Scrutable

Cardinal Pell has been freed on his second attempt to have his conviction overturned. I'm anxiously waiting to hear an update from The Reckoning podcast by Guardian Australia on his case.

I do not like thee

card'nal Fell
The reason why - I cannot tell
But this I know and know full well
I do not like you card'nal Fell

The judgement can be found here: http://eresources.hcourt.gov.au/showCase/2020/HCA/12

Ah, the rich person's legal ratchet. Spend enough money on enough lawyers and enough appeals, and eventually, through the Crazification Factor and the laws of probability, you'll find someone who will side with you. Remember, you only have to win once, your victims have to win every time.

Sciolus wrote: Tue Apr 07, 2020 6:57 pm Ah, the rich person's legal ratchet. Spend enough money on enough lawyers and enough appeals, and eventually, through the Crazification Factor and the laws of probability, you'll find someone who will side with you. Remember, you only have to win once, your victims have to win every time.

That's an excellent - if highly depressing - way of putting it.

Having looked at the verdict I think there is something different, though also depressing going on.

It’s a unanimous verdict by seven judges. They found that there is reasonable doubt rather than that Pell is innocent.

As far as I can tell, they point to other witnesses who stated that the alleged sexual assault couldn’t have happened because Pell wasn’t alone with the accuser. However, those witnesses testified about what happened in general 24 years ago, not on the specific day that the assault is claimed to have happened. I wouldn’t attach so much importance to them as I’d assume that a victim of sexual assault would be much more likely to remember exactly what happened whereas if Pell’s routine were slightly different that day it would probably be forgotten over the past 24 years.

The outcome of the verdict will be that it will be far harder in Australia to get a prosecution for historic sexual crimes (unless there is evidence other than the testimony of the accuser). Given the unanimous decision I suspect this is the judges’ intended outcome.

Woodchopper wrote: Tue Apr 07, 2020 7:59 pm Having looked at the verdict I think there is something different, though also depressing going on.

It’s a unanimous verdict by seven judges. They found that there is reasonable doubt rather than that Pell is innocent.

As far as I can tell, they point to other witnesses who stated that the alleged sexual assault couldn’t have happened because Pell wasn’t alone with the accuser. However, those witnesses testified about what happened in general 24 years ago, not on the specific day that the assault is claimed to have happened. I wouldn’t attach so much importance to them as I’d assume that a victim of sexual assault would be much more likely to remember exactly what happened whereas if Pell’s routine were slightly different that day it would probably be forgotten over the past 24 years.

The outcome of the verdict will be that it will be far harder in Australia to get a prosecution for historic sexual crimes (unless there is evidence other than the testimony of the accuser). Given the unanimous decision I suspect this is the judges’ intended outcome.

There were similar accusations against him as well from earlier.

jimbob wrote: Tue Apr 07, 2020 8:14 pm

Woodchopper wrote: Tue Apr 07, 2020 7:59 pm Having looked at the verdict I think there is something different, though also depressing going on.

It’s a unanimous verdict by seven judges. They found that there is reasonable doubt rather than that Pell is innocent.

As far as I can tell, they point to other witnesses who stated that the alleged sexual assault couldn’t have happened because Pell wasn’t alone with the accuser. However, those witnesses testified about what happened in general 24 years ago, not on the specific day that the assault is claimed to have happened. I wouldn’t attach so much importance to them as I’d assume that a victim of sexual assault would be much more likely to remember exactly what happened whereas if Pell’s routine were slightly different that day it would probably be forgotten over the past 24 years.

The outcome of the verdict will be that it will be far harder in Australia to get a prosecution for historic sexual crimes (unless there is evidence other than the testimony of the accuser). Given the unanimous decision I suspect this is the judges’ intended outcome.

There were similar accusations against him as well from earlier.

This case is only about Pell as a sexual predator on two (I think) victims. There were other victims who did not want to be part of this case (or any case) because they knew the way sexual abuse victims are treated in the courts. At least one of these victims has said he may come forward, so Pell may have to go through this again, although how he can get a jury of 12 who haven't formed an opinion of him, I don't know.

