Ongoing religious scandals

smacl

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Richter tried to argue there were “no aggravating circumstances” to one of the offences. It was “no more than a plain vanilla sexual penetration case where the child is not actively participating,” he told the court.

Holy fork. If that's plain vanilla one has to wonder what raspberry ripple entails.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

I wonder are they? As I said earlier, it all depends on the jury, and who happens to be in it. And it seems the appeal will have something to say about that.
Did you attend any part of the trial yourself Peregrinus?

No, I didn't.

When I say that the jury are better-positioned than I am to make a judgment, I don't mean that their personal qualities make them especially fitted for the job. I mean that they heard all the evidence, and have considered it for longer and in more detail than I have. I only have a couple of second hand reports that run to a few paragraphs. Clearly they have much more and much better information than I have; therefore they are better equipped than I am to make a judgment about Pell's guilt or innocence.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

You could say the same about the trial which failed to reach a verdict - the composition of the jury could have made all the difference. Depending on the rules, two (or possibly even one) catholic extremists on the jury and it's impossible to convict regardless of the evidence.

Well, yeah. Or a juror could be biased in the other direction; there's plenty of animus against the Catholic church out there. But I think the risk of bias is inherent in the jury system. You just have to hope that it gets diluted among twelve jurors.

But, based on the newspaper accounts of the evidence, you don't have to look to bias (in either direction) to account for the first jury being a hung jury, and the second jury taking a long time to reach a verdict. As I've said already, the prosecution case here was pretty borderline, in terms of its strength and depth. They had a single witness, whose story was cleary wrong in certain respects, and no corroboration on any point of substance. They'll have thought long and hard about whether to mount this prosecution at all. This isn't a case they would ever have been confident of winning, and not because of any anticipated bias among jurors.

Which doesn't mean that the verdict will be easily overturned. It may have been even money as to whether a jury would be persuaded of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, but once they have been persuaded their view will not be lightly overturned by an appeal court. Pell will appeal because he has nothing to lose by it, and because his appeal has perhaps a better chance than most of succeeding. But very few criminal appeals succeed, so "a better chance than most" is still not an especially good chance.

recedite

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

If this is the best his defence team could come up with....
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/feb/27/cardinal-pell-will-go-straight-to-jail-as-bail-application-is-withdrawn

I think that was after the lawyer realised there would be a guilty verdict.

Notwithstanding that the "plea bargaining" we see in the movies is an American thing, I think we can all understand a situation in which a lawyer says terrible things about their client, apparently for the client's own good and in order to get a reduced sentence.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

When I say that the jury are better-positioned than I am to make a judgment, I don't mean that their personal qualities make them especially fitted for the job. I mean that they heard all the evidence, and have considered it for longer and in more detail than I have.

Point taken, however actual hard evidence for the alleged crime seems to have been entirely absent. It was just personal testimony and circumstantial evidence. And it seems the jury were not allowed to see some "evidence" such as the video of the church layout.



Sometimes a judge directs a jury to return a "not guilty" verdict due to a lack of evidence, or some other "point of law".


There are various things to consider in the appeal, as well as whatever beef the defence team thinks they have on one or other of the jury members.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

Point taken, however actual hard evidence for the alleged crime seems to have been entirely absent. It was just personal testimony and circumstantial evidence.

Personal testimony is evidence - the best kind, in fact. But it's generally desirable to have evidence from one than one witness, and corroborative evidence froms secondary sources of at least some of the prosecution case. All this was lacking here.

recedite wrote: »

And it seems the jury were not allowed to see some "evidence" such as the video of the church layout.

That's not evidence (and wasn't offered as evidence). It was a visual aid to illustrate counsel's arguments. Visual aids aren't generally permitted in the courts in Victoria.

recedite wrote: »

There are various things to consider in the appeal, as well as whatever beef the defence team thinks they have on one or other of the jury members.

To my mind, based purely on what I've read, the strongest ground of appeal is going to be the most straightforward one; the thinness of the prosecution case. The defence will argue that the case was so thin that no jury, rightly directed and rightly applying the onus of proof, could reasonably conclude that the case was proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

But we'll see. It'll probably be some months before an appeal comes on.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

I think that was after the lawyer realised there would be a guilty verdict.

