Cardinal George Pell, convicted paedophile

[atrib]

Convicted doesn't mean he did it. If he had been acquitted I'm sure there would be tons of people arguing that the jury got it wrong.

You skipped over the part of my post where I establish that Pell's lawyer thinks Pell did it. That Pell was seized by an irresistible impulse upon seeing the boy and penetrated the boy's anus in a somewhat unremarkable manner. You can't understand why everyone is making such a fuss about it; the boy had clearly been placed there by the devil to tempt Pell, and deserved to be taught a lesson.

Here we have a Cardinal of the Roman Church, a member of an elite group of God's own representatives on Earth, anointed in holy oils and dressed up in holy robes. Buggering young boys entrusted to his care. Pell's conviction is a start but there are thousands more like him. Going about their lives, hiding in plain sight, secure in the knowledge that the Church will never turn them in. And who can blame the priests when their lord and master does the same thing - stand by and do nothing, or heap violence and death on innocent children.

Richter uses mitigating 'arguendo' pleas solely to reduce the penalty. It is standard practice.
If he had asked for sentencing leniency on the grounds that Pell was (still) innocent, guess what the Judge would have said.

The mitigating argument being that Pell has always been attracted to young boys, and that on the day in question he was overcome by lust and his desire to stick his engorged penis into said boy's anus, and he proceeded to do just that? Are you fucking kidding me? You plead for leniency by arguing that Pell had devoted his life to the service of the church and the community, by parading in witnesses to testify to his character and good works, and so on. Pell confessed to the crime after he had been convicted; no innocent man in his position would confess to being a pedophile, ruining whatever remained of their dignity and legacy, just to get their prison sentence reduced by a few years. They would die in prison proclaiming their innocence to the last breath. Pell is not just a convicted criminal, he is also a pussy, lacking integrity and loyalty to his employer, his family and the community he claimed to have served, willing to sell out his church, and bring shame on everyone associated with him by confessing his guilt just to get a lighter sentence.

I am certain you understand why your statements are absurd. If Pell had been captured on video in the act of planting his penis into the boy's anus, you would still be proclaiming his innocence, making up some equally absurd claim about how the boy had tempted and seduced Pell just to make the Roman Church look bad.

 

[DBT]

What motive would all these accusers have for lying? Why would they do it?

There was only one accuser. It was his word versus Pell's

In relation to the trial. Apparently there were more victims who made accusations of sexual abuse, that for various reasons didn't go to trial. There was talk about his proclivities dating back to his time in Ballarat.

Again, what would be the motive for these accusations?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

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.

That raises serious doubts about the correctness of the conviction assuming the description is correct, but it does not provide good evidence of innocence - and, by the way, there are allegations that he committed other crimes like that, so it seems unclear whether there is a pattern.

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

Actually, a common pattern seems to be denial rather than admitting a preference for minors, at least in many cases.
But that aside, as far as I know there were other accusations, and even charges - then dropped, but that would have resulted from clearly insufficient evidence, even without good evidence of innocence.

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

True, and that raises serious doubts about the trial, though it's not nowhere enough.

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.

It does seem pretty improbable on the basis of that description. Yet, the jury convicted him, which increases the probability that he did do it. Without access to the actual transcripts, I do not know for sure what happened in the trial, but the descriptions I have read now make innocence more probable than guilt at this point, though not certain.

 

[steve_bank]

Jesus was commentary of eunuchs.

Perhaps part of being a Catholic priest should be castration.

 

[bilby]

Conservatives Never Get To Lecture Us Again

 

[DrZoidberg]

Convicted doesn't mean he did it. If he had been acquitted I'm sure there would be tons of people arguing that the jury got it wrong.

No. But it makes it damn unlikely that he didn't. Convictions being overturned is rare, and is newsworthy because it's so rare. Believing somebody is innocent after being convicted makes you delusional.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Jesus was commentary of eunuchs.

Perhaps part of being a Catholic priest should be castration.

You don't need a penis to rape. And sexual urges don't disappear because you don't have the "bits". Without balls your testosterone levels drop. But they don't disappear.

I think a better solution is to let them have normal relationships, and lift the ban on homosexuality. The Catholic church has a long tradition or urging homosexuals join the clergy. The priests can then fuck each other. Problem solved.

There's no mystery why it's specifically Catholic priests who are raping boys left and right. Any sexologist can explain how that works. Sexuality is a very powerful instinct. If we simply deny ourselves any sexual outlet our psyche will start desiring anyone or anything we have access to. Especially things we have power over, and those who are in our care. Since Catholic priests spend a lot of time around choir boys their sexual urges will eventually likely be directed towards them. This is basic human psychology. Buddhist countries have the same problem with their monks. The Catholic church is in no way unique.

