Cardinal George Pell, convicted paedophile

[bilby]

The media suppression order on the trial of George Pell was lifted today, allowing the Australian media to finally report his conviction on December 11 last year on five counts of child sexual abuse - one count of sexual penetration of a child under the age of 16, and four counts of committing an indecent act with, or in the presence of, a child - after a jury returned a unanimous guilty verdict.

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

So, if the third most senior Roman Catholic is guilty, how high does it go?

No doubt Lion IRC will be along in a minute to claim (as usual) that Pell must have been an atheist, masquerading as a Cardinal. I wonder if there are in fact any members of the RC hierarchy who are theists? Perhaps the pope is an atheist? Maybe Jesus, Joseph and Mary were atheists too?

The RC church has been rotten from the top down since it's inception. Perhaps it's time for governments to stop granting special privileges to the Holy See, and to treat it like the very lucrative and corrupt organisation that it is. Even Al Capone wasn't allowed to get away with not paying taxes.

 

[DBT]

There were rumors about his behaviour going back decades. Justice has at last caught up with him.

 

[bilby]

 

[Lion IRC]

Not an atheist.
Not a fair trial.
Not guilty.
Church haters gonna hate.

They have their scapegoat scalp and it wouldn't matter what defence Pell's legal team put up.

 

[bilby]

Not an atheist.
Not a fair trial.
Not guilty.
Church haters gonna hate.

They have their scapegoat scalp and it wouldn't matter what defence Pell's legal team put up.

Ah, I see. You know something that the jury weren't told that completely exonerates Pell, but you failed to come forward with your evidence.

Or you are full of shit, and will blindly defend your team even when they are rotting in jail for their vile crimes.

Either way, it doesn't reflect at all well on you.

 

[Lion IRC]

There's quite a lot known about what was and wasn't presented to the jury.

And Pell"s lawyers weren't obligated to present evidence that "completely exonerated" him.

All they had to do was introduce reasonable doubt, as against the prosecution's hurdle to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that he was guilty. (The assumption being that these jurors were all 'reasonable' and free from prejudice. By the way, we're did phands go? Maybe he has jury duty somewhere)

 

[Lion IRC]

No doubt bilby will be along in a minute to claim that two different juries presented with the same facts will always reach the same verdict. And that no judges ever disagree.

 

[bilby]

There's quite a lot known about what was and wasn't presented to the jury.

And Pell"s lawyers weren't obligated to present evidence that "completely exonerated" him.

All they had to do was introduce reasonable doubt, as against the prosecution's hurdle to prove beyond all reasonable doubt. (The assumption being that these jurors were all 'reasonable' and free from prejudice.)

Yes indeed. And after considering all of the evidence, the jury found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The verdict was unanimous.

If you have any evidence that would have cast doubt on the conviction, you failed in your duty to come forward.

If you don't, then the only grounds you have for rejecting the verdict is the belief that the entire jury was biased - and if you have evidence of that, you have a duty to bring that evidence to the authorities. And if you don't, then your rejection of the verdict is unreasonable, could be in contempt of court if published, and marks you down as full of shit.

 

[Lion IRC]

bilby seems ignorant of the fact that the first iteration of this trial resulted in a hung jury. No verdict could be reached.

Witnesses for the prosecution contradicted one another. The mother of one alleged victim (who didn't testify against Pell because he is deceased) told the court that her son repeatedly denied ever having been molested. But because dead men tell no tales, the deceased person was able to be used as an alleged victim of uncorroborated events alleged by Pell's sole accuser.

Does this scenario ring a bell? Contradictory accounts. Uncorroborated claims. No other eye witnesses to verify the earlier claims of one single supposed witness. Belated recollections - decades after the event, but coincidentally well-timed considering that the Catholic Church is now dishing out $50k $75k $100k to sufficiently motivated victims.

 

[bilby]

bilby seems ignorant of the fact that the first iteration of this trial resulted in a hung jury. No verdict could be reached.

Witnesses for the prosecution contradicted one another. The mother of one alleged victim (who didn't testify against Pell because he is deceased) told the court that her son repeatedly denied ever having been molested. But because dead men tell no tales, the deceased person was able to be used as an alleged victim of uncorroborated events alleged by Pell's sole accuser.

Does this scenario ring a bell? Contradictory accounts. Uncorroborated claims. No other eye witnesses to verify the earlier claims of one single supposed witness. Belated recollections - decades after the event, but coincidentally well-timed considering that the Catholic Church is now dishing out $50k $75k $100k to sufficiently motivated victims.

And yet a new jury, given access to the entire body of evidence, unanimously reached a guilty verdict.

