Play Nice Random Chat Thread: Episode III

[LuvtheKangas]

The details (that we have access to) around the first incident - the one in the sacristy - astound me.

As a former alter server with (I think) more than a passing knowledge of what generally goes in the minutes immediately following a mass, it's more than a little shocking to think that Pell would have the...I dunno...audacity? to do what he did where he did when he did it.

He's either full-on deranged, or more than a few lay people have covered up for him for years. Neither of which would be surprising.

Back in the day, I too was an altar boy at St Patrick's ...

... Mentone.

Never came across anything like this personally, but am unsurprised by the verdict.

 

[Mav]

Or he's innocent.

Will opt out of this shortly because personally I find him an arrogant man, devious power hungry politician who has no doubt covered up a hell of a lot of wrong during his reign. But every judgement of an accused (in this instance on specific charges with no hard evidence) has to be assessed with all probabilities in play.

It doesn't add up to me. The defense case was very strong. I too spent time as an alter boy and come from a very religious family. I now, however, have very little affiliation with the church.

My experience mirrors that of the defenses case. It would have been very unlikely for the priest to come straight back to the sacristy after mass at our church. There was always a lot of time spent talking to people and it was left up to the alter boys and the acolyte to clean up. There's also a lot of people milling around inside and surely someone saw the kids enter the sacristy. There was testimony from witness stating it would have been hard for the kids to leave the choir unnoticed. The kids claimed it happened twice and Pell only performed 2 masses that year as the cathedral was under reno's, so its not like people could have been confused with other masses.

So based on the defenses case, the victims evidence must have been extremely compelling as it was all the prosecution had to go on. What evidence could have been so compelling? Did he accurately describe the genitals of Pell? If it was so compelling why did the first jury fail to get a unanimous decision? Like I said, it just doesn't add up to me.

 

[Val Keating]

Or he's innocent.

Will opt out of this shortly because personally I find him an arrogant man, devious power hungry politician who has no doubt covered up a hell of a lot of wrong during his reign. But every judgement of an accused (in this instance on specific charges with no hard evidence) has to be assessed with all probabilities in play.

His not innocent. Even his own defence has said he’s guilty of ‘vanilla sexual abuse’ and that it ‘only lasted about 5 minutes’.

Of course people have been covering up for him, he’s covered up for heaps of priests himself

 

[Mav]

His not innocent. Even his own defence has said he’s guilty of ‘vanilla sexual abuse’ and that it ‘only lasted about 5 minutes’.

Of course people have been covering up for him, he’s covered up for heaps of priests himself

Way to take statements out of context. Pells legal team made those statements after the conviction, in relations to sentencing. In the court of law he is guilty but Pells legal team still believe he is innocent, hence the appeal.

I'm no fan of Pell, and he's dug an almighty hole for himself, but on this occasion it seems to be a lynch mob after the figurehead of the Catholic Church in Australia.

 

[kangaspurs]

Way to take statements out of context. Pells legal team made those statements after the conviction, in relations to sentencing. In the court of law he is guilty but Pells legal team still believe he is innocent, hence the appeal.

I'm no fan of Pell, and he's dug an almighty hole for himself, but on this occasion it seems to be a lynch mob after the figurehead of the Catholic Church in Australia.

No. There's a lynch mob after a prominent convicted peadophile. He's not the victim.

The appeal will play out in due course, but the fact is that he is guilty as it stands, and deserves everything that comes his way, particularly after his appalling hypocrisy in hindsight on so many things he's spoken out against over the years, and on that, I would recommend everyone who would defend him to read this article from David Marr, which sets out that hypocrisy better than I could.

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...l-waged-war-on-sex-even-as-he-abused-children

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

Interesting case for nuclear energy and the costs of renewables, not sure I entirely agree with the data, but it makes you think a bit:

 

[Mav]

No. There's a lynch mob after a prominent convicted peadophile. He's not the victim.

The appeal will play out in due course, but the fact is that he is guilty as it stands, and deserves everything that comes his way, particularly after his appalling hypocrisy in hindsight on so many things he's spoken out against over the years, and on that, I would recommend everyone who would defend him to read this article from David Marr, which sets out that hypocrisy better than I could.

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...l-waged-war-on-sex-even-as-he-abused-children

no, the lynch mob was out well before he was a convicted pedophile.

IF he is found not guilty on appeal then he deserves non of what has come his way.

 

[kangaspurs]

no, the lynch mob was out well before he was a convicted pedophile.

IF he is found not guilty on appeal then he deserves non of what has come his way.

But that's the point KT, it's a hypothetical. A group of 12 of his peers, who sat through every second of the trial, unlike a lot of prominent people who are desperate to see him innocent and yourself who claimed initially that the defence case was strong, and listened to all the evidence, even that which has been kept from public knowledge, unanimously found him guilty of raping two young boys. There's no if about it. As it stands, he is categorically guilty.

Now, I have no doubt that here were some people who prematurely cast their judgement, and others who were hoping he would be found guilty from a position of cynical schadenfreude, and I would expect that a lot of that has to do with his disgraceful conduct during the Royal Commission and his past attitudes to sexual abuse in the church. But all of that is moot. As it stand, the public vitriol is well-founded because he is guilty. He did it. He committed what many people consider to be the most heinous of crimes. He is a paedophile.

 

[Mav]

But that's the point KT, it's a hypothetical. A group of 12 of his peers, who sat through every second of the trial, unlike a lot of prominent people who are desperate to see him innocent and yourself who claimed initially that the defence case was strong, and listened to all the evidence, even that which has been kept from public knowledge, unanimously found him guilty of raping two young boys. There's no if about it. As it stands, he is categorically guilty.

Now, I have no doubt that here were some people who prematurely cast their judgement, and others who were hoping he would be found guilty from a position of cynical schadenfreude, and I would expect that a lot of that has to do with his disgraceful conduct during the Royal Commission and his past attitudes to sexual abuse in the church. But all of that is moot. As it stand, the public vitriol is well-founded because he is guilty. He did it. He committed what many people consider to be the most heinous of crimes. He is a paedophile.

The thing is, another group of 12 peers couldn't come to the same conclusion. I think a lot of people that are flinging mud haven't looked at any of the evidence. As I said above, if the evidence from the victim is so overwhelming then why cound't the first jury find him guilty? If it was compelling I would be more than happy to throw mud at the guy but as it stands, and with the evidence that is available it just doesn't stack up. Plenty of people have been found guilty when later proven to be innocent.

If Pell is found not guilty on appeal, will you come out and say the 'victim" is a dirty liar and complete scum for tarnishing a man of faith?

 

[Tas]

I wonder if Hasbro is going to make this into a board game, instead of Cluedo call it Paedo... "It was the archbishop, in the sacristy, with the sacramental wine." :stern look

On a more serious note, i wonder if there was evidence contrary to the concerns raised that the sacristy is busy after mass and the vestments worn by the archbishop would have made a quickie as described impossible or that he was usually accompanied by the master of ceremonies. Those would be issues which would give me to have reasonable doubt unless there was compelling evidence.

 

[Tas]

Interesting case for nuclear energy and the costs of renewables, not sure I entirely agree with the data, but it makes you think a bit:

It is beyond idiotic that we haven't gone nuclear, modern reactors are very safe, the only ones that have blown were ancient ones that were meant to be decommissioned. We have the largest supplies of uranium in the world, we already have a reactor used to create radioactive isotopes for medical use so we aren't nuclear free.

 

[Devington]

It is beyond idiotic that we haven't gone nuclear, modern reactors are very safe, the only ones that have blown were ancient ones that were meant to be decommissioned. We have the largest supplies of uranium in the world, we already have a reactor used to create radioactive isotopes for medical use so we aren't nuclear free.

One of the few 'political' issues that leaves me fuming. How people can scream and shout about needing to change our energy sources due to climate change, yet completely ignore (or in some cases REDUCE) nuclear energy absolutely astounds and infuriates me.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

It is beyond idiotic that we haven't gone nuclear, modern reactors are very safe, the only ones that have blown were ancient ones that were meant to be decommissioned. We have the largest supplies of uranium in the world, we already have a reactor used to create radioactive isotopes for medical use so we aren't nuclear free.

On a side note:
My PhD supervisor is Australia’s leading historian on Australia’s nuclear past and our attempts to develop/acquire British inspired nuclear weaponry.


I want nuclear naval submarine propulsion as it would greatly aid our efforts to distangle from the American alliance and, thus, any future issues involving China.

 

[Tas]

The thing is, another group of 12 peers couldn't come to the same conclusion. I think a lot of people that are flinging mud haven't looked at any of the evidence. As I said above, if the evidence from the victim is so overwhelming then why cound't the first jury find him guilty? If it was compelling I would be more than happy to throw mud at the guy but as it stands, and with the evidence that is available it just doesn't stack up. Plenty of people have been found guilty when later proven to be innocent.

