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.

@Scott72 There is no evidence that suggests he is innocent of this crime.

There is no evidence that suggests he is innocent of this crime

What you mean is that you want to disregard the evidence that he is not guilty. There is ample evidence that there simply was no opportunity for the offence to have happened as described by the complainant. Neither I nor anyone else can rule out the possibility that Pell committed this offence completely but the evidence in this case falls a long way short of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Other church members said sometimes there were several minutes before he would appear after the service

So why didn't the prosecution call them as witnesses instead of accepting the evidence of those witnesses who said that he always left the procession as it passed through the west door and remained on the steps to greet members of the congregation? If there were such witnesses the prosecution should have called them. The fact they didn't suggests there were no such witnesses, especially since part of the prosecution's case was to argue that maybe there were some occasions where he didn't leave the procession at the west door and stay there for 10-20 minutes. Due to the lack of any supporting witnesses, this was an unsupported assertion by the prosecution. Those church members and others that did give evidence were clear that Pell always behaved as described. They regarded that as a refreshing change from his predecessor.

The victim who committed suicide and denied he was abused, is extremely common

I pointed out in my first post on this thread that his denial that he was abused does not prove he wasn't. However, his denial certainly isn't evidence that he was. Like it or not, the fact that he denied being abused is a factor that damages the credibility of the complainant.

Pell is infamous for NOT reporting cases, and for hiding priests like Risdale

That is alleged but there is no proof that he knew about Ridsdale and I know that some of these allegations have been discredited, e.g. the person who claimed to have told Pell about abuse at a time when Pell wasn't in the country. Having said that, he himself has admitted that, in the 1970s/80s he would have believed a priest who denied allegations. That is not good but, unfortunately, it was common at the time, not just in the Catholic church, which is why people like Jimmy Saville were able to get away with offending for so long. You are determined to rule out the possibility that his attitude may have changed.

Just to repeat, it may be that Pell was guilty but, on the evidence in this case, he should never have been convicted. The evidence that was presented in court does not prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

TomPinch said above that Pell could not have been acquitted here but I’m not sure that’s right. If an appellate court considers that the conviction by the jury was perverse in the light of the evidence of other witnesses that the attacks could not have happened as described, they could overturn the verdict.

And of course, the question of whether or not this conviction was safe does not settle the wider question of whether Pell was himself an abuser or covered up abuse by others-no one on this thread is arguing otherwise.

If an appellate court considers that the conviction by the jury was perverse in the light of the evidence of other witnesses that the attacks could not have happened as described, they could overturn the verdict

The court would be considering whether the judge should have put the case to the jury. If, as the court in this case ruled, there was no evidence on which the accused could be safely convicted, a judge in the UK should direct the jury to acquit.

And of course, the question of whether or not this conviction was safe does not settle the wider question of whether Pell was himself an abuser or covered up abuse by others

Agreed. And whether or not he covered up abuse by others is irrelevant to this case. This case is about one thing and one thing only - whether it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that Pell abused the complainant. The response TealWater reports Pell giving to an unidentified parent is irrelevant to this case even if it is true.

Grown men do not lie about these things, believe me

Yes they do. That is akin to the argument that women never lie about rape, which is also provably untrue. People may not lie about sexual offences as often as some people claim but they do sometimes. And, even if they aren't deliberately lying, it may still not be true. Sometimes an abuse victim will convince themselves that their abuser is a high profile individual or an authority figure with whom they have contact because they don't want to admit, even to themselves, the true identity of their abuser. I mentioned one such case earlier on this thread.

@TealWater my heart goes out to you. I’m so sorry that happened to your Dad 💔 And to so many others. I believe the vast majority of Catholics (and everyone else) believes and supports survivors like your Dad.

Try not to let the odd dissenter get you down. I don’t think they mean to sound coldly callous to survivors (I think their interest is confined to the legal specifics of this case, and the human suffering is irrelevant).

Its horrifying how badly the church has handled sexual abuse. Up to and including the “let’s pay victims a pittance in exchange for legally compelling their silence and agreement not to sue!” of the Melbourne response.

