurrection. In 100 we have the earliest surviving writing of that Church, made up of local assemblies, being called the Catholic Church. In the 1500s, many groups of Christians separated themselves in what is called the Reformation. This is historical fact.

The sad thing is that the Reformation split up into groups which spiraled out of control. Anyone with a bible, but without education could start a church. They have congregations that know nothing about history led by those equally ignorant.

Go into a church and ask people to describe the state of Christianity in any of its 21+ Centuries. They will be speechless. Ask them about the great Christian writers, or activists, or controversy of a century... nothing.

You statement is void and not surprising.