(Cardinal) George Pell appeal: prosecutors asked why complainant didn’t warn fellow chorister

The Australian ^ | 6th June 2019 | John Ferguson

[naturalman1975]

Returning from lunch Mr Boyce dealt with the second episode of abuse which involved Pell pushing the chorister against a corridor.

Justice Weinberg said the chorister would have been at the front of the procession.

“To get to him (Pell) would have to get past or move past a whole bunch of choir boys,” he said.

He said it would have been a surprising event with risk and described it as “somewhat improbable.”

.....

Justice Weinberg questioned why Pell would have assaulted the claimant in the cathedral a second time.

The jury convicted Pell of this assault, which occurred in 1997.

Weinberg: “It sounds like an improbable thing for the Archbishop to have done.”

.....

[naturalman1975]

These are extracts from behind a paywall. I can't find anything decent to share that isn't behind a paywall.

The appeal against the conviction of Cardinal George Pell for sexual abuse of two children is underway.

I have made no secret of the fact that I have considerable doubts about the guilty verdict in this case (and I am not the only person to do so), largely on logistical grounds - it's difficult to understand how the alleged crime could have happened as described.

Now I stress that the mere fact that the appeals Judges are asking these questions does not mean they will acquit Pell on appeal. I don't think anybody should read that into it.

However, I do think it illustrates that the Court of Appeal is more able than the County Court was to go against what has been described as a 'Witch Hunt' atmosphere - that is not intended as a criticism of the County Court, but of the environment that the trial was held in - learned experienced judges hopefully have more ability to maintain objectivity than jurors undergoing one of the most important events in their lifetime.

And the fact that his trial was held in secret while this appeal is being held in public, gives us all a greater chance to see the strength or weakness of the case against Pell.

Justice must not only be done. It must be seen to be done.

If Pell is guilty, he should rot in prison and then burn in Hell. I've said that from the start as well.

But it is very important that he gets a fair trial to the full extent of the law, including his rights to appeal - that creates the best chance that the final verdict will deliver justice.

[naturalman1975]

Note - while the Appeal should be completed today, it is very unlikely the Judges will issue any sort of judgement today. They will instead consider the evidence over coming days and weeks before writing their ruling. It is likely to take at least weeks, if not a couple of months before we get a ruling.

[pbear8]

In discussing this case with my clerical friends I have asked those who have been MCs for high ranking prelates numerous times, “What would you do if the prelate you were serving left the recessional before it got out the door?”. To a man they responded, “Go after him”. It would be their responsibility to make sure the Cardinal was not taken ill or somehow in need of assistance medical or otherwise. This is just one reason I think it could not have happened as the accuser says.

[BlackVeil]

I agree with all your points. I find this case doubtful. I wish that we could know the truth, for sure, but how can that be possible after so many years?

[melsec]

I have also found this whole thing extremely fishy but have not kept up with it as well as you. It seems to go against everything the man has ever stood for. I was brought up Catholic but would probably describe myself as evangelical now so I have no leanings which would make me wish he was innocent. Everything about it just seems highly unlikely and given that and the climate in the media and general populace for a head to roll re: abuse in the church I can’t help but feel he was a suitable scapegoat. Like you say I am not the only one I know who thinks this stinks. Being amongst very conservative natured people it makes me cautious about this whole thing.

[Gay State Conservative]

And the fact that his trial was held in secret while this appeal is being held in public...

A secret trial???? Yikes! Isn't that they type of thing that one expects in North Korea or Cuba?

[Cletus.D.Yokel]

Or from Torquemada...

[naturalman1975]

I would say so, yes.

The rationale for it was that he was facing further charges that would have been heard at a second trial this year, and publicity about the first trial would have damaged the second one.

But before that second trial began, prosecutors dropped all the charges.

There have been a lot of allegations against Cardinal Pell. Most have been thrown out without ever reaching trial because there hasn't been sufficient evidence to proceed.

This is part of the reason why a lot of people talk about a witch hunt - it can seem as if allegation after allegation were thrown at the man in the home that some would eventually stick.

When the verdict in the Pell trial was delivered last year, Australian media wasn't allowed to report it. I am attaching the front pages of our two largest circulation newspapers below (they are the equivalent papers in Melbourne and Sydney which is why they have some similarities in style).

