Religion Pell Guilty!

[Leeda]

A traumatic incident needs to have a minimum time to affect someone?

yeah when Cyril Rioli gets the ball from fifty metres out and butts his opponent and sends him on his way..

and then Roughy catches it and belts a goal..

yeah I know it is long lasting but you germans.. don't get the graphic..

 

[Kummerspeck]

yeah when Cyril Rioli gets the ball from fifty metres out and butts his opponent and sends him on his way..

and then Roughy catches it and belts a goal..

yeah I know it is long lasting but you germans.. don't get the graphic..

[emoji52]

 

[sideswipe]

You make it sound like he did some noble thing.
He didn't do some noble thing.
The CC's hand was forced because of the mountain of allegations and the growing list of CC priests who had been found guilty of sexually abusing children all around the world.
The redress scheme saved the CC millions (perhaps billions) in legal fees and it also neatly limits the compensation to an arbitrary amount set by the CC itself.
What else was the CC and its heirarchy supposed to do? They have only ever been interested in covering their own arses. Ironic?


I have yet to hear a single argument why the verdict could potentially be overturned on appeal.
Disagreement with the jury verdict is not grounds for the appeal to be upheld.
They might win on a single point of law and the SCA might send it back to the SC for further consideration.
Best case scenario Pell is winning on a technicality and that will only serve to destroy his reputation further.

Would need to write a lot more to respond to all your points but here are a few comments. I think you are wrong on the question of dollars. The vast majority of applicants to the Melbourne Response would have had little to no chance of mounting a successful civil claim due to insufficient evidence, preparedness to mount an action, etc. Not raising that to say the system was by any means perfect but if the church wanted to save money, setting up this system has cost far more than waiting for individual court actions - that would likely rarely arise.

The initial limit was set at $50k as that was the limit of compensation available under crimes compensation. So no, it wasn’t arbitrary.

Edit: sorry just one thing to add, the Melbourne Response did not in any way prevent any applicant from launching a civil action. The whole system was in addition to an individual’s usual rights to take action. In effect, any applicant to the MR chose that avenue as an alternative to taking court action. Clearly once an applicant chose to accept compensation they would have had to relinquish their option to take civil action. But the right to take action remained available until compensation was accepted.

On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[GuruJane]

Would need to write a lot more to respond to all your points but here are a few comments. I think you are wrong on the question of dollars. The vast majority of applicants to the Melbourne Response would have had little to no chance of mounting a successful civil claim due to insufficient evidence, preparedness to mount an action, etc. Not raising that to say the system was by any means perfect but if the church wanted to save money, setting up this system has cost far more than waiting for individual court actions - that would likely rarely arise.

The initial limit was set at $50k as that was the limit of compensation available under crimes compensation. So no, it wasn’t arbitrary.

Edit: sorry just one thing to add, the Melbourne Response did not in any way prevent any applicant from launching a civil action. The whole system was in addition to an individual’s usual rights to take action. In effect, any applicant to the MR chose that avenue as an alternative to taking court action. Clearly once an applicant chose to accept compensation they would have had to relinquish their option to take civil action. But the right to take action remained available until compensation was accepted.

On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

I'm afraid you are being far too sensible and dispassionate to cut any ice with the Pell haters here.

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

Would need to write a lot more to respond to all your points but here are a few comments. I think you are wrong on the question of dollars. The vast majority of applicants to the Melbourne Response would have had little to no chance of mounting a successful civil claim due to insufficient evidence, preparedness to mount an action, etc. Not raising that to say the system was by any means perfect but if the church wanted to save money, setting up this system has cost far more than waiting for individual court actions - that would likely rarely arise.

The initial limit was set at $50k as that was the limit of compensation available under crimes compensation. So no, it wasn’t arbitrary.

Edit: sorry just one thing to add, the Melbourne Response did not in any way prevent any applicant from launching a civil action. The whole system was in addition to an individual’s usual rights to take action. In effect, any applicant to the MR chose that avenue as an alternative to taking court action. Clearly once an applicant chose to accept compensation they would have had to relinquish their option to take civil action. But the right to take action remained available until compensation was accepted.

On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

The limit was under the RC recommendation and victims here receive less than in US and UK. That was due to John Ellis case where he tried to sue the Church. Church rejected mediation and their lawyers cross examined him and tried to discredit him. They spend $800k+ on legal fees to do so.

Church won on account that the Court found they were not a legal entity as such and therefore could not be sued. Now how a non-legal entity gets to become the second biggest landholder in the country behind Westfield is a mystery to many.

That ruling effectively stops any other survivor suing Church in court.

