George Pell sentenced

[Paidiske]

You carry on asking questions, Creslaw, if you must.

To me it feels too much like kicking puppies.

 

[Zoii]

Oh cmon - I thought we had metaphorically shook hands and backed away from personalizing

Trying to make capital about my question to a moderator is poor form.

Huh? - My heavy contribution of posts should have assured you that Im quite capable of constructing an argument and don't need a mod or one of your questions to assist.

Questioning Pell's guilt is not saying the victim is lying

The question is not whether the victim lied, but whether there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to incarcerate a man.

I don't think anyone here has argued that the court should never overturn a conviction where it finds insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction. This is quite common in historical abuse cases as I have already said several times. I think - though am not sure - that you are saying that this does NOT mean the victim is necessarily lying or giving false testimony in any way. If so then that's a point I agree with.

When there is a predisposed bias to believe the victim, by accepting the reliability & accuracy of his memory, the likelihood of justice for the accused is reduced.

That is certainly the legal status quo - the justice system is heavily biased toward the perpetrator. The prosecution has to prove guilt - a difficult task with historical cases where there is no longer DNA and Medical evidence. The defence may isolate other pending cases so that trends in behaviour may not be noted - ie one case at a time. Written records are potentially lost or destroyed. The legal system is heavily weighed against the victim.

I'm under no such obligation though and have openly declared my bias towards the victim on several occasions. I do so not because of some media report or ideology, but because I am aware of the statistics around sexual assault incidence and outcomes, as well as my experiences personally.

 

[creslaw]

I think it is only right to do so, because regardless of how heinous his crimes are, it is still wrong to actively wish harm upon someone, especially of a sexual nature. Unfortunately he himself apparently never saw how wrong it is.

A very Christian sentiment.
It is of interest to note that Pell established the first program (1996) to address sexual abuse within the Church which would be funded by but operate independently of the Archdiocese.

 

[creslaw]

Oh cmon - I thought we had metaphorically shook hands and backed away from personalizing



Huh? - My heavy contribution of posts should have assured you that Im quite capable of constructing an argument and don't need a mod or one of your questions to assist.





I don't think anyone here has argued that the court should never overturn a conviction where it finds insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction. This is quite cmon in historical abuse cases as I have already said several times. I think - though am not sure - that you are saying that this does NOT mean the victim is necessarily lying or giving false testimony in any way. If so then that's a point I agree with.



That is certainly the legal status quo - the justice system is heavily biased toward the perpetrator. The prosecution has to prove guilt - a difficult task with historical cases where there is no longer DNA and Medical evidence. The defence may isolate other pending cases so that trends in behaviour may not be noted - ie one case at a time. Written records are potentially lost or destroyed. The legal system is heavily weighed against the victim.

I'm under no such obligation though and have openly declared my bias towards the victim on several occasions. I do so not because of some media report or ideology, but because I am aware of the statistics around sexual assault incidence and outcomes, as well as my experiences personally.

You have not followed the exchange between Paidiske and myself ... I was inquiring if she intended to close this thread ... nothing to do with you.

Court decisions cannot be based on statistics.

 

[creslaw]

You carry on asking questions, Creslaw, if you must.
To me it feels too much like kicking puppies.

A lot worse was said of my wife & I when we offered financial support for the Lindy Chamberlain appeal ... back then they said we supported baby killers.


.

 

[Paidiske]

Moderators don't moderate threads we're involved in. And the thread would only be closed if there were a problem with it in relation to the rules, not due to the personal distaste of a moderator.

 

[Zoii]

Knowing what we do about the unreliability of memory, and the impact of emotional arguments on juries, it is valid to ask questions about a verdict based on a single uncorroborated story.

I seriously doubt that the victim has miss-identified Pell - and was confused when a penis was thrust down his friend's throat and then being fondled and masturbated over - that's doesn't seem to be something one would be confused about does it?

being raped by a person you didn't know or occurred under darkness etc - that's a tad different - I can logically understand mistaken identity - But a high ranking priest in the church you choired for... Its not like he thought - heck it was the gardner and somehow I thought him to be the bishop.....

It seems twelve jurors thought so too.