If the Catholic church insists on having their clergy be abstinent of sex, they should at the very least be placed under surveillance and treated like potential threats. And absolutely NOT put in positions of power and influence. That's so dumb. That's just asking for trouble.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Convicted doesn't mean he did it. If he had been acquitted I'm sure there would be tons of people arguing that the jury got it wrong.

You skipped over the part of my post where I establish that Pell's lawyer thinks Pell did it. That Pell was seized by an irresistible impulse upon seeing the boy and penetrated the boy's anus in a somewhat unremarkable manner. You can't understand why everyone is making such a fuss about it; the boy had clearly been placed there by the devil to tempt Pell, and deserved to be taught a lesson.

Here we have a Cardinal of the Roman Church, a member of an elite group of God's own representatives on Earth, anointed in holy oils and dressed up in holy robes. Buggering young boys entrusted to his care. Pell's conviction is a start but there are thousands more like him. Going about their lives, hiding in plain sight, secure in the knowledge that the Church will never turn them in. And who can blame the priests when their lord and master does the same thing - stand by and do nothing, or heap violence and death on innocent children.

Richter uses mitigating 'arguendo' pleas solely to reduce the penalty. It is standard practice.
If he had asked for sentencing leniency on the grounds that Pell was (still) innocent, guess what the Judge would have said.

So, his strategy was to enter into the court's record the specific admission of the crime he was convicted of in order to set up the appeal of the conviction because he didn't commit the crime?


This lawyer is playing 3D chess while the rest of us are sitting in the sandbox eating play-doh.

 

[ruby sparks]

It does seem pretty improbable on the basis of that description. Yet, the jury convicted him, which increases the probability that he did do it. Without access to the actual transcripts, I do not know for sure what happened in the trial, but the descriptions I have read now make innocence more probable than guilt at this point, though not certain.

Let's face it, none of us here know. Personally, going by what I have read and heard (which as for you is very incomplete) I am inclined to suspend judgement at this time.

 

[bilby]

It does seem pretty improbable on the basis of that description. Yet, the jury convicted him, which increases the probability that he did do it. Without access to the actual transcripts, I do not know for sure what happened in the trial, but the descriptions I have read now make innocence more probable than guilt at this point, though not certain.

Let's face it, none of us here know. Personally, going by what I have read and heard (which as for you is very incomplete) I am inclined to suspend judgement at this time.

I am inclined to leave it to the jury to decide. They have access to the evidence.

False convictions do happen, but they are pretty rare, and there seems to be no reason to think that one has happened in this case - other than the desperate need by some people to believe that their heroes are incorruptible and noble in all things.

 

[Lion IRC]

What motive would all these accusers have for lying? Why would they do it?

There was only one accuser. It was his word versus Pell's

In relation to the trial. Apparently there were more victims who made accusations of sexual abuse, that for various reasons didn't go to trial. There was talk about his proclivities dating back to his time in Ballarat.

Again, what would be the motive for these accusations?

You believe those accusations but they never went to court because our infallible legal system deemed them to be...
(One accuser claimed Pell committed an offence in Australia when Pell's passport proved he was out of the country.)

So I am exercising the same prerogative that you have, to either believe or disbelieve based on the evidence.

bilby thinks it undermines our sacred legal system if anyone dares to question the all-knowing jury of George Pells' peers.

 

[Lion IRC]

It does seem pretty improbable on the basis of that description. Yet, the jury convicted him, which increases the probability that he did do it. Without access to the actual transcripts, I do not know for sure what happened in the trial, but the descriptions I have read now make innocence more probable than guilt at this point, though not certain.

Let's face it, none of us here know. Personally, going by what I have read and heard (which as for you is very incomplete) I am inclined to suspend judgement at this time.

Exactly right. And both the defense and prosecution in this case acknowledge that the evidence boiled down to one person's word against another person's word - and that the jury decided based on what they wanted to believe.

 

[Lion IRC]

Richter uses mitigating 'arguendo' pleas solely to reduce the penalty. It is standard practice.
If he had asked for sentencing leniency on the grounds that Pell was (still) innocent, guess what the Judge would have said.

So, his strategy was to enter into the court's record the specific admission of the crime he was convicted of in order to set up the appeal of the conviction because he didn't commit the crime?

This lawyer is playing 3D chess while the rest of us are sitting in the sandbox eating play-doh.

No, no, no.

Even though Richter is a devout atheist, I'm pretty sure he doesn't want to get done for legal malpractice by "accidentally" incriminating his client.

The lawyer is not admitting the crime happened - after having just spent the last few weeks arguing that it did not.

He is saying...since you (the court) have now already decided that my client did something, then you (the court) should at least be lenient in your sentencing because that 'something' which you (the court) think he did, is on the lesser end of the spectrum when it comes to the nature of such offences.

