Breaking News: Pell’s case off to the High Court

This entry was posted in Politics, Rule of law. Bookmark the permalink.

224 Responses to Breaking News: Pell’s case off to the High Court

  1. yeronhers will surely rap this up quickly by, say, 2030.

  2. dover_beach

    Yes, indeed. I see the ABC is going to speak to a ‘survivor’ of abuse completely unrelated to the Pell case. Why? It’s as gratutious and prejudicial as seeing ‘survivors’ and their various hangers-on outside of court. What possible reason could there be other than prejudicing the public perception of the accused and self-aggrandisment?

  3. cuckoo

    Sob-story coverage in media about how this is ‘harming’ the ‘victim’ in 3…2…

  4. Anthony

    Now, tell us once more – how many appeals lodged and decided this way actually make it to the high court?
    And how often are Victorian court appeals chucked out when they hit the high court?

  5. Graham

    It could never have been otherwise given the dissent of Weinberg J. I think the majority in the Vic Court of Appeal will be very nervous given that the High Court does not mind handing it out to lower courts when they have got things so wrong.

    For lawyers, the fascinating thing is that the High Court panel (two judges) who consider special leave applications dispensed with the need even for an oral hearing as to whether leave should be given. The need for special leave was so self evident to them I would think.

  6. Sinclair Davidson

    Sob-story coverage in media about how this is ‘harming’ the ‘victim’ in 3…2…

    That crap was on twitter even before the verdict came in.

  7. Leigh Lowe

    Standby for lots of “won’t someone think of the suffering of the victims”.
    I see a News Ltd headline about a letter from the father if a “victim” to Pope Fonzie about Pell.
    I haven’t read it but I assume it is not so much a letter as a press release telling the world that Pell should just cop it and the Church should pay everybody lots.

  8. Leigh Lowe

    Graham

    #3210417, posted on November 13, 2019 at 9:44 am

    It could never have been otherwise given the dissent of Weinberg J. I think the majority in the Vic Court of Appeal will be very nervous given that the High Court does not mind handing it out to lower courts when they have got things so wrong.

    They gave VikPol a jolly good seeing to over the Gobbo case.
    In lawyer-speak, basically called them liars and cheats.

  9. Each day that the HC delays hearing this case, increases the chances that justice will not be served.
    In the interests of justice, the HC should hear this case before they go on holidays (for a quarter of a year or so).

  10. Rex Mango

    Surprisingly ABC RN last night at 8pm ran this program, which could almost have been written about ‘the kid’s’ evidence:

    https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/bigideas/is-your-memory-playing-tricks-on-you/11692082

  11. Tom

    We need you to stay strong and healthy, Cardinal Pell. I know you’ll accept injustice if it is God’s will, but we here on earth need to know that our justice system can’t be corrupted by the guilty former Christians who are persecuting you. God bless you, sir, and shame on the ABC.

  12. a happy little debunker

    Let justice be done though the heavens may fall

  13. Rex Mango

    Quite audible wailing and gnashing of teeth in my office at moment re the decision. Precisely demonstrates why this verdict needs to be overturned when so many people have preconceived negative opinions.

  14. JC

    The HC has a problem if they want to cover for the Victorian courts. They would need to demolish the Weinberg opinion and that would be really hard to do.

  15. Quite audible wailing and gnashing of teeth in my office at moment re the decision.

    Quite audible groaning and gnashing of dentures in mine.

  16. ian3029

    Sky news (Gilbert/Nielsen) called it an “extraordinary development”.

  17. Cui Bono

    A Professor Loftus spoke to ANU School of Psychology about how prone we are to false memories and suggestion (ABC RN). Worth listening to and weighing in relation to the reliability of the ‘victims’ recollections.

  18. kaysee

    Graham
    #3210417, posted on November 13, 2019 at 9:44 am

    It could never have been otherwise given the dissent of Weinberg J.

    That’s what I kept repeating to myself when I heard the decision was due today.
    But then again, in August, I was confident it would be a unanimous – Not Guilty.
     
    The reputation of the High Court, and the Justice system in this country, hinges on this one case.

  19. stackja

    HC let Lindy stay in prison.

  20. Leigh Lowe

    Rex Mango

    #3210440, posted on November 13, 2019 at 10:00 am

    Quite audible wailing and gnashing of teeth in my office at moment re the decision. Precisely demonstrates why this verdict needs to be overturned when so many people have preconceived negative opinions

    Some of the stuff I have heard in casual conversation over tue last six months is unbelievable:-
    1. The assertion that he was convicted of flashing kids in a change room (the ABC claim which was shot down in five minutes and never made it to court);
    2. The belief that there are multiple convictions, including the failed “pool accusation”.
    3. The oft repeated Faine line “there is a lot of evidence we didn’t see” … (wink, nudge)
    4. The ABC assertion that he is likely to be charged with “other stuff” relating to shifting p3do priests and covering up. Um, not criminal back then and his connection is tangential at best.
    And they selected a jury out of that cesspool.

  21. stackja

    HIGH COURT WILL HEAR PELL’S APPEAL
    Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun
    November 13, 2019 9:38am
    Subscriber only
    Finally, the chance of the justice at last. The High Court this morning agreed to hear George Pell’s appeal against his conviction for sexual assault. It must have found there were legal issues it should or could rule upon.

    I hope it is also aware that Pell could not possibly have committed the assaults on the two boys as alleged.

  22. FelixKruell

    This will be interesting…

    Most of the recent HC cases in this area have overturned the Court of Appeal, but in the opposite circumstances (where the Appeals court had granted appeal to original jury guilty verdict).

    I also agree with some of the other comments here around timing – it’s a farce that the entire appeals process will probably take as long as the sentence that was imposed.

  23. Tim Neilson

    The HC has a problem if they want to cover for the Victorian courts. They would need to demolish the Weinberg opinion and that would be really hard to do.

    I don’t think that’s their intention.

    They could easily have dodged this if they wanted to. The High Court doesn’t have to hear cases just because the decision looks off – they hear cases only if there’s a point of general application which is likely to affect other cases.

    They could have pointed to the Court of Appeal majority’s formal recitation of the proper principles, and said that even if the principles had been misapplied in this case, that misapplication was fact-specific and so there wasn’t a point of general application at issue. That would not have looked out of place among other special leave applications.

    If they had, the majority decision would have stood.

    Therefore I think that the granting of leave suggests that the High Court has serious doubts about the majority decision.

  24. notafan

    Grand news

    And thank you Tim for that analysis.

    There is an existing High Court decision on a case very similar to this one which the Victorian courts seem to have ignored.

  25. Sinclair Davidson

    Read the tears of lefties and anti-religious bigots here.

  26. Geriatric Mayfly

    More unnecessary anguish for the sisters to wit: Milligan, Wallington and Waller. Lurking behind the aspidistra, The Lying Slapper.

  27. Old School Conservative

    A horrible situation.

    Pell is being held in the Melbourne Assessment Prison in the city, where he is in solitary confinement because of fears about his safety.

    Today’s decision will raise further questions about how long Pell should be kept in solitary confinement in what is actually meant to be a short-term prison.

    He spends 23 hours a day in solitary confinement because prison officials fear he will be killed if let out into the wider corrections system.

    However, at 78, the MAP is one of the worst prisons in Australia, with little natural light and capacity for exercise. (The Australian)

    The Cardinal must be one of Australia’s toughest men. Stay strong Sir.

  28. Tim Neilson

    A Professor Loftus spoke to ANU School of Psychology

    Were Michael Upton, Duncan Waring and Dick Stuart-Clark in attendance?

  29. Roger

    The Cardinal must be one of Australia’s toughest men. Stay strong Sir.

    He’s a real mensch.

  30. kaysee

    P
    #3210469, posted on November 13, 2019 at 10:19 am

    Amen.

  31. Infidel Tiger

    Aside from the Family Court, no court in Australia has produced more weird verdicts.

    I expect unanimous rejection of the appeal and Pell to be hanged.

  32. JC

    Sinclair Davidson
    #3210482, posted on November 13, 2019 at 10:31 am
    Read the tears of lefties and anti-religious bigots here.

    There are some really sick people walking around this continent. Just vile.
    They’re the modern day jacobins.

  33. Rex Mango

    Am surrounded by tertiary educated inner city elites in my office and they are not happy with this decision.

