Religion Pell Guilty!

[HairyO]

The example I gave is a precisely direct analogy.



This case did not involve hearsay evidence, or anything even remotely like it; the complainant gave direct evidence of what happened to the 2 of them when they were together.

The example you have has evidence.

In this case there was none. Its a huge difference.

 

[skipper kelly]

Interesting piece about changes to the Jury Directions Act of Victoria. Touches on how juries are instructed re uncorroborated evidence etc.

https://www.michaelsmithnews.com/20...n-favour-of-single-witnessescomplainants.html

 

[skilts]

Sure, but that is exactly nothing like what happened here. There is not one piece of evidence indicating Pell did anything at all to the 2nd victim, beyond what is claimed by the 1st victim.

Id be interested to know if NSW and VIC have different laws dealing with hearsay evidence.

Eyewitness evidence of a crime tends to carry considerable weight in a trial, especially if the witness in question's evidence is so compelling it overcomes all of the obstacles put in its way by a defendant with bottomless pockets, and the efforts of the most expert criminal barrister in the country. In fact, it was so compelling, it exposed a prince of the church as the common paedophile he is.

Well, and bravely, done that man. He has served the community with utmost distinction. Australian of the year would be an appropriate award for him, except for that award being so inherently racist in nature. The admiration of all thinking people will have to suffice.

 

[BlueE]

Perhaps it's been because there has been so much of the discussion outside the courtroom proceedings.

Victims of abuse wanting payback towards the leadership figure of the entity they deem responsible.

Catholics might give Pell the benefit of the doubt. Catholic haters assume and desire his guilt.

Has the #metoo movement shifted the balance of proving innocence/guilt in such cases?

WAs the police involvement neutral?

The sensational media coverage.

How did all these factors impact the jury?

I don't think the media coverage has been sensational, as you say, until after the trials were finished and Pell found guilty.

No one knew what the charges were because they were suppressed. Did anyone know when the first trial started and the jury couldn't decide? Did anyone know when the second trial started and Pell found guilty? No one is saying there wasn't a fair trial or the jury was influenced in any way.

However it is ironic that Pell's offending in this case occurred around the same time he was introducing the hated and insulting "Melbourne Response" compensation to victims of child sexual abuse on behalf of the Catholic Church.

 

[western royboy]

I will extend support to victims every time. Not all who say they are victims are actually victims.

You seem to overlook the fact of so many of Pell’s accusers having had their allegations disproven. You would think that might lead to some scepticism.

And you should know better having a legal background that of the numerous claims made against old mate George he was hardly exonerated - look up the Southwell Inquiry if you are unsure as I’m pretty sure Southwell concluded that he felt the complainant was telling the truth - George isn’t a cleanskin, nor a martyr, like so many within the Priesthood he’s living a lie.

 

[FredLeDeux]

The example you have has evidence.

In this case there was none. Its a huge difference.

Give over.

 

[HairyO]

Give over.

"I saw it" is hearsay and generally ignored by courts unless there is corroborating evidence.

"I saw it and it also happened to me" is not corroborating evidence.

 

[FredLeDeux]

I believe there was some instruction from Judge Kidd that some consideration be given to the statements made by the deceased boy to his mother. I think there was reference to this at the appeal.

TI don't know the context, but on the face of it, that would not infringe the rule against hearsay evidence if it was treated as direct evidence that he made the statements; however, it would not be allowable as evidence that what he allegedly said was true.
And if you think I'm going to get into any further discussion about the ins, outs, nuances and complications of the rule against hearsay evidence, on an internet forum, you have rocks in your head.

 

[FredLeDeux]

"I saw it" is hearsay and generally ignored by courts unless there is corroborating evidence.

"I saw it and it also happened to me" is not corroborating evidence.

Absolutely idiotic, ignorant bs.

The saints don't exist, but if they did, you would have to say "the saints preserve us".

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

And you should know better having a legal background that of the numerous claims made against old mate George he was hardly exonerated - look up the Southwell Inquiry if you are unsure as I’m pretty sure Southwell concluded that he felt the complainant was telling the truth - George isn’t a cleanskin, nor a martyr, like so many within the Priesthood he’s living a lie.

I'm not talking about the Southwell Inquiry.

I'm talking only of those matters which were actually disproven. The cinema example being but one.

 

[skipper kelly]

EVIDENCE ACT 2008 - SECT 164
Corroboration requirements abolished
(1) It is not necessary that evidence on which a party relies be corroborated.


(2) Subsection (1) does not affect the operation of a rule of law that requires corroboration with respect to the offence of perjury or a similar or related offence.


S. 164(3) amended by No. 14/2015 s. 74(1).


(3) Despite any rule, whether of law or practice, to the contrary, but subject to the other provisions of this Act, if there is a jury in a civil proceeding, it is not necessary that the judge—


(a) warn the jury that it is dangerous to act on uncorroborated evidence or give a warning to the same or similar effect; or


(b) give a direction relating to the absence of corroboration.


S. 164(4) inserted by No. 14/2015 s. 74(2).


(4) Subject to subsection (5), if there is a jury in a criminal proceeding, the judge must not—


(a) warn the jury that it is dangerous to act on uncorroborated evidence or give a warning to the same or similar effect; or


(b) direct the jury regarding the absence of corroboration.


