Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
BarbaraTherese

Cardinal Pell - The Grounds for His Appeal

Recommended Posts

BarbaraTherese

Grounds for the appeal: http://cathnews.com/cathnews/34355-cardinal-pell-to-appeal-conviction-on-three-grounds

More commentary: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/feb/28/george-pell-has-good-chance-of-winning-appeal-against-convictions-expert-says

Don't be  quick to judge and join the demonisers or apologists (Archbishop of Sydney Aust) https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-03/pell-case-needs-appeals-court-hearing-before-judgement-church/10865634

 

Source: Aust Broadcasting Commission  https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-27/pell-guilty-verdict-what-will-it-mean-for-australian-catholics/10853218

Sub headings:

  • What guilty verdict means for Aust Catholics
  • What about ordinary Catholics
  • Canon Law in the spotlight
  • "We left the hierarchy behind" .......... "There is a detachment increasingly being expressed by believers. They are detaching themselves from the leadership of ministerial priesthood"..........."Factually, the Australian Catholic Church is less and less the historic 19th century church led by nuns, priests and bishops, and more and more something new."
  • More Impetus for reform "But the division between parish church and parish schools and institutions is gradually being locked in legally. This is a direct consequence of recommendation 16.6 from the royal commission. And it is a profound change."

 

I don't think that the date for the Appeal is set as yet.

_________________________

 

INSIDE THE ABUSE TRIAL https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-26/george-pell-guilty-child-sexual-abuse-court-trial/10837564

Edited by BarbaraTherese

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cruciatacara

Don't be quick to judge? It isn't for us to judge at all - the jury has already done that, and they had ALL the evidence and the testimony. They found him guilty, which makes him a registered sex offender. There is no need to judge - he has been judged. Appeals are almost automatic these days but statistically they are more likely to fail than succeed. I believe that trying to protect a convicted pedophile does more damage to the Church than accepting his crime and offering an apology and recompense where appropriate.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BarbaraTherese

If/when Cardinal Pell's appeal fails, then The Church must: 

Quote

 accepting his crime and offering an apology and recompense where appropriate.

And totally inadequate.

If the appeal fails, we have no alternative but to accept the law of the land; however, convictions have later been proved incorrect and the convicted in reality innocent.  Doubtless there are those convicted and jailed who are innocent; however, their innocence has never seen the light of day.  Quite personally for myself alone, I do not know if Cardinal Pell is innocent or guilty, nor am I infallible for sure if I had arrived at a conclusion.  I was not in court, neither were the media for the whole trial, while very often their commentary comes across as if they were in court for the whole trial -  and the media too have opposing opinions as to guilt or innocence.

Conviction by the state is not infallible.  Look at the shocking death of Azaria Chamberlain in Australia, where her mother is convicted of murder and jailed and released as innocent years later.  It was a famous Australian crime case, which caused a furore in Australia and triggered a Royal Commission.  The conviction was incorrect - Lindy was innocent https://lindychamberlain.com/biography/

And now the court and the media are at each other's throats re Cardinal Pell.

There has been a terrible culture of child sexual abuse in The Church.  We need to find the why of it all and that must be fearlessly addressed.

______________________

For the interested - if you go to iView for tonight's Q&A (probably not posted for another 24hrs) iview.abc.net.au you would be able to get informed and intelligent commentary on the Cardinal Pell trial and conviction.  I am watching Q&A now.

Had a quick look and it might not be posted for a few days even.

 

Edited by BarbaraTherese

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cruciatacara

Sure, Lindy turned out not to be guilty and that was a terrible miscarriage of justice. But that doesn't mean we can second guess every criminal conviction, wondering if the jury got it wrong. Sure, Pell is having a hard time with the media, but the victims of sexual abuse by the Church haven't had it easy in the past either. Often they weren't believed by their families or friends or authorities. If the victim is lying, then it seems like an awful experience to go through just to cause problems for the Church or Pell. I have heard so many theories about the victim's possible motivation for lying but I for one believe him. And so it seems did the jury, and they heard all of the testimony, not just the parts the media has been allowed to report. 

For most criminals, once the verdict has been made, we don't have Prime Ministers and other influential people trying to stir up sympathy for the convicted. Pell is not the victim here. 

IF his conviction is overturned, then it will be a different story, but until then, he is a convicted pedophile and sex offender. But his appeal might not hold up. Then we're back where we are now.

Quote

 

https://www.9news.com.au/2019/03/02/11/00/melboure-news-george-pell-conviction-child-abuse-prison-analysis 

Further, some commentators believe the real victim here is Cardinal Pell. They say he is the scapegoat for the child abuse sins of the church. Which means either the jury didn’t do its job properly, or there was a vast criminal conspiracy involving police and the judiciary.

Here is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth: the only people in any position to judge George Pell's guilt or innocence on the five charges against him were sitting in the jury box of court 4.3 of Victoria's County Court.