Notwithstanding that the "plea bargaining" we see in the movies is an American thing, I think we can all understand a situation in which a lawyer says terrible things about their client, apparently for the client's own good and in order to get a reduced sentence.

It was after there was a guilty verdict. It was during a plea in mitigation of sentence.

It was, ahem, ill-judged, as the barrister concerned has since acknowledged. It certainly didn't help Pell.

gctest50

Peregrinus wrote: »

...........

It was, ahem, ill-judged, as the barrister concerned has since acknowledged. It certainly didn't help Pell.

Some say the Lord works in mysterious ways

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

To my mind, based purely on what I've read, the strongest ground of appeal is going to be the most straightforward one; the thinness of the prosecution case. The defence will argue that the case was so thin that no jury, rightly directed and rightly applying the onus of proof, could reasonably conclude that the case was proven beyond all reasonable doubt.
But we'll see. It'll probably be some months before an appeal comes on.

I agree.
And even though you evaded saying whether you think Pell did it or not... in fairness I wouldn't try to call it either.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

It was after there was a guilty verdict. It was during a plea in mitigation of sentence.

It was, ahem, ill-judged, as the barrister concerned has since acknowledged. It certainly didn't help Pell.

The guy is just used to operating in a specialised legal environment. His legal brain is focused on the technicalities of the case, and comes out with stuff that can be misinterpreted.


I notice he still hasn't apologised for wearing those joke Harry Potter glasses in court.

ohnonotgmail

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

If this is the best his defence team could come up with....
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/feb/27/cardinal-pell-will-go-straight-to-jail-as-bail-application-is-withdrawn

Maybe something can explain something to me. I perhaps have not been following this case as closely as others. His lawyer admitted in mitigation that he had penetrative sex with a 13 year old. If he is admitting that he had penetrative sex with somebody under 16 what exactly was his defence?

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

Personal testimony is evidence - the best kind, in fact. But it's generally desirable to have evidence from one than one witness, and corroborative evidence froms secondary sources of at least some of the prosecution case. All this was lacking here.

From my understanding there was also written testimony from the second abuse victim who has since died of a heroin overdose. So not a witness that can be cross examined, but evidence from a second source nonetheless.

smacl

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Maybe something can explain something to me. I perhaps have not been following this case as closely as others. His lawyer admitted in mitigation that he had penetrative sex with a 13 year old. If he is admitting that he had penetrative sex with somebody under 16 what exactly was his defence?

Penetrative sex where the child did not willingly take part at that. So it seems as Pell's lawyer has tacitly admitted to rape of a minor there, as opposed to statutory rape. Pretty bizarre, all things considered.

Hotblack Desiato

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Maybe something can explain something to me. I perhaps have not been following this case as closely as others. His lawyer admitted in mitigation that he had penetrative sex with a 13 year old. If he is admitting that he had penetrative sex with somebody under 16 what exactly was his defence?

It was a plea of mitigation at the sentencing stage, where his client's guilt is taken as read i.e. the defence stops arguing he didn't do it, but that he's not a bad guy really and the things he did weren't so bad ...

4068ac1elhodqr

"no more than a plain vanilla sexual penetration case"

https://www.rte.ie/news/world/2019/0228/1033432-george-pell-robert-richter/

The only time can imagine using the phrase 'plain vanilla' is when ordering an ice-cream,
you'd really think the Vactican folks could afford better lawyers than Robert Richter.

recedite

I believe the term refers to harmless brown envelopes.
Mind you, "brown envelope sexual penetration" doesn't sound much better.
I'll leave it to the lawyers.

smacl

Xzavier Loud Steam wrote: »

you'd really think the Vactican folks could afford better lawyers than Robert Richter.

No doubt they could, but they didn't appoint Robert Richter and would probably suggest they had no part in funding Pell's defense.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

I agree.
And even though you evaded saying whether you think Pell did it or not... in fairness I wouldn't try to call it either.

I didn't mean to evade anything. As Teresa May would say, let me be clear:

- I think Pell did it.

- I have explained why I think Pell did it - mainly, that I am relying on information from, and judgments made by, other people.

- I think my reliance on these things is rational and justified in a way that rejecting or dismissing them would not be.

- I acknowledge that I could nevertheless be wrong in thinking that Pell did it.