S. 164(5) inserted by No. 14/2015 s. 74(2).


(5) In a criminal proceeding for the offence of perjury or a similar or related offence, the judge must direct the jury that it may find the accused guilty only if it is satisfied that the evidence proving guilt is corroborated.











S. 164(6) inserted by No. 14/2015 s. 74(2).


(6) The principles and rules of the common law that relate to jury directions or warnings on corroboration of evidence, or the absence of corroboration of evidence, in criminal trials to the contrary of this section are abolished.


Note to s. 164 inserted by No. 14/2015 s. 74(2).

 

[skipper kelly]

Here is a link to a good explanation of what hearsay evidence is.

https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/what-is-hearsay-evidence/


"A simpler way to understand the rule is that, a person (X) can only give evidence as to what they themselves saw, heard or otherwise perceived.

For example, if another person (Y) saw a defendant (D) steal a car and then Y told X about it, X cannot give evidence to establish that the car was stolen.

X can only give evidence to establish what Y told him.

In essence, X’s evidence can be used to assert that a conversation took place between X and Y.

However, X’s evidence cannot be used to establish that D stole the car."

 

[its free real estate]

"I saw it" is hearsay

Lol no it isn’t.

 

[skilts]

Lol no it isn’t.

It is difficult to imagine any thing more removed from hearsay.

 

[skilts]

Here is a link to a good explanation of what hearsay evidence is.

https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/what-is-hearsay-evidence/


"A simpler way to understand the rule is that, a person (X) can only give evidence as to what they themselves saw, heard or otherwise perceived.

For example, if another person (Y) saw a defendant (D) steal a car and then Y told X about it, X cannot give evidence to establish that the car was stolen.

X can only give evidence to establish what Y told him.

In essence, X’s evidence can be used to assert that a conversation took place between X and Y.

However, X’s evidence cannot be used to establish that D stole the car."

You seem to have a disproportionate understanding of the relevant law in such matters,

How are you going, you young blighter?

 

[its free real estate]

It is difficult to imagine any thing more removed from hearsay.

The word itself should be descriptive enough: hear - say.

 

[skipper kelly]

You seem to have a disproportionate understanding of the relevant law in such matters,

No more than anyone else trying to be objective. The law library is only a click of the button these days. This internet thingy can be amazing if used for good rather than evil.

How are you going, you young blighter?

Complaining a lot but no-one other than myself listens or answers.

 

[FredLeDeux]

No more than anyone else trying to be objective. The law library is only a click of the button these days. This internet thingy can be amazing if used for good rather than evil.

.

And vice versa.

 

[Runk]

Brucefrombalnarring is all like

 

[yodellinhank]

The fella who claimed Pell abused him in the cinema for one.

For one. I thought there was many?

 

[Lebbo73]

Eyewitness evidence of a crime tends to carry considerable weight in a trial, especially if the witness in question's evidence is so compelling it overcomes all of the obstacles put in its way by a defendant with bottomless pockets, and the efforts of the most expert criminal barrister in the country. In fact, it was so compelling, it exposed a prince of the church as the common paedophile he is.

Well, and bravely, done that man. He has served the community with utmost distinction. Australian of the year would be an appropriate award for him, except for that award being so inherently racist in nature. The admiration of all thinking people will have to suffice.

No one will really know who’s telling the truth besides the survivor and Pell. God as well. I just hope justice is done no matter what the outcome. Even though, justice can never truly be done when someone has been abused.

 

[BlueE]

I'm not talking about the Southwell Inquiry.

I'm talking only of those matters which were actually disproven. The cinema example being but one.

When were the cinema accusations disproven? I don't think so. Southwell Inquiry retired judge said he believed the accuser from the incidents in 1961.

Didn't the victim die from cancer in January 2108 not long before the committal hearing? The other victim became ill after the committal hearing and he couldn't continue and the charges were withdrawn.

Thank God one of the victims could stand up and give evidence at trial.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

When were the cinema accusations disproven? I don't think so. Southwell Inquiry retired judge said he believed the accuser from the incidents in 1961.

Didn't the victim die from cancer in January 2108 not long before the committal hearing? The other victim became ill after the committal hearing and he couldn't continue and the charges were withdrawn.

Thank God one of the victims could stand up and give evidence at trial.

The cinema accusations were disproven at committal I believe when it was shown that the particular movie wasn't showing in Ballarat at the time.

In terms of the Southwell Inquiry, it also noted problems with the credibility of the accuser.

What wasn't reported until much later was that the accuser was a corrupt union official with 20 convictions from 39 charges.

 

[yodellinhank]

The cinema accusations were disproven at committal I believe when it was shown that the particular movie wasn't showing in Ballarat at the time.

In terms of the Southwell Inquiry, it also noted problems with the credibility of the accuser.

What wasn't reported until much later was that the accuser was a corrupt union official with 20 convictions from 39 charges.

So just 1 then, you believe. Not many.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

So just 1 then, you believe. Not many.

No. Many.

Pell has faced accusations over a number of years of variously talking aloud about Ridsdale, directly witnessing Ridsdale engaging in his abuse, being directly told about someone's abuse etc etc etbloodyc. He has variously been able to prove that he was overseas, or the movie wasn't showing, or he was in another part of Victoria etc etc etbloodyc.

Despite me asking many times in this thread, no one has been able to answer as to why so many allegations have been made about Pell that have been disproven (or, in other words, made up). Because victims NEVER invent accusations apparently.