Ongoing religious scandals

Hotblack Desiato

It's like there's a "veil" of silence.

But, as I've said before, if the gen pop has six degrees of separation the Irish priesthood has two.

There was always a handful of seminaries, there was always "Of course, I knew Fr X who was in seminary Y at the same time as Fr Z who went on to server with Fr A in parish B"

If any of them were suddenly moved on, they all knew, even if they were stupid/naive/in denial enough to not know why, but they knew something odd was happening

Once that happens more than once to Fr Feely (and more than once it often did) you didn't have to be Fr Columbo to figure out that something was very wrong.

But they have a code of omerta the other Italian Mafia can only dream about.

Odhinn

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It's like there's a "veil" of silence.

But, as I've said before, if the gen pop has six degrees of separation the Irish priesthood has two.

There was always a handful of seminaries, there was always "Of course, I knew Fr X who was in seminary Y at the same time as Fr Z who went on to server with Fr A in parish B"

If any of them were suddenly moved on, they all knew, even if they were stupid/naive/in denial enough to not know why, but they knew something odd was happening

Once that happens more than once to Fr Feely (and more than once it often did) you didn't have to be Fr Columbo to figure out that something was very wrong.

But they have a code of omerta the other Italian Mafia can only dream about.

It's grim reading

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/tony-walsh-more-jail-time-for-a-most-notorious-child-abuser-1.2727186


https://www.thejournal.ie/defrocked-priest-tony-walsh-abused-hundreds-of-children-59338-Dec2010/


In general loyalty goes to the order, senior members of that order, friends/lovers within the order, etc, with you/me and the rest way down the list. There's a strict culture of obedience and protocols that make questioning or reporting a senior figure an unthinkable prospect. On the other hand there's no such hang ups with regards to undermining victims and stifling queries from outside the church.

Odhinn

Chapter 19 of the Murphy report. Walsh is referred to as "Jovito" through out.

http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Further portions.pdf/Files/Further portions.pdf

robindch

Odhinn wrote: »

There's a strict culture of obedience and protocols that make questioning or reporting a senior figure an unthinkable prospect.

In so many ways, the church's culture of silence and non-co-operation mirrors that of Omerta from another well-known brotherly, Italian international organization.

Hotblack Desiato

Well, on the plus side at least we don't have wise guys from Order A "whacking" wise guys from Order B.

Happy fun-day-between-solstice-and-new-year everybody

robindch

Oops, another Vatican insider looks like he might be taking early retirement in a secure location:

https://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/vatican-argentine-bishop-at-holy-see-under-investigation-37680831.html

4068ac1elhodqr

Two communication honchos left also on Jan 1st. Or are removed (one or the other), by the head of comms.

The Vatican spokesman, Greg Burke, and his deputy resigned abruptly Monday amid an overhaul of the Vatican’s communications operations.
http://time.com/5491196/vatican-spokesman-resign-pope-francis-greg-burke/

robindch

Given the unreliability of Indian media and Indian government behaviour, the reports below may be inaccurate or they may report accurate outcomes, but based upon inaccurate government information.

Nonetheless, it's being reported that some of the children's homes belonging to the Missionaries of Charity (Mother Teresa's places), plus others, are to be shut down by the Indian government following allegations that they've been involved in the sale of babies.

https://missionariesofcharity.wordpress.com/2019/01/21/mother-teresas-orphanage-and-others-to-be-shut-down-by-indian-government/
http://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2019/jan/20/license-of-nirmal-hriday-15-other-shelter-homes-canceled-in-jharkhand-1927407.html

Odhinn

Significant, I think.


"ROME — The Vatican on Saturday said it had defrocked ex-cardinal Theodore McCarrick, leveling a historic penalty against a onetime church power broker and former archbishop of Washington after the church found him guilty of sexual abuse.
It is the most significant abuse-related punishment given to a former cardinal in the modern history of the Roman Catholic Church."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/ex-cardinal-mccarrick-defrocked-by-vatican-for-sexual-abuse/2019/02/16/0aa365d4-2e2c-11e9-8ad3-9a5b113ecd3c_story.html?utm_term=.38e70ee52d65

smacl

Odhinn wrote: »

Significant, I think.


