• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Cardinal to be charged with sex offences...

Guilty!

A jury has found George Pell guilty of raping one choirboy and molesting another in the 1990s.
His victims were two 13-year-old boys on scholarships to the prestigious St Kevin’s College.

The pair “nicked off” after a Sunday solemn mass in late 1996 and were caught swigging sacramental wine in the priest’s sacristy by Pell, newly installed as Archbishop of Melbourne.

Pell scolded them, exposed his penis from beneath the ornate ceremonial robes, and molested them.
Click to expand...
Top defence barrister Robert Richter QC represented Pell in the trial, and during an earlier trial in which the jury was discharged after failing to reach a verdict.

Mr Richter failed to convince the latest jury that the cathedral’s processes were so seamless that two boys simply could not have “nicked off” unseen.

He argued the allegations were a “far-fetched fantasy“, that Pell was always accompanied after mass and that the cumbersome robes would have prevented him revealing his genitals.

“Only a madman would attempt to rape boys in the priest’s sacristy immediately after Sunday solemn mass,” he told the jury.
Click to expand...
https://thewest.com.au/news/court-j...McAygqnTXM-B1f8RnLdUCtcEPsSc7oPGmMmZwzZRNDlXE
 
Last edited:
Think it is already confirmed he is appealing and staunchly crying his innocence still.


Have fun in jail in the interim scumbag
 
The Catholic church is the most successful criminal organization that ever existed.

Wealthy beyond imagination, untouchable, and been around for a long long time. Oh and mostly legal, bada boom bada bing! I don't think it's funny though, it disgusts me.
 
And he's off to jail.

George Pell remanded in custody after bail revoked at court hearing for child sex offences

Cardinal George Pell has had his bail revoked in the County Court in Melbourne, meaning tonight he will spend his first night behind bars.

A jury found him guilty of sexually abusing two choirboys when he was archbishop of Melbourne in the late 1990s.

Pell will be sentenced on March 13.

"Goodbye you creep," a woman called out as Pell walked from the dock and into custody accompanied by corrections officers.
Click to expand...
 
I wasn't following this case and obviously wasn't paying attention during the trial, but this conviction seems highly dubious.

It's pretty much a "he said, he said" case, where the jury has to believe the person saying "he did it" over the person saying "I didn't do it", and there's pretty much no other evidence (unless, of course, there is loads of evidence that isn't mentioned in the news report).

The appeal will be interesting.
 
Matthew Best said:
I wasn't following this case and obviously wasn't paying attention during the trial, but this conviction seems highly dubious.

It's pretty much a "he said, he said" case, where the jury has to believe the person saying "he did it" over the person saying "I didn't do it", and there's pretty much no other evidence (unless, of course, there is loads of evidence that isn't mentioned in the news report).

The appeal will be interesting.
Click to expand...

Dubious? ******* dubious? Do you understand the ordeal of the abused boy? Do you think all he did was turn up in court and say “he did it”? Nobody goes through this process, where every statement by the victim is belittled, without great damage. Did you bother to look up reports where the best Pell’s lawyers can argue is that this is merely “vanilla” sexual assault? Did you not notice that Pell is not even seeking remand?

Pell had other charges against him, which is why the conviction in December was suppressed. This action was withdrawn after the more substantive conviction. I have spoken to witnesses of this assault in the pool. He would almost certainly been convicted, but the DPP decided Pell was going to do serious time anyway, much to the disgust of the victims of these offences.

This case is as clear cut as sexual assault cases are.

I expect better of you Matthew.
 
lionking said:
Dubious? ******* dubious? Do you understand the ordeal of the abused boy? Do you think all he did was turn up in court and say “he did it”? Nobody goes through this process, where every statement by the victim is belittled, without great damage. Did you bother to look up reports where the best Pell’s lawyers can argue is that this is merely “vanilla” sexual assault? Did you not notice that Pell is not even seeking remand?

Pell had other charges against him, which is why the conviction in December was suppressed. This action was withdrawn after the more substantive conviction. I have spoken to witnesses of this assault in the pool. He would almost certainly been convicted, but the DPP decided Pell was going to do serious time anyway, much to the disgust of the victims of these offences.

This case is as clear cut as sexual assault cases are.

I expect better of you Matthew.
Click to expand...

OK, you seem to be begging the question with most of this, which is fair enough as he's been found guilty. But it's not really addressing what I wrote.
 
