George Pell sexual abuse trials and fresh investigation

[K]

[David]

[Pies4shaw]

I don't understand, at all, why anyone in their right mind would think that having 12 rag-tag people trying charges is more likely to lead to a biased outcome than having 1 judge do so.

[HAL]

Interesting gossip.

[David]

I don't understand, at all, why anyone in their right mind would think that having 12 rag-tag people trying charges is more likely to lead to a biased outcome than having 1 judge do so.

Yeah, one does wonder whether the acquittals in the two cases Barns mentioned were actually good decisions! I wonder if judges are likely to rule more conservatively, for better or for worse?

[K]

What about 3 or 4 judges? Or 12 judges? (Ignore practicalities.) Maybe it's just the numbers that help cancel out the biases.

[David]

I think there's definitely something more democratic in theory about a jury (i.e. they are just ordinary citizens from all walks of life), and we need to not get too caught up in elitism and remember that judges, too, may suffer from their own biases and limitations. I think it's clear that our justice system has a lot of components that are frustratingly imperfect, so I guess the only question is whether it's actually possible to improve upon them or whether, like democracy, this is the best worst system available.

[K]

[stui magpie]

There's some good points in that Article David, at least I think so.

The fact that 4 states already have provision for judge only trials in specific circumstances is a good one, and Victoria should introduce similar legislation IMO.

I also like the idea of background checks on Jurors as in the US system, so you can weed out poeple who have demonstrated clear bias one way or the other. The prosecution and defence already have the right to remove anyone they want to from the jury without question, but IMO it should be more transparent with factual evidence to work from, such as social media accounts.

[Pies4shaw]

[Pies4shaw]

Here's the SBS article on the same story, noting that:

'Arnold Thomas & Becker lawyer Lee Flanagan said they hoped to include the evidence of three other men who were complainants in the so-called "swimmer's trial" against Pell.'

Two alleged Pell abused them at Ballarat's Eureka Swimming Pool around the same time, while the third alleged the abuse happened at Lake Boga. Pell denied all these claims of abuse, and this trial was ultimately withdrawn due to lack of admissible evidence.

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/cardinal-ge ... n-ballarat

So everyone is not totally perplexed, the fact that the evidence is inadmissible in a criminal matter (causing the criminal trial to collapse) does not mean it will be excluded from a civil trial (and, moreover, it probably won't be excluded).

[K]

Is this person connected to the aborted second case, or is this something completely separate?

[Posts crossed. ... Why did the second trial collapse? Details are scarce.]

[Jezza]

^ The second trial related to allegations that Pell molested boys at a swimming pool, but the trial was dropped due to a "lack of admissible evidence".

[K]

In The Age's article, it sounds related:

"A man who claims he was sexually abused by George Pell in a Ballarat swimming pool in the 1970s is suing the senior cleric and Catholic Church for damages.

The alleged victim, who was due to give evidence in the cardinal's now cancelled second trial, is seeking damages for psychiatric injury, loss of wages and medical expenses.
...

The Age understands, however, the alleged victim is not Lyndon Monument, who was among the first to come forward with allegations he had been sexually abused by Pell..."


https://www.theage.com.au/national/vict ... 511kp.html


But the SBS article quoted by P4S above talks about "three other men"...

[K]

The second trial ... was dropped due to a "lack of admissible evidence".

I wonder what made it inadmissible.