"ROME — The Vatican on Saturday said it had defrocked ex-cardinal Theodore McCarrick, leveling a historic penalty against a onetime church power broker and former archbishop of Washington after the church found him guilty of sexual abuse.
It is the most significant abuse-related punishment given to a former cardinal in the modern history of the Roman Catholic Church."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/ex-cardinal-mccarrick-defrocked-by-vatican-for-sexual-abuse/2019/02/16/0aa365d4-2e2c-11e9-8ad3-9a5b113ecd3c_story.html?utm_term=.38e70ee52d65

I see the Pope's organizing a meeting of senior bishops to discuss this with growing concerns about the overall credibility of the Catholic church. As many of the commentators have suggested, it seems too little, too late.

Seth Brundle

smacl wrote: »

I see the Pope's organizing a meeting of senior bishops to discuss this with growing concerns about the overall credibility of the Catholic church. As many of the commentators have suggested, it seems too little, too late.

What credibility?

smacl

Seth Brundle wrote: »

What credibility?

Whatever credibility is afforded them by the mainstream press and the Catholic majority in this country, which while eroded hugely in recent years is nonetheless substantial. If we're honest, the opinion of minority atheists such as ourselves on whether or not we find the Catholic church credible is given about as much heed as a fart in a hurricane.

Odhinn

Depressing and all too familiar -

LUJAN DE CUYO, Argentina — When investigators swept in and raided the religious Antonio Provolo Institute for the Deaf, they uncovered one of the worst cases yet among the global abuse scandals plaguing the Catholic Church: a place of silent torment where prosecutors say pedophiles preyed on the most isolated and submissive children.
The scope of the alleged abuse was vast. Charges are pending against 13 suspects; a 14th person pleaded guilty to sexual abuse, including rape, and was sentenced to 10 years in prison. The case of the accused ringleader — an octogenarian Italian priest named Nicola Corradi — is set to go before a judge next month.
Corradi was spiritual director of the school and had a decades-long career spanning two continents. And so his arrest in late 2016 raised an immediate question: Did the Catholic Church have any sense that he could be a danger to children?

The answer, according to a Washington Post investigation that included a review of court and church documents, private letters, and dozens of interviews in Argentina and Italy, is that church officials up to and including Pope Francis were warned repeatedly and directly about a group of alleged predators that included Corradi.
Yet they took no apparent action against him.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/the-pope-ignored-them-alleged-abuse-of-deaf-children-on-two-continents-points-to-vatican-failings/2019/02/18/07db1bdc-fd60-11e8-a17e-162b712e8fc2_story.html?utm_term=.7086059f55c9

Hotblack Desiato

Surprised this didn't seem to get a mention on this forum

Pope admits priests and bishops sexually abused nuns

Pope Francis has admitted that Catholic priests and bishops had sexually abused nuns in the latest scandal to rock the church.

"There are some priests and also bishops who have done it," the pontiff said in response to a journalist's question on the abuse of nuns, speaking on the return flight from his trip to the United Arab Emirates.

The papal admission followed a rare outcry last week from the Vatican's women's magazine over the sexual abuse of nuns, leaving them feeling forced to have abortions or raise children not recognised by their priest fathers.

The issue hit the headlines last year after a nun accused an Indian bishop of repeatedly raping her in a case that triggered rare dissent within the country's Catholic Church.

The irony of this bit :

He said it was a cultural problem, the roots of which lie in "seeing women as second class".

More:

The Irish woman who exposed abuse of nuns by priests 25 years ago

Catholic nuns have accused clerics of sexual abuse in recent years in India, Africa, Latin America and in Italy, and a Vatican magazine last week mentioned nuns having abortions or giving birth to the children of priests.

Indeed, 25 years ago an Irish nun prepared an extensive report for the Vatican on just such abuse of nuns internationally by priests. It was shelved.