Only they, the judge and the lawyers heard the evidence given by Pell's accuser. No one else has that information. And he must have been convincing, especially given the lack of corroborating evidence.

Pell did not give evidence, as is his right and as is the norm.

The burden on the jury would have been enormous. One jury had already been discharged without being able to make a decision.

At the end of the retrial the jury did not rush to judgement. If they really wanted to "get Pell" as some have claimed, as soon as the evidence was completed they could gathered in the jury room, counted to ten, marched back into court and delivered their verdict.

Instead they took three and a half days to deliberate. Hardly a rush to judgement. And all 12 of them found him guilty on all charges.

 

 

Edited by cruciatacara

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BarbaraTherese
2 minutes ago, cruciatacara said:

Sure, Lindy turned out not to be guilty and that was a terrible miscarriage of justice. But that doesn't mean we can second guess every criminal conviction, wondering if the jury got it wrong. Sure, Pell is having a hard time with the media, but the victims of sexual abuse by the Church haven't had it easy in the past either. Often they weren't believed by their families or friends or authorities. If the victim is lying, then it seems like an awful experience to go through just to cause problems for the Church or Pell. I have heard so many theories about the victim's possible motivation for lying but I for one believe him. And so it seems did the jury, and they heard all of the testimony, not just the parts the media has been allowed to report. 

For most criminals, once the verdict has been made, we don't have Prime Ministers and other influential people trying to stir up sympathy for the convicted. Pell is not the victim here. 

IF his conviction is overturned, then it will be a different story, but until then, he is a convicted pedophile and sex offender. But his appeal might not hold up. then we're back where we are now.

 

 

Thank you for the response.  It is 10.18pm here and I hope to be able to stay awake long enough to finish watching Q&A.  Will respond to you tomorrow some time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Josh

If Pell is innocent he should of took the stand and under oath proclaimed his innocence. The fact he didn't coupled with the statement from his lawyer is pretty damning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cruciatacara
58 minutes ago, Josh said:

If Pell is innocent he should of took the stand and under oath proclaimed his innocence. The fact he didn't coupled with the statement from his lawyer is pretty damning.

Even Pell's interview with the police seemed arrogant. While he denied everything, he acted angry and shocked that anyone should dare to question him, rather than interested in helping them find the truth. It is unfortunate that his own personality isn't a better help to him in affirming his declared innocence. His lawyer hasn't been much help either by advising him not to testify and then by his disgusting comments for sentencing. He was trying to minimize the appearance of the crime so as to reduce any sentence, but it just came across as grossly insensitive towards the victims. And this is supposed to be a top lawyer.

I am also a bit surprised as to why Pell wouldn't want to request bail until sentencing, especially as he claims to be innocent - it just seems strange that he would want to go to jail before he had to. Most unusual. I do hope the appeal is scheduled quickly because dragging it on and on just increases the controversy and that can't be good for the Church.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BarbaraTherese
10 hours ago, cruciatacara said:

Sure, Lindy turned out not to be guilty and that was a terrible miscarriage of justice. But that doesn't mean we can second guess every criminal conviction, wondering if the jury got it wrong. I agree - but if one has quite reasonable and logical doubts about a conviction, then it speaks for itself i.e. one would have doubts about a conviction.  There is much in life we have to accept of which we do not necessarily agree.  I do repeat however that for myself alone, I am not convinced Cardinal Pell is either innocent or guilty . Sure, Pell is having a hard time with the media, but the victims of sexual abuse by the Church haven't had it easy in the past either. Two wrongs can't make a right.  Often they weren't believed by their families or friends or authorities. If the victim is lying, then it seems like an awful experience to go through just to cause problems for the Church or Pell. Very true, it is a dreadful experience to go through but many do so including victims of rape today which is another terrible experience to the victim.  Some victims refuse to speak up because of this, others do speak up. I have heard so many theories about the victim's possible motivation for lying but I for one believe him. And so it seems did the jury, and they heard all of the testimony, not just the parts the media has been allowed to report. And a jury  can get it wrong........at least as a possibility.  Our jury system is not infallible - it is the best we have, but not infallible.  There is no infallible system.

For most criminals, once the verdict has been made, we don't have Prime Ministers and other influential people trying to stir up sympathy for the convicted. Pell is not the victim here. Pell rose high in our society and it doesn't surprise me that powerful people are speaking up on his behalf.  The charges against Pell are historic and these people did not know him back then.

IF his conviction is overturned, then it will be a different story, but until then, he is a convicted pedophile and sex offender. But his appeal might not hold up. Then we're back where we are now. Whatever, my prayer is that truth will see the light of day.

 

 

Hi @cruciatacaramy responses are in bold above.  I hope you will not mind my method of reply to your post.

9 hours ago, Josh said:

If Pell is innocent he should of took the stand and under oath proclaimed his innocence. The fact he didn't coupled with the statement from his lawyer is pretty damning.