  34. Lysander

    **opens champagne** (figuratively).

  35. Infidel Tiger

    Pell can apply for bail.

    Let us hope it is granted.

  36. dover_beach

    ABC is now repetitively regurgitating the ‘wisdom’ of a celebrity survivor.

  37. notafan

    Lol

    ‘respect the unanimous (second) jury verdict”

    just like lefties respect the ‘unanimous jury verdicts’ in the case of Katherine Folbigg and Keli Lane

  38. notafan

    I hope Cardinal Pell does apply for bail

    he has been in gaol more than long enough

    if one could read anything into the decision not to hear oral arguments is that the decision to grant leave was strong enough on the papers

  39. Old School Conservative

    Good on Bolt for constantly stating “Pell could not possibly have committed the assaults”.
    Be nice if that became as prominent a theme as “Epstein didn’t kill himself”.

  40. Geriatric Mayfly

    Pell can apply for bail.
    Let us hope it is granted.

    Is this a fact? Hope so and that it is granted. The paroxysms, self harm and stratospheric contortions will be a Christmas bonus beyond measure. Especially on the ABC where repeat of repeat of repeat season must be underway already.

  41. Truth n Justice

    Trouble is that he has been tried and convicted in the court of public opinion. The left has achieved what it set out to do and regardless of a successful appeal Pell will always be generally thought guilty.

  42. stackja

    Sinclair Davidson
    #3210482, posted on November 13, 2019 at 10:31 am

    Thank you.

  43. Geriatric Mayfly

    Australia: Muslim accused of raping drunk woman granted bail because he can’t speak English Jihad Watch.

    George could indicate he only speaks Latin when applying for bail. Should do the trick.

  44. Geriatric Mayfly

    Australia: Mueslummy accused of raping drunk woman granted bail because he can’t speak English. Ji*ad Watch

    George could indicate he only speaks Latin when applying for bail. Should do the trick.

  45. thefrollickingmole

    They could easily have dodged this if they wanted to. The High Court doesn’t have to hear cases just because the decision looks off – they hear cases only if there’s a point of general application which is likely to affect other cases.

    Tims point is a good one.
    Id expect it to hinge on the majority verdict or the reversal of the onus of proof.
    Even though the second one was dismissed by the 3 judge appeal.

  46. notafan

    The left has achieved what it set out to do and regardless of a successful appeal Pell will always be generally thought guilty.

    no no as Felicity Hampel remarked in court the other day the entire Catholic Church is thought guilty.

    as for what the general public think

    I have zero cares

    Cardinal Pell deserves to live out his days in freedom not solitary confinement in a gaol cell

    then we can put him on the path to sainthood

    then watch the chips that will be spit

  47. FelixKruell

    Notafan:

    then we can put him on the path to sainthood

    Well that explains your somewhat less than impartial approach to this case…

  48. Old Lefty

    Has Milli micturated yet? Can’t bear to look it up myself.

  49. notafan

    Well that explains your somewhat less than impartial approach to this case

    Really?

    my approach has been always facts and logic

    I was merely making a prediction

    Of course who but the most prejudiced would not believe that Cardinal Pell in full Archbishops regalia including mitre and crozier nipped off unnoticed from a Sunday solemn mass procession for reasons unknown, went by himself to a room he would know would be locked, brazenly assaulted not one but two boys, who somehow opened that locked room, all with the door was open and knowing that the admin officers was patrolling the corridors outside looking for uninvited visitors..

  50. Leigh Lowe

    From Sinc’s Twatter link:-

    Caroline Di Russo

    @CaroDiRusso

    · 1h

    Replying to @mikey_mann and @SpectatorOz

    Correct.
    George Pell – we hate him so the decision is correct and can’t be appealed because ‘the children’.
    Biloela family – we like them so the decision is wrong and can be appealed til the end of time because ‘the children’.

    And the woman from Shine lawyers running a “press conference”.
    Desk.
    Single microphone.
    Shine lawyers wallpaper logo in the background.
    Questions coming from off-camera from “the press” (ie junior Shine staffers).

  51. Colonel Crispin Berka

    Didn’t Catallaxy have a post summarising all the oddities, loose ends, and outright contradictions of the prosecution’s case? Just a few months ago? I think it was by C.L.
    I was looking for it last week and couldn’t find it with Search. Can anyone find the link to it please?

  52. The BigBlueCat

    The Age states today:

    Pell was jailed in March for raping one choirboy and sexually assaulting another at St Patrick’s Cathedral in East Melbourne more than 20 years ago.

    According to them, “he done it”! Given that the full bench of the High Court will hear the application for special leave, they should have said “Pell was jailed following the Country Court’s conviction …” … Justice Weinberg at least understands that doubt exists and in his expert opinion the conviction was unsafe.

    But no doubt at Fairfax!

  53. Lysander

    I don’t get the technical legal offerings here but there was a lawyer on twitter saying “nobody understands! he hasn’t been granted special leave; instead, he’s been granted leave to apply for special leave as a preliminary step.”

    I can’t find the link but anyone have any thoughts???

  54. dover_beach

    no no as Felicity Hampel remarked in court the other day the entire Catholic Church is thought guilty.

    Would be interested in a link if possible, notafan.

  55. notafan

    High court website seems to be down

    tried a few times to have a look this morning

  56. dover_beach

    Well that explains your somewhat less than impartial approach to this case…

    Of course, his manifest innocence wouldn’t explain it.

  57. Robbo

    We can now hope that facts, not anti Catholic bias, will see this grotesque piece of injustice overturned. What is now needed is a full investigation into the roles played by people like Chief Commissioner of police in Victoria, Graeme Ashton, in the pursuit of Pell. You do not have to look very far to understand that Pell was fitted up by a cabal of disgraceful lawmakers, law enforcers, judiciary and media. This is a swamp that definitely needs to be drained.

  58. Robbo #3210634, posted on November 13, 2019 at 12:39 pm

    Heads need to roll.
    First and foremost would the confidential leakage from vikpol to the ABC.
    Sender needs to be exposed.

  59. Roger

    I can’t find the link but anyone have any thoughts???

    Yes, that’s correct I’m afraid.

    Two judges have referred the application to the full court which will consider the application for leave to appeal.

  60. Scott Osmond

    You don’t need to be catholic or a fan of the church to see what this case was. The leftie’s version of a witch hunt. We rightly mock the standards of the witch hunts of yore, someone should tell them that they weren’t an instruction manual. I hope Pell is successful as if the legal standards are thrown overboard all bets are off and it’s mob rule.

  61. Gediminas the Great

    Hmmmmm – Anti Catholicism is at an all time high – I have never seen it like this. I am not sure Cardinal Pell will be given a fair hearing.
    Could some one explain to me why ex Catholics – Rudd, Wong and Shorten “defected” to Anglicism, joined Gillard in thinking that Communism is the peak of intellectualism?

  62. Leigh Lowe

    According to them, “he done it”! Given that the full bench of the High Court will hear the application for special leave, they should have said “Pell was jailed following the Country Court’s conviction …” … Justice Weinberg at least understands that doubt exists and in his expert opinion the conviction was unsafe.
    But no doubt at Fairfax!

    To be fair, the ABC report I read was fairly even-handed, with one exception. They went to “da victims”, including Chrissy Foster. Now the Foster family story is tragic but it has nothing to do with Pell.
    However, the ABC report clearly laid out that Pell was convicted of several counts arising out of two alleged incidents but on the evidence of a single witness.
    I don’t think I have seen this salient fact in any other MSM reporting.

  63. Colonel Crispin Berka

    Notafan, thanks for that.
    That’s not the story I was thinking of, as I’m sure it was on Catallaxy written by a Cat, probably CurrencyLad, but that could well have been one of the sources used by the Cat in question.

  64. notafan

    Colonel CL did a cutting review of Milligan to which this was linked iirc

    I’ll have a look

  65. pete m

    Leave to appeal and the appeal are determined together.

  66. Roger

    Leave to appeal and the appeal are determined together.

    Correct.

  67. Lysander

    Thanks Pete and Roger.

  68. C.L.

    So appeal has been granted?

  69. Iampeter

    Good on Bolt for constantly stating “Pell could not possibly have committed the assaults”.
    Be nice if that became as prominent a theme as “Epstein didn’t kill himself”.

