The most socially isolated man in Australia

THERE are hardly any sane, intellectually substantive people in either Australia or the world who believe there is any truth in the rigged and utterly preposterous charges brought against George Pell. It is a nutter’s travesty that has embarrassed the country. As things stand, however, the Cardinal is locked up in a prison for terrorists as slow-poke justices of the High Court decide how to extricate either him from Barwon or the state of Victoria from infamy. It cannot do both. Even allowing for the complexity of the arguments made during the hearings of 11 and 12 March, it’s hard to comprehend why in the nation’s supreme forum for justice – which must also be a supreme forum for humaneness – their judgement is still pending 12 days later. For this isn’t some desiccated case about the meaning of a paragraph and these are not normal times – least of all for a health-compromised man of 79 residing in a jail cell. The Pell appeal might be complex and judges may have responsibilities to be more than usually meticulous given the possibility of their decision having stare decisis implications. But they are very bright people and justice delayed during a pandemic (of especial menace to the elderly) is being more than conventionally denied to the applicant.

This entry was posted in Australian Story, civil society. Bookmark the permalink.

65 Responses to The most socially isolated man in Australia

  1. BorisG

    THERE are hardly any sane, intellectually substantive people in either Australia or the world who believe there is any truth in the rigged and utterly preposterous charges brought against George Pell.

    At least jurors did. And I suspect many many more people did as well. I am not one of them, but it is silly to assume that just because a person has a different view in this issue, he is not sane or intellectually substantial .

  2. DHS

    but it is silly to assume that just because a person has a different view in this issue, he is not sane or intellectually substantial .

    Actually it is very reasonable to assume such a thing.

    Some things are good to delineate people. Pell is one of them. Their reaction to this “virus” is another.

    When people look for other people’s opinions solely to formulate their own – but still have strong opinions on the issue – then those people are evil.

  3. Entropy

    There is nothing reasonable about it Boris.

    *A lone accuser
    *Denial of guilt
    *No witnesses
    *No evidence
    *Improbable scenario
    *No prior history
    *The accused has a long list of character witnesses

    And yet that State of Salem down south found him guilty. Kangaroo Court indeed.

  4. jupes

    They must have come to a decision by now. If he is not guilty then they are depriving him of his liberty while they try find some legal gibberish to excuse the behaviour of the lower courts. If they have found him guilty, then they are corrupt. There can be no other explanation for it.

    Shame on the HCA and the entire disgraceful and pathetic legal system of the country.

  5. yarpos

    The good news is that , if released, he wont face much of a media scrum these days. Perhaps a nice summary piece from Geraldine Doogue will suffice on the religious side. There will almost ceratinly be no consequences on the legal side except possibly the odd quiet retirement. Carry on, nothing to see here.

  6. John Comnenus

    I have little to no confidence in the High Court. Remember they took away our implied freedom of speech rights in order to have arch Catholic, Bernard Gaynor, kicked out of the ADF for espousing traditional Catholic values.

    If they believed Pell innocent they would have released him quickly. I doubt the High Court is doing anything other than working out how to keep Pell convicted and in jail without being seen to destroy the general accepted protections of the legal system – like the reliance on evidence over a single accessor. This High Court had no qualms destroying freedom of speech and introducing race based laws, so I doubt they are looking at how to release Pell.

    You can tell always tell a dictatorships by looking at the behaviour of judges. We are watching the High Court with interest. Will they stand on principle without fear or favour? Or will they bend to the mob?

  7. W Hogg

    There is nothing reasonable about it Boris.

    *A lone accuser
    *Denial of guilt
    *No witnesses
    *No evidence
    *Improbable scenario
    *No prior history
    *The accused has a long list of character witnesses

    And yet that State of Salem down south found him guilty. Kangaroo Court indeed.

    Not to mention rampant jury tampering by the meeja ahead of the retrial, and dozens of Kavanaugh-style hoax accusers.

  8. SABB

    I like the theory that the Victorian Government and VicPol would like George Pell to pass away in prison. That would end the HC appeal and Pell would remain forever a convicted paedophile.

  9. stackja

    Lindy Chamberlain appeal against her conviction was rejected by the High Court in February 1984.

  10. Cris

    So who is monitoring the spread of Covid-19 in prisons?

  11. FelixKruell

    THERE are hardly any sane, intellectually substantive people in either Australia or the world who believe there is any truth in the rigged and utterly preposterous charges brought against George Pell.

    You may disagree with them, but Ferguson and Maxwell are by all accounts sane and intellectually substantive.

    As for the rest of us – none of us have seen/heard all the evidence in this case. The sane response is therefore to withhold judgement. Have your views by all means, but always remain aware that those views are formed from incomplete information.

  12. There may be a way the High Court could release Pell and (whether or not they desired to do so) save the reputation of the Victorian government. They could find error in the CCA decision by reason of their having viewed a video of the complainant’s evidence (and there are signs that they will so find), and then order a permanent stay of the proceedings on the basis that the amount of prejudicial publicity has now reached a point that would render any new trial unfair.

  13. C.L.

    As for the rest of us – none of us have seen/heard all the evidence in this case.

    Oh look – Louise Milligan’s line! LOL.
    Yes, we have heard all of the “evidence”.
    Which wasn’t hard because the state didn’t present any.

  14. FelixKruell

    Cl:

    Yes, we have heard all of the “evidence”.
    Which wasn’t hard because the state didn’t present any.

    Sigh. You definitely aren’t allowed to hold an opinion on this if you don’t know what constitutes evidence in a criminal trial. Or feel the need to put the word evidence in quotation marks.

  15. bollux

    Victoria couldn’t wait to hang Pell, but refused to try Gillard on substantial evidence. I know which of them should be in prison, as do most sane people.

  16. Billy boy

    George Pell is innocent until proven guilty. The jury has found him guilty and one appeal was lost. Whether he is released or not, we must accept the findings of the court. I think the problem is that some cannot accept that a man as high as he is in the Catholic Church could be guilty. Perhaps the Catholic church is not as holy as some want to believe.

  17. rickw

    George Pell didn’t die of Coronavirus!

  18. Roger

    I think the problem is that some cannot accept that a man as high as he is in the Catholic Church could be guilty.

    No, the problem is that an innocent man has been found guilty precisely because he is as high as he is in the Catholic Church.

    The prog-left likes their bishops to be everything Pell isn’t – mealy mouthed and compliant with their agenda. That made him a target. And for the record, I’m not a Catholic.

  19. rickw

    Think of the incredible reach that is implied here. Whereas we might have expected Pell to be killed in a car bomb, or hung under black friars bridge, there appears to be the implication that the world of finance can reach across the world, into the state of Victoria, and completely stitch up an innocent man in broad daylight. That is going to be a hard reality for some people to swallow.

    Definitely looks like this.

  20. rickw

    George Pell is innocent until proven guilty. The jury has found him guilty and one appeal was lost. Whether he is released or not, we must accept the findings of the court.

    How would anyone expect Pell to be found not guilty by a Jury when the Victorian State and Australia had been going hammer and tongs on Catholic Priest child abuse whilst quietly dealing with exactly the same issue within the Public School system?

    If the child abuse angle hadn’t been so ripe and easily done in Victoria, then Pell would have died by falling down some stairs in the Vatican.

  21. FelixKruell

    Global:

    Frauds. Corrupt. Not working for you or I. Not working for the purpose of furthering justice.

    And your evidence for these slurs is….

  22. I suspect – and it doesn’t rise above this – that the High Court (or some of them) are trying to work their way past a dilemma. If they find that the jury must have had a reasonable doubt, many will think ‘why should I bother to serve on a jury if appeal judges can tell me I have acted unreasonably and tarnish my reputation? Let them do it. They get paid very high salaries while jury service screws up my life and costs me’. Unlike other cases where the Court has overturned a jury, the Pell case result will be highly publicised. This is a reason for the Court to find a way to release Pell while not telling the jury they were stupid.