As reported by colleague Joe Humphreys in his 2010 book God’s Entrepreneurs: How Irish Missionaries Tried to Change the World, Sr Maura O’Donoghue, a Medical Missionary of Mary from Kilfenora, in Co Clare, “conducted a groundbreaking inquiry (the findings of which were suppressed by the Vatican) into priests’ alleged sexual abuse of nuns in more than 20 countries.”

Sr O’Donoghue prepared her report in 1994 after spending six years as Aids co-ordinator for the London-based Catholic Fund for Overseas Development (CAFOD). She had spent over 45 years of her missionary life in Africa.

On February 18th, 1995, she briefed Cardinal Eduardo Martinez Somalo, then prefect of the Vatican’s congregation for the religious life, on its content.

In her report she linked the alleged sexual abuse of nuns in Africa to the Aids epidemic there, where it was considered the sisters were less likely to have the virus.

She quoted one religious superior who was approached by priests requesting that sisters be made available for sex. Refused, the priests said they would have to go to local women and could get Aids.

She referred to a 1988 incident in Malawi where leaders of a women’s congregation were dismissed by a bishop when they complained that 29 nuns had been made pregnant by diocesan priests, and reported another case where a priest took a nun for an abortion during which the sister died. He officiated at the nun’s requiem Mass.

Sexual abuse of nuns by priests was taking place in Botswana, Burundi, Colombia, Ghana, India, Ireland, Italy, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Nigeria, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, South Africa, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Tonga, Uganda, the United States, Zambia, Zaire and Zimbabwe, she said.

Peregrinus

Reporting restrictions on George Pell's conviction for indecent acts with, and sexual penetration of, a child have been lifted.

Pell will appeal, and from the report the prosecution case does seem to be a bit borderline, so this may not be the final chapter of this particular story. But it's big, nonetheless. He's undoubtedly the most senior cleric worldwide to have been convicted of such an offence.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

Reporting restrictions on George Pell's conviction for indecent acts with, and sexual penetration of, a child have been lifted.

Apparently on the basis that the prosecution won't be proceeding with further trials on the basis of this conviction.

"The suppression order was lifted today after prosecutors decided against proceeding with a planned second trial dealing with separate allegations against Cardinal Pell."

Pell will appeal, and from the report the prosecution case does seem to be a bit borderline, so this may not be the final chapter of this particular story. But it's big, nonetheless. He's undoubtedly the most senior cleric worldwide to have been convicted of such an offence.

I would suspect the Catholic church would rather he didn't appeal on the basis that prolonging this story does them no favours. For an appeal, the defense would also need to find new evidence which seems unlikely at this point, given the other boy who was assaulted subsequently died of a heroin overdose.

"Ultimately, it came down to whether the jury accepted Pell’s complainant beyond reasonable doubt.

After two-and-a-half days of watching and listening to his evidence, they did."

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

Apparently on the basis that the prosecution won't be proceeding with further trials on the basis of this conviction.

Nitpick: the decision not to proceed with the other trial was unrelated to this conviction. It was taken because evidence the prosecution intended to rely on in the other trial was ruled inadmissible, and the prosecution decided that without that evidence there was no hope of securing a conviction.

smacl wrote: »

I would suspect the Catholic church would rather he didn't appeal on the basis that prolonging this story does them no favours. For an appeal, the defense would also need to find new evidence which seems unlikely at this point, given the other boy who was assaulted subsequently died of a heroin overdose.

"Ultimately, it came down to whether the jury accepted Pell’s complainant beyond reasonable doubt.

After two-and-a-half days of watching and listening to his evidence, they did."

They don't need to find new evidence to win an appeal; just to persuade the appeal court that, on the evidence that the prosecution presented, Pell shouldn't have been convicted. And there would be two routes to that:

One is to argue that some of the evidence heard in this case was inadmissible and shouldn't have been put to the jury. I don't know if there's any prospect of such an argument being made in Pell's case or, if made, of it succeeding, but it's an argument commonly run in criminal appeals.

