George Pell sentenced

[Zoii]

He might be wrongly convicted.
___________________________________________________________________________

Andrew Bolt says Cardinal Pell was Falsely Convicted
Bolt, who says has met Pell about five times, but is not a Catholic or Christian, raised “10 problems” with the evidence that saw a jury unanimously find Pell guilty.

One of these was the fact Pell’s second abuse victim, now dead after a heroin overdose, denied being abused by a priest when asked by his mother. Bolt also said the other victim who gave evidence in court did not speak about the incident for many years. He said he also doubted the attack could have taken place after Mass, when Pell is known to have traditionally spoken to worshippers leaving the ceremony.

“This attack allegedly happened in the cathedral sacristy, which is normally a very busy room, where Pell would have known people were almost certain to walk in,” he said. Click to read full article



The Pell Affair: AUSTRALIA is now on trial
Has it occurred to anyone else debating the perverse verdict rendered against Cardinal George Pell, which convicted him of “historic sexual abuse,” that the cardinal did not have to return to his native Australia to face trial?

As a member of the College of Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church and a Vatican official, Pell holds a Vatican diplomatic passport and citizenship of Vatican City State. Were he guilty, he could have stayed put in the extraterritorial safety of the Vatican enclave, untouchable by the Australian authorities. But because Cardinal Pell knows he is innocent, he was determined to go home to defend his honor—and, in a broader sense, to defend his decades of work rebuilding the Catholic Church in Australia, the living parts of which owe a great deal to his leadership and courage. Click to read full article

Andrew Bolt - A well known commentator who is known to be extreme right and denounces science - says coal is good and climate science a joke. He never lets fact get in the way of sensational story, and has himself been convicted of hate crimes.

The other article you cite is by an The American Chair of Catholic Studies.

Instead of citing an implausible source on one hand and a highly biased source on the other, why did you not elect to cite the myriad of objective sources on the topic. The ABC would have been good for a start.

 

[creslaw]

He might be wrongly convicted.
___________________________________________________________________________

Andrew Bolt says Cardinal Pell was Falsely Convicted
Bolt, who says has met Pell about five times, but is not a Catholic or Christian, raised “10 problems” with the evidence that saw a jury unanimously find Pell guilty.

One of these was the fact Pell’s second abuse victim, now dead after a heroin overdose, denied being abused by a priest when asked by his mother. Bolt also said the other victim who gave evidence in court did not speak about the incident for many years. He said he also doubted the attack could have taken place after Mass, when Pell is known to have traditionally spoken to worshippers leaving the ceremony.

“This attack allegedly happened in the cathedral sacristy, which is normally a very busy room, where Pell would have known people were almost certain to walk in,” he said. Click to read full article



The Pell Affair: AUSTRALIA is now on trial
Has it occurred to anyone else debating the perverse verdict rendered against Cardinal George Pell, which convicted him of “historic sexual abuse,” that the cardinal did not have to return to his native Australia to face trial?

As a member of the College of Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church and a Vatican official, Pell holds a Vatican diplomatic passport and citizenship of Vatican City State. Were he guilty, he could have stayed put in the extraterritorial safety of the Vatican enclave, untouchable by the Australian authorities. But because Cardinal Pell knows he is innocent, he was determined to go home to defend his honor—and, in a broader sense, to defend his decades of work rebuilding the Catholic Church in Australia, the living parts of which owe a great deal to his leadership and courage. Click to read full article

Many people wanted to see a harsher sentence but I suspect the judge, even though the charges were serious, could see the weakness of the case against Pell. The complainant's testimony contained so many inconsistencies & improbabilities that reversal of the jury's verdict is very likely when the evidence is considered objectively by a panel of judges.

I am surprised that so many people think that the evil of child sexual abuse warrants the conviction of people who could be innocent, and would deny them due process of law.

I am sure you can recognize an attempt to vilify a person's character in an attempt to discredit his arguments. Bolt (and a number of other commentators) have raised valid criticisms of the jury process and this case in particular.

