To think the George Pell acquittal stinks (warning may be upsetting)

[viques]

George Pell has been acquitted of all charges of child abuse by Australia's highest court.

The appeal court has decided that despite the unanimous decision of the original jury who found the surviving abuse victim a credible reliable and honest witness, the jury (apparently) failed to take into account the "evidence" given by other "witnesses" who ,surprise surprise, were members of the clergy , I believe one was lay, at the church where Pell presided.

Given the abysmal history of the RC church in systematically covering up decades of abuse by its priest, lying, moving them to different parishes, diocese and even countries to avoid answering their accusers, not to mention the cover up that the Australian government perpetrated over the abuse of child migrants (priests again in many cases) I think the verdict sends a message that some abusers are above the law if they have the right connections.

Pell has been given huge consideration by the Australian courts, including an international black out of news on the process of his appeals .

I wonder if such a pussyfoot approach is offered to either victims or indeed accused in other child abuse and rape cases.

The other victim took his own life. His family say they are devastated at this reversal of the verdict.

And having good friends who treat them as normal human beings.

That too!

In this case you had corroboration from two witnesses, one of whom was dead (from suicide) and unavailable for cross-examination

Not true. The alleged victim who committed suicide had denied being abused. His family say he was a victim but that is not corroboration.

the word is they are damning

As I understand it they don't include any allegations that Pell was an abuser but they do relate to his knowledge of other allegations.

Is it true that UK police officers have to say "I believe you" to all complainants of sexual assault?

I'm not sure what the current guidance is but this certainly used to be the guidance. It is one of the things that was heavily criticised by the judge who conducted the inquiry into the Met's handling of the "Nick" allegations. After consulting widely, including talking to complainants and victim support groups, he was adamant that the police should not take this approach, nor should they refer to the complainant as a victim. However, the police weren't happy about this recommendation and may have ignored it.

As I understand it they don't include any allegations that Pell was an abuser but they do relate to his knowledge of other allegations.

That's going to be interesting because if I recall correctly, Cardinal Pell was one of, if not the first, Australian Catholic Bishop to start taking allegations of child sexual abuse seriously. I believe he actually referred complainants to the police which is more than a lot of clerics did (and not just in Australia, failure to involve law enforcement was a worldwide problem).
I guess we'll find out eventually.

Yeah, because it's not like they have a history of covering up abuse or anything

Well quite, ocarinen

Yeah, because it's not like they have a history of covering up abuse or anything

That is not proof that Pell is guilty. I believe FishingPaws is correct that Pell was the first Australian Catholic bishop to take allegations of child sex abuse seriously. He established Australia's first independent commissioner to handle allegations made against the clergy. Which isn't to say he is above criticism but he was certainly better than his predecessor who destroyed records and moved paedophile priests from parish to parish.

There are some who seem happy to condemn Pell just because he is Catholic. That is not how criminal justice works, nor is it how we should work.

There are some who seem happy to condemn Pell just because he is Catholic.

This. Has the OP or any of the other people angry he's been acquitted actually at the evidence. Or have enough knowledge of how a cathedral works, to know why the alleged incidents couldn't have happened in the way the courts were told?

When Pell was first convicted, two very experienced Australian police officers I know said they thought the conviction was probably unsafe because of the timing element, which would prove to be the focus on appeal. They didn't think he couldn't have done it, he couldn't possibly bean abuser of children, but that the proofs given by his accuser would be open to challenge.

This article succinctly explains why the whole process of the trials has been dodgy. In brief, direct evidence by Pell's accuser has never been allowed to be reported, and the whole conduct of the trial was subject to suppression.

www.nytimes.com/2020/04/07/world/australia/cardinal-george-pell-acquittal.html

One quote nails it:

The central evidence — the testimony of the main accuser, on which the case “was wholly dependent,” the judges wrote — has never been released, not in video, audio nor even redacted transcripts.

A p*do couldn't reach the age Pell was at the time of the supposed incident without being very cautious. The incident though as described would have been incredibly reckless and would have been very risky for Pell. These creeps normally operate by careful grooming and psychological coercion. Plus the actual timing and location of the incident makes it very unlikely it could have even taken place at all.

I mean he couldn't have reached Pell's age then without being caught.

Well, no, nobody on this thread (unless they were one of the lawyers or the jurors or the judges) has seen all the evidence. Not one. But the jury did, and they found him guilty - and the judges did, and they overturned that guilty verdict.

George Pell has been accused of abuse by multiple men, not just the two in this specific case. He has used all the resources of the Catholic Church both to squash those complainants and to appeal the jury's finding to the High Court. He has money and influence that most people don't: most people cannot fund a team of QCs.