The other is to argue that, although all the evidence was properly admitted, it doesn't amount to a sufficient case to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and the jury acted unreasonably, or swayed by emotion, or whatever, in finding that it did. In general this is a difficult ground to succeed on, because the appeal court won't lightly set aside the finding of a jury. But there are a couple of factors in this case which are somewhat unusual:

- Pell has been convicted on the uncorroborated evidence of just one witness.

- There's a good deal of circumstantial evidence to suggest that the story told by that witness is, um, surprising in certain respects.

- A previous jury, faced with the same evidence, declined to convict Pell.

All-in-all, based on the newspaper reports, the prosecution evidence here is pretty much at the margin of what can be considered proof beyond reasonable doubt, so I think the defence would think that it's worth at least having a lash at an appeal. I take your point that it may only prolong the church's agony, but if George thinks he's innocent he may not be inclined to spend his declining years in prison in order to spare the church embarrassment. Plus, there's a definite upside for the church, as well as for George, if he is acquitted on appeal.

Finally, there's precedent. The former Archbishop of Adelaide was convicted and sentenced for failing to report child sex allegations to police, but had the conviction overturned on appeal a couple of months ago on the basis that the prosecution hadn't proven its case. If the church didn't ask, or couldn't persuade, Philip Wilson not to appeal, I don't see that happening with George Pell.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

Nitpick: the decision not to proceed with the other trial was unrelated to this conviction. It was taken because evidence the prosecution intended to rely on in the other trial was ruled inadmissible, and the prosecution decided that without that evidence there was no hope of securing a conviction.

The NYT article on this makes for some interesting reading

The second trial was to focus on allegations of child abuse dating to the 1970s, when he was a parish priest in his hometown, Ballarat, Australia.

A jury was expected to hear testimony from three complainants, who were children at the time of the alleged assaults.

One child accused the cardinal of touching his genitals on multiple occasions from 1978 to 1979, as they played in the local swimming pool.

Another said he had also been abused at the pool, between 1977 and 1979. He said the cardinal had touched his testicles as he was throwing him into the water.

A third complainant, whose allegations were not made part of a formal charge, said that in 1975 or 1976, he was playing in the water with Cardinal Pell at Lake Boga, about 200 miles from Melbourne.

At one point, he said, he slipped from the cardinal’s shoulders and was hit in the face with his erect penis. The cardinal smiled, the boy said.

“Don’t worry, it’s only natural,” he said, the boy recounted.

The verdict in the first trial was made subject to a suppression order that barred publication in Australia of any news related to the case.

Prosecutors preparing for the second trial had hoped to prove that his history of abuse proved that Cardinal Pell had a tendency toward molesting children.

Under Australian law, a judge may admit such only evidence if its evidentiary value outweighs the risk of prejudice to the defendant.

In this case, Judge Peter Kidd of County Court in Victoria ruled, it did not. The prosecution then decided to drop the new cases.

The sister of one of the complainants, who asked she not be named to protect her brother, said that while her family was disappointed at the collapse of the second trial, it was “overjoyed” that Cardinal Pell was found guilty in the earlier one.

She said she hoped that other people would be encouraged to come forward with their own stories of abuse.

“This has been David and Goliath type stuff,” she said.

With the gag order lifted, if there was a re-trial there'd be some fun and games trying to pick a neutral jury at this point.

Seth Brundle

Peregrinus wrote: »

Pell will appeal, and from the report the prosecution case does seem to be a bit borderline, so this may not be the final chapter of this particular story. But it's big, nonetheless. He's undoubtedly the most senior cleric worldwide to have been convicted of such an offence.

Who is paying Pell's legal costs?

smacl

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Who is paying Pell's legal costs?

Subject of some controversy apparently.

A series of mysterious adverts are encouraging supporters to donate to a “trust fund” to help Cardinal George Pell pay for a top legal team to fight the abuse allegations against him.

Bank details of the fund, run by a Melbourne-based solicitor, are included in the adverts which have appeared in Catholic newsletters, magazines and websites around the world.

Mystery still surrounds who sent the adverts – which all share similar wording – and whether they were part of a co-ordinated campaign.

One of the adverts posted on the website of the Catholic Diocese of Ballarat says the bank account details were “provided by Cardinal Pell’s staff at the Sydney Archdiocese”.

