Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Cardinal George Pell

This convicted nonce has been freed by the High Court ruling on what the convicting jury did, or did not do.


Whilst the outrage bus is thoroughly disinfected and all the passengers are tested, how in the hell can a high court overturn a conviction on what they think the jury did or did not do:

The cardinal argued that the jury, and previous appeal judges, had relied too heavily on the "compelling" evidence of the alleged victim.

The cleric's lawyers didn't seek to discredit that testimony, but rather argued that the jury had not properly considered other evidence.

The High Court agreed, ruling that other testimonies had introduced "a reasonable possibility that the offending had not taken place".

"The jury, acting rationally on the whole of the evidence, ought to have entertained a doubt as to the applicant's guilt," said the court in its summary judgement.

Well thank you high court for telling the jury what they 'ought to have entertained' and who exactly asked the jury if they entertained it or not?

Filthy convicted paedo gets to ruin his victims life once again. Seems to me rulings like this challenge the fundamental core of a random jury of peers can be overruled by a potentially corrupt cohort of fellows, colleagues and good friends who can go out and discuss the case with whomever they wish to come up with a strategy to release a friend of a friend.

Choooo choooo
 
This convicted nonce has been freed by the High Court ruling on what the convicting jury did, or did not do.


Whilst the outrage bus is thoroughly disinfected and all the passengers are tested, how in the hell can a high court overturn a conviction on what they think the jury did or did not do:

Just a thought, I wonder what religion the feller in the big chair is
 
Just a thought, I wonder what religion the feller in the big chair is

From the article you cited - 'A full bench of seven judges ruled unanimously in Cardinal Pell's favour, finding the jury had not properly considered all the evidence presented at the trial.'

More detail here - Cardinal George Pell walks free after child sexual abuse convictions quashed

'The High Court found the Victorian Court of Appeal majority – Chief Justice Anne Ferguson and President Chris Maxwell – had failed to engage with the idea that against a body of evidence, the complainant's account was not correct.

'They put aside the likelihood of two robed choirboys slipping away from the procession without being detected, as well as their ability to find altar wine in an unlocked cupboard and for Cardinal Pell to expose his penis through his ornamental robes. Instead, they focused on the evidence that placed Cardinal Pell at the front of the cathedral for at least 10 minutes after Sunday Masses in December 1996. They pointed to the fact Cardinal Pell was in the company of Monsignor Charles Portelli when he returned to the priest's sacristy to remove his vestments and there was continuous traffic in and out of the sacristy for up to 10 minutes after the altar servers completed their bows to the crucifix.

'A fifth conviction relating to a second alleged incident, in which the surviving choirboy claimed he was molested by Cardinal Pell in a corridor, was also quashed. "The assumption that a group of choristers, including adults, might have been so preoccupied with making their way to the robing room as to fail to notice the extraordinary sight of the Archbishop of Melbourne dressed 'in his full regalia' advancing through the procession and pinning a 13-year-old boy to the wall, is a large one," they said. "The capacity of the evidence to support the verdict on this charge suffers from the same deficiency as the evidence of the assaults involved in the first incident."
 
Last edited:
The court of appeal judgement is remarkable - 2 judges voted to uphold he conviction, but the other wrote a 200 page dissenting opinion, detailing exactly why the conviction was unsafe. The Supreme Court judgement ran to 325 pages and has headings discussing why the court thought the allegations made were impossible to have been true.


I suggest that that alone suggest that there is a *lot* more behind this than the angry headline newspapers will ever tell, as does the fact that he was cleared 7-0 at the Supreme Court
 

TamH70

MIA
That judgment stinks, and every single one of those bastards that provided it should be booted off the bench and stripped of their right to practice law. What message does that judgment (as perverted as George Pell is himself in my view) send to any kid that's been abused by a clergyman, of whatever brand of idiotic sky pixiedom? Apart from "don't bother telling anyone as you will more than likely not be believed", and even if you are seven bewigged fools can throw out the conviction on the grounds that "he's one of us, innit, bruv?"

I'm not going to bother reading the dissenting opinion on the appeal decision, as fuck that and fuck the man or woman who wrote it.
 
