Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index
 The RulesThe Rules FAQFAQ
   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   CalendarCalendar   SearchSearch 
Log inLog in RegisterRegister
 
George Pell sexual abuse trials and fresh investigation

Users browsing this topic:0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 0 Guests
Registered Users: None

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index -> Victoria Park Tavern
 
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
swoop42 Virgo

Whatcha gonna do when he comes for you?


Joined: 02 Aug 2008
Location: The 18

PostPosted: Tue Apr 07, 2020 10:53 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

In defence of Pell or more broadly any accused in a similar situation I do find it somewhat troubling that police are seemingly charging more people now than ever before where corroborating evidence appears lacking and a trial result is basically being decided by a jury choosing to believe the testimony of one person over another.

When there has been such a long passage of time between when the alleged crime took place and it's reporting this lack of corroborating evidence with a reliance on individual testimony should require even greater scrutiny by police and the DPP before any charge is laid.

This is the latest example of why I believe Australia would be better served in introducing a statute of limitations like seen in the US.

Pell might well be innocent and justice has now been served.

Perhaps he remains guilty.

He does appear very fortunate however that his profile has likely allowed him the luxury of appearing before the High Court that others convicted for a range of crimes under similar circumstances of evidence aren't afforded.

That the legal system is still not an even playing field for all is the only known injustice here.

_________________
He's mad. He's bad. He's MaynHARD!
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
stui magpie Gemini

Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.


Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto

PostPosted: Tue Apr 07, 2020 10:55 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Tannin wrote:
I read that article when it first came out and, like you, found it persuasive. However, when it comes to matters of law, I'll listen first to a contributor who has formal training in the field and a lifetime of experience.

Yes, it was a slap at you. Or rather, it was in defence of the poster you were disparaging so unfairly. (Not that he needs me to defend him, he's long since out of short pants.)


Well the slap missed and the person with a lifetime of experience in Crime was the one who wrote the article not the one criticising it.

Yes P4S doesn't need you to defend him, so why feel the need? The Law has specialty areas. You don't ask a contract lawyer to defend you in a criminal trial, you don't ask a criminal lawyer to review multi million dollar contracts . Neither would end well.

_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
think positive Libra

Side By Side


Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere

PostPosted: Tue Apr 07, 2020 11:21 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

David wrote:
As the editor of a film magazine, all I can say is I’ve watched more fictional courtroom scenes than any of you*, and boy do those judges love banging that gavel!

*probably not actually true


judge judy would have shut em up

_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either!
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Pies4shaw Leo

pies4shaw


Joined: 08 Oct 2007


PostPosted: Tue Apr 07, 2020 11:47 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

stui magpie wrote:
Tannin wrote:
I read that article when it first came out and, like you, found it persuasive. However, when it comes to matters of law, I'll listen first to a contributor who has formal training in the field and a lifetime of experience.

Yes, it was a slap at you. Or rather, it was in defence of the poster you were disparaging so unfairly. (Not that he needs me to defend him, he's long since out of short pants.)


Well the slap missed and the person with a lifetime of experience in Crime was the one who wrote the article not the one criticising it.

Yes P4S doesn't need you to defend him, so why feel the need? The Law has specialty areas. You don't ask a contract lawyer to defend you in a criminal trial, you don't ask a criminal lawyer to review multi million dollar contracts . Neither would end well.

I can scarcely begin to imagine what you think I do for a living that you would call me a “contract lawyer”.

Be that as it may, what just happened in the High Court wasn’t “criminal law”, it was a common or garden appellate process conducted in the standard way according to the High Court’s general principles. And, of course, decided by a group of people who were nearly all “contract lawyers” before they were appointed to the Bench. There’s a reason for that - it might pay to think through why that happens.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
swoop42 Virgo

Whatcha gonna do when he comes for you?


Joined: 02 Aug 2008
Location: The 18

PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2020 12:11 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

Is our High Court as politically appointed as we see with the US supreme court?
_________________
He's mad. He's bad. He's MaynHARD!
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Pies4shaw Leo

pies4shaw


Joined: 08 Oct 2007


PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2020 4:13 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

^ The High Court is appointed by the Executive, as is the case with judges and magistrates at all levels, here. Generally, though, there is little controversy about appointments. I don’t think for a moment - and doubt anyone who understands the process would think - that there was any partisan bias in this at all.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
K 



Joined: 09 Sep 2011


PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2020 8:19 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

Nick Papas risks P4S's fury Surprised:

'Nick Papas, QC, a senior barrister and former chief magistrate and crown prosecutor, says a difficult question must now be asked; how could two Court of Appeal judges and the jury in Cardinal Pell’s trial not see the flaws in this case that were so apparent to the High Court.

“It is clearly a matter for community comment and indeed, a proper question to ask, and raises issues as to jury trials in these sort of matters,’’ Mr Papas said.