 

[archer75]

Many people wanted to see a harsher sentence but I suspect the judge, even though the charges were serious, could see the weakness of the case against Pell. The complainant's testimony contained so many inconsistencies & improbabilities that reversal of the jury's verdict is very likely when the evidence is considered objectively by a panel of judges.

I am surprised that so many people think that the evil of child sexual abuse warrants the conviction of people who could be innocent, and would deny them due process of law.

Wasn't Pell tried in a court of law?

 

[creslaw]

Wasn't Pell tried in a court of law?

Pell has the right to an appeal which could establish his innocence. What the judge described as a "lynch mob mentality" has people making hateful comments before the full process of the law is completed.

 

[Zoii]

Many people wanted to see a harsher sentence but I suspect the judge, even though the charges were serious, could see the weakness of the case against Pell.

The fact is you have no idea concerning the construct of the Judges decision making. You are just espousing based on your own biases.

The complainant's testimony contained so many inconsistencies & improbabilities that reversal of the jury's verdict is very likely when the evidence is considered objectively by a panel of judges.

Again - you only know the tidbits thrown to you through the media as you and the rest of us were not in court and not been privy to the full extent of the prosecution's case.

I am surprised that so many people think that the evil of child sexual abuse warrants the conviction of people who could be innocent, and would deny them due process of law.

Why are you surprised that people want to see justice done to those who have been found guilty through the justice system. You proclaim him innocent which is at odds with a legal process that is applied to everyone regardless of whether you are a teen committing car theft - Or a cardinal committing acts of child rape.

Until the day that decision is reversed, the Australian public has every right to expect he be gaoled.

I am sure you can recognize an attempt to vilify a person's character in an attempt to discredit his arguments. Bolt (and a number of other commentators) have raised valid criticisms

If you are lauding Andrew Bolt as a bastion of journalistic integrity, then you and I have very different standards of journalism and public commentary. AND BTW I have said nothing about Bolt which isn't established fact - He IS indeed a convicted person because of his journalist biases when he was convicted for racial vilification.

Having said all this - I too believe the justice system is likely to overturn his conviction. We have seen this already with historical abuse cases. But that won't ease the sickening feeling many have with the rampant paedophilia that goes unpunished - Rolf Harris - Michael Jackson - a litany of priests - and now Pell. They all had their teams of supporters citing what great people they are and how dare others make such grievous accusations against these upstanding people...... then theres those of us who see it differently.

 

[creslaw]

The fact is you have no idea concerning the construct of the Judges decision making. You are just espousing based on your own biases.



Again - you only know the tidbits thrown to you through the media as you and the rest of us were not in court and not been privy to the full extent of the prosecution's case.



Why are you surprised that people want to see justice done to those who have been found guilty through the justice system. You proclaim him innocent which is at odds with a legal process that is applied to everyone regardless of whether you are a teen committing car theft - Or a cardinal committing acts of child rape.

Until the day that decision is reversed, the Australian public has every right to expect he be gaoled.



If you are lauding Andrew Bolt as a bastion of journalistic integrity, then you and I have very different standards of journalism and public commentary. AND BTW I have said nothing about Bolt which isn't established fact - He IS indeed a convicted person because of his journalist biases when he was convicted for racial vilification.

Having said all this - I too believe the justice system is likely to overturn his conviction. We have seen this already with historical abuse cases. But that won't ease the sickening feeling many have with the rampant paedophilia that goes unpunished - Rolf Harris - Michael Jackson - a litany of priests - and now Pell. They all had their teams of supporters citing what great people they are and how dare others make such grievous accusations against these upstanding people...... then theres those of us who see it differently.

... and you talk about my bias ... LOL

 

[Zoii]

... and you talk about my bias ... LOL

Yes. I quote fact. He's found guilty regardless of your protestations of his innocence. I dislike hearing someone talk of the victims testimony as not being in your view, airtight. It's a millimetre away from calling these victims liars. Well 12 jurors disagree

 

[creslaw]

Yes. I quote fact. He's found guilty regardless of your protestations of his innocence. I dislike hearing someone talk of the victims testimony as not being in your view, airtight. It's a millimetre away from calling these victims liars. Well 12 jurors disagree

If you cannot find my "protestations of his innocence" then I would appreciate an apology. I do not know if Pell is innocent or guilty, but I do think there are grounds for reasonable doubt.

