Cardinal George Pell, convicted paedophile

[bilby]

The unanimous decision of the full bench of the High Court effectively rules that the jury failed to give adequate weight to the exculpatory evidence provided by defence. That evidence demonstrates that the claims of Pell’s accuser are most likely either;

Deliberately fabricated falsehoods
Sincerely mistaken honest beliefs
Mental delusion/fantasy

You forgot "true", which remains the most likely explanation. The law sets a very high burden of proof on the prosecution, and two of three courts accepted that this burden had been met.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The unanimous decision of the full bench of the High Court effectively rules that the jury failed to give adequate weight to the exculpatory evidence provided by defence. That evidence demonstrates that the claims of Pell’s accuser are most likely either;

Deliberately fabricated falsehoods
Sincerely mistaken honest beliefs
Mental delusion/fantasy

You forgot "true", which remains the most likely explanation. The law sets a very high burden of proof on the prosecution, and two of three courts accepted that this burden had been met.

That's correct. Reasonable doubt means reasonable doubt and nothing more. Considering the massive amount of sexual abuse within the RCC the likelihood that cardinal Pedo is guilty is quite strong. He is certainly still guilty of protecting abusers, that much is absolutely certain, as are all clerics in the RCC.

 

[ronburgundy]

Swab some virus cells onto an alter boy's penis and send him into the Cardinal's chambers.

 

[Lion IRC]

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

Well this post has aged well.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

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

Well this post has aged well.

Mostly, I still do not see sufficient evidence to tell whether he is guilty.

There was disagreement about the members of the first jury as to whether the evidence of guilt was beyond a reasonable doubt (it was reported that it was 10-2 for acquital, but we do not have good evidence of that, either). The second jury had no disagreements: they all voted to convict. The verdict was appealed, though, and a court upheld it - though not unanimously, so the members of the court seem to have disagreed about whether the members of the second jury had been reasonable in assessing the evidence. Finally, the superior court unanimously held that the members of the second jury had not been reasonable in assessing the evidence. They did not rule that he was not guilty of the offenses he was charged with, or even likely not guilty.

On the basis of that, there seems to be insufficient information to tell whether he is guilty. On the basis of the description about how it was impossible for him to do that, again there seems to be insufficient information to tell, as that depends on whether the description of how things worked back then at his place of work were accurate, which is disputed too.

So, I don't know. And I don't think anyone here does.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Cardinal Pell 'knew of' clergy abuse, says Australian royal commission

The findings on Cardinal Pell - an ex-Vatican treasurer - come from Australia's royal commission into child sexual abuse, which ended in 2017.

The previously redacted findings were only revealed on Thursday.

A court had previously banned their publication because the cleric was facing child abuse charges at the time.

Did Hitler use his pistol and go around executing Jews? No. Is he still guilty of antisemitism? You betcha.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Cardinal Pell 'knew of' clergy abuse, says Australian royal commission

The findings on Cardinal Pell - an ex-Vatican treasurer - come from Australia's royal commission into child sexual abuse, which ended in 2017.

The previously redacted findings were only revealed on Thursday.

A court had previously banned their publication because the cleric was facing child abuse charges at the time.

Did Hitler use his pistol and go around executing Jews? No. Is he still guilty of antisemitism? You betcha.

Even if Pell is guilty of failing to report sexual abuse (I haven't looked at the evidence and don't have the time for that I'm afraid), I was talking about whether he was guilty of the charges against him in the trials, not whether he was guilty of other charges (side note: Hitler actually gave the orders, rather than look the other way).

 

[Lion IRC]

The point being missed by the 'get-Pell' mob is that Pell was supposedly being bombarded with rumours (gossip/hearsay) about pedophilia occuring on his watch, and yet the source of those unsubstantiated claims were accusers who, themselves, didnt report their claims to the police.

Similarly, a huge volume of the information Pell freely admitted he had, in relation to suspected or formally accused pedophiles, was also and already known by the police. So how is that a cover up?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Cardinal Pell 'knew of' clergy abuse, says Australian royal commission

The findings on Cardinal Pell - an ex-Vatican treasurer - come from Australia's royal commission into child sexual abuse, which ended in 2017.

The previously redacted findings were only revealed on Thursday.

A court had previously banned their publication because the cleric was facing child abuse charges at the time.

Did Hitler use his pistol and go around executing Jews? No. Is he still guilty of antisemitism? You betcha.