If Pell is found not guilty on appeal, will you come out and say the 'victim" is a dirty liar and complete scum for tarnishing a man of faith?

We don't have a full transcript, however, the evidence sounds suspect.

If I was a betting man, my money would be on the other boy that took his life being the real victim, but was likely a bad witness due to his life unraveling post abuse. My guess would be that Pell wasn't the one who abused the other boy but they probably brought it to his attention and he didn't do anything about it which later saw the boy who was abused take his own life. That probably pushed this guy over the edge and wanted justice for his friend but stringing up the lower end priest for what he did wouldn't be enough, the entire system needed a shake up because the leadership did nothing about the abuse, it would take someone important in the church to get strung up for something significant to change. So my guess is that he used some of the details of what happened to his friend and said Pell did it to both of them, heresay wouldn't get a conviction. The problem is Pell isn't directly comparable to a lower end priest in a smaller church so the evidence doesn't quite match up as it should. It does sound compelling because he knows of the abuse that happened, I am not sure why the details would be off if it went down exactly as described.

But that is just my tinfoil hat theory.

 

[King Corey]

We don't have a full transcript, however, the evidence sounds suspect.

If I was a betting man, my money would be on the other boy that took his life being the real victim, but was likely a bad witness due to his life unraveling post abuse. My guess would be that Pell wasn't the one who abused the other boy but they probably brought it to his attention and he didn't do anything about it which later saw the boy who was abused take his own life. That probably pushed this guy over the edge and wanted justice for his friend but stringing up the lower end priest for what he did wouldn't be enough, the entire system needed a shake up because the leadership did nothing about the abuse, it would take someone important in the church to get strung up for something significant to change. So my guess is that he used some of the details of what happened to his friend and said Pell did it to both of them, heresay wouldn't get a conviction. The problem is Pell isn't directly comparable to a lower end priest in a smaller church so the evidence doesn't quite match up as it should. It does sound compelling because he knows of the abuse that happened, I am not sure why the details would be off if it went down exactly as described.

But that is just my tinfoil hat theory.

I suspect you're very close to the pin.

 

[kangaspurs]

The thing is, another group of 12 peers couldn't come to the same conclusion. I think a lot of people that are flinging mud haven't looked at any of the evidence. As I said above, if the evidence from the victim is so overwhelming then why cound't the first jury find him guilty? If it was compelling I would be more than happy to throw mud at the guy but as it stands, and with the evidence that is available it just doesn't stack up. Plenty of people have been found guilty when later proven to be innocent.

If Pell is found not guilty on appeal, will you come out and say the 'victim" is a dirty liar and complete scum for tarnishing a man of faith?

And the point has been made that all the evidence isn't available to the public. Some of it has been kept private, and perhaps that's the smoking gun, as it were.

Look, I get what you're saying, but again, it's a hypothetical. Under the way our judicial system works, he is now guilty. There are no if, buts and maybes about it. It's unequivocal.

As for your question, absolutely not. Sexual abuse cases, particularly those of historical abuse, are notoriously complex. I would also point out that it's not the victims that are on trial, and the implications in your question suggest that they must be lying if the conviction is overturned on appeal, which is not necessarily the case. As I said, these types of cases are complex. It would depend on the nature of the appeal and the justification for the decision if it was overturned, but at this present moment in time, again, it's completely irrelevant because that's the way our system works.

Edit: Oh, and as for the previous jury, they can't have found him not guilty on the same charges with the same details available to them as was available to this jury, right? Would that not be double jeopardy? Admittedly, my knowledge of the details on what you mention there is limited.

 

[kangaspurs]

Why the judgement of all those who cast doubt on the verdict is worth pretty much nothing

 

[Tas]

On a side note:
My PhD supervisor is Australia’s leading historian on Australia’s nuclear past and our attempts to develop/acquire British inspired nuclear weaponry.


I want nuclear naval submarine propulsion as it would greatly aid our efforts to distangle from the American alliance and, thus, any future issues involving China.

We bought French nuclear submarines without the nuclear power plants and put in some noisy disesel engines which then had to travel at paddling speed so as not to be submersible coffins. We do not spend our military budget wisely.

Submarines are ancient technology. The future is drones, drone carriers. We need to custom build a frigate sized drone carriers, a fully combat operational drone is a fraction of the cost of a combat aircraft, in a war of attrition you don't lose your drone pilots because they are in some bunker rather than in the planes.

