George Pell sexual abuse trials and fresh investigation

[think positive]

Given their splendid track record, should there even be a confessional? Is it ever safe for anyone to be alone with a a priest in a closeted space?

this!!!

[K]

^ Aren't there two separate "closeted spaces", one per person?

[HAL]

Does "it" still refer to it's the grouping of the three swimming complaints as one?

[K]

[K]

"Victoria's County Court has allowed a camera crew to film chief judge Peter Kidd deliver the sentence, from 10am, so it can be broadcast live on television, radio and news websites. The crew cannot film Pell nor anyone else in the room."

[David]

Pell has received a full sentence of 6 years, with a non-parole period of 3 years and 8 months.

We’ll find out whether or not this stands in June, which is when the appeal is scheduled. After all this, you’d have to think a successful appeal would be something of a hollow victory.

[Culprit]

Pell has received a full sentence of 6 years, with a non-parole period of 3 years and 8 months.

We’ll find out whether or not this stands in June, which is when the appeal is scheduled. After all this, you’d have to think a successful appeal would be something of a hollow victory.

Appealing on the grounds that the Jury got it wrong? Gets out of that I call corruption.

[David]

It'd be far from an unprecedented result, from my understanding. Some observers think he has a very good chance of winning on those grounds (no "corruption" necessary).

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... xpert-says

Experts spoken to by Guardian Australia agreed that while the latter two appeared flimsy, an appeal on the basis of unreasonableness may have a high chance of success. This argument says the jury delivered a verdict that was not supported by the evidence.

University of Melbourne law school’s criminal appeals and procedure expert, Professor Jeremy Gans, said this was a commonly used grounds for appeal.

“Prosecutors would be completely prepared for an appeal based on this,” he said.

“And it’s not a rare grounds to succeed on. This is the defence’s best shot and carries a bonus for them in that if they win there can almost certainly be no new trial. Because once a court decides a guilty verdict is unreasonable it means they don’t think guilty should be the verdict in the next trial either. They would almost certainly acquit. Basically on this grounds of appeal, the court gets to decide if the jury got it right.”

[Culprit]

At this point he's guilty until proven innocent and can sit in his little cell complaining all he wants.

[swoop42]

I'm not a Catholic, I'm not religious and I don't like George Pell as he represents ultra conservative Christianity but..........

a jury of his peers couldn't reach a unanimous verdict when presented with the evidence the FIRST TIME around which has been largely forgotten and leads me to believe the evidence wasn't particularly strong.

It seemingly wasn't either with it being the word of one person against another and a case like this only reinforces my belief we need a statute of limitations for all alleged crimes outside of murder like witnessed in the United States.

Pell might well be guilty and the old argument of why any purported victim of child abuse would want to make it up is still a compelling one but 20 years after the fact I would feel more comfortable taking away the freedom of an individual in the face of stronger evidence than the testimony of simply another.

"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"- William Blackstone.

[think positive]

problem is he aided 10 guilty to escape as well as being a perp himself.

but i get where your coming from.

in this case, **** him

[stui magpie]

I'm pretty much in the same camp as Swoop here, except for one little piece.

Sometimes it's better for an innocent man to cop the wrap (assuming that there isn't a guilty party walking free) if that finding provides a benefit to multiple others.

Even if Pell is found not guilty on appeal, his career is stuffed. He'll never be back in the Vatican or hold any senior position, we'll "retire" and fade from sight.

The guy's rising 78 and has health issues. He's not going to be around for long regardless. To all the multitude of people who suffered at the hands of the church, Pell being found guilt bought a measure of justice being seen to be done, even if he had nothing to do with them personally. Him being acquitted on appeal would just rip that scar wide open.

So if an innocent man has to suffer for the sins of others, how very Catholic.

[think positive]

I'm pretty much in the same camp as Swoop here, except for one little piece.

Sometimes it's better for an innocent man to cop the wrap (assuming that there isn't a guilty party walking free) if that finding provides a benefit to multiple others.

Even if Pell is found not guilty on appeal, his career is stuffed. He'll never be back in the Vatican or hold any senior position, we'll "retire" and fade from sight.

The guy's rising 78 and has health issues. He's not going to be around for long regardless. To all the multitude of people who suffered at the hands of the church, Pell being found guilt bought a measure of justice being seen to be done, even if he had nothing to do with them personally. Him being acquitted on appeal would just rip that scar wide open.

So if an innocent man has to suffer for the sins of others, how very Catholic.

i really like this post!!!!

[David]

I'm pretty much in the same camp as Swoop here, except for one little piece.

Sometimes it's better for an innocent man to cop the wrap (assuming that there isn't a guilty party walking free) if that finding provides a benefit to multiple others.

Even if Pell is found not guilty on appeal, his career is stuffed. He'll never be back in the Vatican or hold any senior position, we'll "retire" and fade from sight.

The guy's rising 78 and has health issues. He's not going to be around for long regardless. To all the multitude of people who suffered at the hands of the church, Pell being found guilt bought a measure of justice being seen to be done, even if he had nothing to do with them personally. Him being acquitted on appeal would just rip that scar wide open.

So if an innocent man has to suffer for the sins of others, how very Catholic.

This is a very utilitarian argument. I like it (even if I'm not sure I can agree with it on principle!)

[K]

problem is he aided 10 guilty to escape
...

But that's not the charge the jury was asked to deliberate on.