“The primary question is not what went wrong. The High Court has said what went wrong. This is a real call to consider whether there should be judge-alone cases in Victoria.”'


https://www.theage.com.au/national/high-court-corrects-an-injustice-but-raises-some-difficult-questions-20200407-p54hzl.html
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
David Libra

I dare you to try


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda

PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2020 9:47 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

swoop42 wrote:
Is our High Court as politically appointed as we see with the US supreme court?


We are blessed that they are, as far as I understand it, appointed on merit and experience as opposed to ideological allegiance, and that they have a retirement age rather than holding the job until their final breath. The US Supreme Court is an ultra-politicised farce, and really should be dissolved and started again from scratch with an independent panel responsible for all future appointments.

_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
thesoretoothsayer 



Joined: 26 Apr 2017


PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2020 10:09 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
In defence of Pell or more broadly any accused in a similar situation I do find it somewhat troubling that police are seemingly charging more
people now than ever before where corroborating evidence appears lacking and a trial result is basically being decided by a jury choosing to believe
the testimony of one person over another.

I think you've raised a really challenging issue.
One that I definitely struggle with.

Many cases of sexual assault are "he said, she said" situations where corroborating evidence does not exist.
In the past, with little chance of conviction, police have fobbed off victims and not even charged sexual predators.
For a good read about this: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-28/how-police-are-failing-survivors-of-sexual-assault/11871364
This clearly is not good enough.

Recently, there's been a push to fix this by adopting a policy of "believe the victim". This, however, can result in a "guilty until proven innocent" mentality and, as you point out, individuals being convicted solely upon testimony.
This appears to be the case with Pell who was convicted based on testimony that was, at best, implausible and, at worst, fantasy.

Victims deserve justice. Sexual predators need to be punished. Accused need a fair trial. How we balance these truths within our legal system is a huge challenge.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
K 



Joined: 09 Sep 2011


PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2020 10:10 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

Statement of 'Witness J' through his lawyer:

"It is difficult in child sex abuse matters to satisfy a criminal court that the offending has occurred beyond the shadow of a doubt. It is a very high standard to meet - a very heavy burden. There are a lot of checks and balances in the criminal justice system and the appeal process is one of them. I respect that.

"I understand why criminal cases must be proven beyond all reasonable doubt. No-one wants to live in a society where people can be imprisoned without due and proper process. This is a basic civil liberty.

"I would hate to think that one outcome of this case is that people are discouraged from reporting to the police. I would like to reassure child sexual abuse survivors that most people recognise truth when they hear it. They know the truth when they look it in the face. I am content with that.

"My journey has been long and I am relieved that it is over. I have my ups and downs. The darkness is never far away. Despite the stress of the legal process and public controversy I have tried hard to keep myself together. I am OK. I hope that everyone who has followed this case is OK.

"This case does not define me.

"I am a man who came forward for my friend who, sadly, is no longer with us. I am a man doing my best to be a loving dad, partner, son, brother and friend. I am doing my best to find and hold joy in my life and to provide a safe and loving home for my family."
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
David Libra

I dare you to try


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda

PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2020 10:58 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

K wrote:
The anarchists are in the building

https://www.crikey.com.au/2019/08/27/george-pell-appeal-anarachists/

MICHAEL BRADLEY

"The Archbishop of Melbourne, Peter Comensoli, believes that George Pell is innocent. He also believes that Pell’s victim is telling the truth. His solution for this contradiction is the obvious one: the victim identified the wrong rapist. Not even Pell’s defence lawyers had tried that one on; there weren’t a lot of 190cm archbishops trolling around St Patrick’s Cathedral in 1996-7.

It’s laughable, yes...
...

This rush to condemn, not the convicted paedophile but the criminal justice system that convicted him, transcends rationality to such a monstrous extent that it clearly reflects something much more significant than George Pell’s personal credibility. Sure, some people may find themselves incapable of believing him guilty, but here we have a large part of the institutional establishment going out on the weirdest limb imaginable (it bears repeating: defending a convicted paedophile) because they cannot abide this single declaration of guilt in a system that produces thousands of them every year.
...

In this context, it won’t matter whether Pell gets special leave to run his High Court appeal, or whether that appeal succeeds. If he stays in prison, he will be the Lindy Chamberlain of cardinals to his defenders. If he wins, they will declare his innocence established while ignoring that that result is not possible since the best he can hope for is to be spared a third trial."


Interesting to revisit those battle lines immediately following Pell's failed appeal, as Guy Rundle does here in the same publication:

Quote:
‘A stupid, self-inflicted blow for progressives’: Pell is free, just what did we learn?
Guy Rundle


[...]