Basically the Australian press was not legally able to discuss it until the suppression order was lifted, which occurred earlier this year when that second trial was abandoned.

Because I am classed as a journalist (I've very occasionally had opinion pieces published in some papers) I wasn't able to discuss it - even here, except in the vaguest terms - until the orders were lifted.

[naturalman1975]

To be absolutely technical the trials weren’t secret. Anybody who knew about it could go and sit in the public gallery and watch it.

But the media wasn’t allowed to discuss it at all, including not being able to tell anybody it was happening, so virtually nobody knew to go and sit in the public gallery and watch it.

[Gay State Conservative]

Because I am classed as a journalist (I've very occasionally had opinion pieces published in some papers) I wasn't able to discuss it - even here, except in the vaguest terms - until the orders were lifted.

A few years back I became interested in a case in Canada in which a Canadian Air Force Colonel was accused of rape and murder.The CBC did a couple of documentary pieces on the case and during them made several references to "publication bans" which prevented them from mentioning certain facts.

I don't know if US judges have the authority to do such things...except,perhaps,when national security is at issue....but I've never heard such a thing mentioned. You probably know that film crews are often (but not always) allowed into our trials...except in Federal courts.

In fact I've read about at least one case in Britain where reporters weren't allowed to cover certain things about a criminal case...so maybe it's just countries whose courts follow the British model regarding criminal proceedings.

[sparklite2]

I don’t know if US judges have the authority to do such things...except,perhaps,when national security is at issue

---

I remember reading about that case.

As for US judges, there was a commercial trial in some big case. The results were sealed, and the fact that the results were sealed was also sealed.

[naturalman1975]

The very clear statement about freedom 'of the press' specifically in the US First Amendment has tended to give American media more protection from this type of censorship than in most other countries that draw their law from English common law (and in general the US is such a country although it's built a lot more on top of that).

But other countries including Australia do have fairly strong protections for freedom of the press - it's just here (and in some other places as well), it can be argued that there are situations where conflict exists between particular rights, and because of that, there needs to be a decision as to which rights take precedent.

This includes situations where a defendant's right to a fair trial is considered at risk if there is too much publicity before the trial.

Legally the concern was that adverse publicity during the first trial might have prevented Cardinal Pell receiving a fair trial subsequently.

And generally, there's probably some truth to that in the case involving alleged sex crimes.

However, in Pell's case, the situation is almost unique. Pell has been the victim of hostile media attention for two decades already. He has been under constant attack by the left wing press for his support for the Church's traditional teaching on homosexuality since the mid 1990s, and more recently (and in my view largely unfairly) he's been seen by many as somehow responsible for the historical coverups of sexual abuse by Catholic clergy (and, as I say, in my view, that's mostly unfair - these coverups occurred before he was in a position of power and authority - while he was an Archbishop and a Cardinal at the time they finally became public, a lot of people do not seem to understand that these things had happened years or decades earlier - in fact, there's a lot of reason to say George Pell was the first senior figure in the Catholic Church in Australia to take a stand to stop the coverups and that's part of the reason why it became public on his watch). The point is - any damage to his reputation, deserved or undeserved - has already happened. The man is one of the most hated public figures in Australia - so suppressing that trial did nothing to protect the integrity of the justice process. Any damage that could be done by publicity had already been done years earlier.

As just one example, in 2016, an Australian comedian Tim Minchin wrote a song called "Come Home Cardinal Pell" abusing him for (as Minchin and others claimed) not returning to Australia to give evidence to the Child Abuse Royal Commission, instead giving it by video link from Rome. Pell didn't travel at the time for health reasons on the advice of Doctor's - people like Minchin claimed that wasn't true. We now know George Pell has congestive heart failure - he's not faking any illness, he's not a well man at all. That song went to number one on the iTunes Charts in Australia.

The damage from any publicity was done years ago.

[Gay State Conservative]

This includes situations where a defendant's right to a fair trial is considered at risk if there is too much publicity before the trial.Legally the concern was that adverse publicity during the first trial might have prevented Cardinal Pell receiving a fair trial subsequently.

Yes,it's true that in countries like Britain,Canada,Australia and the US...countries that all take individual rights, *and* societal rights,seriously...the balancing act between seemingly conflicting rights can be a difficult one.