This is standard pre-sentencing procedure and doesn't constitute an admission of guilt. It doesn't compromise Pell's not guilty plea neither does it prejudice the ongoing appeal process.

 

[DBT]

In relation to the trial. Apparently there were more victims who made accusations of sexual abuse, that for various reasons didn't go to trial. There was talk about his proclivities dating back to his time in Ballarat.

Again, what would be the motive for these accusations?

You believe those accusations but they never went to court because our infallible legal system deemed them to be...
(One accuser claimed Pell committed an offence in Australia when Pell's passport proved he was out of the country.)

So I am exercising the same prerogative that you have, to either believe or disbelieve based on the evidence.

bilby thinks it undermines our sacred legal system if anyone dares to question the all-knowing jury of George Pells' peers.

I did not say that I believed the assusations. What I may or may not believe is irrelevant. My question was, what is the motive for making these accusations?

Why would the alledged victims put themselves through such a harrowing process if there was no truth in their claims?

 

[bilby]

In relation to the trial. Apparently there were more victims who made accusations of sexual abuse, that for various reasons didn't go to trial. There was talk about his proclivities dating back to his time in Ballarat.

Again, what would be the motive for these accusations?

You believe those accusations but they never went to court because our infallible legal system deemed them to be...
(One accuser claimed Pell committed an offence in Australia when Pell's passport proved he was out of the country.)

So I am exercising the same prerogative that you have, to either believe or disbelieve based on the evidence.

bilby thinks it undermines our sacred legal system if anyone dares to question the all-knowing jury of George Pells' peers.

Nope. It's just plain vanilla contempt of court.

 

[bilby]

It does seem pretty improbable on the basis of that description. Yet, the jury convicted him, which increases the probability that he did do it. Without access to the actual transcripts, I do not know for sure what happened in the trial, but the descriptions I have read now make innocence more probable than guilt at this point, though not certain.

Let's face it, none of us here know. Personally, going by what I have read and heard (which as for you is very incomplete) I am inclined to suspend judgement at this time.

Exactly right. And both the defense and prosecution in this case acknowledge that the evidence boiled down to one person's word against another person's word - and that the jury decided based on what they wanted to believe.

Heaven forbid people should decide anything based on what they want to believe.

I am sure that's not in any way the sole grounds for your decision that he is innocent, despite your not being privy to the evidence presented to the jury and the court.

 

[Lion IRC]

So much of the last 48 hours of public discussion focuses on whether people "accept the verdict".

What does that even mean?

It's a redundant question. It doesn't matter whether people think Ruben Carter or Lindy Chamberlain or Ronald Ryan were innocent. The court rules. That's it.

The legal/jury system functions perfectly well irrespective of the fact that for hundreds of years people have been freely exercising their democratic right to express the opinion that an innocent person was wrongfully convicted. And society doesn't fall apart when higher appellate courts rule that lower courts got it wrong.

I ask again, if the court had found Pell not guilty, would all the Pell haters instantly and unanimously agree that he did not do what the accuser claimed?

If the appeal process acquits Pell does that prove that a jury of George Pell's *cough* 'peers' were blinded by their undoubted anti-RCC prejudice?

 

[bilby]

So much of the last 48 hours of public discussion focuses on whether people "accept the verdict".

What does that even mean?

It's a redundant question. It doesn't matter whether people think Ruben Carter or Lindy Chamberlain or Ronald Ryan were innocent. The court rules. That's it.

Yup. He's guilty. End of story.

The legal/jury system functions perfectly well irrespective of the fact that for hundreds of years people have been freely exercising their democratic right to express the opinion that an innocent person was wrongfully convicted. And society doesn't fall apart when higher appellate courts rule that lower courts got it wrong.

Yup. He's guilty, and remains guilty no matter what people like you might like to imagine.

I ask again, if the court had found Pell not guilty, would all the Pell haters instantly and unanimously agree that he did not do what the accuser claimed?

The court found him guilty, so the question is meaningless.

If the appeal process acquits Pell does that prove that a jury of George Pell's *cough* 'peers' were blinded by their undoubted anti-RCC prejudice?

The answer to that hypothetical question would depend upon the basis for the appeal. But it's highly unlikely. Successful appeals usually relate to procedural or evidentiary errors on the part of the court that handed down the original conviction. For example, if a comment by the judge is found to have potentially prejudiced the jury, or if evidence admitted should have been disallowed, or evidence disallowed should have been admitted.

I am not aware of any case being overturned due to a finding that the jury itself was inherently prejudiced. Both the defence and the prosecution are permitted to reject any prospective juror before the trial starts, so it seems far fetched that the defence would have allowed an obviously anti-RCC prejudiced jury to be selected.