Matthew Best said:
I wasn't following this case and obviously wasn't paying attention during the trial, but this conviction seems highly dubious.

It's pretty much a "he said, he said" case, where the jury has to believe the person saying "he did it" over the person saying "I didn't do it", and there's pretty much no other evidence (unless, of course, there is loads of evidence that isn't mentioned in the news report).

The appeal will be interesting.
Click to expand...
Pell had one of the best barristers in the business. The cross examination would have been thorough and expert. Apparently the jury thought that his account held up.
 
lionking said:
This case is as clear cut as sexual assault cases are.

I expect better of you Matthew.
Click to expand...


Really? Better than looking at the article, reporting it accurately as having only the hearsay in it asking if there was other evidence and not stating a firm conclusion at all - in light of the doubt.

That's how it's supposed to work, even in the face of the weird things that happen to people's brains where molestation of children is concerned.


He was being s skeptic. You're being a little hysterical. All he wanted was a sight of more evidence - which you state exists in abundance, but still don't supply.


I'm in a bad mood today. Sorry.
 
The case against the case against Cardinal Pell

"In Cardinal Pell’s first trial, held under the media-suppression order, the defense dismantled the prosecution’s case while shedding light on the inadequacy of the police investigative process; that trial resulted in a hung jury, which voted 10–2 for acquittal. The foreman and several other members of the jury were in tears when the verdict was read.

"During the retrial, the defense demonstrated that, in order to sustain the charge that Pell had accosted and sexually abused two choirboys after Mass one Sunday, ten improbable things would have had to have happened and all within ten minutes..." National Review

On the one hand, the account provided by the National Review seems a bit slanted in the Cardinal's favor. On the other hand, there appear to be some implausibilities in the case of which I was unaware prior to reading this article. I will sit on the fence for a while longer, thank you very much.
 
Last edited:
Chris_Halkides said:
I will sit on the fence for a while longer, thank you very much.
Click to expand...

That's where I am staying for the time being. There's an appeal still to come for one thing.

It's a problematic case where the only real evidence (as far as I can tell though I am obviously willing to be educated) was the testimony of the victim, which no-one in the media or public was allowed to hear. Obviously the jury heard it, and they are the ones who found him guilty, but I am left wondering what it was exactly that overcame the burden of proof for them.

So, lionking, I am not saying this was a miscarriage of justice, or that Pell is innocent, just that I am not sure enough of his guilt to start virtue signalling by calling him a scumbag, or suggesting that the mere fact that the victim testified at all means that he must be telling the truth, as you seem to be saying.
 
Here's a balanced and impartial article in the guardian that tries to explain why he was convicted: https://www.theguardian.com/austral...rt-for-months-forbidden-from-reporting-a-word

Based on that and from other statements I have a pretty hard time seeing how this is "as clear cut as sexual assault cases are". I'm not certain whether I'd find him guilty unless the witness testimony (which was held behind closed doors) was really convincing and Pell's defense was obviously faulty.

The combination of a compelling witness and Gibson’s measured approach made the offences seem not “improbable” and “impossible” as Richter claimed, but real and painful.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Did people miss my point that there were two victims? This alone makes the case against Pell far more convincing.
 
still on the fence

lionking said:
Did people miss my point that there were two victims? This alone makes the case against Pell far more convincing.
Click to expand...
"Before the trial, one of the complainants died, having told his mother that he had never been assaulted." From the National Review link upthread. What evidence is there that he was assaulted?

Here is one of the ten "implausible" things mentioned by the National Review author, "The abused choirboys then entered the choir room, through two locked doors, without anyone noticing, and participated in a post-Mass rehearsal; no one asked why they had been missing for ten minutes."
 
Last edited:
mgidm86 said:
What are Historical Sex Charges? What exactly did he do? The long article makes no mention of the acts he is being accused of. Do I want to know?

"Funny" how the problem is common enough that we assume it is a child when a priest is involved, yet nobody does anything to stop it.
Click to expand...

According to this blogger
https://tessera2009.blogspot.com/2010/03/sexual-abuse-of-women-in-church.html

There is some abuse of adult men but a 2008 survey in America found that 96% of the victims were female.

Abuse falls into two categories, congregants and nuns.
Click to expand...
She also posts other links to show that sexual abuse of adult women within church is a far larger problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom