A massive Aussie injustice, or not?

I never thought to see the day when I would go out to defend a Roman Catholic Cardinal!  Well, actually, I am not exactly defending Cardinal Spell, the Australian priest who has just been convicted of 'kiddie-fiddling' by an Australian court.  On hearing the news, and against a background of countless accusations against the RC church hierarchy, I shrugged and thought, oh well, another one bites the dust!

But today, I read an article at The National Review by George Weigel (and no, me neither but he has the honesty to admit being a close friend of the Cardinal) which raises some enormous questions over the Australian justice system.  I will not attempt to summarise the article, sufficient to point out that under the first trial there was a prohibition on all media commentary - eh? What? Why?  This trial failed to convict because of a hung jury, which voted 10–2 for acquittal.

So the State opted for a second trial which was open to full media commentary.  This resulted in a jury vote of 12-0 for conviction.

 . . . the second trial jury returned a verdict of 12–0 for conviction. Observers at the trial told me that the trial judge seemed surprised on hearing the verdict. The verdict and the finding of the first, hung jury suggest that, in the media circus surrounding Pell, a fair jury trial was virtually impossible. That point was recently conceded by the attorney general of the State of Victoria, who suggested that the law might be amended to permit bench trials by a judge alone in such cases — an option not afforded George Pell.

Needless to say, I have absolutely no idea of whether the Cardinal was guilty or not guilty but based on Mr. Weigel's article I suspect 'there is something rotten in the state of Victoria'!

 

 

Comments

[Bob]

Neither Weigel nor the NR can be considered an unbiased source, and the case is described differently elsewhere. High profile trials are sometimes kept from the press in America too. The effect of publicity is undeniable. Pell will also be investigated by The Church's Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith. Case closed if he's defrocked.

Protestants have also joined in:

https://apnews.com/b768d035ed8443ad97d193a5c36e240c

Molesters often pose as, or are, other authority figures such as law enforcers or politicians. Nothing new there.

[Whitewall]

I have no idea about this man's guilt or innocence. The RCC is eaten up with this sort of thing and it isn't new. Homosexual predators and other types of abusers nearly doomed the priesthood from the beginning. In any era, all candidates for the priesthood are drawn from the culture at large.

[AussieD]

I live in the State of Victoria and have been following the trial. I am Jewish and would like to think unbiased and analytical in looking at this case.

Pell was convicted in respect to a sexual act in the Sacristy of the RC Cathedral here in Melbourne. In summary the main points are;

This act is alleged to have occurred immediately after a morning Mass at which Pell officiated.

He was wearing all the vestments of his position which included robes which do not open in the front and one of which is tied tight around him. He is supposed to have opened the front of the vestments which is on evidence not possible.

He has supposedly left the processional out of the Cathedral without being immediately followed by a priest who is, as I gather, in the position of ADC to Pell.

The offence is alleged to have taken place in the Vestry which was open to the cathedral and subject to constant traffic.

One of the alleged victims is dead but told his mother prior to his death that nothing happened as alleged.

The surviving alleged victim's evidence is full of holes in respect to verifiable evidence.

The jury however found the case proved which I find surprising given the quality of the Crown case.

The decision is being appealed to the Supreme Court.

Kiddie-fiddlers are particularly vile creatures and deserve everything the law allows but from following the case I would find it difficult to find Pell guilty as charged.

We shall see what the decision of the Justices of our Appellate Division of the Supreme Court is.

[David Duff]

Thanks, AussieD, and I would be grateful if you could pass on any further news of this case.

[Tony from Adelaide]

I am an Australian person of no religious beliefs. Pell has been a target for the LGBT+ community for many years. The case is so full of holes even lawyers who are notably anti Catholic are expressing surprise that he was found guilty. Both the other cases against him collapsed.
I seriously hope he wins the appeal.

[Hank]

David

An article with a little more background. The author is something of a lefty, however he is respected left and right for reporting actual facts not what he want to be true.

https://cruxnow.com/news-analysis/2019/02/27/vatican-contrast-on-pell-mccarrick-driven-by-doubt-about-guilt/

[David Duff]

Thanks, Hank, an interesting article.

[Bob]

Fox News, Rupert Murdoch's righty outfit, reports:

"Cardinal George Pell – once Pope Francis’ top financial advisor and the Vatican’s economy minister – was unanimously found guilty by a 12-member jury in the Victoria state County Court on Dec. 11 after more than two days of deliberation. He was accused of sexually abusing the two choirboys in the sacristy of a cathedral and weeks later indecently assaulting one of the choirboys in a cathedral corridor."

https://www.foxnews.com/world/once-powerful-cardinal-convicted-of-molesting-2-boys-faces-up-to-50-years-in-prison

It's not impossible they were wrong, but "...unanimously found guilty by a 12-member jury" is clear. Whatever the defense came up with was not persuasive.

[Glesga]

Maybe it was mistaken identity as he would have been to their rear. Those bishops all look the same with their mitres!