    Only a matter of time. The entire conservative commentariat is basically becoming a cheap imitation of Alex Jones and proudly so.

    But this case should definitely be appealed. Without making any judgements on Pell’s guilt or innocence, and knowing it’s meant to work this way because too many were escaping justice, I’d still rather have a guilty person go free than risk an innocent person go to jail on a he-said/she-said level of evidence.

    Read the tears of lefties and anti-religious bigots here.

    Yea could’ve just linked to the Cat threads when Pell was found guilty for exactly the same leftist tears.
    Everyone’s playing identity politics.

  70. cuckoo

    They went to “da victims”, including Chrissy Foster. Now the Foster family story is tragic but it has nothing to do with Pell.

    In just the same way that for years after the Bali bombing, whenever the ABC wanted a comment, they went to unhinged Howard-hater Brian Deegan whose son Josh died in the attack.

  71. Roger

    Could some one explain to me why ex Catholics – Rudd, Wong and Shorten “defected” to Anglicism

    Wong defected from RCism to Anglicanism?

    I didn’t know that.

    There are certainly Anglican dioceses – and Adelaide would be one of them – where her lesbianism would not only be tolerated but even celebrated.

  72. FelixKruell

    Notafan:

    Of course who but the most prejudiced would not believe that Cardinal Pell in full Archbishops regalia including mitre and crozier nipped off unnoticed from a Sunday solemn mass procession for reasons unknown, went by himself to a room he would know would be locked, brazenly assaulted not one but two boys, who somehow opened that locked room, all with the door was open and knowing that the admin officers was patrolling the corridors outside looking for uninvited visitors..

    Who? None other than a jury of Pell’s peers…

    Whether they got it right or wrong, I doubt Pell will be up for the sainthood…

  73. Leigh Lowe

    Tim Neilson

    #3210488, posted on November 13, 2019 at 10:34 am

    A Professor Loftus spoke to ANU School of Psychology

    Were Michael Upton, Duncan Waring and Dick Stuart-Clark in attendance?

    Ha, ha.
    Good get.

  74. FelixKruell

    Dover:

    Of course, his manifest innocence wouldn’t explain it.

    None but Pell and the two boys involved know whether he is innocent. The rest of us can only guess, based on the limited evidence available to us.

    Anyone who claims certainty in this case is prejudiced…which the sainthood comment happily confirms.

  75. C.L.

    Who? None other than a jury of Pell’s peers…

    After watching illegal defamation on television and print for two years prior.

  76. vr

    Jeremy Gans
    ‏ @jeremy_gans

    What does this mean? The short-hand is that it’s basically the same as a grant of leave. Pell and the DPP will make their arguments before five or seven justices. A majority of the justices will decide which side wins.
    3:27 pm – 12 Nov 2019

  77. Roger

    None but Pell and the two boys involved know whether he is innocent. The rest of us can only guess, based on the limited evidence available to us.

    You’re forgetting that one of the two boys denied any offence ever took place.

    As does Pell.

  78. notafan

    Thanks vr

    Jeremy Gans I can trust

  79. Juan

    So appeal has been granted?

    Usually applications for special leave to appeal to the High Court are decided by a single judge after considering written submissions.

    The judge can dismiss the application, allow the appeal, or allow the appeal on limited grounds; or they can do what happened today.

    In Pell v The Queen two judges – Gordon and Edelman JJ – considered the application, which is in itself somewhat unusual.

    Gordon and Edelman JJ did not make a decision on the application for special leave to appeal. They referred that question to the full bench of the High Court.

    This is undoubtedly a politically prudent course of action which avoids any accusation a mere two individuals blocked Pell’s quest for justice.

    So to be perfectly precise, special leave to appeal has not been granted; but nor has the application been dismissed. The ‘state of play’ after the High Court’s announcement is the same as it was before the announcement.

    The full bench of the High Court will now likely hear the application for special leave to appeal and substantive arguments for the appeal together early next year.

  80. Leigh Lowe

    In just the same way that for years after the Bali bombing, whenever the ABC wanted a comment, they went to unhinged Howard-hater Brian Deegan whose son Josh died in the attack.

    He tells you all you need to know about ALP wannabes.
    Bits of his son were still being gathered up in plastic bags and he was on the campaign trail.
    He wanted mercy for the bombers, but none for John Howard.

  81. notafan

    Anyone who claims certainty in this case is prejudiced…which the sainthood comment happily confirms.

    no it doesn’t

    If you knew anything about the path to sainthood you would know that that comment was somewhat tongue in cheek

    just enjoying the contemplation of future prog fury

    as for the rest I believe all the witnesses who testified for the defence and Cardinal Pell’s strenuous denials

  82. FelixKruell

    CL:

    After watching illegal defamation on television and print for two years prior.

    You seem happy to convict others of ‘illegal’ defamation on far less evidence than was presented against Pell…

  83. FelixKruell

    Roger:

    You’re forgetting that one of the two boys denied any offence ever took place.

    As does Pell.

    Not at all. The fact the first boy told his mother that he wasn’t abused in general was well established in this case. And doesn’t mean Pell is innocent. Troubled teenager’s statements to their mothers is hardly solid ground for certainty.

    As for Pell, to be technical he hasn’t denied that any offence occurred. By not taking the stand, he has in fact said very little.

  84. max

    The full bench of the High Court will now likely hear the application for special leave to appeal and substantive arguments for the appeal together early next year.

    So, if leave to appeal is granted, counsels for both sides present their reasons for an appeal again. FFS. This will take forever.

  85. Sinclair Davidson

    As for Pell, to be technical he hasn’t denied that any offence occurred.

    Entering a plea of ‘Not Guilty’ and then appealing the ‘Guilty’ verdict doesn’t count?

  86. Cynic of Ayr

    As they say, full disclosure here – I have very little confidence, and almost no respect for judges and lawyers in general.
    In Pell’s case, Pell is in jail because another’s word was accepted against his. Forget all the evidence of he couldn’t possibly physically done it. The two morons on the Appeals Court ignored all that, in favour of believing one person’s word against another’s, revealing their own prejudice in the process.
    Perhaps the HC thinks that it is a dangerous precedent, for a Judge to “judge” someone’s word against another’s, based on nothing more than a “feeling”, and actually giving that as the almost sole reason for a verdict?

  87. dover_beach

    Troubled teenager’s statements to their mothers is hardly solid ground for certainty.

    He wasn’t a teenager when he made that statement.

  88. max

    Just looked at the link to Milligan’s twitter feed above.

    She seems to be much exercised by Quadrant and its supposed defamation of her. Not much reasoning given, but a lot of identifying with the ‘victims’. Emotions are all.

  89. stackja

    The ‘he’s guilty’ mob don’t know anything about the case.
    Victorian police don’t have a great record. Lawyer X knows that.

  90. notafan

    iirc Cardinal Pell’s Rome interview was played to the court

  91. C.L.

    You seem happy to convict others of ‘illegal’ defamation on far less evidence than was presented against Pell…

    There was no evidence presented against Pell.
    On the other hand, Milligan’s book had to be withdrawn in Victoria because it was illegal.
    The ABC has taken down an interview with those two pool knuckleheads because it was illegal.

  92. notafan

    She asked him twice too

    and twice he said no

  93. dover_beach

    Anyone who claims certainty in this case is prejudiced…which the sainthood comment happily confirms

    I am certain that Pell does not have three hands, and so on, which is why I am certain he is innocent.

  94. cuckoo

    As for Pell, to be technical he hasn’t denied that any offence occurred. By not taking the stand, he has in fact said very little.

    Er, to quote him (from memory) in the police interview when confronted with the accusation, “Absolute..unmitigated…rubbish..”. Sounds like a denial to me.

  95. Colonel Crispin Berka

    Sinclair, yes, that’s the one, thanks.
    Although I remembered it as being about Pell, that summary was more about the backstory and the arguments for a hypothetical setup of Pell with one character playing a recurring and kingpin role.

    These two articles taken together are probably the best argument there is for his defense.

  96. Bar Beach Swimmer

    Tom
    #3210434, posted on November 13, 2019 at 9:56 am

    +1000

  97. Mother Lode

    She asked him twice too

    and twice he said no

    I think Felix’s point is that even though the Cardinal said he didn’t do it, he never said he was innocent.