That’s on top of the fact that church itself acknowledges that both the national and Melbourne programs are harsh on the victims (having to relive story repeatedly) and too adversarial.

 

[NSWCROW]

I'm afraid you are being far too sensible and dispassionate to cut any ice with the Pell haters here.

" pell haters " **** me drunk
Who writes this shit

 

[sideswipe]

The limit was under the RC recommendation and victims here receive less than in US and UK. That was due to John Ellis case where he tried to sue the Church. Church rejected mediation and their lawyers cross examined him and tried to discredit him. They spend $800k+ on legal fees to do so.

Church won on account that the Court found they were not a legal entity as such and therefore could not be sued. Now how a non-legal entity gets to become the second biggest landholder in the country behind Westfield is a mystery to many.

That ruling effectively stops any other survivor suing Church in court.

That’s on top of the fact that church itself acknowledges that both the national and Melbourne programs are harsh on the victims (having to relive story repeatedly) and too adversarial.

I am definitely not arguing in favour of anything like the Ellis defence resulting in a fair outcome for an abuse survivor. I understand that defence came after the establishment of the Melbourne Response?

And I do certainly not want to come across as defending the vile and evil that has been perpetrated. I was merely positing that Pell’s establishment of the Melbourne response was at the absolute vanguard of action of making amends for this evil. Long before the rest of the world.

Raising the cap limit - agree, the more the better. But there must be some limit? What do you suggest?

Query what sort of system could be less adversarial? Applicant meets with an independent commissioner and tells their story. No cross-examination, no requirement for evidence other than testimony. What do you think is a better solution?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[DrEvil_]

" pell haters " **** me drunk
Who writes this shit

Eerily similar to the "Hird haters". Never been truer that football is religion. All that's missing is a song now...

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

I am definitely not arguing in favour of anything like the Ellis defence resulting in a fair outcome for an abuse survivor. I understand that defence came after the establishment of the Melbourne Response?

And I do certainly not want to come across as defending the vile and evil that has been perpetrated. I was merely positing that Pell’s establishment of the Melbourne response was at the absolute vanguard of action of making amends for this evil. Long before the rest of the world.

Raising the cap limit - agree, the more the better. But there must be some limit? What do you suggest?

Query what sort of system could be less adversarial? Applicant meets with an independent commissioner and tells their story. No cross-examination, no requirement for evidence other than testimony. What do you think is a better solution?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Yeah independent scheme as RC recommended. Different story being cross examined I’d imagine. Why would RC recommended otherwise? Apparently current scheme also has multiple psych testing which had been acknowledged as harsh.

To me should change laws and make the church subject to being sued like the rest of us.

 

[AM]

Tick for County Court.

SBS

 

[Benny78]

I'm afraid you are being far too sensible and dispassionate to cut any ice with the Pell haters here.

Do you like pedophiles?

 

[Crankyhawk]

My point is more that it has been reported that the jury in the 2nd trial were unaware that the 1st trial resulted in a mistrial. That would seem unlikely if the evidence of the key witness was given by replaying the video from the 1st trial. And the jury in the 2nd trial might have felt under pressure not to return another hung jury.

Could the video footage not have shown the prior jury ie appear that the cross exam happened in a closed court as “witness unable to take stand” which could have kept jury unaware

 

[GuruJane]

The limit was under the RC recommendation and victims here receive less than in US and UK. That was due to John Ellis case where he tried to sue the Church. Church rejected mediation and their lawyers cross examined him and tried to discredit him. They spend $800k+ on legal fees to do so.

John Ellis ruling was in 2007, more than 10 years after Melbourne Response was established.

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

John Ellis ruling was in 2007, more than 10 years after Melbourne Response was established.

Ellis first approached church in 2002. Pell got in early with the MR to help head off any possible litigation. Has worked well, average payout is $32k a victim. By comparison on US it’s approx $1m per victim

 

[sideswipe]

What if the victims started a class action?
That is what the Church initiated compensation scheme was designed specifically to avoid.

Sorry, how does the compensation system “avoid” a class action?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Frank Bunn]

Tick for County Court.

SBS

I'm guessing he will get between 2 and 5 years jail time. I also think his appeal will fail.

 

[Strange Cat]

As I said earlier, after a period I think accusers should make their complaints earlier. But I think that that should not come in until the current spate of claims are dealt with, for better or worse.

Contradiction to the rest of your post but I’ll bite

You really need to understand that every individual reacts to a trauma event differently, I can only speak for myself but it took years and years to get my life back together and to be mentally strong enough to be able to tell people what had happened to me.