All of the adverts go on to say that funds can be deposited into a Bendigo Bank account run by Ferdinand Zito and Associates, a law firm with a small office next to a post office in suburban Melbourne.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

so I think the defence would think that it's worth at least having a lash at an appeal...

The recurring theme of Botany Bay; Rum, Sodomy and the Lash.
While we wait for the appeal, there's time for a Pogues video, courtesy of Youtube's Arsegunner...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLPGphHOE0Q

recedite

And the other boy who was assaulted had died of a heroin overdose.
The jury was simply told he had died in “accidental circumstances”.
That former choirboy never mentioned the incident and denied being sexually abused when he was asked point blank by his mother several years after the abuse occurred, the court was told.
So it fell to his friend to explain what happened to both of them in the room at the rear of the cathedral in December 1996.

Either Pell has caused monstrous harm, or he is the victim of a terrible miscarriage of justice. We may never know which.


The real issue here is the tardiness in dealing with these kind of allegations.
I blame the blind deference to authority which seems to have been a feature of previous generations. IMO, that in turn can be traced back to religious control of schools and education.


Another old guy (not a priest) was convicted recently in Ireland. Staff at Our Lady of Lourdes must have known what he was up to at the time, yet he has enjoyed a respectable retirement and a gilt edged pension for all these years. It seems pointless sending him to jail now. Yet the current generation is still obliged to clean up the mess left behind by previous generations.
Thankfully these same mistakes will never be made again.

Seth Brundle

recedite wrote: »

Thankfully these same mistakes will never be made again.

Really?

smacl

recedite wrote: »

I blame the blind deference to authority which seems to have been a feature of previous generations.

Anti-authoritarianism? How very liberal minded of you Rec

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

With the gag order lifted, if there was a re-trial there'd be some fun and games trying to pick a neutral jury at this point.

The gag order has been lifted only because there is at this point no possibility of a second trial. Had the second case proceeded, the gag order would have been lifted at the conclusion of the second case (regardless of the outcome).

Peregrinus

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Who is paying Pell's legal costs?

As smacl says, they seem to be privately funded. Pell has a considerable public profile in Australia and an (until now, at any rate) intensely loyal group of followers. (There's a probably larger group who dislike him intensely, but the ads aren't targetted at them.)

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

The gag order has been lifted only because there is at this point no possibility of a second trial. Had the second case proceeded, the gag order would have been lifted at the conclusion of the second case (regardless of the outcome).

My point was more that with broad awareness of other charges of sexual abuse taken against Pell, even though they haven't gone to trial, the probability of finding a jury that doesn't take them into consideration is rather remote. It is worth remembering that in the initial trial with the hung jury and the later trial where he was unanimously found guilty, this information wasn't in the public domain. The likelihood of being found not guilty by a third jury without any change to the material evidence seems remote even if he did get a retrial. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

recedite

smacl wrote: »

The likelihood of being found not guilty by a third jury without any change to the material evidence seems remote even if he did get a retrial. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

It all depends on the jury. A few years ago, the idea of convicting somebody when it was one person's word against another's would have been improbable.
Nowadays the victim narrative is almost as powerful as the authority figure of yesteryear. Few are willing to challenge it, and those who employ it find themselves pushing against an open door.

recedite

Andrew Bolt believes Cardinal George Pell is an innocent man who has been wrongly convicted.
Speaking on his Sky News show last night, the News Corp columnist said he had “serious misgivings” about Pell’s guilty verdict.

“I just can’t accept it, based on what I consider is the overwhelming evidence of this trial,” he said. “And I base that opinion also on how many times Pell has been accused of crimes and sins he clearly did not do.
“Pell could well be an innocent man who is being made to pay for the sins of his church and made to pay after an astonishing campaign of media vilification.”