    Have I got that right?

  98. Juan

    So, if leave to appeal is granted, counsels for both sides present their reasons for an appeal again.

    Not exactly. The arguments for the application for leave to appeal are essentially the same as for upholding the appeal. Both can be considered and decided, sequentially, together.

    What today’s decision means is Pell’s counsel will be able to make their case in front of the full bench, which helps the public’s faith in the judicial process.

    What it doesn’t mean is two High Court judges read Pell’s legal team’s submission and decided on its merits that leave for special appeal should be granted. Their decision was to make no decision.

    There is fevered speculation, from all sides, on what today’s announcement might mean for the eventual success or failure of the appeal. The best answer is: very little if not nothing at all.

  99. P

    I am certain that Pell does not have three hands, and so on, which is why I am certain he is innocent.

    I watched the two days of the appeal and when I heard near the end of the second day Mark Weinberg make the following remarks, then I was absolutely convinced of his innocence.

    The court split 2-1. The dissenting judge — an Oxford-educated lawyer named Mark Weinberg — never quite said that he believed that Cardinal Pell was innocent.

    The closest Weinberg J came to saying so might be this sentence: “[T]o my mind, [there is] a ‘significant possibility’ that the applicant in this case may not have committed these offences.”
    Reading between the lines
    Perhaps Weinberg J came closer when he addressed the second of the two assaults alleged by the surviving claimant:

    “The complainant’s account of the second incident seems to me to take brazenness to new heights, the like of which, I have not seen … I would have thought that any prosecutor would be wary of bringing a charge of this gravity against anyone, based upon the implausible notion that a sexual assault of this kind would take place in public, and in the presence of numerous potential witnesses.

    “Had the incident occurred in the way that the complainant alleged, it seems to me highly unlikely that none of those many persons present would have seen what was happening, or reported it in some way.” None did. Weinberg J directed the reader to the next logical inference: If the complainant made up (for reasons we shall likely never know, or at least not ever fully understand) one of the two assaults, then no reasonable person should credit just on his say-so that the first incident ever occurred, either.

    Yet that is exactly what the prosecutors maintained.

    The Catholic Weekly

  100. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha

    Sydney Morning Herald says Pell is eligible for bail, but they understand he won’t be applying at this point.

  101. Mother Lode

    but they understand he won’t be applying at this point.

    Their understanding? That tells us no more than it tells them – SFA.

    But hundreds of pixels died so they can pretend to be informed.

  102. FelixKruell

    Sinclair:

    Entering a plea of ‘Not Guilty’ and then appealing the ‘Guilty’ verdict doesn’t count?

    Of course it counts – towards the charges he was tried on. But it doesn’t count towards ‘any offence’, or even the events in question.

    Put another way – you can plead not guilty to murder, but still have killed someone.

  103. max

    Not exactly. The arguments for the application for leave to appeal are essentially the same as for upholding the appeal.

    Thanks, Juan.

    Legal niceties aside, the application for leave to appeal has effectively been granted. Yet it is also correct to say the decision on leave to appeal has been referred to the full court.

    One senses unease and a palpable reluctance to put heads above parapets.

  104. notafan

    you can plead not guilty to murder, but still have killed someone.

    quality analysis there

  105. FelixKruell

    CL:

    There was no evidence presented against Pell.

    Oh dear. I see we’ve gone into full denial.

    On the other hand, Milligan’s book had to be withdrawn in Victoria because it was illegal.
    The ABC has taken down an interview with those two pool knuckleheads because it was illegal.

    Withdrawn because they were illegally defaming? And your evidence for this is?

  106. FelixKruell

    Dover:

    I am certain that Pell does not have three hands, and so on, which is why I am certain he is innocent.

    Well that makes sense. You’ve convinced me. I look forward to entering blissful certainty…

  107. V

    The Conversation have republished their lies about how the Supreme Court appeal was valid and claim that it is extraordinary that the high court would make this decision.

    They just can’t admit it was a stitch up.

  108. Pyrmonter

    @ Roger


    None but Pell and the two boys involved know whether he is innocent. The rest of us can only guess, based on the limited evidence available to us.

    You’re forgetting that one of the two boys denied any offence ever took place.

    Well, strictly, all we have is his mother’s word for that. So, hearsay, but admissible as tending to disprove the prosecution case.

    He may have said things to others that would have been inadmissible as hearsay that haven’t emerged, and shouldn’t: he’s not available for cross examination, and those (other than the complainant) who could speak to what he said couldn’t say whether it was true.

  109. Tim Neilson

    FelixKruell
    #3210777, posted on November 13, 2019 at 3:04 pm

    So what facts that were alleged against him might he not have been denying?

  110. Sinclair Davidson

    Put another way – you can plead not guilty to murder, but still have killed someone.

    That’s too general to have empirical meaning. Individuals are charged with specific offences not general offences. So Pell was charged with very specific offences against specific individuals that occurred at a specific time and place. Not “at stage in your life you did something wrong”.

  111. Lee

    Roger:

    You’re forgetting that one of the two boys denied any offence ever took place.

    As does Pell.

    Not at all. The fact the first boy told his mother that he wasn’t abused in general was well established in this case. And doesn’t mean Pell is innocent. Troubled teenager’s statements to their mothers is hardly solid ground for certainty.

    So you’re saying that although the deceased “victim” denies the incident happens we must assume he could be lying for whatever reason (as far as I am aware courts of law do not and would not accept assumptions any more than hearsay), yet we must accept the uncorroborated word of another “troubled teenager”?

    Talk about having it both ways!

    So Pell can’t win either way.

  112. Lee

    Yes, indeed. I see the ABC is going to speak to a ‘survivor’ of abuse completely unrelated to the Pell case. Why? It’s as gratutious and prejudicial as seeing ‘survivors’ and their various hangers-on outside of court. What possible reason could there be other than prejudicing the public perception of the accused and self-aggrandisment?

    Typical, and to be expected from the grubby, anti-Catholic ABC.

    If a convicted murderer appealed to the High Court, would the ABC interview a close relative of another murder victim to try and damage the appellant’s cause?

    Of course not.

  113. FelixKruell

    Sinclair:

    That’s too general to have empirical meaning. Individuals are charged with specific offences not general offences. So Pell was charged with very specific offences against specific individuals that occurred at a specific time and place. Not “at stage in your life you did something wrong”.

    The proposition I was responding to was that general. Specifically: “You’re forgetting that one of the two boys [and Pell] denied any offence ever took place.” Pell denied the specific charges, but not that ‘any offence’ took place. He also declined to provide his own account of what did or didn’t happen that day (which was his right of course).

    Either way, I don’t think it matters. My point was that only those three people truly know whether he was innocent of the charges. The rest of us are just guessing based on varying amounts of information.

  114. JC

    Oh dear. I see we’ve gone into full denial.

    Okay, what evidence was presented, doofus.

    Evidence as in PROOF.

  115. FelixKruell

    JC:

    Evidence as in PROOF.

    Evidence isn’t proof. Until you accept that, you are most definitely in denial.

  116. JC

    Proof

    Where’s the proof, doofus?

    Show us.

  117. JC

    It’s clear that CL substituted evidence for the word proof.

    This is why you are a sack of shit wasting time playing games.

  118. struth

    Felix, you’ve committed many crimes in your life, and I have just remembered them.
    Don’t deny it, (well it won’t matter if you do) it’s your word against mine and you know who they will believe.

  119. JC

    There’s several crimes he’s committed. I once recall Kruell saying he stole a pair of pant hose from a department store for personal use.

  120. stackja

    Meanwhile:

    Lawyer X royal commissioner Margaret McMurdo slams Victoria Police for document delay
    Anthony Dowsley, Herald Sun
    Subscriber only
    November 13, 2019 3:18pm

  121. struth

    I remember they were racist hate crimes ……………………………………
    It’s all coming back to me now.

  122. candy

    Very much like the Lindy C. case. Australians can really go the religious bigot way at times.

    I can’t see the High Court overturning the verdict. The ABC and left media will go completely mad and there is already a lot of bigotry amongst the public. People who even think Cardinal Pell could be well be innocent but someone must pay. The damage is done to G. Pell.
    How can even High Court judges rise above it? They will get hate mail and all that, and they are just people who would be scared.