It isn’t easy telling people as an adult the grisly details and the shame that you carry around, let alone a scared confused kid who doesn’t really understand why it has happened to him.

This was after years of drinking and multiple suicide attempts, add a mental breakdown into the mix and it clear that I would had been in no position to come forward earlier than what I did.

But hey you know everything about how a survivor should react/behave.

 

[Feerits Elf]

Do you like pedophiles?

A pedophilephile?

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Contradiction to the rest of your post but I’ll bite

You really need to understand that every individual reacts to a trauma event differently, I can only speak for myself but it took years and years to get my life back together and to be mentally strong enough to be able to tell people what had happened to me.

It isn’t easy telling people as an adult the grisly details and the shame that you carry around, let alone a scared confused kid who doesn’t really understand why it has happened to him.

This was after years of drinking and multiple suicide attempts, add a mental breakdown into the mix and it clear that I would had been in no position to come forward earlier than what I did.

But hey you know everything about how a survivor should react/behave.

I don’t doubt any of that. I really don’t.

But you just can’t have an ongoing situation, leaving the Pell matter aside, where an accused has no opportunity other than his own inherent believability to defeat a sexual assault charge.

This idea that there can’t be accusers that lie is simply wrong.

Edit: I say this in the context of us now living in a world where complaints are taken seriously and there’s a far greater awareness of not just the prevalence of child sexual abuse, but also the consequences.

 

[Maggie5]

Can someone clarify? The hearing this week is before one judge to see if appeal has merit then will go before three judges for full hearing?
Is this right?

 

[Strange Cat]

I don’t doubt any of that. I really don’t.

But you just can’t have an ongoing situation, leaving the Pell matter aside, where an accused has no opportunity other than his own inherent believability to defeat a sexual assault charge.

This idea that there can’t be accusers that lie is simply wrong.

Edit: I say this in the context of us now living in a world where complaints are taken seriously and there’s a far greater awareness of not just the prevalence of child sexual abuse, but also the consequences.

*sighs*

Pell was charged and taken to court based on the evidence at hand, the evidence was tested and found to be enough to convict Pell.

Pell isn’t the victim here, you are acting like the witness just rocked up and made a statement and got a conviction.

It’s incredibly hard to bring these matters to trial let alone get a conviction, the fact that the prosecutor found that evidence compelling enough to bring forward and that it warrant a guilty conviction should show that the evidence was considerable.

Pell will have his chance with the appeal to challenge the guilty verdict, I hope if it’s not successful you can find the dignity to stop throwing mud at the witness that had the courage to take Pell to court for justice to finally be served.

You clearly haven’t got any respect towards the justice system if you believe that you know more than the jury that was exposed to all the evidence presented in the trial.

 

[Benny78]

Hitler was a staunch Roman catholic. Pell is a staunch Roman catholic.

I know who I'd rather my children around

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

*sighs*

Pell was charged and taken to court based on the evidence at hand, the evidence was tested and found to be enough to convict Pell.

Pell isn’t the victim here, you are acting like the witness just rocked up and made a statement and got a conviction.

It’s incredibly hard to bring these matters to trial let alone get a conviction, the fact that the prosecutor found that evidence compelling enough to bring forward and that it warrant a guilty conviction should show that the evidence was considerable.

Pell will have his chance with the appeal to challenge the guilty verdict, I hope if it’s not successful you can find the dignity to stop throwing mud at the witness that had the courage to take Pell to court for justice to finally be served.

You clearly haven’t got any respect towards the justice system if you believe that you know more than the jury that was exposed to all the evidence presented in the trial.

You asked a conceptual question.

I specifically said “Leaving this Pell matter aside.”

Then I discussed the conceptual matter raised.

 

[Pessimistic]

Enlightening to see the 'tough on crime' crowd proclaiming innocence on this dangerous offender.

Opportunistically picking on random kids presumably with parents in the next room?

Personally, seeing as hes so welcome elsewhere, I'm wondering if it warrants revoking his Aus citizenship

 

[sideswipe]

Can someone clarify? The hearing this week is before one judge to see if appeal has merit then will go before three judges for full hearing?
Is this right?

No, the hearing this week is his sentencing hearing. The appeal hearing is set down for June 5 and 6. The first step of an appeals process is seeking leave to appeal, ie. convincing one (or likely three in this instance) appeal justices that the grounds of your appeal have, for want of a better term, merit. If the court grants leave to appeal, then the matter will be heard by 3 judges - the decision on leave to appeal will likely be given within a few weeks or so of that 5-6 June hearing. Then it goes to appeal after that. This thread has a few more pages to go before then.