It's inaccurate to characterise Pell as having taking sexual abuse of children in the Catholic Church seriously. Pell did nothing at St Alipius. Pell did nothing about Gerard Ridsdale, who he shared a house with. Pell claims he didn't know; multiple victims have said he did. Pell moved Ridsdale around parishes and allowed him to keep abusing children. Pell walked Ridsdale to court the day he pled guilty. He stood by a child rapist. Pell said the stories of Ridsdale abusing children "wasn't of much interest to me". Pell vastly evidently could not care less about the victims of sexual abuse within the church. I look forward to the redactions in the royal commission's 2017 report being lifted.

On the Melbourne response program - which Pell set up. The report from the government's Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse is very clear. Look at how Emma and Katie Foster were treated by Pell and by the team he had set up to discourage victims from taking legal action.

I found the victim's comments, given after the High Court's decision was announced, the most illuminating. As he said, most people recognise the truth in this situation, whether or not the legal standard has been met.

The alleged victim who committed suicide had denied being abused

Just to correct myself (and some others on this thread), the alleged victim who denied being abused reportedly died of an accidental heroin overdose, not suicide.

I understand that Pell wouldn't have been able to get an acquittal, or even his conviction quashed if this had happened in the UK.

It's purely because in Australia an appeal court can say "actually the evidence wasn't good enough", ie, overturn the jury's verdict.

But I have to say that I also thought the evidence against him was pretty sketchy, ie, based on believing the alleged victim without much else.

As he said, most people recognise the truth in this situation, whether or not the legal standard has been met

The post from which this is taken contains a mixture of true statements, half truths and statements that are completely wrong. However, I'm not going to pull it to pieces here as that would make this post far too long.

CoupeCourte clearly believes that Pell is guilty. It is certainly the case that his accuser (and I note that CoupeCourte repeats the fiction that there were two accusers in this case) appears to be very credible despite the fact that he changed his story when it became apparent that his original version was physically impossible. However, to believe Pell is guilty you have to believe:

• that the other boy named by Pell's accuser as a victim was lying when he denied being abused

• that none of those in the procession behind the two robed boys noticed them leaving the procession and going back into the cathedral when they weren't supposed to, nor did anyone take any action to stop them

• that Pell abandoned or cut short his normal practice of greeting members of the congregation as they left the cathedral for 10-20 minutes

• that, contrary to canon law and long-standing church practice, Pell was left alone whilst still in his ceremonial vestments despite witnesses saying this never happened

• that the priests' sacristy was unlocked and empty when the boys entered it, and no-one else entered the sacristy apart from Pell for 5-6 minutes after the boys entered, contrary to evidence that the sacristy was always a hive of activity during the brief period it was unlocked

No, the legal standard has not been met. But there is improbability piled upon improbability in this case. I cannot completely rule out the possibility that Pell is guilty but it seems highly unlikely. Given the evidence it is far more likely that either his accuser is lying or his accuser has identified the wrong person as his abuser.

It may seem unlikely that an abuse victim would identify the wrong abuser but it does happen. I know of a case where a boy accused a teacher at his school of abuse. The claims were investigated and proven to be false. The boy then accused another teacher. When that claim proved to be false another teacher was accused. It eventually turned out that the boy was being abused by his older brother. Unable to admit that, even to himself, the boy had managed to convince himself that it was the teachers he accused.

Pell did nothing at St Alipius.

Are you referring here to the allegation that he heard a boy being raped and did nothing? He wasn't in Australia when that allegedly happened (as his passport showed).

Pell did nothing about Gerard Ridsdale, who he shared a house with.

A lot of people live with paedophiles and don't know what they're up to! As far as I'm aware Pell testified that senior ranking figures had known and done nothing, but I haven't seen any suggestion that he was one of them (The Bishop of Ballarat at the time and also his predecessor in Melbourne, Archbishop Little had both known about allegations against various clergy). There was something hinky alleged later (by Ridsdale's nephew iirc), but Ridsdale was already under police investigation at the time and there was no suggestion of Pell interfering with that process.

Pell moved Ridsdale around parishes and allowed him to keep abusing children.

Pell didn't have the authority to move Ridsdale anywhere, he was never the Bishop of Ballerat. Ronald Mulkearns was the Bishop during most of Ridsdlale's period of offending (I don't know who came before him but I certainly wasn't Pell).

I suppose I shouldn't be but I am surprised that people are upset at his aquittal; however you feel about the man, whether or not you believe his accusers, I presume that you still think that as a free society we should enjoy full and complete legal process?