  23. Deplorable

    The Chamberlain debacle proved that judges and our legal system are not infallible or particularly intelligent. Why is the Gillard issue being ignored by the legal system.

  24. DHS

    As for the rest of us – none of us have seen/heard all the evidence in this case.

    This line is the ultimate in cowardice.

    How often in history have people gone to great lengths to hide evidence proving that they were right?

    I’ll give you a clue, it’s a nice round number.

  25. FelixKruell

    Global:

    The trial of George Pell. Just for starters.

    That’s a tad circular…

  26. FelixKruell

    DHS:

    How often in history have people gone to great lengths to hide evidence proving that they were right?

    That’s not the case here either. The court demands the testimonial evidence of sexual abuse victims be kept from the public record. That’s not a choice the victim makes. Or a matter of the victim hiding anything.

  27. Lee

    Many of those who believe Cardinal Pell is guilty do so on the basis of the court’s “infallibility” (when in fact the basis is their personal prejudice against Catholics, conservatives, or Christians in general, and they want him to be guilty).

    The same people will not even look at all the huge holes, inconsistencies and complete lack of corroborating evidence in the case against Pell.

    They have a close mind.

  28. DHS

    The court demands the testimonial evidence of sexual abuse victims be kept from the public record.

    Right so you admit it. The one and only piece of evidence against Pell is the word of some guy. And that word was shown, repeatedly, to be fabricated.

  29. FelixKruell

    DHS:

    Right so you admit it. The one and only piece of evidence against Pell is the word of some guy. And that word was shown, repeatedly, to be fabricated.

    Admit it? It’s pretty much an uncontested fact. As with many sexual abuse cases, the only substantive evidence in this case is the victims testimony. This is not limited to the Pell case.

    As to any of it being fabricated, the courts have found the opposite. Repeatedly. What special information are you privy to that let’s you conclude otherwise with such certainty?

  30. Cynic of Ayr

    The High Court Judges are the same as any other Judge.
    To keep the legal system scam going as long as possible!
    To make an easy judgement in good time, means they really aren’t worth the money they are paid. Money is the decision here, not guilt or innocence. The longer they drag it out, the more important they appear, and to demonstrate how hard working, how difficult it is, to be High Court Judge.
    Amateurs have put Pell’s case here in Cats for free, that is far plainer and logical than anyone of these clowns in a wig and a dress could ever hope to present.
    The legal system is designed to serve the legal system. No one else.
    They are thieves. Plain and simple.

  31. DHS

    As with many sexual abuse cases, the only substantive evidence in this case is the victims testimony.

    Then why did you claim that there was some secret prosecutor’s business that we weren’t privy to which would have made the witnesses claim so compelling?

    As to any of it being fabricated, the courts have found the opposite

    ???

    He repeatedly changed his story concerning dates and other aspects. The jury believed him *despite* the fact that he repeatedly changed his story.

  32. Sinclair Davidson

    This is a reason for the Court to find a way to release Pell while not telling the jury they were stupid.

    Really? I’m thinking that failing to perform their duty as jury members should itself be a crime.

  33. Elderly White Man From Skipton

    Sinclair clearly thinks the duty of a jury is to agree with him. Amusing. A majority of appeal judges agreed with the jury. Perhaps they should be charged with offending Sinc as well? Sinc can recruit a few of those drug-free Essendon people to decide the case.

  34. To punish jurors who have simply evaluated the evidence differently to appeal judges would certainly put an end to the jury system. I think that we do need to replace this system. Juries do not work in societies broken up into identity groupings, and there is in any event plenty of evidence that they behave irrationally.

    My limited point above is that the delay might be down to the Court worrying about how to release Pell without seriously undermining the jury system. It is an attempt to answer CL’s main concern.

  35. FelixKruell

    Global:

    Not even a tiny bit. Your reasoning is totally circular. Mine, not at all. We want to get that right for starters

    So there are no sane people who can believe there hasn’t been a corruption of the court in allowing Pell to be convicted. When an objectively sane person is nominated to show that rule to be a folly, your response is they can’t be sane because of their involvement in the conviction of Pell. That would be the circular bit.