The justice system is, by design, hugely favourable to defendants. Yet Pell's legal team couldn't persuade a single juror in the new trial that there was reasonable doubt of his guilt. Mor could they persuade the jury in his first trial of that.

If he wasn't a cardinal, or even a catholic, you would have no doubt whatsoever of his guilt on the basis of this verdict. You have not previously argued that the courts fail to exonerate non-catholics accused of similar crimes, with similar evidence; It's totally nonsensical for you to reject the verdict in this case, other than as a result of your unsupported bias in favour of the church hierarchy.

Cardinals, bishops and popes are no more moral, and no less likely to commit crimes than anyone else.

Pell is guilty, according to the law. I hope he dies in jail for these despicable crimes.

Your slanderous suggestion that the victim was motivated by greed is a vile and shameful thing, even by your low standards. The main drivers of the timing of this case was Pell's attempt to escape justice by hiding in the Vatican; And a series of Prime Ministers pandering to the church by not calling a Royal Commission. Well done to Julia Gillard for finally putting justice ahead of sycophancy to the Christian lobby.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

This is a good step. I'm glad that the upper echelons of the Church are being held accountable and I look forward to further such trials in the future. Since the Church itself is going to fail so damn miserably in one of the basic functions of decency and humanity, it's nice that others are stepping up to fill the gap.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I've had my share of discussions with catholics on this issue. My contention has always been that this behavior was widely known about but that no one did anything about it. What we are finding out is that I am absolutely correct. Interestingly, the many catholics I speak with agree wholeheartedly with me. Many blame the devil, which is pretty funny and sad. Only one person I've spoken with out of dozens has the reaction of Lion that this is just a conspiracy.

What is intriguing is that many of these catholics remain loyal to their "faith." Not all certainly, many do not associate themselves anymore, but the ones that do are able to compartmentalize somehow, separating the pious fraud from piety generally. It's interesting to observe, to say the least, particularly when you know that the predatory behavior is continuing just as it had been for thousands of years.

And this will always be the case when people are taught to be obedient to authority and that the authority has a connection to magical powers with invisible spirit creatures. Ignorance is bliss I always say, and quite a lucrative business for those willing to exploit it.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I've had my share of discussions with catholics on this issue. My contention has always been that this behavior was widely known about but that no one did anything about it. What we are finding out is that I am absolutely correct. Interestingly, the many catholics I speak with agree wholeheartedly with me. Many blame the devil, which is pretty funny and sad. Only one person I've spoken with out of dozens has the reaction of Lion that this is just a conspiracy.

What is intriguing is that many of these catholics remain loyal to their "faith." Not all certainly, many do not associate themselves anymore, but the ones that do are able to compartmentalize somehow, separating the pious fraud from piety generally. It's interesting to observe, to say the least, particularly when you know that the predatory behavior is continuing just as it had been for thousands of years.

And this will always be the case when people are taught to be obedient to authority and that the authority has a connection to magical powers with invisible spirit creatures. Ignorance is bliss I always say, and quite a lucrative business for those willing to exploit it.

Well, it's not just religion or something about submission to authority. Up here in Canada, over the past twenty years, an average of ten coaches and other officials involved in minor league hockey have been convicted to molesting kids each year. Every time one of those cases has made national news, it was considered a shock and a wake up call by the hockey organizations to make serious changes to avoid it happening again. Then the next one was also a shock and a wake up call which meant that they were going to make serious changes. Then the one after that was a shock and a wake up call and it totally meant that serious changes needed to be made. Everyone is waiting with baited breath to see what the reaction to the next one will be.

People just don't like admitting that the organization which they are a part of is being used to help abuse children, so they look at the instances of those as anomalies as opposed to something which the organization is actually set up to allow, so they apply band-aids and forget about it instead of going through all the trouble of scheduling major reconstructive surgery.

 

[Treedbear]

...
Well, it's not just religion or something about submission to authority. Up here in Canada, over the past twenty years, an average of ten coaches and other officials involved in minor league hockey have been convicted to molesting kids each year. ...

Isn't hockey like Canada's national religion?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

...
Well, it's not just religion or something about submission to authority. Up here in Canada, over the past twenty years, an average of ten coaches and other officials involved in minor league hockey have been convicted to molesting kids each year. ...

Isn't hockey like Canada's national religion?

That would explain why I send 10% of my salary to Wayne Gretzky every pay day.

 

[bilby]

If you were trying to set up a power structure such that people would be sexually abused, it would be difficult to come up with a better design than the Roman Catholic Church.