Even if Pell is guilty of failing to report sexual abuse (I haven't looked at the evidence and don't have the time for that I'm afraid), I was talking about whether he was guilty of the charges against him in the trials, not whether he was guilty of other charges (side note: Hitler actually gave the orders, rather than look the other way).

I think Lion's argument is that the Jews and others that were being murdered by the Nazis didn't go to the police, so why should anyone believe their stories.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Even if Pell is guilty of failing to report sexual abuse (I haven't looked at the evidence and don't have the time for that I'm afraid), I was talking about whether he was guilty of the charges against him in the trials, not whether he was guilty of other charges (side note: Hitler actually gave the orders, rather than look the other way).

I think Lion's argument is that the Jews and others that were being murdered by the Nazis didn't go to the police, so why should anyone believe their stories.

It doesn't look like that to me. Rather, he seems to be saying that the accusations Pell did not report to the police were accusations that the accusers themselves had chosen not to tell the police about. In doing so, he seems to be suggesting that there is no sufficient reason to believe Pell had a moral obligation to report any of that to the police. But that's my impression, he can clarify his stance if he so chooses.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Even if Pell is guilty of failing to report sexual abuse (I haven't looked at the evidence and don't have the time for that I'm afraid), I was talking about whether he was guilty of the charges against him in the trials, not whether he was guilty of other charges (side note: Hitler actually gave the orders, rather than look the other way).

I think Lion's argument is that the Jews and others that were being murdered by the Nazis didn't go to the police, so why should anyone believe their stories.

It doesn't look like that to me. Rather, he seems to be saying that the accusations Pell did not report to the police were accusations that the accusers themselves had chosen not to tell the police about. In doing so, he seems to be suggesting that there is no sufficient reason to believe Pell had a moral obligation to report any of that to the police. But that's my impression, he can clarify his stance if he so chooses.

For persons like Lion and Pell, their organization and their woo will always be more important to them than the life and welfare of any child or any number of children, or any person or any number of persons. Their gods and their church will always come first. And it is worth noting that this organization did not stop at its doors. For centuries this abuse has gone on much the same way as domestic violence was once tolerated. The conflict of interest cannot be overstated. For persons like myself who grew up in this environment the power the clerics wielded was enormous, to say the least, and it had no counterweight, no civil or personal reckoning or accounting. All these issues were a matter of canon law, a body of self serving rules established by self appointed men.

In another life Pell and his ilk may have led mundane lives where they didn't have to protect fellow criminals who abused children, but that is not what happened. The circumstances allowed individuals like Pell, even required them to protect the organization at all costs, and we're seeing today where that has led.

 

[Lion IRC]

Even if Pell is guilty of failing to report sexual abuse (I haven't looked at the evidence and don't have the time for that I'm afraid), I was talking about whether he was guilty of the charges against him in the trials, not whether he was guilty of other charges (side note: Hitler actually gave the orders, rather than look the other way).

I think Lion's argument is that the Jews and others that were being murdered by the Nazis didn't go to the police, so why should anyone believe their stories.

It doesn't look like that to me. Rather, he seems to be saying that the accusations Pell did not report to the police were accusations that the accusers themselves had chosen not to tell the police about.

Thats right.
Pell cant be accused of covering up information that was already known.
He cant be accused of covering up 'rumours' and gossip and hearsay accounts which the police themselves did not, could not, and would not pursue. Pell is being villified for not sacking suspected pedophiles during the 70's 80's 90's and nobody seems to care that he had no authority to sack priests until August 1996 when he became Archbishop.

Before Cardinal Pell became Archbishop of Melbourne, the police lacked the evidence to do something about Searson; the auxiliary bishops, teachers and principal lacked the authority to do something about Searson; and Archbishop Little seemingly lacked the will to do anything about Searson, so he remained in the Doveton parish for 13 years. It was Cardinal Pell who ultimately removed him as one of his first actions as Archbishop.

https://www.catholicweekly.com.au/monica-doumit-misplaced-blame-for-horrific-abuse/

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

So people don't report criminal behavior because they don't have authority.

 

[Lion IRC]

27 media companies journalists and editors facing contempt of court charges for publishing sub judice material and breaching suppression orders which may have prejudiced Cardinal Pell's trial.

Pell was eventually acquitted of all charges by the High Court of Australia which found that there was ‘a significant possibility that an innocent person has been convicted’.


Anti-Catholic, shock jock journalists like Louise Milligan and Lucy Morris-Marr perhaps assumed contempt of court, and presumption of innocence rules didn't apply when it came to clergy paedophilia accusations.