  36. JC

    and there is in any event plenty of evidence that they behave irrationally.

    Because judges and magistrates do.

  37. FelixKruell

    DHS:

    Then why did you claim that there was some secret prosecutor’s business that we weren’t privy to which would have made the witnesses claim so compelling?

    I haven’t. I said we weren’t privy to all of the evidence – in this case, the victims testimony.

    He repeatedly changed his story concerning dates and other aspects. The jury believed him *despite* the fact that he repeatedly changed his story.

    That’s not the same thing as fabrication. As the court noted, changing some details of your recollections of events from 20+ years ago is expected.

  38. JC

    Feelit, you would have to be one of the most dishonest, dissembling dirtbags whose ever traveled through this blog.

    FelixKruell
    #3373087, posted on March 24, 2020 at 9:56 am

    Cl:

    Yes, we have heard all of the “evidence”.
    Which wasn’t hard because the state didn’t present any.

    Sigh. You definitely aren’t allowed to hold an opinion on this if you don’t know what constitutes evidence in a criminal trial. Or feel the need to put the word evidence in quotation marks.

    As you would be aware, evidence to any reasonable layperson means supporting material/information related to the charge or the repudiation of such. The word carries a different meaning in the law. You know this and continue to play word games because you’re dickhead.
    What people here mean by lacking evidence is the accusation made by one person against Pell that was essentially destroyed by Weinberg’s findings. You know this yet you persist with this phony nonsense. People here do not believe an accusation about something illegal occurred 20 plus years ago has any strength. Even the police believe this to be the case as they walked away from the rape accusation against Bill Shorten for this very reason- especially when there is no corroboration.

  39. JC

    That’s not the same thing as fabrication. As the court noted, changing some details of your recollections of events from 20+ years ago is expected.

    Weinberg found that to be hugely problematic. Perhaps you could tell us what Weinberg got wrong. In fact call out one single error in his finding. Go!

  40. JC, you need to think a bit harder about what you say. (1) That some magistrates and judges behave irrationally (and I could give you plenty of examples) does not vitiate my point about juries. Of course, if juries go (and all the costs and time wasting) much thinking needs to go into how judicial decisions are more closely reviewed (or exercised in the first place).

    (2) Apart from Felix (who makes more sense than several who post on the Pell case) there are people here who believe that a statement made today about what happened 20 years ago has probative value in relation to whether those events happened. Just think about this in the context of war crimes prosecutions.

    That said there should be strict controls on what evidence should be admitted in historical sex offence cases. I wrote a little paper about this some years ago, and you will be pleased to know I will post it here when I can dig it out from my currently disordered files.

    And always remember JC, ‘honour the wirk’. It will keep you on track.

  41. dover_beach

    That’s not the same thing as fabrication. As the court noted, changing some details of your recollections of events from 20+ years ago is expected.

    There have been so many narrative shifts in J’s story that I don’t blame the jury completely. The problem is with the police’s investigation and the prosecution’s case.

  42. FelixKruell

    JC:

    As you would be aware, evidence to any reasonable layperson means supporting material/information related to the charge or the repudiation of such. The word carries a different meaning in the law. You know this and continue to play word games because you’re dickhead.

    We are talking about the law here. Why on earth wouldn’t we take the legal meaning of the term evidence?

    What people here mean by lacking evidence is the accusation made by one person against Pell that was essentially destroyed by Weinberg’s findings. You know this yet you persist with this phony nonsense. People here do not believe an accusation about something illegal occurred 20 plus years ago has any strength. Even the police believe this to be the case as they walked away from the rape accusation against Bill Shorten for this very reason- especially when there is no corroboration.

    Weinberg didn’t find that evidence was lacking. He found that the evidence that was there wasn’t sufficient to remove reasonable doubt. Two very different things.

    As for ‘People here’, I don’t recall them appointing you their spokesperson? Plenty of people reasonably disagree about whether the current approach to he said / she said sexual abuse cases has struck the right balance. Sane people can distinguish that debate from the naked barracking for and against Pell that we witness here.

  43. FelixKruell

    JC:

    Weinberg found that to be hugely problematic.

    He did. He didn’t call it a fabrication though. And others, including the jury charged with evaluation his evidence, didn’t find it so problematic.

  44. JC

    JC, you need to think a bit harder about what you say. (1) That some magistrates and judges behave irrationally (and I could give you plenty of examples) does not vitiate my point about juries.

    Yes it does actually and you’ve made the point for me. Thanks for the help. If juries can behave irrationally as well as judges and magistrates then what is the point of removing juries? Zero?

    Of course, if juries go (and all the costs and time wasting) much thinking needs to go into how judicial decisions are more closely reviewed (or exercised in the first place).

    Then why not place those encumbrances on the jury system too?

    (2) Apart from Felix (who makes more sense than several who post on the Pell case) there are people here who believe that a statement made today about what happened 20 years ago has probative value in relation to whether those events happened. Just think about this in the context of war crimes prosecutions.

    Rafki, are you seriously equating this case to war crimes prosecutions because if you are you shouldn’t go anywhere near the law. I cannot recall a single incident of a prosecution for a war crime without several people making the same accusation and the painstaking process that goes into showing the accused was somehow involved with other evidence. We have a case (Pell) where the accuser changed his story several times that was picked up by Weinberg and shown very likely to be bullshit.
    You too, name something wrong in the Weinberg findings. Present even one single point. Go?

    That said there should be strict controls on what evidence should be admitted in historical sex offence cases. I wrote a little paper about this some years ago, and you will be pleased to know I will post it here when I can dig it out from my currently disordered files.

    Don’t bother. If the last comment is any example of your work, it would be useless.

    And always remember JC, ‘honour the wirk’. It will keep you on track.

    I have no idea what the fuck you’re trying to say.

  45. JC

    He did. He didn’t call it a fabrication though. And others, including the jury charged with evaluation his evidence, didn’t find it so problematic.

    He didn’t have to. He simply dismissed it, which means he didn’t have to refer to it as fabrication. Weinberg is not a mind reader as so he doesn’t if the accuser is lying or fabricating it because he’s mentally ill and hallucinating. You twerp, stop trying to move the goal posts.

    I’m still waiting for both of you to detail one thing Weinberg erred.

  46. notafan

    Cardinal Pell is not the victim of some obscure, secret, Vatican plot.

    You don’t need to look outside Victoria and the pernicious Tethering operation to know that.

    Timeline is there for those with ears to hear and eyes to see.

  47. FelixKruell

    JC:

    He didn’t have to. He simply dismissed it, which means he didn’t have to refer to it as fabrication. Weinberg is not a mind reader as so he doesn’t if the accuser is lying or fabricating it because he’s mentally ill and hallucinating. You twerp, stop trying to move the goal posts.

    Seems DHS is a mind reader then. He called it a fabrication. I believe you even agreed with him.

    Weinberg dismissed his testimony. The jury, and the majority of the court of appeal didn’t.

  48. JC

    Weinberg dismissed his testimony. The jury, and the majority of the court of appeal didn’t.

    Explain what Weinberg got wrong in his findings you dishonest twerp. I’m still waiting.

  49. JC

    You know what, Weinberg actually did call the entire evidence from the accuser to be absolute bullshit. Only he said it in a lawyerly way.

    Justice Weinberg, a former Federal Court judge who presided over the trial of Melbourne’s Bourke Street killer James Gargasoulas last year, said there was a body of evidence that made it “impossible to accept” the victim’s account.

    “From … the complainant’s evidence, it can be seen that there was ample material upon which his account could be legitimately subject to criticism. There were inconsistencies, and discrepancies, and a number of his answers simply made no sense,” Justice Weinberg wrote in his judgment released on

    “An unusual feature of this case was that it depended entirely upon the complainant being accepted, beyond reasonable doubt, as a credible and reliable witness. Yet the jury were invited to accept his evidence without there being any independent support for it.”