I’m glad “J” was able to reject that poisoned chalice for his day in court. It was not in vain and I hope he knows that.

My son and thousands of other children are safer today, because of the courage of men like your Dad and “J”, who were able to disclose what happened to them.

I believe them, support them and thank them 🌸

Well... it’s not like he’s busy performing church services at the moment... He should be busy saving face by pretending to be a humble human being and going and helping feed homeless vulnerable (ADULT!) people or something valuable instead of hiding his guilty self away in a castle somewhere. Bastard.

As I've said the charge is very hard to believe. Not least because even if Pell was a pervert why would such a smart, calculating man act so incredibly recklessly? This got me thinking that if the accuser is lying, why make such a hard to believe accusation?

The answer would be because that was the only time and location he could think of that could conceivably pass cross examination. If this was the most plausible scenario he could think up, then he and his friend must have barely known Pell.

Because that was part of the thrill.

Because he had gotten away with it before.

Because as a smart calculating man, he knew exactly how powerless those boys were in that moment.

Because no one would believe them.

I agree that if you were going to “make up” an accusation, you would go with a more plausible scenario. You would say you snuck into an empty church, and that’s when it happened. That would be much easier to prosecute.

So why didn’t J say that then?

Because he just told the truth.

That is my view. You are free to believe otherwise - I’m not here to change anyone’s mind.

I’m here so that J (and by extension others) know they are believed. So they know one random Catholic, who read all the judgements, believes J and agrees with the jury.

Some late responses here but, thank you @FlockofGulls.. and I agree. perhaps the Catholic Church in the UK has not been abusive (which is a good thing!)

Thanks @Teana89, you are very kind

@prh47bridge you are entitled to your views but some of your comments to Teal are out of line. We are not in court nor here in any legal capacity. People are free to reject your analysis - as they are mine.

some of your comments to Teal are out of line

Really? What have I said that is out of line?

People are free to reject your analysis - as they are mine

I have never said otherwise. If anyone wants to ignore or disbelieve the evidence that there was no opportunity for the crime to have been committed as described they are entitled to do so. However, given that this evidence was not challenged by the prosecution, the courts should not ignore it.

He should be busy saving face by pretending to be a humble human being and going and helping feed homeless vulnerable (ADULT!) people or something valuable instead of hiding his guilty self away in a castle somewhere. Bastard.

He's 78 and has heart problems, CV-19 would almost certainly kill him. Unless he's moved, he's staying at a Carmelite Monastery (Carmelite subscribe to a life of poverty, charity and obedience, not luxury) - he may well be once again offering Mass, at least in private.

@2BthatUnnoticed - we've had our share of abusive priests in the UK, we've also had our share of cover-ups. I don't think there's any part of the Catholic Church which has not been impacted by these crimes. The allegations against Cardinal Pell and the horrific cover-up in Pennsylvania were just the two that got the most coverage, Pell because of his status and Pennsylvania because of its sheer scale.

I think it's the wrong decision for the right reasons. Based in the evidence at trial it's hard to say that Pell is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

That said, I thinm he's a rapist who protected other rapists and I was happy he was in prison.

As I've said the charge is very hard to believe. Not least because even if Pell was a pervert why would such a smart, calculating man act so incredibly recklessly? This got me thinking that if the accuser is lying, why make such a hard to believe accusation?

Intelligent people can present themselves in any way they choose. Rapists aren't just drooling knuckle draggers.

There is no evidence that suggests he is innocent of this crime

You have misunderstood the difference between 'not guilty' and 'innocent'. If he could be convicted on the balance of probability he'd still be in prison. The prosecution didn't have enough evidence to provide certainty, and it was only based on this allegation, not on his other suspicious histories

If he could be convicted on the balance of probability he'd still be in prison.

The burden of proof in criminal court is 'beyond reasonable doubt', 'balance of probabilities' is the standard in civil court - although I tend to agree that the evidence didn't even meet the lower standard.