Australian High Court quashes conviction of Cardinal Pell on sex offences

[Ondral]

The pedophile network protects itself.  (And Jeffrey Epstein did not kill himself.)

[Baerboxer]

1 hour ago, Brigand said:

These types of trials are very difficult. Historical trials such as these are almost impossible to defend against and the "hang em high" brigade is strong now, especially with the female #metoo movement being so en vogue and baying for blood at every turn. If you so even as much as be slightly accused of something if you are a white male, then you are the Devil's right hand man. Problem is, is that people need to be convicted on evidence and not just merely on testimony ... and if all you have is testimony then yes, there is doubt possible as J'accuse isn't good enough on it's own in my opinion. If not then we are heading back to the vindictive witch hunt trials of "She's a witch, I saw her with a black cat" sort of nonsense from the dark ages. Why aren't the same types that are whining about this case also not moaning about Alex Salmond? He was acquitted too through lack of evidence so why is this cardinal any different?

 

In this case he was the Devil's right hand man!

[pacovl46]

9 hours ago, sanuk711 said:

Who said they didn't?,,,,,,,,,,,,Amazing point to be acquitted on.

 

They could  obviously find nothing else wrong with the prosecution. I guess its back to the Vatican with all his other fellows for him.....

If you want to convict anyone it needs to be “beyond reasonable doubt” which in this case wasn’t the case, or so they think.

[pacovl46]

12 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

So it's the end of the jury system in Australia? Now they can simply be overruled on second appeal. No new evidence. Simply the judges deciding the jury got their judgement wrong.

 

Wow! Massive implications.

 

Wonder if anyone checked what religion all these judges are? No conflicts of interest?

It’s not that simple! If you want to convict anyone it needs to be “beyond reasonable doubt” if it isn’t, which apparently was the case during the first trial, they have to let him go. 

[tifino]

 

in the News reports; they kept harping on about something the Prosecution speaker said out of place... seems Cardinal Sin got off on some mere little verbal technicality? 

 

- no different to his past exploits... he seems to getoff rather easily, over the little things... 

 

[Brigand]

25 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

In this case he was the Devil's right hand man!

You and Samran may be correct on this one (even if the panel of judges doesn't think so) but I was just trying to point out that testimony isn't enough on it's own and if it is, then that has serious future implications for many an average Joe when it comes to a trial for something historic that won't attract media attention and just be dealt with and that's that. It is easy to be part of a lynch mob but it is hard to see that something has reasonable doubt (even if this one is not one of the best examples). All it takes now is for you to be accused of some minor indiscretion and you are the next target of the anti-sexual deviant head-on-a-stake brigade ... can happen to anyone now. I just hope that it doesn't just become the norm. What are your views on Salmond being acquitted and it's now forgotten/bushed under the carpet because of lack of evidence and the accusers are "devastated" etc.?

Edited April 7, 2020 by Brigand
Typos

[RJRS1301]

9 hours ago, samran said:

When you have a conservative court this is what you get...rockspiders walking free...

It always was an unsafe verdict.

The burden of proof for the prosecution is "beyond reasonable doubt"

I doubt you could call the High Court "conservative" they found the prosecution did not meet the high bar of proof.

The reading of the decision is that the jury did not take into account the "opportunity witnesses"

I am no supporter of either the RC church or Pell, but the burden of proof was not meet in the opinion of the High Court.

 

Edited April 7, 2020 by RJRS1301

[RJRS1301]

9 hours ago, sanuk711 said:

Who said they didn't?,,,,,,,,,,,,Amazing point to be acquitted on.

 

They could  obviously find nothing else wrong with the prosecution. I guess its back to the Vatican with all his other fellows for him.....

He was not acquitted, it was found the decision of the jury was unsound, and the Appeals Court (Vic) was unsound.

Had he been "acquitted" he would not have been convicted in the first case

 

[ncc1701d]

He’s as guilty as a puppy sitting next to a pile of poo. A google search of “pell vanilla sex” says it all for me.