Also rubbishes the other allegations against Pell, which were too flimsy to even be heard in a court.

ohnonotgmail

recedite wrote: »

Andrew Bolt believes Cardinal George Pell is an innocent man who has been wrongly convicted.
Speaking on his Sky News show last night, the News Corp columnist said he had “serious misgivings” about Pell’s guilty verdict.Also rubbishes the other allegations against Pell, which were too flimsy to even be heard in a court.

funnily enough, that is not quite how the judge described it.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

My point was more that with broad awareness of other charges of sexual abuse taken against Pell, even though they haven't gone to trial, the probability of finding a jury that doesn't take them into consideration is rather remote. It is worth remembering that in the initial trial with the hung jury and the later trial where he was unanimously found guilty, this information wasn't in the public domain. The likelihood of being found not guilty by a third jury without any change to the material evidence seems remote even if he did get a retrial. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

It has been reported all along that the charges against Pell were divided into two groups, and there would be the "cathedral trial" and the "swimming pool trial". So the jury in the cathedral trial will have known that he was facing other charges and, had the swimming pool trial proceeded, the jury in that trial would have known the same. What they wouldn't have known was the details of the charges, the evidence supporting or opposing them, etc.

I (and many others) have known for a couple of months now that Pell was convicted in the cathedral trial. Most likely the jury in the swimming pool trial, had it gone ahead, would have known about this too, and would have been instructed to bear in mind that it has no implications for the question of whetgher he is guilty of the swimming pool charges. But it's only since yesterday that I've been exposed to the six-page newspaper spreads and lengthy television programmes detailing the charges and the evidencein the cathedral trial and giving comments from involved parties and from the usual range of public opinionists, and all of that has certainly affected my view of the situation. I think if Pell were to face another trial and I was called as a juror I would have to say no, I couldn't be confident of taking a dispassionate view. I wouldn't necessarily have said that before yesterday.

So, yeah, I think you're correct. It would now be difficult for Pell to get a fair trial on any sex abuse charges and, therefore, very difficult to try him at all. But that just underlines the point; the reason the gag order was lifted is that no other trial is in prospect.

Peregrinus

He lies tonight in Melbourne Gaol.

(But possibly not for long.)

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

But it's only since yesterday that I've been exposed to the six-page newspaper spreads and lengthy television programmes detailing the charges and the evidencein the cathedral trial and giving comments from involved parties and from the usual range of public opinionists, and all of that has certainly affected my view of the situation.

So whats your opinion now?
Did Pell do it?

Seth Brundle

recedite wrote: »

So whats your opinion now?
Did Pell do it?

The court believed so.
His legal team dispute this.
Nothing to see here and all that!

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

So whats your opinion now?
Did Pell do it?

Well . . .

1. Never, ever exclude the possiblity of a wrongful/mistaken conviction. We know where that attitude can lead.

2. And as I said earlier I think the evidence in this case was pretty much on the borderline of what might convince a jurybeyond reasonable doubt.

3. But the jury that convicted him spend days hearing and considering the evidence. I've spent a few minutes reading about it, and reading the opinions of other people about it (mostly, people who themselves did not hear or consider the evidence in the way the jury did).

4. So, I'm not going to second-guess the jury. If I have to come down on one side or the other, I say he did it, because they say he did it, and they are better positioned than me (or almost anyone else) to say.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'm not going to second-guess the jury. If I have to come down on one side or the other, I say he did it, because they say he did it, and they are better positioned than me (or almost anyone else) to say.

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?

Hotblack Desiato

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.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

Andrew Bolt believes Cardinal George Pell is an innocent man who has been wrongly convicted.

A person not beyond a bit of controversy himself.

Hotblack Desiato

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

The former Australian prime minister John Howard was among those who provided character references for Pell as the cardinal’s legal team tried to argue for a lower-end sentence in Melbourne’s county court on Wednesday morning.

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.

The chief judge, Peter Kidd, responded: “It must be clear to you by now I’m struggling with that submission. Looking at your points here – so what?”

He said he saw Pell’s behaviour as “callous, brazen offending” and “shocking conduct”.

“He did have in his mind some sense of impunity. How else did he think he would get away with this? There was an element of force here ... this is not anywhere near the lower end of offending.”

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

"I only buggered them against their will" is not really much in the way of mitigation.

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?