You can even have submersible drones so you can combat enemy ships/subs with smaller, more disposable units suited for a war of attrition.

 

[Tas]

Why the judgement of all those who cast doubt on the verdict is worth pretty much nothing

That is the problem with having closed trials, the guy isn't a minor any longer, not sure why it is closed.

 

[kangaspurs]

That is the problem with having closed trials, the guy isn't a minor any longer, not sure why it is closed.

Yeah, I have no idea, but it holds true that anyone commenting on the verdict, particularly if they're casting doubt on the decision of the jury, simply does not have all the facts available to them. As such, at least imo, it makes such comments difficult to consider seriously.

 

[LuvtheKangas]

That is the problem with having closed trials, the guy isn't a minor any longer, not sure why it is closed.

His anonymity is retained. As it should be.

This seems bleedin' obvious to me. Am I missing something?

 

[Tas]

His anonymity is retained. As it should be.

This seems bleedin' obvious to me. Am I missing something?

The principle of the open justice system has long been recognised by the common law, especially where it is in the public interest. The high court has said "the rationale of the open court principle is that court proceedings should be subjected to public and professional scrutiny, and courts will not act contrary to the principle save in exceptional circumstances." One of the exceptions is for minors who may be negatively impacted by an open trial.

According to our own government https://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/open-justice

In Russell v Russell, Gibbs J said that it is the ‘ordinary rule’ of courts of Australia that their proceedings shall be conducted ‘publicly and in open view’; without public scrutiny, ‘abuses may flourish undetected’. Gibbs J went on to say:

Further, the public administration of justice tends to maintain confidence in the integrity and independence of the courts. The fact that courts of law are held openly and not in secret is an essential aspect of their character. It distinguishes their activities from those of administrative officials, for ‘publicity is the authentic hall-mark of judicial as distinct from administrative procedure’. To require a court invariably to sit in closed court is to alter the nature of the court.

 

[SpiderBurton22]

We don't have a full transcript, however, the evidence sounds suspect.

If I was a betting man, my money would be on the other boy that took his life being the real victim, but was likely a bad witness due to his life unraveling post abuse. My guess would be that Pell wasn't the one who abused the other boy but they probably brought it to his attention and he didn't do anything about it which later saw the boy who was abused take his own life. That probably pushed this guy over the edge and wanted justice for his friend but stringing up the lower end priest for what he did wouldn't be enough, the entire system needed a shake up because the leadership did nothing about the abuse, it would take someone important in the church to get strung up for something significant to change. So my guess is that he used some of the details of what happened to his friend and said Pell did it to both of them, heresay wouldn't get a conviction. The problem is Pell isn't directly comparable to a lower end priest in a smaller church so the evidence doesn't quite match up as it should. It does sound compelling because he knows of the abuse that happened, I am not sure why the details would be off if it went down exactly as described.

But that is just my tinfoil hat theory.

Wow, what an average post.

As someone who has had to testify at a case involving 3 people very close to me that were subjected to abuse when they were children and seeing what they had to go through, from reporting the crime and then the whole court process, it is this sort of attitude that sees so many sexual assaults go unreported.

Have a read of this story to see through the victims eyes. Hopefully this will enlighten you a bit.

 

[LuvtheKangas]

The principle of the open justice system has long been recognised by the common law, especially where it is in the public interest. The high court has said "the rationale of the open court principle is that court proceedings should be subjected to public and professional scrutiny, and courts will not act contrary to the principle save in exceptional circumstances." One of the exceptions is for minors who may be negatively impacted by an open trial.

According to our own government https://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/open-justice

In Russell v Russell, Gibbs J said that it is the ‘ordinary rule’ of courts of Australia that their proceedings shall be conducted ‘publicly and in open view’; without public scrutiny, ‘abuses may flourish undetected’. Gibbs J went on to say:

Further, the public administration of justice tends to maintain confidence in the integrity and independence of the courts. The fact that courts of law are held openly and not in secret is an essential aspect of their character. It distinguishes their activities from those of administrative officials, for ‘publicity is the authentic hall-mark of judicial as distinct from administrative procedure’. To require a court invariably to sit in closed court is to alter the nature of the court.

LOL.

 

[Val Keating]

A lot of what the victim went through is in this episode of The Reckoning hosted by David Marr.

https://itunes.apple.com/au/podcast...lia-podcast/id1323306591?mt=2&i=1000430648632

Though the victims statement was read out to a closed court (via a tv monitor) both councils got a full transcript of what the victim said. Pretty awful stuff.