George Pell sexual abuse trials and fresh investigation
Moderator: bbmods
-
stui magpie
- Posts: 54850
- Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 10:10 am
- Location: In flagrante delicto
- Has liked: 134 times
- Been liked: 169 times
In a situation where you have one persons word against another with zero evidence to support either case, you may make a decision on which one you believe but I don't understand how you could decide that beyond reasonable doubt
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down.
-
Wokko
- Posts: 8764
- Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 12:04 pm
Appears to be a gross miscarriage of justice under the legal system but probably a morally just punishment. He's obviously covered up for and facilitated pedo priests for decades but ultimately that isn't what he was being charged with.
I think he's suffered from the very common legal problem of being an unlikeable dick and having to front a jury, even if he didn't testify (which was to hide what an insufferable tosser he is).
I think he's suffered from the very common legal problem of being an unlikeable dick and having to front a jury, even if he didn't testify (which was to hide what an insufferable tosser he is).
-
stui magpie
- Posts: 54850
- Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 10:10 am
- Location: In flagrante delicto
- Has liked: 134 times
- Been liked: 169 times
-
Woods Of Ypres
- Posts: 3141
- Joined: Tue May 27, 2003 3:29 pm
- Location: Yugoslavia
- Has liked: 2 times
- Been liked: 7 times
-
Woods Of Ypres
- Posts: 3141
- Joined: Tue May 27, 2003 3:29 pm
- Location: Yugoslavia
- Has liked: 2 times
- Been liked: 7 times
-
stui magpie
- Posts: 54850
- Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 10:10 am
- Location: In flagrante delicto
- Has liked: 134 times
- Been liked: 169 times
Summary of reasons for the decision.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kvCpgI ... yYo_c/view
I got it from the Herald Sun so don't know if it's protected.
The appeal centred on the 1st ground of appeal, that essentially the jury could not make the decision that there was no reasonable doubt. 2 of the 3 Judges rejected that.
Much of the analysis centred on Opportunity. In criminal investigations, the holy trinity is Means, Opportunity, Motive. It seems 2 of the 3 rejected that there was not reasonable doubt on the matter of opportunity, believing whether or not he actually did it came down then to whether you believed the evidence of the complainant since Pell never testified in his own defence.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kvCpgI ... yYo_c/view
I got it from the Herald Sun so don't know if it's protected.
The appeal centred on the 1st ground of appeal, that essentially the jury could not make the decision that there was no reasonable doubt. 2 of the 3 Judges rejected that.
Much of the analysis centred on Opportunity. In criminal investigations, the holy trinity is Means, Opportunity, Motive. It seems 2 of the 3 rejected that there was not reasonable doubt on the matter of opportunity, believing whether or not he actually did it came down then to whether you believed the evidence of the complainant since Pell never testified in his own defence.
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down.
It doesn't appear to be behind a paywall but, in case it finds its way behind one, here's the link to the summary as published on the Court's website: https://www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au/sit ... _web_0.pdf
In any event, why not read the reasons for judgment? It isn't complex (although it is very long) and it deals with all the question you really want answered about, eg, the role of juries and why a jury verdict should be preferred, in the ordinary course of events, to the opinion of 3 judges: https://www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au/sit ... _web_2.pdf
In case the Supreme Court link to the reasons is unavailable, here's the Austlii link:
http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/view ... 9/186.html
In any event, why not read the reasons for judgment? It isn't complex (although it is very long) and it deals with all the question you really want answered about, eg, the role of juries and why a jury verdict should be preferred, in the ordinary course of events, to the opinion of 3 judges: https://www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au/sit ... _web_2.pdf
In case the Supreme Court link to the reasons is unavailable, here's the Austlii link:
http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/view ... 9/186.html
-
David
- Posts: 50690
- Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 4:04 pm
- Location: the edge of the deep green sea
- Has liked: 20 times
- Been liked: 84 times
I was watching ABC 24, but it seems the court livestream they were broadcasting was having lots of technical difficulties (lagging, glitches, etc.). Still, heard the key bits; it was pretty brief and to the point.
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange
Why Justice Mark Weinberg believed George Pell should go free
https://www.theage.com.au/national/vict ... 52jaj.html
'Justice Weinberg ... said there was a body of evidence that made it "impossible to accept" the victim's account.
"From ... the complainant’s evidence, it can be seen that there was ample material upon which his account could be legitimately subject to criticism. There were inconsistencies, and discrepancies, and a number of his answers simply made no sense," Justice Weinberg wrote in his judgment released on Wednesday.
"An unusual feature of this case was that it depended entirely upon the complainant being accepted, beyond reasonable doubt, as a credible and reliable witness. Yet the jury were invited to accept his evidence without there being any independent support for it."
After assessing the evidence presented at Pell's County Court trial last year, Justice Weinberg said he would have quashed the cardinal's five convictions for child sex offences.
But he was in the minority.
...
Of the 325-page judgement delivered by the Court of Appeal, Justice Weinberg's reasons accounted for 200 pages.
"I am troubled by the fact that I find myself constrained to differ from two of my colleagues whose opinions I always respect greatly," he wrote.
"That has caused me to reflect even more carefully upon the proper outcome of this application. Having done so, however, I cannot, in good conscience, do other than to maintain my dissent." '
https://www.theage.com.au/national/vict ... 52jaj.html
'Justice Weinberg ... said there was a body of evidence that made it "impossible to accept" the victim's account.
"From ... the complainant’s evidence, it can be seen that there was ample material upon which his account could be legitimately subject to criticism. There were inconsistencies, and discrepancies, and a number of his answers simply made no sense," Justice Weinberg wrote in his judgment released on Wednesday.
"An unusual feature of this case was that it depended entirely upon the complainant being accepted, beyond reasonable doubt, as a credible and reliable witness. Yet the jury were invited to accept his evidence without there being any independent support for it."
After assessing the evidence presented at Pell's County Court trial last year, Justice Weinberg said he would have quashed the cardinal's five convictions for child sex offences.
But he was in the minority.
...
Of the 325-page judgement delivered by the Court of Appeal, Justice Weinberg's reasons accounted for 200 pages.
"I am troubled by the fact that I find myself constrained to differ from two of my colleagues whose opinions I always respect greatly," he wrote.
"That has caused me to reflect even more carefully upon the proper outcome of this application. Having done so, however, I cannot, in good conscience, do other than to maintain my dissent." '
-
think positive
- Posts: 40243
- Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 8:33 pm
- Location: somewhere
- Has liked: 342 times
- Been liked: 105 times