    Rafki, if you believe Feelit has something useful to say, you ought to give up your law license immediately and apologize to the readership.

  50. DHS

    That’s not the same thing as fabrication.

    Well actually it is.

    As the court noted, changing some details of your recollections of events from 20+ years ago is expected.

    Expected or not, it still requires fabrication. If I say “I am sure it happened December 10th” but then someone says “well you weren’t there that date and neither was Pell” then, even if I am telling the truth about the rest of the story, clearly I fabricated the part about the dates didn’t I?

    And you will note that this precisely what I said. We are – as you fully admit – basing the entire case on the reliability of the witness. But we know for a fact that the witness was prone to just making stuff up. So there goes your entire case.

  51. FelixKruell

    JC:

    Explain what Weinberg got wrong in his findings you dishonest twerp. I’m still waiting.

    I don’t know if he did get anything wrong.

  52. FelixKruell

    DHS:

    Well actually it is.

    You may want to consult a dictionary then.

    Expected or not, it still requires fabrication. If I say “I am sure it happened December 10th” but then someone says “well you weren’t there that date and neither was Pell” then, even if I am telling the truth about the rest of the story, clearly I fabricated the part about the dates didn’t I?

    Now you definitely need to consult a dictionary.

    But we know for a fact that the witness was prone to just making stuff up. So there goes your entire case.

    No, this was addressed by the court of appeal.

  53. JC

    I don’t know if he did get anything wrong.

    Well you do, you dishonest twerp.

    Weinberg dismissed his testimony. The jury, and the majority of the court of appeal didn’t.

  54. JC in your comment at 2.55 your opinion that evidence of what happened 20 years ago was completely general. My illustration shows that it was wrong and ill-considered. As you often do, you are trying to shift the goal posts.

    Try to grasp that the existing controls on jury fact finding have broken down. The appeal judges have now decided that they can do it just as well. There are also other reasons to do away with juries.

    Forget the last sentence. It was an attempt at a joke I thought you would get.

  55. Professor Fred Lenin

    I wouldn’t say most isolated man is Turnbull .he has a wife and son somebody likes him. Maybe.

  56. JC

    Rafki, I’m still waiting for both of you to explain even one thing Weinberg erred with. Feelit is always stating that a court and two appeal judges found Pell to be a fiddler and by supporting Feelit, you’re pretty much aligning with the twerp’s view.

    What did Weinberg get wrong. Go!

  57. FelixKruell

    JC:

    Well you do, you dishonest twerp.

    Weinberg dismissed his testimony. The jury, and the majority of the court of appeal didn’t.

    That was a statement of fact. Not of an opinion as to who was correct.

  58. JC

    Feelit.

    Stop it with the bullshit and answer the question. You turned this into a majority thing ( the court and appeal judges), so explain what Weinberg got wrong in his fining. I’m still waiting, you bullshit artist. Go!

  59. FelixKruell

    JC:

    Stop it with the bullshit and answer the question. You turned this into a majority thing ( the court and appeal judges), so explain what Weinberg got wrong in his fining. I’m still waiting, you bullshit artist. Go!

    No, I merely stated that quoting Weinberg as sole authority or proof of anything in this case doesn’t work, given others who saw the same evidence concluded otherwise. That’s a statement of fact. He may end up being right. Or wrong. We will know more when the high court decides whatever it decides.

    So once again – I don’t have a horse in this race. I haven’t seen the evidence that so clearly divided the courts. Given that, I don’t make a call as to whether Pell is ultimately guilty or not.

    But there I go, giving you nuance again. When all you want is a black and white answer. I’m either on your team or I’m not.

  60. JC

    No, I merely stated that quoting Weinberg as sole authority or proof of anything in this case doesn’t work, given others who saw the same evidence concluded otherwise.

    Of course it works, you sad liar. It works because you introduced the court, the other two judges as somehow carrying more authority because it was a case of one judge against the rest.

    That’s a statement of fact.

    Stop with pretending you’re some sort of hotshot lawyer. Say “factual” instead of “statement of fact”.

    So once again – I don’t have a horse in this race. I haven’t seen the evidence that so clearly divided the courts. Given that, I don’t make a call as to whether Pell is ultimately guilty or not.

    We have read the evidence. There’s nothing hidden that we don’t know about and of course you want to see Pell carry the full term That’s obvious.

    But there I go, giving you nuance again. When all you want is a black and white answer. I’m either on your team or I’m not.

    There’s nothing nuanced about you being a dishonest dissembling little piker.

  61. This may not quell JC, but it is no part of the case put by Pell’s lawyers in the High Court that the complainant fabricated his evidence. Rather, they say that while it has to accepted that they believed him, other evidence in respect of which he did not give evidence is such they must have a reasonable doubt as to Pell’s guilt.

    They point to the evidence if Portelli and others about what Pell did after mass. I can grasp the distinction, but I can’t see why it was not open to the jury to reject this evidence. The credibility of Portelli et al is diminished by reason that they had an obvious motive to lie. Why could they think that their evidence was worthless?

  62. FelixKruell

    JC:

    Of course it works, you sad liar. It works because you introduced the court, the other two judges as somehow carrying more authority because it was a case of one judge against the rest.

    Nope.

    Stop with pretending you’re some sort of hotshot lawyer. Say “factual” instead of “statement of fact”.

    Sure. It’s factual. Happy now?

    We have read the evidence

    No you haven’t. It hasn’t been made public. That’s what we call ‘not’ factual. Or a bald faced lie. How ironic.

  63. Kneel

    “So there are no sane people who can believe there hasn’t been a corruption of the court in allowing Pell to be convicted.”

    Presumption of innocence.
    No forensic evidence.
    No corroborating witnesses for the prosecution.
    Several material witnesses for the defendants actions at the time.
    Inconsistencies in the complainants story are stated to be reasonable, while inconsistencies in the defense witnesses stories are grounds for disbelief.

    Hmm. Well, I guess we still can’t say “…no sane people who can believe…” – supposedly sane people make some surprisingly bad judgements distressingly regularly.
    But I believe we can say that a verdict of guilty in such circumstances is at best a highly troubling precedent, and at worst a significant indication of… something not right. Corruption? Madness? Intellectual masturbation? I duuno what you’d call it, but certainly corruption fits the known data. It seems consistent with what happened. So dismissing the possibility of corruption seems… odd.

    My own opinion is that I have no idea whether he did or not, and whether he did or not is actually irrelevant, since there is no corroborating evidence in favour of the complainant – it should never have gone to trial in the first place.

  64. FelixKruell

    Kneel:

    My own opinion is that I have no idea whether he did or not, and whether he did or not is actually irrelevant, since there is no corroborating evidence in favour of the complainant – it should never have gone to trial in the first place.

    That’s not the case under our laws…(which is a valid thing to question, quite apart from the Pell case)

    It is legally recognised that sexual offences do not need to be corroborated by other evidence . According to the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic .) s 164(4), if there is a jury in a criminal proceeding, the judge must not (a) warn the jury that it is dangerous to act on uncorroborated evidence or give a warning to the same or similar effect; or (b) direct the jury regarding the absence of corroboration .

  65. Kneel

    “It is legally recognised that sexual offences do not need to be corroborated by other evidence .”

    Beyond ridiculous – if no corroboration is required, then it comes down to “he said/she said” and who “sounds truthful”. That’s wrong, wrong, WRONG! OK, maybe you can justify this stance for “protective measures” (take the kids away, eg) pre-trial, but for a trial that may see you in gaol? No freaking way – that is TOTALLY unacceptable. It’s even worse that the judge is unable to instruct the jury about what this means.

    When do the witch trial start? You know, toss ’em in the river, if they sink and drown they were innocent and have gone to heaven, if they float, they’re a witch to be hung, drawn and quartered.

Comments are closed.