His conviction on the testimony of one accuser, which the appeal court judge noted was highly inconsistent, in combination with an array of (seemingly reasonable) evidence that he didn't have the opportunity, seems that meeting the demands of beyond reasonable doubt had never been reached. Simply because I hold it extremely important that we do not deny people their liberty except in conditions where we are beyond reasonable doubt of their guilt, was it good that his conviction was quashed.

As a matter of justice, he should never have been convicted. If you think #webelievevictims is more important than a high evidenciary threshold for imprisoning people then God help you if you ever find yourself on the foul end of a criminal prosecution.

His conviction on the testimony of one accuser, which the appeal court judge noted was highly inconsistent

The public does not what that evidence was, as it has not been released.

The public does not what that evidence was, as it has not been released

They aren't going to release anything that will identify the complainant, so the recording of his evidence won't be release, quite rightly. However, his evidence is described in the judgement to which I link above. There is a lot more of his evidence in the judgement of the Victoria Supreme Court which can be found at www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VSCA2019/186.html. The dissenting judgement by Weinberg JA (paragraph 353 onwards of the Supreme Court judgement) shows the inconsistencies and discrepancies Weinberg identified along with some answers Weinberg said made no sense.

As Weinberg said, the jury were invited to accept the complainant's evidence despite the fact there was no independent support for it. In the current climate juries are inclined to convict in cases relating to historical abuse even where the complainant's evidence is unsupported.

It should be noted that the jury which convicted Pell did not have the opportunity to see the complainant give evidence live in court or via video link. Instead they viewed a video recording of him giving evidence at the first trial (which resulted in a hung jury).

Just to add on the subject of evidence not being released, the evidence in criminal trials is not normally released to the public in the UK. I suspect the same is true in Australia. So there is nothing sinister about that.

@prh47bridge - I don't know how it works for other offences and regions but in Victoria, there is a specific law preventing the testimony of a rape complainant being released. This was put in place because it was decided that anonymity alone was insufficient protection again the trauma/shame/embarrassment/etc of testifying, it's an added layer of protection for survivors.

@FishingPaws - very sensible. So the complaints that the evidence hasn't been released are even more ridiculous.

My reference to St Alipius is Pell living there from 1973. It's true that not everybody who lives with rapists knows they are rapists, and that Pell denies he did, but as I said in my first post multiple victims have said Pell did know, and many others within the church also knew.

In terms of moving Ridsdale around: yes, he did. Pell was present at meetings of the College of Consultors - which advised Mulkearns on moving priests, specifically Ridsdale, around - between 1977 and 1982. This is well-documented in the minutes from the meetings as was revealed during the Royal Commission. Ridsdale was able to keep abusing children. William Melican, another consultor, has said that the consultors knew that Ridsdale was being moved because of his abuse of children.

It's theoretically possible, of course, that a man as well connected, ambitious and intelligent as Pell was completely blind to the systemic abuse of children within the institutions he worked. It's also much, much more likely based on the evidence that he did know.

To clear up the ambiguity which you have misinterpreted, @prh47bridge - I did not say there were two accusers in this recent case; I said he had been "accused of abuse by multiple men, not just the two in this specific case." There are two men who are alleged victims in this case, and that's what I was referring to - I never used the term accuser nor said there were two.

accused of abuse by multiple men, not just the two in this specific case.

Yes, that is the sentence. You presumably meant to say that Pell was accused of abuse OF multiple men, not just the two in this specific case. Your sentence as written clearly means he was accused by two men in this specific case, which is untrue.

It should be noted that none of the other accusations will be going to court. Many of them have been dismissed by the courts. Others have been withdrawn by the police or the prosecuting authorities. The presence of a number of allegations may make it more likely that an individual is an abuser but it is not proof, especially when dealing with a high profile individual. False allegations are made, either deliberately or because an abuse victim, not wanting to admit the true identity of their abuser to themselves, convinces themselves that the high profile individual was their abuser.

I cannot say definitively that Pell is not an abuser but right now there really isn't remotely enough evidence to say that he is. However, some of the other criticisms of his conduct over the years are justified.

Wow I’m shocked by a lot of these comments. In my main network discussing this (Catholic, Victorian, conservative) nobody and I mean nobody believes George Pell.

He is loathed by everyone I know (probably a third (?) of whom have met him). Moreso for his cruelty to CSA survivors than the various allegations against him personally.

The only people I’ve seen happy about this are right wing nutters (Bolt, Devine), pompous legal types and... mumsnet!?

To whomever said “he was the first to take CSA seriously” - you’ve got to be fucking joking! He got people with credible allegations to sign away all their rights for a pittance!!

He is everything Jesus despised.

Ps if anyone from St Kevin’s or Ballarat is reading this, I believe you. Everyone I know believes you. The whole thing sucks but don’t think you are not believed. You are.