Yes, you may have heard from progressives that the sword of justice had been wielded on behalf of victims decades late! You may have heard from the right that the whole justice system was an elite progressive machine to railroad right-wing cultural figures!

Well now it’s going to be the same sentiments, except expressed by the exact opposite people!

Can you hear the fiddle play? Actually, probably not the best instrument, in this case. Can you hear the mandolin play? Dosey-doe. Andrew Bolt grabs Alison Croggon’s hand and they swing to opposite sides of the debate! David Marr crooks his arm with Keith Windschuttle and they waltz each other around! Laissez-les merde temps roulez!

For all concerned at the centre of it, the George Pell case has been utterly ghastly — and I’d remind you that in the eyes of the law Cardinal George Pell is now an innocent man, who has spent 15 months in prison in the final years of his life.

It’s ghastly for his accuser, the sole witness testifying to the alleged events; to whom, we presume, something hideous happened, perpetrated by someone.

But who can we now say did that?

When Pell was convicted in the county court, progressives rushed to equate the legal-justice system with a truth system. There was no “convicted” or “found to be” about it. Pell had done it, and the justice system — which anyone from the left should regard with a degree of critical suspicion — had vindicated the public and victims.

Well Cardinal George Pell isn’t — and now never was — a convicted paedophile. The right will be able to suspend its deeply contradictory war on our inherited British adversarial justice system. They’re shameless and will do that easily.

Left progressives will have a little more trouble. They abandoned what remained of the new left’s suspicion not merely of the particular injustices of the legal-justice system — its classism, racism, sexism — but the general critique of juridical truth.

Critical response to the legal system argued that to make its judgement the voice of truth was to give the state the say in what was true or not, to inhabit certain voices — a policeman giving evidence from his notebook for example — to elide the gap between state and society, to let power inhabit life.

That discourse weakened as the law changed, as other voices began to get heard, and as notions of social oppression entered its considerations.

And, as the Pell case demonstrated, it reversed entirely as violence against women became a vast social campaign and activists (rightly) sought to change rules of evidence regarding single witness statements, credibility and corroboration, in favour of accusers and alleged victims.

But that has had a contrary effect. Strengthening single-witness credibility — to the point where a single accuser/witness can be regarded as beyond reasonable doubt in sex crime cases — weakens the general attack on how the state uses it.

It presumes we have a justice system, when it isn’t a justice system of course. It is, for the most part, a conveyor belt for the conviction of young people from oppressed groups for the purpose of controlling young people with few good education or employment options, and with substandard housing.

It’s not as bad here as the US, but that’s saying not much at all. Single witness testimony of police and the underfunding of legal aid is essential to the conveyer belt, and having too much of a go at it threatens to bring the whole edifice down.

Now the right no longer has to do that. It will snap back into a firm defence of the golden thread of our Anglo-Christian this other Eden blah blah blah.

Why were progressives and so many on the left eager to identify truth with law? Because they were desperate for a win. They were so beaten down that they abandoned their principles about the state because one particular political enemy had been got. It was too good to pass up.

They will now return to a conventional leftist critique of justice as a state institution, projecting power — but that critique has been substantially blunted in the pathetic opportunism they displayed.

I’ll leave my colleagues to pick over the actual legal details of this judgement. But as for the politics, all one can say is that I never expected anything resembling honesty from the right (including their attempt to enrol me in the “Pell is innocent” campaign).

But this marks a stupid, self-inflicted blow for progressives.

Some of them deserve it. The campaign to identify a racist justice system embedded in a capitalist state didn’t need that blow to its credibility. There’s no shortage of victims in this case, and it is one of them.

_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
Pies4shaw Leo

pies4shaw


Joined: 08 Oct 2007


PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2020 11:02 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

^ "I’ll leave my colleagues to pick over the actual legal details of this judgement."

Very wise words.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
thesoretoothsayer 



Joined: 26 Apr 2017


PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2020 1:02 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Pies4shaw wrote:
^ "I’ll leave my colleagues to pick over the actual legal details of this judgement."

Very wise words.


Disagree.
The media (and twitter) being filled with instant law experts is a welcome break from it being filled with instant virus experts.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Pies4shaw Leo

pies4shaw


Joined: 08 Oct 2007


PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2020 2:36 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

From where I sit, I suppose any advertising is good advertising.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
stui magpie Gemini

Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.


Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto

PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2020 4:37 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

^

Seems the Pope agrees.

Quote:
Pope Francis
@Pontifex
In these days of #Lent, we've been witnessing the persecution that Jesus underwent and how He was judged ferociously, even though He was innocent. Let us #PrayTogether today for all those persons who suffer due to an unjust sentence because of someone had it in for them.
6:19 PM · Apr 7, 2020·TweetDeck

_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index -> Victoria Park Tavern All times are GMT + 11 Hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33  Next
Page 29 of 33   

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum



Privacy Policy

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group