Just a thought, I wonder what religion the feller in the big chair is

It shouldn't matter. Most Catholics would like to see child abusers nailed to the shed, and the hierarchy cleansed of the criminal networks that enabled them for decades. If the judge went against his conscience in helping Pell get off, God help him.
 
That judgment stinks, and every single one of those bastards that provided it should be booted off the bench and stripped of their right to practice law. What message does that judgment (as perverted as George Pell is himself in my view) send to any kid that's been abused by a clergyman, of whatever brand of idiotic sky pixiedom? Apart from "don't bother telling anyone as you will more than likely not be believed", and even if you are seven bewigged fools can throw out the conviction on the grounds that "he's one of us, innit, bruv?"

I'm not going to bother reading the dissenting opinion on the appeal decision, as **** that and **** the man or woman who wrote it.

Thank you for a highly literate response - NOT.

The level of evidence presented at Pell's trial (which was the second as the jury in the first could not come to a decision) was very thin - in effect one person's word against another and circumstantial evidence suggested the complainant's evidence was doubtful. The trial, however, was held just after the conclusion of the hearing of public evidence in the Royal Commission into institutionalised abuse by the churches in which there had been chapter and verse on sexual abuse by just about all churches in Australia and in particular the Catholic Church. I believe that Pell was convicted on what was said in the Royal Commission rather than the trial. What was said in the Royal Commission did not directly involve Pell but he is the senior Catholic clergy in Australia and was tainted by association.

As a former practicing lawyer in Australia I can tell you that the High Court would have no qualms about upholding a verdict of guilty on anyone. To allege that the acquittal of Pell is because "he is one of us" is insulting and beneath contempt. The High Court appeal took two days, an unheard of length of time for a criminal appeal which are usually over and done with in an hour or two. The reason it took so long is that normally a jury's verdict is untouchable - they are the determiners of fact - and to overturn that is a huge ask. However, in this case that finding was suspect from the outset. They (the jury) probably truely held their view that Pell was guilty but the evidence as presented to the trial truely raised the issue of doubt and that is what the High Court found.

I suspect that none of this will have any effect on your opinion so I leave you with this - just be grateful that the concept of reasonable doubt still works as it may well be you who finds themselves in the dock needing that doubt. We are all but a negligent slip away from being in that position.
 
I have a close friend who saw Pell over a period of 6 weeks when in the same nick, while awaiting extradition to UK. A sound judge of character. He was never convinced that this Cardinal was guilty.
 

TamH70

MIA
Wibble. Pretty defensive wibble at that.

Oh, you're finished! Well, allow me to retort.

A jury found Pell guilty. Nailed him to a tree and left him hanging. A subsequent Appeals Court ruling upheld the conviction on a two-to-one verdict - and what I said about the dissenting judge stands, so cram it where the sun does not shine.

Justice was not only done but seen to be done.

And now some more judges decide in their infinite lack of wisdom to throw out that verdict on grounds so spurious I cannot begin to understand why you are defending them. He was convicted in the original trial by evidence heard there. Are you accusing the jury in that initial of being idiots and disregarding the usual "ignore any outside chatter as it is hearsay" rulings that any competent judge would do as job number one? Or labelling the judge as incompetent?

Oh, for your information, truely is actually spelt "truly". One would think a former practising lawyer would know how to spell.
 

Benjamin1876

Old-Salt
I have read through this thread, and wonder if some of those who posted have ever considered some of the other aspects of the whole case other than the excited chatter of the anti catholic scribes I have added some extracts below

During the Royal Commission into institutional child abuse, the ABC breathlessly reported that 60% of child abuse in a religious institution took place within the Catholic Church. Shocking! How disgusting! What a hive of degenerates! Except that by not telling the whole story, the ABC was saying something completely untrue. What was left out was that during the time under investigation, 80% of children who attended a religious school or were resident in a religious institution, were students in or resident in a Catholic institution. The twenty percent of students/residents in institutions run by other religious groups accounted for 40% of the total abuse reported. In other words, a student in a non-Catholic religious school was more than twice as likely to have been molested than a student in a Catholic school.

