George Pell sexual abuse trials and fresh investigation

[stui magpie]

In a situation where you have one persons word against another with zero evidence to support either case, you may make a decision on which one you believe but I don't understand how you could decide that beyond reasonable doubt

[Wokko]

Appears to be a gross miscarriage of justice under the legal system but probably a morally just punishment. He's obviously covered up for and facilitated pedo priests for decades but ultimately that isn't what he was being charged with.

I think he's suffered from the very common legal problem of being an unlikeable dick and having to front a jury, even if he didn't testify (which was to hide what an insufferable tosser he is).

[stui magpie]

^

I've said similar previously, he's been nailed to the cross for the sins of the church, which I don't have a massive issue with morally but hard to defend legally.

[Woods Of Ypres]

juries are idiots, i was on a jury recently for a similar thing (alleged sex crime), a few of the jurors said they didn't like the look of him hence guilty. you get bums on juries, unemployed etc

[David]

^ One does worry about that. I've heard the same from someone else who previously sat on a jury. One hopes that having twelve jurors mitigates that risk.

[Woods Of Ypres]

we got there in the end, but it was scary tbh

[stui magpie]

Summary of reasons for the decision.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kvCpgIG5Ino062dD3JnzJOk3DLIyYo_c/view

I got it from the Herald Sun so don't know if it's protected.

The appeal centred on the 1st ground of appeal, that essentially the jury could not make the decision that there was no reasonable doubt. 2 of the 3 Judges rejected that.

Much of the analysis centred on Opportunity. In criminal investigations, the holy trinity is Means, Opportunity, Motive. It seems 2 of the 3 rejected that there was not reasonable doubt on the matter of opportunity, believing whether or not he actually did it came down then to whether you believed the evidence of the complainant since Pell never testified in his own defence.

[Pies4shaw]

It doesn't appear to be behind a paywall but, in case it finds its way behind one, here's the link to the summary as published on the Court's website: https://www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-08/pell_v_the_queen_judgment_summary_-_web_0.pdf

In any event, why not read the reasons for judgment? It isn't complex (although it is very long) and it deals with all the question you really want answered about, eg, the role of juries and why a jury verdict should be preferred, in the ordinary course of events, to the opinion of 3 judges: https://www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-08/pell_v_the_queen_2019_vsca_186_-_web_2.pdf

In case the Supreme Court link to the reasons is unavailable, here's the Austlii link:

http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VSCA/2019/186.html

[KenH]

I believe that it is "God's will" that he serves time! Ha ha

[K]

Did anyone watch the livestream? Would it just be reading out the documents P4S links?

[David]

I was watching ABC 24, but it seems the court livestream they were broadcasting was having lots of technical difficulties (lagging, glitches, etc.). Still, heard the key bits; it was pretty brief and to the point.

[K]

It's possible that the interest exceeded the bandwidth.

[K]

Why Justice Mark Weinberg believed George Pell should go free

https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/why-justice-mark-weinberg-believed-george-pell-should-go-free-20190821-p52jaj.html

'Justice Weinberg ... said there was a body of evidence that made it "impossible to accept" the victim's account.

"From ... the complainant’s evidence, it can be seen that there was ample material upon which his account could be legitimately subject to criticism. There were inconsistencies, and discrepancies, and a number of his answers simply made no sense," Justice Weinberg wrote in his judgment released on Wednesday.

"An unusual feature of this case was that it depended entirely upon the complainant being accepted, beyond reasonable doubt, as a credible and reliable witness. Yet the jury were invited to accept his evidence without there being any independent support for it."

After assessing the evidence presented at Pell's County Court trial last year, Justice Weinberg said he would have quashed the cardinal's five convictions for child sex offences.

But he was in the minority.
...

Of the 325-page judgement delivered by the Court of Appeal, Justice Weinberg's reasons accounted for 200 pages.

"I am troubled by the fact that I find myself constrained to differ from two of my colleagues whose opinions I always respect greatly," he wrote.

"That has caused me to reflect even more carefully upon the proper outcome of this application. Having done so, however, I cannot, in good conscience, do other than to maintain my dissent." '

[K]

[think positive]