 

[Heavenhome]

Wasn't Pell tried in a court of law?

Yes, he was, found guilty and sentenced.

He plans to appeal.

Pell did not take the stand in court at anytime.

Unlike the victim who went through the harrowing ordeal over three days I believe, being heard and cross examined.

What courage that must have taken to stand up not only for himself but also the other victim who has since died.

 

[Zoii]

If you cannot find my "protestations of his innocence" then I would appreciate an apology. I do not know if Pell is innocent or guilty, but I do think there are grounds for reasonable doubt.

Your stance is that there is reasonable doubt - Not according to the jury. This is the part we Australians must accept whether you support Pell as an innocent priest who has fallen victim to lying catholic ex-choir boys, or whether you empathize with those boys as victims.

I suspect when you say:

I am surprised that so many people think that the evil of child sexual abuse warrants the conviction of people who could be innocent

That you are not yet prepared to support the victims. And these are not the first boys to make claims about Pell as I am sure you are aware.

But your position may yet be vindicated - I have stated all along that historical abuse cases have great difficulty in achieving prosecution and sustaining that prosecution upon appeal. But if that day comes there will be no apology from me. I am sick to my heart of how we get litanies of victims recounting their story, but are unable to testify as a collective. The defence strategy is to separate and send each case to trial individually No patterns of behaviour are able to be scrutinized - and so Rolf Harris - Michael Jackson - and a host of other paedophiles walk free. Pell is destined to join the ranks. Some will continue to laud him but I won't be one of them.

 

[Freodin]

Falsly convicted... for what his own lawyer described as "no more than a plain vanilla sexual penetration case where the child is not actively participating…"

Yeah, sure.

I hope they start to investigate the lawyer as well. Might be interesting to see what's on his computer.

 

[creslaw]

Your stance is that there is reasonable doubt - Not according to the jury. This is the part we Australians must accept whether you support Pell as an innocent priest who has fallen victim to lying catholic ex-choir boys, or whether you empathize with those boys as victims.

I suspect when you say:


That you are not yet prepared to support the victims. And these are not the first boys to make claims about Pell as I am sure you are aware.

But your position may yet be vindicated - I have stated all along that historical abuse cases have great difficulty in achieving prosecution and sustaining that prosecution upon appeal. But if that day comes there will be no apology from me. I am sick to my heart of how we get litanies of victims recounting their story, but are unable to testify as a collective. The defence strategy is to separate and send each case to trial individually No patterns of behaviour are able to be scrutinized - and so Rolf Harris - Michael Jackson - and a host of other paedophiles walk free. Pell is destined to join the ranks. Some will continue to laud him but I won't be one of them.

Since you cannot show me my "protestations of his innocence" withdraw your remark ... that would be the adult thing to do rather than continue to slander me.

 

[creslaw]

Falsly convicted... for what his own lawyer described as "no more than a plain vanilla sexual penetration case where the child is not actively participating…"

Yeah, sure.

I hope they start to investigate the lawyer as well. Might be interesting to see what's on his computer.

“In seeking to mitigate sentence I used a wholly inappropriate phrase for which I apologise profusely to all who interpreted it in a way it was never intended: it was in no way meant to belittle or minimise the suffering and hurt of victims of sex abuse, and in retrospect I can see why it caused great offence to many,” Richter wrote in a statement.

 

[Zoii]

Since you cannot show me my "protestations of his innocence" withdraw your remark ... that would be the adult thing to do rather than continue to slander me.

By this are you saying you are NOT protesting his innocence and that the courts have served an injustice? Is this your position?

I think I understood you quite well when you described the Victim's testimony as improbable.

Again - you're simply at odds with my view of the world on this matter and you will have to accept that.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

Sexual abuse of children.

Thank you. My thoughts with child molesters and rapist . They are screwed up in the head. And cant stop their sickness. But kids and people should be protected .If they are in prison. Kids or victims are protected . But only 6 years ,this will keep victims safe for six years. I hope by then. He will be to old to reoffend.

