Do you agree with me that George Pell is the new Lindy Chaberlain?

Just Four Corners and I'm still extremely disappointed with the standard of evidence. Frankly I think the evidence was too weak.

Discuss.

They have never found Peter Falconio and someone is in jail.

On the evidence (which has been discussed in the media) it must have been very thin but perhaps the jury decided not only on the facts but the situation where he was charged and in court and this may be the only time when he would be able to be sent to jail.  On that basis they found him guilty.

Recall how he was in charge at Ballarat during the royal commission review and would have moved priests around and covered up wrong doing rather than addressing the issues.

Some might call that natural justice.

Even Lindy Chamberlain might not be innocent either. Anything can be done to pervert the course of justice if you try. In Pells case he has moved on priests etc for unknown reasons and that alone sounds like he knew what was going on and he did nothing but help them. So in this case Karma got him and hopefully it sticks to him as well.

I know as much as anyone else does, but it is about time these pedos where removed from the church and placed in jail. Not just Roman Catholic churches but all churches and religions.

Even Lindy Chamberlain might not be innocent either. Anything can be done to pervert the course of justice if you try. In Pells case he has moved on priests etc for unknown reasons and that alone sounds like he knew what was going on and he did nothing but help them. So in this case Karma got him and hopefully it sticks to him as well.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with whether he was guilty of that single 1996 charge or not.

I know as much as anyone else does, but it is about time these pedos where removed from the church and placed in jail. Not just Roman Catholic churches but all churches and religions.

Again, ditto.

Don't get me wrong, Pell is a completely unsympathetic character. He's defended the church against allegations of pedophilia but I'm concerned that this combined with other things (like Tim Minchin's song - which was pretty hard to ignore at the time) may have possibly denied him a fair trial.

They have never found Peter Falconio and someone is in jail.

On the evidence (which has been discussed in the media) it must have been very thin but perhaps the jury decided not only on the facts but the situation where he was charged and in court and this may be the only time when he would be able to be sent to jail.  On that basis they found him guilty.

Recall how he was in charge at Ballarat during the royal commission review and would have moved priests around and covered up wrong doing rather than addressing the issues.

Some might call that natural justice.

Okay, again, devil's advocate here. This has nothing whatsoever to do with his guilty in the 1996 case.

I'm extremely disappointed with Four Corners, I think they presented a lot of stuff they knew very well was circumstantial.

The fact that Pell walked an (obviously guilty) paedophile into court in the early 1990's has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not he was guilty in that one particular instance.

They have never found Peter Falconio and someone is in jail.

On the evidence (which has been discussed in the media) it must have been very thin but perhaps the jury decided not only on the facts but the situation where he was charged and in court and this may be the only time when he would be able to be sent to jail.  On that basis they found him guilty.

Recall how he was in charge at Ballarat during the royal commission review and would have moved priests around and covered up wrong doing rather than addressing the issues.

Some might call that natural justice.

I caught the last half of tonight's Four Corners.
It sounds to me as though Pell was lucky not to be tried on the swimming pool charges.
The guy who spoke about Pell's behaviour there seemed very convincing and had very clear recollections.
There seem to be too many instances of consistent behaviour for Pell to be able to explain them all.
I for one don't think Pell is being victimised in this case.
It isn't, as right wing commentators are implying, a left wing conspiracy against the church as a whole.

Peter

Not so much Lindy Chamberlain, more so the Dingo.

I hope Pell isn’t the new Lindy Chamberlain, I hate seeing the rightfully convicted wrongfully released. Keogh springs to mind too - that one still smeg me.

I have a friend (yes, I have one) who is a police officer here in SA, tied up with major crime investigation. We were having a discussion about investigations into abuse within organisations and he was telling me that the Catholic Church is absolutely the most recalcitrant organisation to deal with.

Publicly they’re all about ‘full cooperation with the investigation’ but when the investigation lands what actually happens is the church turns over ‘all relevant documentation’ except on investigation all the documentation is literally found to be irrelevant.

Further requests for what is relevant is usually met with ‘oh, we didn’t think you’d need that’ or ‘we don’t have those records’...

Pell provided no evidence in his defence (now he doesn’t need to), but no one provided evidence to contradict the defendant, if the defendant was deemed to be reliable, and he must have been, Richter isn’t generally regarded as being an incompetent defender, guilty is sort of going to be the default ruling.

When you have a reliable, truthful, walking, talking victim and effectively nothing from the other side the victim is of course going to be believed.

We’ve heard the last of Pell.

This thread is nothing but mischief.
The only evidence that is relevant is what the jury heard, and none of us was there listening to it.
What you think may have happened is completely irrelevant.
Nobody is in any position to say that the verdict is wrong, or influenced  by any outside factors.
There is no possible way that anybody here can debate the matter fairly.

Chamberlain was convicted, in large measure, due to appallingly inaccurate scientific evidence about bloodstains in the Torana, which were finally found to be sound-deadening adhesive. There is no comparison.

I like that you refer to Chamberlain, as that was a gross injustice, or should I say police force at the time that was not up to the standard that was expected. How about comparing this to thousands of other cases when a person has been found guilty and convicted, the court gets it right. You would normally accept that as a whole, the court gets it right with other matters.

Are you saying our justice system is broken?

The system as a whole, has a system of review through the appellant courts. If there is an error of law in this specific case then the decision will be changed.

By the way, people are prosecuted and found guilty with overwhelming circumstantial evidence (despite what is portrayed in the movies and TV), hence people are found guilty of murder without bodies and forensics, harder to do, but it can be done.

My question to you Don, is if the appeal courts upheld the original decision will you accept that Pell is guilty?