[RJRS1301]

Pell may have moved offending priests to other posts, he may be an arrogant man, he may have not listened to complaints against fellow priests, but that is not what he was on trial for.

 

There was one complainant, the man he stated was also offended against at the same time, is dead (suicide) , his mother directly asked him if had ever been abused by anyone,he stated no. No other witnesses for the prosecution.

 

 

 

[RJRS1301]

8 hours ago, UbonThani said:

He is retired

No services

No he is not 80 yet, he remains a cardinal

[RJRS1301]

2 hours ago, DoctorG said:

Not real sure that they actually want him back. ????

No they don't, not with his discorvery of further financial scandals of the curia

[mfd101]

31 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

He was not acquitted, it was found the decision of the jury was unsound, and the Appeals Court (Vic) was unsound.

Had he been "acquitted" he would not have been convicted in the first case

 

Here is the relevant extract from the High Court's announcement today (not the full judgment which is not yet available as far as I am aware).

 

H I G H C O U R T O F A U S T R A L I APlease direct enquiries to Ben Wickham, Senior Executive Deputy RegistrarTelephone: (02) 6270 6893Fax: (02) 6270 6868 Email: enquiries@hcourt.gov.auWebsite: www.hcourt.gov.au PELLv THE QUEEN[2020] HCA 12Today, the High Courtgranted special leave to appealagainst a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoriaandunanimouslyallowed the appeal. The High Courtfound that the jury, acting rationallyon the whole of the evidence, ought to have entertained a doubt astothe applicant's guilt with respect to each of the offencesfor which he was convicted,andordered that the convictions be quashed and that verdicts of acquittal be entered in their place.

[mfd101]

Astonishing how many highly qualified lawyers there are here on TV. Very experienced in the criminal law of the English-speaking countries and with full understanding of the concept of proof of guilt 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.

 

And of course, if you can't get him on one accusation, given who he is & what he represents, well you might as well get him on another.

 

Perhaps they should offer their services to the Thai government. Their skills would be greatly appreciated here.

[GreasyFingers]

36 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

Pell may have moved offending priests to other posts, he may be an arrogant man, he may have not listened to complaints against fellow priests, but that is not what he was on trial for.

 

There was one complainant, the man he stated was also offended against at the same time, is dead (suicide) , his mother directly asked him if had ever been abused by anyone,he stated no. No other witnesses for the prosecution.

 

 

 

From a legal point of view you are probably right but from a human point of view would you not think that the first words from a person in his position would be to thank God that the Catholic Church was vindicated. His response was purely about his own personal position, just showing the arrogance of the man. The bible always talks about being humble.

Edited April 7, 2020 by GreasyFingers

[RJRS1301]

15 minutes ago, mfd101 said:

Here is the relevant extract from the High Court's announcement today (not the full judgment which is not yet available as far as I am aware).

 

H I G H C O U R T O F A U S T R A L I APlease direct enquiries to Ben Wickham, Senior Executive Deputy RegistrarTelephone: (02) 6270 6893Fax: (02) 6270 6868 Email: enquiries@hcourt.gov.auWebsite: www.hcourt.gov.au PELLv THE QUEEN[2020] HCA 12Today, the High Courtgranted special leave to appealagainst a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoriaandunanimouslyallowed the appeal. The High Courtfound that the jury, acting rationallyon the whole of the evidence, ought to have entertained a doubt astothe applicant's guilt with respect to each of the offencesfor which he was convicted,andordered that the convictions be quashed and that verdicts of acquittal be entered in their place.

quashed and verdict of acquiited entered, they have not acquitted him, they have quashed the conviction

quash is to annul the verdict, and then they enter to another outcome .

Edited April 7, 2020 by RJRS1301

[Tropposurfer]

Without being able to actually read the mind and soul of this man no one will ever know whether he aided and abetted other to, and abused anyone directly.