Peregrinus

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Maybe something can explain something to me. I perhaps have not been following this case as closely as others. His lawyer admitted in mitigation that he had penetrative sex with a 13 year old. If he is admitting that he had penetrative sex with somebody under 16 what exactly was his defence?

No. This is a bit technical. The position is:

1. Pell has been convicted. He now has to be sentenced. Before he is sentenced, he is entitled to make submissions about what sentence is appropriate.

2. Pell maintains his innocence, and will appeal.

3. The problem is that the sentencing phase happens before the appeal phase. And this presents Pell with a dilemma. The sentencing will alway proceed on the basis that the conviction is correct. (Because the conviction stands unless and until its reversed on appeal; the sentencing judge must treat the jury's verdict as correct. It is irrelevant that Pell is appealing it.) If a convict simply asserts his innocence in the sentencing phase, that is to his disadvantage, since it indicates that he is unrepentant, in denial, hasn't faced up to his offending, etc., all of which are factors that would tend to increase the sentence. Plus, it might prevent him from raising other points that might be relevant to sentencing (I was affected by mental illness, I was seduced, I believed him to be over 16, whatever.)

4. Convicts need to be able to maintain their innocence, and to appeal their convictions, and it would be unfair and oppressive to punish them for doing so.

5. So the convention has been established that at the sentencing phase you can start out by saying "My client maintains his innocence and will be appealing on that basis. But, noting that and putting it to one side, I have submissions to make on what would be the appropriate sentence for this crime if, in fact, the conviction were correct. In making those submissions I do not concede that the conviction is correct, but that's a question for another court on another day." And you then go ahead and make your submissions on a basis that presumes the correctness of they jury's verdict. And it's accepted that, in doing so, you're not conceding the correctness of the verdict.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

From my understanding there was also written testimony from the second abuse victim who has since died of a heroin overdose. So not a witness that can be cross examined, but evidence from a second source nonetheless.

I may be mistaken about this, but there was evidence that the second victim, when asked, denied that the abuse ever took place.

If that's so then, yes, there was hearsay evidence from the second victim, but it wasn't evidence which supported the prosecution case.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

I may be mistaken about this, but there was evidence that the second victim, when asked, denied that the abuse ever took place.

If that's so then, yes, there was hearsay evidence from the second victim, but it wasn't evidence which supported the prosecution case.

Seems right, searching around, I haven't seen any direct evidence from the second victim, though there was a lengthy article in the Guardian on it yesterday and it is also apparently the subject of a now award winning book.

Also an interesting article on a possible retrial in the conversation here. Like yourself, I'd tend to go with the jury on this one and would wonder what a retrial could achieve? Cynically, I'd expect it to take place and be a political football, i.e. with the legal system on one side keen to uphold the verdict and use a retrial to illustrate that they got it right in the first instance, and the church faithful on the other trying to clean a rather unpleasant stain on their character. I suspect if Pell got a retry and was acquitted it would potentially do far more damage to the church than if a retrial never happened.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

Seems right, searching around, I haven't seen any direct evidence from the second victim, though there was a lengthy article in the Guardian on it yesterday and it is also apparently the subject of a now award winning book.

Also an interesting article on a possible retrial in the conversation here. Like yourself, I'd tend to go with the jury on this one and would wonder what a retrial could achieve? Cynically, I'd expect it to take place and be a political football, i.e. with the legal system on one side keen to uphold the verdict and use a retrial to illustrate that they got it right in the first instance, and the church faithful on the other trying to clean a rather unpleasant stain on their character. I suspect if Pell got a retry and was acquitted it would potentially do far more damage to the church than if a retrial never happened.

As far as I can see, the main ground for appeal is going to be "the prosecution's case was simply not strong enough". If the appeal succeeds on that ground, the charges will be dismissed; there will be no retrial. The prosecution doesn't get to try again and again until they get it right.

However, if the appeal succeeds on other grounds - defence evidence was wrongly excluded, the judge misdirected the jury, etc - then the conviction is reversed, Pell is released on bail and the prosecution can run another trial to see if, in a properly-run trial withouth whatever error has been identified, Pell can be convicted.