 

[Freodin]

“In seeking to mitigate sentence I used a wholly inappropriate phrase for which I apologise profusely to all who interpreted it in a way it was never intended: it was in no way meant to belittle or minimise the suffering and hurt of victims of sex abuse, and in retrospect I can see why it caused great offence to many,” Richter wrote in a statement.

I understand this man. He's a lawyer. His job is to get the best possible outcome for his client.
But seriously: how tone-deaf, callous, uncaring and plain stupid do you have to be to make such a statement?
So "in retrospect" he can see that he "caused offence"? How could someone ever get to the notion that it would be a good idea to defend against the accusation of "child rape" with "no, it was just sexual intercourse with an unparticipating underage person".

Then this completely vapid not-pology. "Oh, I apologize if someone interpreted my statement wrong."

One might assume that he is intentionally trying to rile up (even more) anger against him and his client, so that he can base his defense on the claim that they are not given a fair trial.

 

[creslaw]

By this are you saying you are NOT protesting his innocence and that the courts have served an injustice? Is this your position?

I think I understood you quite well when you described the Victim's testimony as improbable.

Again - you're simply at odds with my view of the world on this matter and you will have to accept that.

I accept that you cannot apologize when you misrepresent what someone has said.

 

[creslaw]

The case of Philip Wilson last year, and now the release of John Francis Tyrrell, both of whom were convicted and then had their convictions quashed, should serve to remind us that fairness & justice must not be jettisoned in addressing the issue of sexual abuse.

Each case should be carefully considered according to its unique particulars not used in some virtue signalling, banner waving crusade against the RCC, or even against the evil of child sexual abuse. The judge at Pell's trial made that point but it obviously went right over the heads of some who choose to ignore the rights of the accused.

 

[creslaw]

I understand this man. He's a lawyer. His job is to get the best possible outcome for his client.
But seriously: how tone-deaf, callous, uncaring and plain stupid do you have to be to make such a statement?
So "in retrospect" he can see that he "caused offence"? How could someone ever get to the notion that it would be a good idea to defend against the accusation of "child rape" with "no, it was just sexual intercourse with an unparticipating underage person".

Then this completely vapid not-pology. "Oh, I apologize if someone interpreted my statement wrong."

One might assume that he is intentionally trying to rile up (even more) anger against him and his client, so that he can base his defense on the claim that they are not given a fair trial.

You are entitled to your opinions ... I am no good at mind reading so I accept what Richter said when he apologized.

BTW, the comment was not made while defending Pell, it was made in the context of a plea hearing where every barrister is supposed to try to mitigate his client's sentence.

 

[Zoii]

I accept that you cannot apologize when you misrepresent what someone has said.

The case of Philip Wilson last year, and now the release of John Francis Tyrrell, both of whom were convicted and then had their convictions quashed, should serve to remind us that fairness & justice must not be jettisoned in addressing the issue of sexual abuse.

Each case should be carefully considered according to its unique particulars not used in some virtue signalling, banner waving crusade against the RCC, or even against the evil of child sexual abuse. The judge at Pell's trial made that point but it obviously went right over the heads of some who choose to ignore the rights of the accused.

I think we all know quite well where you stand - Michael Jackson and Rolf Harris also have their legions of fans as well.

Now YOU bear in mind that having a conviction overturned is not a statement of innocence, but rather a statement that were was insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction. I say this repeatedly because an overturned conviction is NOT a statement that the victims were lying. It is not a statement that this was all a banner-waving concoction to attack your RCC.

You may call it banner waving and laud those walking away - Others state they have been vicims of the chronic abuses of Catholic priests and I feel for the justice they did not get.

You want to defend the church - you want to defend those priests - I'm not going to join your defilement of these victims claims - Its a case that you have chosen to side with the priests - I side with those who were brave enough to come forward with their stories of abuse.

You invest substantial energy in seeking apologies for anything you perceive has offended you - Just once I'd like to see you invest as much energy in discussing the abuses of these victims and trials they have undergone and how they must feel when ultimately no justice was served to them.