Your slanderous speculation about the possible motives of the jury are of no interest to the law.

Pell is guilty.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

It does seem pretty improbable on the basis of that description. Yet, the jury convicted him, which increases the probability that he did do it. Without access to the actual transcripts, I do not know for sure what happened in the trial, but the descriptions I have read now make innocence more probable than guilt at this point, though not certain.

Let's face it, none of us here know. Personally, going by what I have read and heard (which as for you is very incomplete) I am inclined to suspend judgement at this time.

I am inclined to leave it to the jury to decide. They have access to the evidence.

The members of the jury have access to more information than the rest of us. However, the rest of us have access to information - including but not limited to the fact that the jury convicted him. Our probabilistic assessment on the matter of whether he is guilty should be based on all of our information, not only the fact that the jury convicted him - though that information also plays a role, of course.

Now, it turns out that this was not the first jury. Before that, there was a previous jury, which was unable to decide by the legally required majorities. However, it turns out that the previous jury was very probably (no official record, but very probably) 10-2 in favor of acquitting, and they had access to as much evidence as the new jury. That reduces significantly the probability that he is guilty, and also the probability that the new jury was rational in assessing the evidence was beyond a reasonable doubt.

That aside, different media accounts of the trial give us better information, and on the basis of that information, I reckon he is probably not guilty, and moreover, even if he is guilty, the jury very probably acted improperly, because it is very improbable that the sort of extra evidence of the kind that appears to have been available to the jury (namely, testimony from the person claiming to be a victim) could have shown guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Now, I do not know how good the Australian Supreme Court is. But if it it reasonably good, I think they will probably overturn the conviction, even if that is a rare event in general, and precisely due to the information available in this case. We will have to wait and see.

False convictions do happen, but they are pretty rare, and there seems to be no reason to think that one has happened in this case - other than the desperate need by some people to believe that their heroes are incorruptible and noble in all things.

Pell spent most of his life promoting Catholicism. That is unethical behavior on his part. He should have realized - and he still should realize - that the creator described in the bible is a moral monster who does not exist - a sort of supervillain, more evil than, say, Thanos.
Additionally, I have not seen any heroic actions on Pell's part. Some things he did are good, some bad, but nothing heroic as far as I can tell. Also, I used to think he was probably guilty (on the basis of the information I had seen up to then), but after doing more reading on the matter, I think he probably was not guilty - though that is tentative.

 

[bilby]

I am inclined to leave it to the jury to decide. They have access to the evidence.

The members of the jury have access to more information than the rest of us. However, the rest of us have access to information - including but not limited to the fact that the jury convicted him. Our probabilistic assessment on the matter of whether he is guilty should be based on all of our information, not only the fact that the jury convicted him - though that information also plays a role, of course.

Now, it turns out that this was not the first jury. Before that, there was a previous jury, which was unable to decide by the legally required majorities. However, it turns out that the previous jury was very probably (no official record, but very probably) 10-2 in favor of acquitting, and they had access to as much evidence as the new jury. That reduces significantly the probability that he is guilty, and also the probability that the new jury was rational in assessing the evidence was beyond a reasonable doubt.

That aside, different media accounts of the trial give us better information, and on the basis of that information, I reckon he is probably not guilty, and moreover, even if he is guilty, the jury very probably acted improperly, because it is very improbable that the sort of extra evidence of the kind that appears to have been available to the jury (namely, testimony from the person claiming to be a victim) could have shown guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Now, I do not know how good the Australian Supreme Court is. But if it it reasonably good, I think they will probably overturn the conviction, even if that is a rare event in general, and precisely due to the information available in this case. We will have to wait and see.

False convictions do happen, but they are pretty rare, and there seems to be no reason to think that one has happened in this case - other than the desperate need by some people to believe that their heroes are incorruptible and noble in all things.

Pell spent most of his life promoting Catholicism. That is unethical behavior on his part. He should have realized - and he still should realize - that the creator described in the bible is a moral monster who does not exist - a sort of supervillain, more evil than, say, Thanos.
Additionally, I have not seen any heroic actions on Pell's part. Some things he did are good, some bad, but nothing heroic as far as I can tell. Also, I used to think he was probably guilty (on the basis of the information I had seen up to then), but after doing more reading on the matter, I think he probably was not guilty - though that is tentative.

From where do you derive your claim that "the previous jury was very probably (no official record, but very probably) 10-2 in favor of acquitting"?

The only information we have is that the first jury did not reach a verdict. We have no information on whether the majority were for acquittal or for conviction, or whether they were equally split.

Under Australian law, it is a very serious offence for any juror to reveal the details of jury deliberations, so I am not sure how you could possibly assign any probability to any possible distribution of opinions in the first jury. It's information that is very deliberately kept out of the public domain.