There is also the potential for Pell to be brought up on charges that as Archbishop of both Melbourne and Sydney he was involved with moving priests around to cover up sexual assaults; he set up what was known as the 'Melbourne Response', which became the Australian church's official policy, in which victims were encouraged to come forward (to the church) and they would receive a payment of up to $50,000 (effectively as hush money) but no significant counselling, while the priests responsible were moved on and their crimes not reported to the authorities. There were at least 340 cases of this, since the scheme was set up in the late 1990s.

Martin_B wrote: Tue Apr 07, 2020 11:17 pm There were at least 340 cases of this, since the scheme was set up in the late 1990s.

<double take> That's some industrial-scale sweeping under the carpet.

Martin Y wrote: Wed Apr 08, 2020 9:50 am

Martin_B wrote: Tue Apr 07, 2020 11:17 pm There were at least 340 cases of this, since the scheme was set up in the late 1990s.

<double take> That's some industrial-scale sweeping under the carpet.

That is what Pell inflicted on the young children who were abused by Gerald Risdale and dozens of other paedophile priests. He has consistently lied about what he knew and how bad child abuse was within the Catholic Church and used his position within the church to protect paedophiles within the church. Whether he was a paedophile, I am unsure, but he did as much damage as any of the paedophiles did.

Chris Preston wrote: Wed Apr 08, 2020 10:10 am

Martin Y wrote: Wed Apr 08, 2020 9:50 am

Martin_B wrote: Tue Apr 07, 2020 11:17 pm There were at least 340 cases of this, since the scheme was set up in the late 1990s.

<double take> That's some industrial-scale sweeping under the carpet.

That is what Pell inflicted on the young children who were abused by Gerald Risdale and dozens of other paedophile priests. He has consistently lied about what he knew and how bad child abuse was within the Catholic Church and used his position within the church to protect paedophiles within the church. Whether he was a paedophile, I am unsure, but he did as much damage as any of the paedophiles did.

340 is the number from the Catholic Church's own overseer of the compensation scheme. I've no idea if there are any cases of abuse which didn't get notified to the church (you'd think there probably would be a few), so God knows what the actual figure is. (Due to Catholic teachings, she's probably the only one who does!)

George Pell died yesterday. I wonder what that means for the civil case against him that was still running.

May he rot in hell if there is one. I know someone whose life was severely f.cked because of Pell's actions.

jaap wrote: Wed Jan 11, 2023 10:50 am George Pell died yesterday. I wonder what that means for the civil case against him that was still running.

Continues against his estate, according to the BBC.

Sciolus wrote: Wed Jan 11, 2023 10:18 pm

jaap wrote: Wed Jan 11, 2023 10:50 am George Pell died yesterday. I wonder what that means for the civil case against him that was still running.

Continues against his estate, according to the BBC.

How does he have an estate? Or is the vow of poverty optional?

Fishnut wrote: Wed Jan 11, 2023 11:18 pm

Sciolus wrote: Wed Jan 11, 2023 10:18 pm

jaap wrote: Wed Jan 11, 2023 10:50 am George Pell died yesterday. I wonder what that means for the civil case against him that was still running.

Continues against his estate, according to the BBC.

How does he have an estate? Or is the vow of poverty optional?

The case continues with the Australian Catholic Church as the defendant (I believe)

Fishnut wrote: Wed Jan 11, 2023 11:18 pm

Sciolus wrote: Wed Jan 11, 2023 10:18 pm

jaap wrote: Wed Jan 11, 2023 10:50 am George Pell died yesterday. I wonder what that means for the civil case against him that was still running.

Continues against his estate, according to the BBC.

How does he have an estate? Or is the vow of poverty optional?

Most priests don't take a vow of poverty. Some orders of priests do*, Franciscans, for example.


*ETA: possibly all, I don't know. But most priests aren't in an order.

Martin_B wrote: Wed Jan 11, 2023 11:56 pm

Fishnut wrote: Wed Jan 11, 2023 11:18 pm

Sciolus wrote: Wed Jan 11, 2023 10:18 pm
Continues against his estate, according to the BBC.

How does he have an estate? Or is the vow of poverty optional?

The case continues with the Australian Catholic Church as the defendant (I believe)

Yes, this states that:

Shine Lawyers chief legal officer Lisa Flynn said in a statement on Wednesday the claim would continue against the church and whatever estate Cardinal Pell had left behind.