  123. struth

    They will get hate mail and all that, and they are just people who would be scared.

    Candy, dear. these people are untouchable and paid more than you can dream of, most likely.
    Accept the job, if you accept the salary.

  124. notafan

    The judges of the High Court are very well protected by the AFP

    as for hate mail

    sure that would be different and usual for a judge

  125. FelixKruell

    JC:

    It’s clear that CL substituted evidence for the word proof.

    Really? He should have said so then. I was merely taking him at his word.

    Besides, if he meant to say proof, he was on the wrong track. We don’t present ‘proof’ to the Court.

  126. JC

    Really, like you’re just an oppositional thick head. Trolling doesn’t get you far, doofus.

    Besides, if he meant to say proof, he was on the wrong track.

    Lol.

  127. JC

    The evidence presented in court in Pell’s case was the same as the claim made that a person saw you steal a pair of panty hose from a department store and then put them on.

  128. FelixKruell

    JC:

    The evidence presented in court in Pell’s case was the same as the claim made that a person saw you steal a pair of panty hose from a department store and then put them on.

    Did you mean ‘evidence’ or ‘proof’? And you wonder why us thick headed trolls get confused…

  129. JC

    Kruell

    Pell was convicted on a claim by one single person that the police used as evidence. The jury convicted on this alone.
    This is pretty much the same claim that you steal panty hose from department stores. I saw you do this on the same day as the claim made that Pell attacked those two.

    Have you stopped stealing women’s underwear?

  130. candy

    these people are untouchable

    I don’t think so struth. It’s a very emotive subject and I expect their peers and family etc will be at them to not overturn the verdict.
    Why are they any different from the other judges who sent Cardinal Pell to jail with no evidence whatsoever?

  131. Anthony

    People seem to be saying that Pell has not proved his innocence because he has not proclaimed his innocence of the charges against him. How can one plead not guilty or innocent to or against possible crimes that were committed when Pell was not present? Weren’t these charges levelled after VicPol ran an ad calling for people to claim that, at some time in the distant past, a crime took place.
    So f—ing what. It’s got nothing to do with George Pell.
    Have VicPol run another ad.

  132. notafan

    and I expect their peers and family etc will be at them to not overturn the verdict.

    utter tosh

    the idea that senior judge’s family members would routinely seek to interfere in current legal matters is rubbish

    and there was ‘evidence”

    very low energy trolling grig

  133. Ms Smith

    ian3029
    #3210444, posted on November 13, 2019 at 10:03 am
    Sky news (Gilbert/Nielsen) called it an “extraordinary development”.

    Why do you bother watching Sky News during the day? Are you a lefty?

  134. FelixKruell

    JC:

    Pell was convicted on a claim by one single person that the police used as evidence. The jury convicted on this alone.

    Yes. This is entirely unremarkable in sexual assault cases, especially historical ones.

    It would be great if there was other corroborating evidence, or clear evidence of Pell’s innocence. It would have made the Jury and the Appeal Court’s job much easier. But there wasn’t.

    That’s why anyone proclaiming certainty on Pell’s guilt (or innocence) is in denial.

  135. JC

    Yes. This is entirely unremarkable in sexual assault cases, especially historical ones.

    Well actually it isn’t as Weinberg’s opinion showed. Also, we have the Victorian police providing comfort on this very issue by stating they wouldn’t move forward with the rape claim against Shorten as the accusation as stale.
    You’re hallucinating again, you panty hose thief.

    You argued earlier that the dead person may have had other motives about telling his mother the Pell attack didn’t occur.

    You’re a mind reader too?

    However you appear to accept the single claim from the accuser. No other motives are contemplated here though.

    Seriously, fuck off.

  136. ian3029

    Why do you bother watching Sky News during the day? Are you a lefty?

    No

  137. hzhousewife

    I have a relative (retired) in this profession and have deliberately not contacted this person for several years because I know they know all the relevant wigs. I have a definite point of view, and therefore do not wish to know theirs, until it is all over. I don’t bring the subject up in the closer family.

  138. candy

    I would hazard a guess that if Shorten had been a conservative politician, he would be in jail by now.

  139. Lysander

    Pell was convicted on a claim by one single person that the police used as evidence. The jury convicted on this alone.

    Did the dead man know there was going to be a case on this?

  140. FelixKruell
    #3210790, posted on November 13, 2019 at 3:14 pm

    CL:

    There was no evidence presented against Pell.

    Oh dear. I see we’ve gone into full denial.

    There wasn’t actually!

    The accuser perjured himself in the committal hearing. He adduced evidence proving his accusation and other evidence was false!

    That, in of itself, proves that Pell could never of been rightfully found guilty, and this there was no case to answer, and he should have remained presumed innocent, like the other 99% of society is.

  141. Farmer Gez

    It would be great if there was other corroborating evidence, or clear evidence of Pell’s innocence. It would have made the Jury and the Appeal Court’s job much easier. But there wasn’t.

    Clear evidence of Pell’s innocence?
    You’re joking!
    Guilt needs to be proven not innocence. You’re a clown.

  142. Gez

    That is true, though…

    The accuser proved it during the committal.

    I’m sure his many versions of his story show a high degree of incompetent dishonesty, as VIK POL would have on record.

  143. Gab

    There never was an evidence. Just a say-so from one person. It’s chilling to think this is what passes as justice in Australia.

  144. kaysee

    How can even High Court judges rise above it? They will get hate mail and all that, and they are just people who would be scared.

    Perhaps, it already seems like a lost cause because we are recalling the Fergusons and the Maxwells of the judicial system. Maybe, we need to remember the Weinbergs too, and hope that there are at least four of those on the HC who have the courage of their convictions.
     

    I am troubled by the fact that I find myself constrained to differ from two of my colleagues whose opinions I always respect greatly. 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.
    (1112 Weinberg JA dissenting judgement)
     
    Mark Weinberg would have known that there would be a price to pay for listening to his conscience. He did it anyway.

  145. Roger

    Mark Weinberg would have known that there would be a price to pay for listening to his conscience. He did it anyway.

    Another mensch.

    We should be very thankful for them.

    They are increasingly thin on the ground it would seem.

  146. dover_beach

    Well that makes sense. You’ve convinced me. I look forward to entering blissful certainty…

    So your mind is open to the complainant’s claim that Pell held his friend’s head in both hands while restraining him with his ‘other’ hand? Well Well.

  147. FelixKruell

    JC:

    Well actually it isn’t as Weinberg’s opinion showed. Also, we have the Victorian police providing comfort on this very issue by stating they wouldn’t move forward with the rape claim against Shorten as the accusation as stale.
    You’re hallucinating again, you panty hose thief.

    You argued earlier that the dead person may have had other motives about telling his mother the Pell attack didn’t occur.

    You’re a mind reader too?

    However you appear to accept the single claim from the accuser. No other motives are contemplated here though.

    Seriously, fuck off.

    Where did Weinberg’s opinion touch on that issue?

    Police and prosecutors decide every day whether to take accusations to trial, based on the strength of the evidence. Plenty of times that’s in a he said / she said context. The fact you found an example where they didn’t proceed (Shorten) doesn’t change that.

    Of course a dead man MAY have had other motives. That’s common sense. I didn’t say he DID have other motives. Because I’m not a mind reader. Hopefully that’s not too much nuance for you.

    I haven’t accepted the single claim at all. I’ve merely accepted that it’s open for a jury to find someone guilty on the basis of a single claim. Hopefully that’s not too much nuance for you.

  148. Seco

    Sinclair Davidson
    #3210482, posted on November 13, 2019 at 10:31 am
    Read the tears of lefties and anti-religious bigots here.

    I can’t read this stuff, makes me angry.

  149. FelixKruell

    Frank:

    There wasn’t actually!

    The accuser perjured himself in the committal hearing. He adduced evidence proving his accusation and other evidence was false!

    So there wasn’t evidence. But he adduced evidence. You can’t even keep your story straight across two sentences Frank…

  150. FelixKruell

    Farmer:

    Guilt needs to be proven not innocence. You’re a clown.

    I never said otherwise. Did you even read the comment before responding?

  151. FelixKruell

    Dover:

    So your mind is open to the complainant’s claim that Pell held his friend’s head in both hands while restraining him with his ‘other’ hand? Well Well.

    No, but my mind is open to people having hazy memories of the details of even key events in their lives 20 years later…

  152. Geriatric Mayfly

    A question for Mizzzz Buttrose. How much negative and biased interference can we expect from the ABC between now and the appeal? Is there any chance the dogs will be called off considering the fact that the ABC has already engaged in relentless and vicious persecution of Pell up to this point?

  153. Roger

    A question for Mizzzz Buttrose…

    Despite her title, Ms Buttrose evidently has no actual authority in the organisation, else her diktat to take down the offending Q&A episode would have been obeyed forthwith rather than ignored.

  154. dover_beach

    No, but my mind is open to people having hazy memories of the details of even key events in their lives 20 years later…

    Is the memory here hazy or confected? Is three hands the tell?

  155. Roger

    No, but my mind is open to people having hazy memories of the details of even key events in their lives 20 years later…

    Studies show us that key events are etched into memory.

    Be that as it may, in a just polity hazy memories ought not be enough to convict a man beyond reasonable doubt.

  156. P

    Did the dead man know there was going to be a case on this?

    Nobody but the two boys would know if they had discussed any thing of this nature prior his demise.

    Extract from Cardinal: The Rise and Fall of George Pell:
    The Kid told Mary that her son’s funeral was the breaking point for him. It plunged him into despair and regret. His own mother was very concerned about his wellbeing. He had not been coping since his friend’s death.
    He decided that he had to come forward, he had to say something. As The Kid told me at the Returned and Services League club the night I met him, his jaw set, his eyes aflame, insisting that this was “about me and it’s about him”. The Kid, with the support of his mum and a victim’s advocate, went to Taskforce SANO.
    “He just couldn’t live with it any more – he had to say something,” Mary says.

    The Kid and The Choirboy – the harrowing story of George Pell’s victims
    Thu 28 Feb 2019, Last modified on 21 Aug 2019.

  157. FelixKruell

    Dover:

    Is the memory here hazy or confected? Is three hands the tell?

    No, quite the opposite. Apparently those with perfect recollections tend to be confectors more so than those with spotty recollections. Not that this is an exact science.

  158. FelixKruell

    Roger:

    Studies show us that key events are etched into memory.

    Which studies would those be?

    It’s common sense that it’s the opposite. Think back to the day you met your husband/wife. You probably remember what they looked like that day. But can you remember what you were wearing? What you had for breakfast that morning? Or the day your kid was born. What were you wearing?

    We remember the highlights, the feelings. Not all the surrounding details.

  159. Roger

    Which studies would those be?

    Look them up.

    Why should I do your homework for you?

  160. dover_beach

    No, quite the opposite. Apparently those with perfect recollections tend to be confectors more so than those with spotty recollections.

    No one is asking for a perfect recollection, but the ‘three hands’ are suggestive of confection. Like he was making shit up without counting the hands required.

  161. FelixKruell

    Roger:

    Look them up.

    Why should I do your homework for you?

    Your assertion, your onus.

  162. FelixKruell

    Dover:

    but the ‘three hands’ are suggestive of confection. Like he was making shit up without counting the hands required.

    I think you’re grasping at straws. You can have someone grab hold of a boys head with both hands, then subsequently remove one hand to restrain another boy. Easy to muddle the sequencing in a less than perfect recollection.

    A confected response on the other hand, especially one prepared for court, would not make such basic errors.

  163. DrBeauGan

    FelixKruell
    #3210574, posted on November 13, 2019 at 11:42 am
    Notafan:

    then we can put him on the path to sainthood

    Well that explains your somewhat less than impartial approach to this case…

    I’m not a Catholic, I think making people saints is ridiculous and I have no direct knowledge of the case. I do believe in justice. And in my view, the verdicts so far have been bizarre. And to say the least, unsafe.

  164. C.L.

    A confected response on the other hand, especially one prepared for court, would not make such basic errors.

    LOL.
    With great planning, Carl Beech openly testified to far more bizarre and unlikely things.

  165. Candy

    I think Gab is right. Only in Australia could a person be convicted of a crime based solely on the words of a man, a drug addict by all accounts, on something he “remembered” from near 30 years ago with absolutely no evidence. No evidence at all. But I think the HC will not overturn the verdict. They too are in awe of the Australian left media – and who can blame them. That lot of folk are truly vicious.

  166. dover_beach

    I think you’re grasping at straws. You can have someone grab hold of a boys head with both hands, then subsequently remove one hand to restrain another boy. Easy to muddle the sequencing in a less than perfect recollection.

    Not at all. He said he was being restrained by Pell precisely as he was also holding the other boy’s head with both hands. The sequence involved both boys allegedly restrained by Pell. Of course, this was all happening at the same time as a fourth hand held his robes ‘parted’. Many many hands.

  167. dover_beach

    A confected response on the other hand, especially one prepared for court, would not make such basic errors.

    Sure, people have never before been caught in a lie by the simplest of errors.

  168. Sinclair Davidson

    Bertha F. – even in jest, I don’t want those sorts of comments.

  169. There is a fundamental point here that needs reiteration. Pell (not his lawyers) decided not to give oral evidence on oath before the jury. Thus he did not deny to the jury that he sexually abused the boys. Nor did he say what as a matter of routine he would have done or not done after mass. Thereby, he avoided cross-examination on his story, and perhaps as to his credibility on collateral matters (such as other misconduct – this is legally complicated) . Even if acquitted by High Court direction, in the eye of many in the public, he will be guilty. Did he make a mistake? Probably ‘yes’, and it may be one he has to live with.

  170. FelixKruell
    #3210978, posted on November 13, 2019 at 7:33 pm

    Frank:

    There wasn’t actually!

    The accuser perjured himself in the committal hearing. He adduced evidence proving his accusation and other evidence was false!

    So there wasn’t evidence. But he adduced evidence. You can’t even keep your story straight across two sentences Frank…

    Evidence must be adduced. You just don’t “evidence” in court.

    You utter fucking moron.

    Try to aim lower, like where your pay grade is.

  171. Not at all. He said he was being restrained by Pell precisely as he was also holding the other boy’s head with both hands. The sequence involved both boys allegedly restrained by Pell. Of course, this was all happening at the same time as a fourth hand held his robes ‘parted’. Many many hands.

    …and they were “abused” when that part of the church was closed for renovations and the wine changed from a pinot grigot to a pinot noir…and old mate complainant changed his story given in police interviews many times…and the dead guy said they were never abused.

    There was never a case to answer and it should have never gone past the committal where the complainant perjured himself.

  172. Frank, you are getting a lot wrong. A magistrate assesses whether there is a case to answer only on the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution taken at its highest. It is for the jury to decide whether the complainant was lying.

  173. Err

    So a magistrate cannot dismiss a case if it is obvious the complainant cannot keep their story straight?

    You are pulling my dick, aren’t you?

    What you are asserting is utterly perverse. There would be no point at all to a committal hearing and they would not even be empowered to dismiss any case if that were true.

    “Well this accusation made by the Crown is serious, therefore it has to go to trial”

    Please.

  174. FelixKruell

    Dover:

    Not at all. He said he was being restrained by Pell precisely as he was also holding the other boy’s head with both hands.

    Yes, he was mistaken. As I said.

  175. FelixKruell

    Frank:

    Evidence must be adduced. You just don’t “evidence” in court.

    You claimed there was no evidence…then you claimed evidence was adduced. They can’t both be true. Surely you understand that?

  176. Yes, the complainant contradicted himself*; the result is zero sum.

    Surely you can count to 11 on your fingers Felix.

    Yes, he was mistaken. As I said.

    Good lord, are you actually Vivian Waller? Why are you running interference for this perjurer?

  177. FelixKruell

    Frank:

    Complainants contradict themselves all the time, especially about minor details of events 20 years ago. As do many defendants. It goes to their credibility, but doesn’t mean they are lying or perjuring themselves.

    You just contradicted yourself two posts ago, as I pointed out. How ironic.

  178. Frank – I like your rambunctious style, but I am correct. Naturally, the judges – assisted by legislative tinkering- have complicated the test, but it is still cited as an overarching test. A magistrate should not ask whether an appeal court would find a jury verdict unreasonable.

  179. David Brewer

    As for Pell, to be technical he hasn’t denied that any offence occurred. By not taking the stand, he has in fact said very little.

    – Er, to quote him (from memory) in the police interview when confronted with the accusation, “Absolute..unmitigated…rubbish..”. Sounds like a denial to me.

    Sounds like a denial to me too. Pell’s actual words, delivered with some heat, were:

    “What a load of absolute and disgraceful rubbish. Completely false. Madness. … Completely false. Completely false….What a load of garbage and falsehood, and deranged falsehold….That’s completely false, and as I will be able to demonstrate, I was out the front of the cathedral then.”

    At one point Weinberg reminds us that Pell’s denials should have been taken into account. One might also consider that they had special force since Pell would have been aware of his own religious duty not to bear false witness.

    In the end this case boils down to one person’s word against another. How the second jury could have plumped for the word of the accuser, who had repeatedly gone back on his statements and changed his evidence, while disbelieving Pell whose defence was consistent from start to finish, and corroborated by 20 witnesses, is one of the judicial marvels of our time.

    The rules of evidence must have played a large part in leading to Pell’s clearly unsafe conviction. Weinberg drops several hints about this. The pendulum has obviously swung too far in the direction of protecting the “victim”. In this case one gathers it may have hidden not only parts of the contradictions in and to his testimony, but also facts about his character, previous convictions, drug habits and other behaviours that would have severely undermined his credibility. As a result, the second jury, plus Ferguson and Mitchell, preferred his taped evidence to that of a Cardinal.

  180. Leigh Lowe

    FelixKruell

    #3211166, posted on November 13, 2019 at 11:01 pm

    Frank:

    Complainants contradict themselves all the time, especially about minor details of events 20 years ago. As do many defendants. It goes to their credibility, but doesn’t mean they are lying or perjuring themselves

    The case for reasonable doubt, right there.

  181. Leigh Lowe

    “The Kid”
    Two words which will haunt VikPol for a generation when this is done.

  182. Zatara

    How the second jury could have plumped for the word of the accuser, who had repeatedly gone back on his statements and changed his evidence, while disbelieving Pell whose defence was consistent from start to finish, and corroborated by 20 witnesses, is one of the judicial marvels of our time.

    Review a copy of almost any newspaper prior to and during Pell’s trial, or the constant bombardment of the television propaganda networks, and the answer to that question is quite apparent.

    His conviction was a foregone conclusion demanded by those who control the whims of society.

    It’s not a huge leap to say it would have been physically unsafe for the jurors and their families to have returned a finding of not guilty.

  183. Complainants contradict themselves all the time,

    No, they don’t.

    When they do (normally), the police tell them go away, or charge them with making false statements.

    The idea that credibility and perjury are not concomitant at all is insane.

    Getting multiple details wrong at multiple times (complaint, committal, trials) is not minor at all.

    Each instance is evidence of fabrication; put together, it is proof.

  184. Rafiki
    #3211209, posted on November 13, 2019 at 11:58 pm

    Frank – I like your rambunctious style, but I am correct. Naturally, the judges – assisted by legislative tinkering- have complicated the test, but it is still cited as an overarching test. A magistrate should not ask whether an appeal court would find a jury verdict unreasonable.

    I’m impressed you can dissemble on two issues here and introduce a new lie about a third.

  185. P

    Cardinal Pell ‘is an innocent man’: Bolt

  186. I can’t believe a barrister is asserting that magistrates ought not to consider legislation or caselaw, but ought to leave it up to a jury if it is obvious a complainant cannot keep their story straight.

    This is not the first time said barrister has asserted the burden of proof has been reversed.

    Why bother having a committal at all?

  187. Leigh Lowe

    It’s not a huge leap to say it would have been physically unsafe for the jurors and their families to have returned a finding of not guilty.

    It only takes one zealot on the jury to remind the other jurors about the possibility of their house being burnt down …

  188. Leigh Lowe

    Err

    So a magistrate cannot dismiss a case if it is obvious the complainant cannot keep their story straight?

    Magistrate Wally did precisely that regarding the “pool complainant” and the “picture theatre” complainant.
    Their stories were so full of holes that she decided that it was unlikely a jury would convict.

  189. notafan

    Not just ‘unlikely’

    Zero credibility.

    Though I think she just put the kybosh on the satanic picture theatre guy and the swimming pool got withdrawn a little later

  190. satanic picture theatre guy

    Good lord these people are lunatics.

  191. sabena

    This is what the High Court said last week in Fennell v The Queen on the role of the Court of Appeal in an appeal on the grounds the verdict was unreasonable:
    “81.Where a court of criminal appeal is called upon to decide whether it considers that, upon the whole of the evidence, it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was guilty of the offence charged, the court must not disregard or discount either that the jury is the body entrusted with primary responsibility of determining whether the prosecution has established the accused’s guilt or that the jury has had the benefit of having seen and heard the witnesses[4]. At the same time, however, the court may take into account the realities of human experience, including the fallibility and plasticity of memory especially as time passes, the possibility of contamination of recollection, and the influence of internal biases on memory[5]. The court can also take into account the well-known scientific research that has revealed the difficulties and inaccuracies involved in assessing credibility and reliability[6]. And especially is that so in a case like this where the jury has been subjected to the seductive effects of a species of identification evidence that has in the past led to miscarriages of justice[7]. For the reasons we have given, and without impugning the honesty of Mr and Mrs Matheson in any way, their evidence was glaringly improbable.

    The decision of the Court of Appeal
    82.In an appeal where a ground of appeal is that the verdict was unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence, and particularly where the Crown case is based upon a number of matters of circumstantial evidence, it is necessary for the appellate court to assess the whole of the case and to weigh that case as a whole. A circumstantial case cannot be considered in a piecemeal fashion[8]. A corollary of this principle, particularly in cases in which the conclusion is not clear-cut, is that a substantial error, or errors, by an intermediate court of appeal in the process of assessing the case as a whole can infect the entire process.
    83.The Court of Appeal (Gotterson JA, with whom Philippides JA and Byrne SJA agreed) properly engaged in a consideration of the case as a whole when assessing Mr Fennell’s submission that the jury verdict was unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence. However, and with genuine respect for an experienced judge, the reasoning of Gotterson JA involved errors in four areas which infected his conclusion. It is likely that a different process of reasoning in relation to any one of these areas would have led to a different conclusion.”
    You can draw your own conclusions about the prospects of success in the Pell appeal from those comments.

  192. notafan

    Haven’t found the satanic abuse but it’s there.

    Was guy that claimed to be in a children’s home in a particularly year when he was not

    not enough evidence said Wallington

  193. claimed to be in a children’s home in a particular year when he was not

    They’re either liars or illucid, or both.

  194. Nob

    Back in Melbourne for first time in nearly two years. The media (ch7 news last night, mea maxima culpa) propaganda on Pell is extraordinary. Not even a pretence of truthfulness.

  195. FelixKruell

    Frank:

    No, they don’t.

    When they do (normally), the police tell them go away, or charge them with making false statements.

    We have already established your lack of knowledge of how the legal system works. Don’t go compounding it.

  196. Hugh

    Like Andrew Bolt above, I did my own reccie of the Cathedral with a stopwatch a few months back and my timing was very close to his (8 second difference).

    My challenge now to anyone who thinks Pell is guilty is this:

    Put up a scenario to show (Archbishop) Pell could have, in all the circumstances, beyond reasonable doubt, committed the minimum 3 to maximum 6 minute triple rape as alleged, …

    … or shut up.

  197. PaulW

    This is related to Trump impeachment hearinsg but could quite as easily be the same for Pell’s case

    “”Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Illinois) raised eyebrows when he defended the testimony of House Democrats’ “witnesses” during the first day of public impeachment hearings against President Donald Trump on Wednesday, arguing that “hearsay can be much better evidence than direct.”

    https://www.theblaze.com/news/hearsay-can-be-much-better-evidence-than-direct-dem-claims-during-impeachment-hearing

  198. FelixKruell

    Hugh:

    Put up a scenario to show (Archbishop) Pell could have, in all the circumstances, beyond reasonable doubt, committed the minimum 3 to maximum 6 minute triple rape as alleged, …

    We don’t know “all the circumstances” unless we were on the jury and heard the kids testimony.