Information given in his trial says he did aid and abet sexual abuse of children, but sadly form what I read of the information/testimonies these were without corroborating witnesses ... so ... he got off as we see.

As an ex-psychotherapist I ask you to believe me when I say; If we suppress our natural energies i.e. the need for intimate contact with another adult (e.g. adult partner sexual contact as part of this) and falsely empower priests with some magical relationship with God/Christ once ordained, add to this extreme control of others and we create a field rich in propensity for aberration of these natural and beautiful instincts).

This is fundamental to all human existence.

The Church is to blame for creating thousands if not millions of peaodophiles over the ages because of it's bizarre precepts.

[RJRS1301]

1 minute ago, GreasyFingers said:

From a legal point of view you are probably right but from a human point of view would you not think that the first words from a person in his position would be to thank God that the Catholic Church was vindicated. His response was purely about his own personal position, just showing the arrogance of the man.

Nothing new there with Pell, arrogance has been his brand since he was a seminarian

 

[Olmate]

New virus released today”Cardinal 20”

[Jane Dough]

What an absolute disgrace.

 

Australia, hang your head in shame.

 

Rooster

[Mick501]

10 hours ago, samran said:

When you have a conservative court this is what you get...rockspiders walking free...

What part of the  evidence for acquittal or the 7-0 majority was difficult for you to wrap your head around?

[Mick501]

1 hour ago, Baerboxer said:

 

So it's the end of the jury system in Australia? Now they can simply be overruled on second appeal. No new evidence. Simply the judges deciding the jury got their judgement wrong.

 

Wow! Massive implications.

 

Wonder if anyone checked what religion all these judges are? No conflicts of interest?

Inform yourself better.  Read the judgement.

[evadgib]

I can't help noticing the difference between some posters approach to this decision by the high court in Australia yet those very same posters were cock-a-hoop re a separate case involving UK's supreme court not so long ago....

 

Hypocrites.

[Brigand]

It is up to the prosecution in all crimes to come up with the evidence to make it happen. It doesn't matter what you personally think ... it's about evidence and testimony on it's own is not enough, as that by it's very nature implies some degree of doubt. It's not about if you think someone is guilty, it's about what you can prove or sway a panel of judges or a jury into a decision. Many have been convicted on shaky stuff that didn't deserve to be and many that are guilty have walked. You need to be very careful of dishing out judgement as even the wisest people cannot see all ends.

[Tarteso]

I believe that this piece of *sh**t have more information from other rotten senior church officials and politics . His silence in exchange for freedom & Money talks

[RJRS1301]

16 minutes ago, Jane Dough said:

What an absolute disgrace.

 

Australia, hang your head in shame.

 

Rooster

I am guessing you were in the original court to hear the evidence, at the first appeal to Victorian Appeals Court and the High Court of Australia to here the appeal?

If not what does Australia or the High Court Justices have to be hanging their collective heads for?

 

 

[tifino]

1 hour ago, RJRS1301 said:

9 hours ago, UbonThani said:

He is retired

No services

No he is not 80 yet, he remains a cardinal

... and he'll probably Sue the system now...

 - before the 'boy' gets his civil suit up first...

[RJRS1301]

2 minutes ago, Tarteso said:

I believe that this piece of *sh**t have more information from other rotten senior church officials and politics . His silence in exchange for freedom & Money talks

Are you insinuating that 7 High Court Justices were paid to deliver this verdict?

 

Pell does not need money, he is only interested in POWER, as a Prince of the church, he may guilty of arrogance, but >>>>>>

[RJRS1301]

1 minute ago, tifino said:

... and he'll probably Sue the system now...

 - before the 'boy' gets his civil suit up first...

Even he is not arrogant enough to sue for compensation. He wants his seat back in Rome, and his holiday house on the Victorian coast and a fine red

 

[jesimps]

The way the world's going, it won't be long before sex with minors is legal. In fact, it'll be encouraged and people will go "Ahhh, bless them" as adults marry children of school age. Anyone speaking out against it will be charged with hate speech.