In fact, Catholic clergy have lower rates of abuse than clergy of other religions or denominations (some groups, for example the Jehovah’s Witnesses, have far higher reported rates of abuse than any mainstream denomination). In turn, clergy of other denominations have lower rates of abuse than occur in secular community and sports groups and public schools (the Boy Scouts in the US filed for bankruptcy because it cannot keep up with payouts for abuse claims). And abuse in any church, school or community group is far outstripped by abuse in the home, where it has been estimated 90% of abuse occurs

The Royal Commission observed there had been 2504 incidents of alleged child sexual abuse in the Uniting Church between its inauguration in 1977 and 2017. This compares with 4445 claims of abuse in the Catholic Church between 1950 and 2015. Some parts of the media pounced on this figure as again proving the disproportionate amount of abuse that occurred within the Catholic Church. But two other factors need to be considered: the Commission did not consider any abuse claims made against the Methodist, Presbyterian and Congregational churches during the 27 year period from 1950 to 1977. Most abuse claims in the Catholic Church occurred in the 1970s. This may also have been the case in other denominations. But whether so or not, this is 27 years in which abuse in the Catholic Church was considered and counted, but not in other denominations. In addition, media reports generally failed to note that the Catholic Church has five times as many members as the Uniting Church. On the Commission’s own figures, a child attending the Uniting Church was more than twice as likely to have been molested than a child attending the Catholic Church.
 
Thank you for a highly literate response - NOT.

The level of evidence presented at Pell's trial (which was the second as the jury in the first could not come to a decision) was very thin - in effect one person's word against another and circumstantial evidence suggested the complainant's evidence was doubtful. The trial, however, was held just after the conclusion of the hearing of public evidence in the Royal Commission into institutionalised abuse by the churches in which there had been chapter and verse on sexual abuse by just about all churches in Australia and in particular the Catholic Church. I believe that Pell was convicted on what was said in the Royal Commission rather than the trial. What was said in the Royal Commission did not directly involve Pell but he is the senior Catholic clergy in Australia and was tainted by association.

As a former practicing lawyer in Australia I can tell you that the High Court would have no qualms about upholding a verdict of guilty on anyone. To allege that the acquittal of Pell is because "he is one of us" is insulting and beneath contempt. The High Court appeal took two days, an unheard of length of time for a criminal appeal which are usually over and done with in an hour or two. The reason it took so long is that normally a jury's verdict is untouchable - they are the determiners of fact - and to overturn that is a huge ask. However, in this case that finding was suspect from the outset. They (the jury) probably truely held their view that Pell was guilty but the evidence as presented to the trial truely raised the issue of doubt and that is what the High Court found.

I suspect that none of this will have any effect on your opinion so I leave you with this - just be grateful that the concept of reasonable doubt still works as it may well be you who finds themselves in the dock needing that doubt. We are all but a negligent slip away from being in that position.
Good summary imho. The ABC had convicted Pell in the court of public opinion before the jury trial even began. Interestingly the High Court has overturned 3 criminal convictions recently not sure if this is a criticism of the judiciary or the police or both
 
Thank you for a highly literate response - NOT.

The level of evidence presented at Pell's trial (which was the second as the jury in the first could not come to a decision) was very thin - in effect one person's word against another and circumstantial evidence suggested the complainant's evidence was doubtful. The trial, however, was held just after the conclusion of the hearing of public evidence in the Royal Commission into institutionalised abuse by the churches in which there had been chapter and verse on sexual abuse by just about all churches in Australia and in particular the Catholic Church. I believe that Pell was convicted on what was said in the Royal Commission rather than the trial. What was said in the Royal Commission did not directly involve Pell but he is the senior Catholic clergy in Australia and was tainted by association.

As a former practicing lawyer in Australia I can tell you that the High Court would have no qualms about upholding a verdict of guilty on anyone. To allege that the acquittal of Pell is because "he is one of us" is insulting and beneath contempt. The High Court appeal took two days, an unheard of length of time for a criminal appeal which are usually over and done with in an hour or two. The reason it took so long is that normally a jury's verdict is untouchable - they are the determiners of fact - and to overturn that is a huge ask. However, in this case that finding was suspect from the outset. They (the jury) probably truely held their view that Pell was guilty but the evidence as presented to the trial truely raised the issue of doubt and that is what the High Court found.

I suspect that none of this will have any effect on your opinion so I leave you with this - just be grateful that the concept of reasonable doubt still works as it may well be you who finds themselves in the dock needing that doubt. We are all but a negligent slip away from being in that position.
Good summary imho. The ABC had convicted Pell in the court of public opinion before the jury trial even began. Interestingly the High Court has overturned 3 criminal convictions recently not sure if this is a criticism of the judiciary or the police or both
 
There are so many parallels with the witch-hunt conducted by the Metropolitan Police that took place in Whitehall over the last few years. Fantastic allegations by a so-called victim resulted In the police publicly hounding a number of senior figures before any otherwise sane person could ask, how could these incidents have taken place?
Social media is full of pitchfork and burning torches outrage about Pell's acquittal, generally concluding with the statement 'but we know he's guilty'.
 
There are so many parallels with the witch-hunt conducted by the Metropolitan Police that took place in Whitehall over the last few years. Fantastic allegations by a so-called victim resulted In the police publicly hounding a number of senior figures before any otherwise sane person could ask, how could these incidents have taken place?
Social media is full of pitchfork and burning torches outrage about Pell's acquittal, generally concluding with the statement 'but we know he's guilty'.

My bold.
Fortunately for all of us, our justice system does not work like that.
 
Oh, you're finished! Well, allow me to retort.

A jury found Pell guilty. Nailed him to a tree and left him hanging. A subsequent Appeals Court ruling upheld the conviction on a two-to-one verdict - and what I said about the dissenting judge stands, so cram it where the sun does not shine.

Justice was not only done but seen to be done.

And now some more judges decide in their infinite lack of wisdom to throw out that verdict on grounds so spurious I cannot begin to understand why you are defending them. He was convicted in the original trial by evidence heard there. Are you accusing the jury in that initial of being idiots and disregarding the usual "ignore any outside chatter as it is hearsay" rulings that any competent judge would do as job number one? Or labelling the judge as incompetent?

Oh, for your information, truely is actually spelt "truly". One would think a former practising lawyer would know how to spell.
Let's just do away with the judicial and criminal justice system, shall we? You are clearly much better qualified and informed that seven Supreme Court judges. After all, it's not that there have been travesties in police investigations in the past, has there?

Bring in the Court of Public Opinion!
 
Thank you for a highly literate response - NOT.

The level of evidence presented at Pell's trial (which was the second as the jury in the first could not come to a decision) was very thin - in effect one person's word against another and circumstantial evidence suggested the complainant's evidence was doubtful. The trial, however, was held just after the conclusion of the hearing of public evidence in the Royal Commission into institutionalised abuse by the churches in which there had been chapter and verse on sexual abuse by just about all churches in Australia and in particular the Catholic Church. I believe that Pell was convicted on what was said in the Royal Commission rather than the trial. What was said in the Royal Commission did not directly involve Pell but he is the senior Catholic clergy in Australia and was tainted by association.

As a former practicing lawyer in Australia I can tell you that the High Court would have no qualms about upholding a verdict of guilty on anyone. To allege that the acquittal of Pell is because "he is one of us" is insulting and beneath contempt. The High Court appeal took two days, an unheard of length of time for a criminal appeal which are usually over and done with in an hour or two. The reason it took so long is that normally a jury's verdict is untouchable - they are the determiners of fact - and to overturn that is a huge ask. However, in this case that finding was suspect from the outset. They (the jury) probably truely held their view that Pell was guilty but the evidence as presented to the trial truely raised the issue of doubt and that is what the High Court found.

I suspect that none of this will have any effect on your opinion so I leave you with this - just be grateful that the concept of reasonable doubt still works as it may well be you who finds themselves in the dock needing that doubt. We are all but a negligent slip away from being in that position.
In which case the defence team obviously did a spectacularly poor job. Who will be paying the vast sum of compo to an innocent man imprisoned for a couple of years? The Ozzie taxpayer I bet.
 
Let's just do away with the judicial and criminal justice system, shall we? You are clearly much better qualified and informed that seven Supreme Court judges. After all, it's not that there have been travesties in police investigations in the past, has there?

Bring in the Court of Public Opinion!

Sounds good to me. ;)

th.jpg
 

Latest Threads

Top