  199. dover_beach

    Indeed, Hugh. An attempt to reenactment of what was alleged to have occurred would explode the complainant’s claim in an instant.

  200. JC

    We don’t know “all the circumstances” unless we were on the jury and heard the kids testimony.

    What did Weinberg leave out of his finding?

  201. dover_beach

    We don’t know “all the circumstances” unless we were on the jury and heard the kids testimony.

    We know what is materially relevant. Is there an alleged circumstance involving the procession and the immediate events after that we don’t know of and is this gap obvious from that made public in the court records? I’m growing tired of these appeals to things the jury heard that might have been relevant but that are supposedly unrecorded in the decision.

  202. Hugh

    Felix, with respect, we know enough from reading the opinions of the Vic Court of Appeal decision.

    My understanding is that the bench was privy to what the jury heard in the second trial. The majority opinion makes no allusion to any circumstances not mentioned explicitly in its reasons that would have persuaded it that the scenario could occur. If it had, Justice Weinberg in his dissent would have raised them and attempted to show they were not, in his opinion, persuasive.

    The common ground as to the alleged offense is, that, if it occurred, it did so after a Sunday mass, at which the Archbishop was celebrant, that it occurred in the 5 to 6 minute “window” of “private prayer time”, during which time the procession of servers and ministers made its way back at the priests’ sacristy, and that, (according to the complainant), the three offences took at least three and at most six minutes in toto (1 to 2 minutes each), that the two victim choirboys were in the procession for most of the route back to the sacristy, that the offense occurred in the priests’ sacristy after the A and B had made their way to the priests’ sacristy via the South Transept door, had explored the sacristy, had found altar wine in the safe and had had time for a couple of swigs each before being discovered by the Archbishop.

    So the scenario which those believing BRD that Pell is guilty must put up with is: how A and B, splitting off from the procession only a few metres from the entrance to the short corridor to the priests’ sacristy and taking the route back through the South Transept door, arrive at the Sacristy substantially more than 3 minutes before the procession which has continued on its own shorter route to the same room – indeed, not even to the room, but just to the corridor leading to it, from which anyone entering or exiting the sacristy would have been easily sighted.

    (I say “substantially more”, because time must be allowed beyond the 3 minute minimum time of the actual abuses, for A and B, 1. to reach the Sacristy, 2. explore the sacristy 3. find, open and swigging from the wine bottle a couple of times each, 4. be discovered by Archbishop Pell, 5. B put back on his pants after Pell has abused him, 6. A and B escape while the sacristy and the corridor are still empty. All of this extra time might well add up to a couple of minutes, at least. So, not just 3 minutes [the minimum time B allowed for the three offences to occur], but more like 5 minutes, if B’s account is to be believed.

    So, Pell accusers, over to you. Tell us how it happened BRD. Or shut up.

  203. dover_beach

    Hugh, there is also the other matter of how they arrived at the Sacristy before Pell.

  204. FelixKruell

    Dover :

    I’m growing tired of these appeals to things the jury heard that might have been relevant but that are supposedly unrecorded in the decision.

    Not might have heard. Did hear. Because the kids testimony was not made public. We have glimpses of it in the public arguments made by both sides, and the appeals court findings. But we don’t have all of it. So we can’t conclude that we have everything that is ‘materially relevant’

  205. FelixKruell

    Hugh:

    Felix, with respect, we know enough from reading the opinions of the Vic Court of Appeal decision.

    My understanding is that the bench was privy to what the jury heard in the second trial. The majority opinion makes no allusion to any circumstances not mentioned explicitly in its reasons that would have persuaded it that the scenario could occur. If it had, Justice Weinberg in his dissent would have raised them and attempted to show they were not, in his opinion, persuasive.

    Hardly. Both opinions mentioned the bits they felt the need to mention. It’s presumptuous to conclude that we therefore know enough.

  206. Hugh

    That doesn’t make sense, Felix.

    You’re positing the existence of undisclosed facts that are consistent with the factual matrix common to both the prosecution and defence cases I’ve listed above, but which, added to that matrix, places beyond any reasonable doubt A and B arriving at and investigating the sacristy, swigging wine, being subject over 3 minute at least to the 2 rapes and assault and getting out of the area, all before the procession walks about 20 odd metres in that approximately 5 min interval !!

    What might those extraordinary facts be? What would they look like?

    And, just as extraordinary as these alleged facts themselves: why did neither the majority nor the dissenting judge feel the need to mention them one way or another if they’re so crucial to the case? Were they bound by some rule? Well, why did the Majority not at least say something such as,”On the face of it, the scenario as we’ve imagined it is very unlikely, but we are in possession of some further facts we are not at liberty to disclose in this opinion, yet which swing the matter around completely.”? And (dissenting) Weinberg:”The majority were persuaded by some further facts they were not permitted to mention in reaching their opinion. Even though I am bound by the same rules not to bring these facts into my discussion, suffice it to say: I was not so persuaded.”?

    Why don’t the Pell accusers who sat through the whole trial bring up these facts they heard about – or again, at least their bare existence – in order to make their case more credible?

    And how can the many Pell accusers who weren’t at the trial be so dogmatically confident of their case if they themselves don’t know what these facts are and yet in the absence of which the chronology of the alleged criminal event is frankly ridiculous?

    As in: “Yeah! Pell definitely did it because, well, we don’t know the whole story, do we? So there! Hang the bastard!”

    DB. Yes, very difficult indeed to see Archbishop Pell not arriving at the sacristy before the 2 boys.

  207. FelixKruell

    High:

    You’re positing the existence of undisclosed facts that are consistent with the factual matrix common to both the prosecution and defence cases I’ve listed above, but which, added to that matrix, places beyond any reasonable doubt A and B arriving at and investigating the sacristy, swigging wine, being subject over 3 minute at least to the 2 rapes and assault and getting out of the area, all before the procession walks about 20 odd metres in that approximately 5 min interval !!

    It doesn’t need to place that particular sequence of events beyond a reasonable doubt.

    And how can the many Pell accusers who weren’t at the trial be so dogmatically confident of their case if they themselves don’t know what these facts are and yet in the absence of which the chronology of the alleged criminal event is frankly ridiculous?

    They shouldn’t be. They are falling for the same trap so many commentators here are. As I’ve said above – only 3 people know with certainty whether Pell is guilty or innocent. The rest of us are guessing based on varying amounts of incomplete information.

  208. dover_beach

    What might those extraordinary facts be? What would they look like?

    And, just as extraordinary as these alleged facts themselves: why did neither the majority nor the dissenting judge feel the need to mention them one way or another if they’re so crucial to the case?

    Quite. Imagine leaving materially relevant facts out of a decision as if they had no relevance to future cases. They weren’t mentioned because they were never made, and if something was said but remained unmentioned it was because they were not materially relevant. The only reason Felix is positing unmentioned yet materially relevant facts is because what we are presented with, as it stands, is simply incredible.

  209. Felix once again claiming no one else understands how courts work in Australia.

    They shouldn’t be. They are falling for the same trap so many commentators here are. As I’ve said above – only 3 people know with certainty whether Pell is guilty or innocent. The rest of us are guessing based on varying amounts of incomplete information.

    You are fooling yourself.

    Truthful accusers do not “contradict themselves all of the time”.

    That was one of the most ludicrous suppositions you’ve ever made here Felix.

    Also, if you know of any Victorian or Commonwealth caselaw or legislation that does not permit a magistrate to refuse to proceed a prosecution past committal, please cite the relevant legal authority.

    After all, you have asserted you have greater and correct knowledge of “how courts actually work” or some such like that.

    The idea that they are barred from doing so and cannot apply reasoning to claims or consider precedent of higher courts is preposterous, it removes the presiding judicial officer from the judicial panel, it completely ignores precedent and it would mean that committal hearings are merely rubber stamping ceremonies.

  210. classical_hero

    Don’t forget that the HC didn’t repeal the conviction of Linda Chamberlain. Don’t get your hopes too high.

  211. Astrid van den Akker-Luttmer

    Why is my comment, 17 Nov. (seriously to be considered) NOT published?

  212. Astrid van den Akker-Luttmer

    Dear Moderator, an addition to my posting. In Holland it is called: Borderline Syndrome Depression. My step-daughter is suffering from it. Here in Australia, USA, UK. it is called: Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD).
    Kind regards

Comments are closed.