But they might well choose not to run another trial, and simply to drop the charges. They've already run two trials on these charges; to have a third trial on the same set of charges would be most unusual. And they only succeeded in this trial by the skin of their teeth; in another trial, with some error prejudicing the defence corrected, presumably it would a bit more difficult to get a conviction, and that might tip the balance to acquittal. And, of course, the supression orders having been lifted and the coverage of both these charges and the swimming pool charges having been extensive and somewhat sensational, there'd be an issue about whether Pell could now get a fair trial. If the prosecution did opt to go again, his legal team's first move would be a court application for a ruling that a fair trial was not going to be possible.

So all those factors militate against him being tried again.

As against that, there'd be strong political and public interest arguments for saying that he should be tried again, if only because a final resolution of such charges is highly desirable and because, y'know, this isn't just an isolated case; it's a senior church figure accused of child sex offences at a time when institutional church complicity in, or at least studied inadvertance of, child sex offences is a matter of major public concern.

All in all, I think the odds are against him succeeding in a appeal but, if he does succeed, I think the odds are against him facing a third trial. But I wouldn't be staking large amounts of money on either of those predictions.

ohnonotgmail

Peregrinus wrote: »

No. This is a bit technical. The position is:

1. Pell has been convicted. He now has to be sentenced. Before he is sentenced, he is entitled to make submissions about what sentence is appropriate.

2. Pell maintains his innocence, and will appeal.

3. The problem is that the sentencing phase happens before the appeal phase. And this presents Pell with a dilemma. The sentencing will alway proceed on the basis that the conviction is correct. (Because the conviction stands unless and until its reversed on appeal; the sentencing judge must treat the jury's verdict as correct. It is irrelevant that Pell is appealing it.) If a convict simply asserts his innocence in the sentencing phase, that is to his disadvantage, since it indicates that he is unrepentant, in denial, hasn't faced up to his offending, etc., all of which are factors that would tend to increase the sentence. Plus, it might prevent him from raising other points that might be relevant to sentencing (I was affected by mental illness, I was seduced, I believed him to be over 16, whatever.)

4. Convicts need to be able to maintain their innocence, and to appeal their convictions, and it would be unfair and oppressive to punish them for doing so.

5. So the convention has been established that at the sentencing phase you can start out by saying "My client maintains his innocence and will be appealing on that basis. But, noting that and putting it to one side, I have submissions to make on what would be the appropriate sentence for this crime if, in fact, the conviction were correct. In making those submissions I do not concede that the conviction is correct, but that's a question for another court on another day." And you then go ahead and make your submissions on a basis that presumes the correctness of they jury's verdict. And it's accepted that, in doing so, you're not conceding the correctness of the verdict.

Thank you for the excellent explanation

SaifUllah

Xzavier Loud Steam wrote: »

The only time can imagine using the phrase 'plain vanilla' is when ordering an ice-cream,
you'd really think the Vactican folks could afford better lawyers than Robert Richter.

There will be never ending scandals with the catholic church - a disgusting organisation through and through.
They should be just banned from society

4068ac1elhodqr

SaifUllah wrote: »

There will be never ending scandals with the catholic church - a disgusting organisation through and through.
They should be just banned from society

Kinda, but you can say the same for many other cults, from the Scouts to Scientology, Masons and so on. Many religions are much worse (FGM isn't exactly pretty, nor wholesome is it now).

The bigger picture could perhaps well be that the RCC at it's core is well meaning, but has been infultrated for centuries by it's arch enemy. In recent decades the level has become more of a infestation.

It needs more than a couple of band-aids at this stage. It needs a full detailed exposed examination, clean outs, and constant monitoring if it is ever to recover.

Hotblack Desiato

Xzavier Loud Steam wrote: »

Kinda, but you can say the same for many other cults, from the Scouts to Scientology, Masons and so on. Many religions are much worse (FGM isn't exactly pretty, nor wholesome is it now).

I don't know of any religion which mandates female genital mutilation, but I know of two major ones which mandate male genital mutilation...

The bigger picture could perhaps well be that the RCC at it's core is well meaning, but has been infultrated for centuries by it's arch enemy. In recent decades the level has become more of a infestation.

Oh yeah, blame it all on communists or Satan :rolleyes:

Or maybe, just maybe, some people are nasty bastards and see that joining an organisation which had practically unlimited power and placed the protection of the organisation above literally everything else, would be a really good move if they wanted to have access to loads of kids to abuse with impunity.