My tuppence: The cardinal has always had something of an abrasive type of personality.  His personality was always a turnoff for me.  He struck me as arrogant and cold, formidable and intimidating.  I used to wonder what he was like in actual day to day ordinary relationships.  I do doubt he would have done his claimed innocence much good if he had taken the stand due to his personality.  I am not surprised if his lawyer strongly advised him not to do so and because of his personality.

What his lawyer said to the judge about "vanilla" is inexcusable.  It was a dreadful use of words!

I personally think Cardinal Pell's not taking the stand and also what his lawyer said to the judge are not indications of guilt and cannot be indicated as evidence of it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cruciatacara

Think what you want, we are all free to our own opinion. Some are just a little more well formed than others. I also know the man personally, 'in actual day to day ordinary relationships' so I trust the jury verdict.

As it stands at this moment, he is a convicted pedophile. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KnightofChrist

Which trial of Pell's should we take as the "truth"? Just how many trials did he have before the guilty verdict?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BarbaraTherese
1 hour ago, cruciatacara said:

Think what you want, we are all free to our own opinion. Some are just a little more well formed than others. I also know the man personally, 'in actual day to day ordinary relationships' so I trust the jury verdict.

As it stands at this moment, he is a convicted pedophile. 

Of course, we are all quite free to have our own opinion. "In essentials unity, in non essential diversity - and in all things love".

Some are better informed than others in arriving at their opinion.  Cardinal Pell is indeed a convicted pedophile according to the law of the land by which we are called by God to abide (Romans Ch13), while the Law of God transcends all laws everywhere.

Abiding by the laws made by lawful secular authority as God commands does not mean that we are called to agree with such laws.

12 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

Which trial of Pell's should we take as the "truth"? Just how many trials did he have before the guilty verdict?

Good question.  I think that there were only two trials.   I think too that there are a few important questions that need to be answered.   I don't have the answers and am hoping that answers will unfold as debate in various media outlets continues.

Insofar as I am aware, the accused  historical abuse charges by Cardinal Pell at a swimming pool have been dropped.  It would not surprise me one bit if the cardinal walks after the appeal, he is arrested by the police on the swimming pool accusations.

____________________

The questions that remain: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/mar/02/cardinal-george-pells-conviction-the-questions-that-remain

"Pell won't face trial on allegations from the 70s of pool impropriety" https://www.smh.com.au/national/pell-won-t-face-trial-on-allegations-from-the-70s-of-pool-impropriety-20190226-p510b7.html

Edited by BarbaraTherese

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BarbaraTherese

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/mar/02/cardinal-george-pells-conviction-the-questions-that-remain"What happens now about the ‘swimming pool’ allegations that were due to be tested in the second trial, now abandoned?   The trial was supposed to take place in April on charges that Pell sexually assaulted boys at a Ballarat swimming pool in the late 1970s. First, a key complainant died. Then, the court deemed key evidence was inadmissible. If prosecutors had gone ahead with the trial and lost, they could never prosecute those charges again. If more pool allegations were made in future prosecutors could try again with a potentially stronger case. Guardian Australia is not suggesting any such allegations have been made or will be made."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cruciatacara
3 hours ago, BarbaraTherese said:

Some are better informed than others in arriving at their opinion.  Cardinal Pell is indeed a convicted pedophile according to the law of the land by which we are called by God to abide (Romans Ch13), while the Law of God transcends all laws everywhere.

Yes, some are better informed because they know the perpetrator and the environment at which it happened. The best informed however were the jury.

And some priests have broken God's laws as well as man's. This is  what has been so damaging to the Church. Being priests has made their perversions and crimes so much worse.

I doubt anyone would question the court's verdict if Pell were not a high ranking Catholic clergy. Trials and verdicts are handed down all the time but this particular case has caused controversy and discussion because so many people don't want it to be true, especially those who know him in a different way or who know of him as a high ranking Church member. This doubt is understandable but not even small taste of the feelings of betrayal that victims of priests experience as they are abused by those they trusted most. They can barely believe it is happening to them - and then they have to deal not only with the abuse, but with the disbelief of so many people who can't imagine a priest they know doing such a thing, especially an 'important' priest.

Whether or not the swimming pool trial ever goes ahead - doubtful since many victims have either died or don't want to face the attention, or the evidence is no longer available - the fact that there have already been these accusations demonstrates that the incidents in the Cathedral were not unique events. Pell may never face a trial for the swimming pool crimes, but he has already been convicted of the ones in the Cathedral. And no amount of wishing it weren't so will change that. 

Almost every convicted criminal files an appeal, very few are successful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cruciatacara
45 minutes ago, BarbaraTherese said:

May truth prevail and see the light of day.  Amen

 

Amen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  


It costs about $850 a year for Phatmass.com to survive–and we barely make it. If you’d like to help keep the Phorum alive, please consider a monthly gift.



×
×
  • Create New...