Define a group of men as beyond reproach; Prohibit them from all forms of sexual release; Allow them to confess their transgressions with impunity, to another man in the same hierarchy; Avoid all external regulation, monitoring, or investigation, allowing only internal and confidential investigations by the organisation itself; Tell them that their only legitimate recourse if tempted to commit a crime is to ask an imaginary entity for assistance and guidance. Then place them in a position of authority over people who have been conditioned since birth to obey and trust them.

You really couldn't design things to be any worse.

That anyone is surprised or shocked that priests, bishops and cardinals commit rapes against any vulnerable people they have charge over, including children, is a sad indictment of the groundless trust that is placed in these men and the institution that they represent.

 

[Lion IRC]

Only one person I've spoken with out of dozens has the reaction of Lion that this is just a conspiracy...

Really?
There was a lot of 'real catholics' vox pops in the media yesterday and today expressing the view that the jury got it wrong.

Pell was convicted
…more two decades after the alleged event,
…on the uncorroborated evidence
…of one single witness,
…without any forensic evidence,
…without a pattern of behaviour,
…without a confession.

It is rare to even run a serious case like this on the word of one witness - let alone gain a conviction.

Pell certainly does not fit the usual pattern of paedophile clergy abusers who typically;
...identify vulnerable potential victims,
...groom them
...isolate them,
...commit the offences in private
...pressure the victims into silence.
...admit their (born-that-way) sexual preference for minors

Historically, the vast majority of (successful) prosecutions have involved multiple individual victims who all (on their own behalf) testify to similar pattern of offending.

Pell had access to hundreds of boys over his career from among whom he could have easily groomed the vulnerable.

Instead, he supposedly;
…perpetrated a one off, opportunistic attack
…on two unknown boys
…whom he unexpectedly found in the sacristy
…immediately after High Mass at Australia’s largest cathedral
…on the busiest day of the Church week
…when the Cathedral precinct was teeming with several hundred church goers and dozens of diocesan officials.
…in broad daylight in an unsecured, unlocked public area.
…where the risk of being caught in the act was unfathomably high for the sort of crimes paedophiles commit.

In the words of one crime reporter, he had no idea whether one of these nameless boys was the son of the Chief Police Commissioner, the Prime Minister or the Chief Justice who were waiting outside to collect them.

Pell could not have known if one of them would scream for help or walk straight out and blow the whistle on him - and with two kids (two witnesses) in the room he would have been sunk. These are not the actions of a cunning, experienced paedophile who usually turns out to be a serial offender.

Yet no-one has alleged Pell had a history of this type of crime.

Consider also the public record of Pell's behaviour leading up to the alleged events.

16th July 1996 Pell takes up appointment as Archbishop of Melb

Thereupon, Archbishop Pell almost immediately instructs the respected law firm Corrs Chambers Westgarth (Corrs), solicitors for the Archdiocese of Melbourne, to put together a new scheme for responding to claims of child sexual abuse within the Archdiocese. (Remember, lawyers are officers of the court - this isn't Better Call Saul.)

30 October 1996, Archbishop Pell announced the Melbourne Response and appoints independent Commissioners to inquire into allegations of sexual abuse, with an explicit, and transparent public accountability mandate that they must;
...immediately inform any/every complainant that they have an unfettered and continuing right to take their complaint to the police
...And that they must encourage the exercise of that right
...And that they must not act in any way that would prevent or hinder any police investigation in respect of allegations of sexual abuse by Church personnel.

November 1996, less than one month after the Melbourne Response was announced, Pell along with the Bishops Conference approves the Towards Healing protocol – confidential payments to victims who wish to remain anonymous and explicitly don’t want exercise their rights to take the matter to police.

A month later December 2016….

Archbishop Pell allegedly returns to the cathedral sacristy after having just presided over the 11am Mass, and allegedly discovers the highly unusual presence of an unidentified 13 year old choir boy (who should not have been there at the time) sneaking a sip or two of altar wine in the company of another boy - also a choir boy (of course.)
Pell apparently forgets that he himself has just authorised the most unprecedented level of scrutiny and no-holds-barred investigation into the scourge of clergy paedophilia in the history of RCC in this country. And, despite the lack of locks, on the open doors, and the regular passers by, he allegedly decides to molest both boys - one after the other.

Surely all the atheist skeptics here at TFF can appreciate my skepticism. And these alleged events aren't even 2000 years old yet.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Not an atheist.
Not a fair trial.
Not guilty.
Church haters gonna hate.

They have their scapegoat scalp and it wouldn't matter what defence Pell's legal team put up.