Meanwhile, many other nasty bastards put the progression of their career and 'avoiding scandal' as their priority and were prepared to overlook and/or cover up the abuse of children to further their own ends.

It needs more than a couple of band-aids at this stage. It needs a full detailed exposed examination, clean outs, and constant monitoring if it is ever to recover.

All of the current hierarchy are tainted, right up to Francis. They knew bad things were happening and at best said nothing, at worst covered up or took part themselves. They are all complicit. Any person of morals and integrity would have left long ago.

smacl

Xzavier Loud Steam wrote: »

The bigger picture could perhaps well be that the RCC at it's core is well meaning, but has been infultrated for centuries by it's arch enemy. In recent decades the level has become more of a infestation.

Recent decades? Maybe read up a bit on the crusades, the massacre of the Cathars (i.e. Catholics slaughtering other Christians for minor differences in beliefs), the inquisition etc.... Abuse of power by the RCC has been going on for rather more than a couple of decades, some would suggest since its inception. Catholicism has a long history of violently suppressing any would be competition.

4068ac1elhodqr

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I don't know of any religion which mandates female genital mutilation, but I know of two major ones which mandate male genital mutilation...

Only know of one other, again also an un-natural and unpleasent activity.

'Mandate' is a bit strong, encouragement and expectancy however is realistic. Just take a look at the uk, hundreds of thousands of cases.

Also circumcision whilst unfotunate, can hardly be held in the same regard, or classification of severity as 'mutilation' of the female genitals can it? It rarely results in severe mental trauma or physical hospitalisation for a start.

FGM is outlawed* in Ireland, yet it happens. Alot.
(*Female Genital Mutilation) Act 2012.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

All of the current hierarchy are tainted, right up to Francis.

Are you saying every single person in the RCC, so generalise much?
Surely there must be at least one or two good souls out there.

Tacklebox

smacl wrote: »

Recent decades? Maybe read up a bit on the crusades, the massacre of the Cathars (i.e. Catholics slaughtering other Christians for minor differences in beliefs), the inquisition etc.... Abuse of power by the RCC has been going on for rather more than a couple of decades, some would suggest since its inception. Catholicism has a long history of violently suppressing any would be competition.

Paganism is on the rise in some areas.
They practically wiped out paganism, supposedly we were snakes.

I recon they had something to do with all that ancient literature which was mysteriously burnt in some building years ago.

Supposedly there was records of the past which we'll never know about, all gone up in flames.

Hotblack Desiato

Xzavier Loud Steam wrote: »

Only know of one other, again also an un-natural and unpleasent activity.

Islam and Judaism, you should know that.

Also circumcision whilst unfotunate, can hardly be held in the same regard, or classification of severity as 'mutilation' of the female genitals can it? It rarely results in severe mental trauma or physical hospitalisation for a start.

It's still loss of sensile tissue without consent and diminishes sexual pleasure.
In rare cases it leads to loss of the penis. In not quite as rare cases, a herpetic mohel has caused life-threatening infection. There is no justification for it save a book of fairytales from thousands of years ago. It is barbaric to cut any part of a child off without medical necessity.

Are you saying every single person in the RCC, so generalise much?
Surely there must be at least one or two good souls out there.

If I wanted to say "every single person in the RCC" then that is what I would have written.
I wrote "hierarchy" i.e. from bishops upwards.

4068ac1elhodqr

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I wrote "hierarchy" i.e. from bishops upwards.
Are the congregation not part of the church?

Fine, all Biships and upwards, a ban though isn't that a bit dramatic, certainly they all need to go under a lie detection machine, that would be more practical.

Worringly, you still seem to be holding circumcision (while unpleasent) in the same ballpark as FGM.

One's illegal for a start, and truely horrendous, the other I agree just stupid, but hardly evokes PTSD.

The worrying thing about FGM is that it's illegal in Ireland, but it still occurs and no ones ever been charged for it afaik, even after presenting at A&E.

Take a look at England, back in 2016 - more than 9,000 attendances to the NHS involved the identification or treatment of female genital mutilation. There are other regional/localised reports of the doubling of cases 17-18.

So the RCC has issues, clearly. But so too have many if not all cults, equal or worse.