I think if that scenario plays out, you won't accept that and therefore I think your question in this thread is pointless, as you will not accept any counterview as your mind is closed on this topic. Your bias is telling.

Personally I am neutral with Pell, however as far as I am concern that he is guilty as he has been found in a court. He has a right of appeal and if he is successful on the appeal, I will then say a great injustice has occurred and he should be given every bit of acknowledgement of that and that would include restoration of his role in the church. However until then, he is guilty of a heinous crime and deserves everything.

Pell had the best solicitor the church could buy. If the evidence was that flimsy but he still couldn't convince the jury of Pell's innocence, then he should retire from the bench. Each party also has the right to exclude any juror they deem unsuitable without giving a reason, so the final jury should have been impartial.

Rick

Just Four Corners and I'm still extremely disappointed with the standard of evidence. Frankly I think the evidence was too weak.

You didn't hear all of the the evidence, including cross examinations; it's as simple as that. Therefore, you are in no position to criticise it.

Why has this thread been created? There’s already a George Pell thread, currently immediately below.

Chamberlain was convicted, in large measure, due to appallingly inaccurate scientific evidence about bloodstains in the Torana, which were finally found to be sound-deadening adhesive. There is no comparison.

What, you mean there's no way that the sole witness will come forward years after Pell dies in prison and say "I made it up on account of my dead friend who was the real victim"?

The sole witness has said repeatedly that he only came forward at this late stage to assuage his guilty feelings about the other witness having overdosed.

Do you think it's impossible that there was some motivation for the witness having made it up?

I hope Pell isn’t the new Lindy Chamberlain, I hate seeing the rightfully convicted wrongfully released. Keogh springs to mind too - that one still smeg me.

With regards to the rest of your post, Pell conducted the strategy to defend the church and work their way through the paedophile stuff in the nineties. I can't help but feel that there are people out there who wanted to get Pell just for that reason.

Are you saying our justice system is broken?

Thanks for your considered response Big J. My concern is that with the number of historical sex charges coming out that if you are accused of something that you're supposed to have done 20 or 30 years ago how on earth do you defend yourself against that?

This applies to anyone - but particularly if you are man and particularly if you work with children (as I have in the past), what if someone comes forward years later and says "he did this to me". What possible defence to you have against that?

It's going to get to a point where any man will not be allowed to be unsupervised with children other than his own, full-stop. Society won't allow it any more.

It's already impossible to get men into the teaching profession, these sort of legal precedents will make men in those kind of children-intensive professions guilty before they even set foot in a school. Know what I mean?

Don; leave it. You don't have any grounds for criticism in this case. You didn't hear it; you don't what was said, questioned, cross examined or anything else.


I agree with you about the perils of false accusations against men, but the subject does not belong in any discussion about Pell. By all means discuss it; but not in this thread.

If there's a similarity, it's the fact that much of the hysterical mob went after Lindy because she was a Seventh Day Adventist, and after Pell because he headed up the Roman Catholic Church in Australia.

Now both are quite different cases for many reasons.  Different crimes, context, location, media blackout, evidence (or lack thereof) etc etc so you can't really say that Pell is the new Lindy Chamberlain.

At the end of the day Pell will ultimately have to answer to the ultimate Judge.  Whether his appeal succeeds or not.

What, you mean there's no way that the sole witness will come forward years after Pell dies in prison and say "I made it up on account of my dead friend who was the real victim"?

The sole witness has said repeatedly that he only came forward at this late stage to assuage his guilty feelings about the other witness having overdosed.

Do you think it's impossible that there was some motivation for the witness having made it up?

I don't know how anyone could seriously write this. It is pure speculation. Everything you have written about this case so far is fantasy. You may as well say that the witness could have been unduly influenced by the Tooth Fairy at a young age.

The case has been tried according to law. The verdict has been reached. The defence had the best criminal barrister going around. He is the hardest cross examiner at the bar.

Don, for God's sake get used to the idea that you have no evidence at all about this case. Neither do I and millions of others.
You cannot dismiss a conviction on "What if?"

It gets murky, Don, Richter has quit:

Top barrister, Robert Richter QC, has quit Cardinal George Pell's legal team ahead of his sentence and appeal, saying he is too emotional and angry about the guilty verdict handed down by the jury.

More here: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-05/robert-richter-quits-george-pells-legal-team/10873112

I find Richter's explanation extraordinary for such an experienced, high profile barrister. Surely he has had guilty verdicts against clients previously.

Do you agree with me that George Pell is the new Lindy Chaberlain?

Just Four Corners and I'm still extremely disappointed with the standard of evidence. Frankly I think the evidence was too weak.

Discuss.

The difference of course is that Lindy claimed that the Dingo did it.

Pell hasn't pinned the sin on anyone else.

EDIT - They need to amend the Ten Commandments too, as there is nothing there forbidding fornication with under age kids.  Perhaps that's why the Vatican hasn't acted.

I'm glad to see that mikesyd is not taking this thread seriously.

I find Richter's explanation extraordinary for such an experienced, high profile barrister. Surely he has had guilty verdicts against clients previously.

I am not sure Richter is saying what is.

I suspect Pell might have dismissed him and his services.

It gets murky, Don, Richter has quit:

Top barrister, Robert Richter QC, has quit Cardinal George Pell's legal team ahead of his sentence and appeal, saying he is too emotional and angry about the guilty verdict handed down by the jury.

More here: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-05/robert-richter-quits-george-pells-legal-team/10873112

He hasn't quit, it has just been confirmed on 2GB, apparently Richter has put out a statement denying he has quit.