 

[creslaw]

I wonder how many of the jury were similarly predisposed.

 

[Zoii]

A lot worse was said of my wife & I when we offered financial support for the Lindy Chamberlain appeal.

I wasn't alive then but well done re the Chamberlains. But wasn't that about the guilty party being a dingo?

This case - as with other child sexual assault cases - has victims of the accused. The message I read from our good Reverend Paidiske is - Declaring that the jury may have got it wrong, is easily seen as a rejection of the testimony of the victims.

I know for a fact this is one of the hardest things to endure, even when a guilty verdict is finally given - in fact especially so.

 

[Zoii]

You have not followed the exchange between Paidiske and myself ... I was inquiring if she intended to close this thread ... nothing to do with you.

Court decisions cannot be based on statistics.

no why close it - its a good thread

err...no idea what you said they are not based on stats - which by the way is quite untrue in any case - stats are frequently introduced.

 

[creslaw]

no why close it - its a good thread
err...no idea what you said they are not based on stats - which by the way is quite untrue in any case - stats are frequently introduced.

statistics cannot be used in determining guilt

 

[Zoii]

statistics cannot be used in determining guilt

No it was evidence he thrust his penis into a boy's mouth, fondled them and masturbated on them. ... Outcome ... Determined Guilty

 

[creslaw]

"Declaring that the jury may have got it wrong, is easily seen as a rejection of the testimony of the victims."

It can be presented that way but it is very simplistic and fails to grasp the nuances of the argument.
What the jury may have got wrong is whether there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to convict Pell, not whether the complainant believes what he is saying.

 

[creslaw]

No it was evidence ... Determined Guilty

The boy who the jury determined was forced to [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] Pell denied there any sexual abuse occurred. Some people seem to think it's ok to say that boy lied ... or did not tell the truth.

 

[Paidiske]

It's absolutely typical for abuse victims to take a long time to be ready to disclose what's happened to them. The behaviour of the boy who died is not inconsistent with that of other, established abuse victims.

 

[creslaw]

Yes, I am aware that is the rationale for dismissing what the deceased said.

OTOH, there are typical characteristics of a pedophile (eg grooming) that are absent from Pell's actions.

 

[Zoii]

Yes, I am aware that is the rationale for dismissing what the deceased said.

OTOH, there are typical characteristics of a pedophile (eg grooming) that are absent from Pell's actions.

that's a false argument - I believe you are saying paedophiles groom - No evidence of grooming - therefore he is not a paedophile.

This case doesn't allege grooming - it substantiated (I established a conviction) use of his power to enable him to commit acts of child rape and indecency.

In the cases against the Order of Catholic Brothers - there was no grooming - again it was simply a use of their power over young boys.

In the orphanages - no grooming - use of power over young children.

At Hillsong - no grooming - use of power by the founder's father against the young girl

At the Gosford Ashram - No grooming - abuse of power

Salvation Amy ditto

I'm sure you understand my point

 

[creslaw]

I believe you are saying paedophiles groom - No evidence of grooming - therefore he is not a paedophile.

No, that is not what I am saying. I said "there are typical characteristics of a pedophile (eg grooming) that are absent from Pell's actions."

What I am saying - and have said - is that there is no substantial evidence in this case, and therefore all the details both for and against Pell's conviction should be considered.

I realize there is a tendency to paint another person's position in black or white so contrary arguments can be structured more easily, but that fails to see the complexities of a situation.

 

[Zoii]

there is no substantial evidence in this case

A court of law disagrees with you. Not only was the prosecution's case considered to be substantial - it mirrored your earlier point regarding the traits of a paedophile - By far the single greatest element in sexual assaults - and particularly against children - Is abuse of power. In that regard, Pell demonstrated the trait convincingly to a jury.

 

[creslaw]

A court of law disagrees with you. Not only was the prosecution's case considered to be substantial - it mirrored your earlier point regarding the traits of a paedophile - By far the single greatest element in sexual assaults - and particularly against children - Is abuse of power. In that regard, Pell demonstrated the trait convincingly to a jury.

I already knew the jury decision ... but thanks for telling me anyway. LOL