WTF?!? Didn't expect that answer. You really are blindly supporting the Catholic church. I don't think it matters to you what members of that church does. I think you'll just filter it in your brain to make it ok somehow. It's a bizarre behaviour on your part.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Only one person I've spoken with out of dozens has the reaction of Lion that this is just a conspiracy...

Really?
There was a lot of 'real catholics' vox pops in the media yesterday and today expressing the view that the jury got it wrong.

Pell was convicted
…more two decades after the alleged event,
…on the uncorroborated evidence
…of one single witness,
…without any forensic evidence,
…without a pattern of behaviour,
…without a confession.

It is rare to even run a serious case like this on the word of one witness - let alone gain a conviction.

Pell certainly does not fit the usual pattern of paedophile clergy abusers who typically;
...identify vulnerable potential victims,
...groom them
...isolate them,
...commit the offences in private
...pressure the victims into silence.
...admit their (born-that-way) sexual preference for minors

Historically, the vast majority of (successful) prosecutions have involved multiple individual victims who all (on their own behalf) testify to similar pattern of offending.

Pell had access to hundreds of boys over his career from among whom he could have easily groomed the vulnerable.

Instead, he supposedly;
…perpetrated a one off, opportunistic attack
…on two unknown boys
…whom he unexpectedly found in the sacristy
…immediately after High Mass at Australia’s largest cathedral
…on the busiest day of the Church week
…when the Cathedral precinct was teeming with several hundred church goers and dozens of diocesan officials.
…in broad daylight in an unsecured, unlocked public area.
…where the risk of being caught in the act was unfathomably high for the sort of crimes paedophiles commit.

Psychopaths/sociopaths often engage in high risk behaviour, because it's risky. Religious organisations are magnets for psychopaths, because of the high internal trust given. People who rise in an organisation are often psychopaths.

There's a lot here that does fit the bill. Add to the fact that he is specifically a Catholic priest, which further adds to the degree of suspicion.

In the words of one crime reporter, he had no idea whether one of these nameless boys was the son of the Chief Police Commissioner, the Prime Minister or the Chief Justice who were waiting outside to collect them.

Pell could not have known if one of them would scream for help or walk straight out and blow the whistle on him - and with two kids (two witnesses) in the room he would have been sunk. These are not the actions of a cunning, experienced paedophile who usually turns out to be a serial offender.

Yet no-one has alleged Pell had a history of this type of crime.

Consider also the public record of Pell's behaviour leading up to the alleged events.

16th July 1996 Pell takes up appointment as Archbishop of Melb

Thereupon, Archbishop Pell almost immediately instructs the respected law firm Corrs Chambers Westgarth (Corrs), solicitors for the Archdiocese of Melbourne, to put together a new scheme for responding to claims of child sexual abuse within the Archdiocese. (Remember, lawyers are officers of the court - this isn't Better Call Saul.)

30 October 1996, Archbishop Pell announced the Melbourne Response and appoints independent Commissioners to inquire into allegations of sexual abuse, with an explicit, and transparent public accountability mandate that they must;
...immediately inform any/every complainant that they have an unfettered and continuing right to take their complaint to the police
...And that they must encourage the exercise of that right
...And that they must not act in any way that would prevent or hinder any police investigation in respect of allegations of sexual abuse by Church personnel.

November 1996, less than one month after the Melbourne Response was announced, Pell along with the Bishops Conference approves the Towards Healing protocol – confidential payments to victims who wish to remain anonymous and explicitly don’t want exercise their rights to take the matter to police.

A month later December 2016….

Archbishop Pell allegedly returns to the cathedral sacristy after having just presided over the 11am Mass, and allegedly discovers the highly unusual presence of an unidentified 13 year old choir boy (who should not have been there at the time) sneaking a sip or two of altar wine in the company of another boy - also a choir boy (of course.)
Pell apparently forgets that he himself has just authorised the most unprecedented level of scrutiny and no-holds-barred investigation into the scourge of clergy paedophilia in the history of RCC in this country. And, despite the lack of locks, on the open doors, and the regular passers by, he allegedly decides to molest both boys - one after the other.

Surely all the atheist skeptics here at TFF can appreciate my skepticism. And these alleged events aren't even 2000 years old yet.

How doesn't this make him look more guilty? A common tactic on covering up ones own crimes is to try to seem like one is very aggressively combating just that type of crime. Innocent people don't usually have the crime at the top of their mind.

 

[ruby sparks]

As far as I am aware, this case was only one of several that the Police and magistrates felt had enough evidence to have been prosecuted. There were also other allegations, but some were deemed to have insufficient evidence.