Click The Pic
|
Posted on 04/06/2020 7:24:03 PM PDT by naturalman1975
Finally, despite the worst efforts of Victoria Police, Victoria’s legal system, and the media’s smear factory, Cardinal George Pell has had his conviction overturned by the High Court.
The full judgment can be read here. “A” refers to the choirboy and “B” to his deceased fellow chorister. Below some key elements of that unanimous ruling:
57. In this Court, the respondent correctly noted that a number of the claimed improbabilities raise the same point. It remains that acceptance of A’s account of the first incident requires finding that: (i) contrary to the applicant’s practice, he did not stand on the steps of the Cathedral greeting congregants for ten minutes or longer; (ii) contrary to long-standing church practice, the applicant returned unaccompanied to the priests’ sacristy in his ceremonial vestments; (iii) from the time A and B re-entered the Cathedral, to the conclusion of the assaults, an interval of some five to six minutes, no other person entered the priests’ sacristy; and (iv) no persons observed, and took action to stop, two robed choristers leaving the procession and going back into the Cathedral.
58. It suffices to refer to the evidence concerning (i), (ii) and (iii) to demonstrate that, notwithstanding that the jury found A to be a credible and reliable witness, the evidence as a whole was not capable of excluding a reasonable doubt as to the applicant’s guilt.
And there is this:
124. The assumption that a group of choristers, including adults, might have been so preoccupied with making their way to the robing room as to fail to notice the extraordinary sight of the Archbishop of Melbourne dressed “in his full regalia” advancing through the procession and pinning a 13 year old boy to the wall, is a large one. The failure to make any formal report of such an incident, had it occurred, may be another matter.
On Monday of Holy Week.
Diabolical
These ‘new’ accusations aren’t actually new.
They have already been investigated and either a decision taken not to proceed to court, or they were thrown out of court.
Calling them new accusations - as some of the media is - is evidence of the unfairness of the media reporting.
Assuming he is guilty, that is.
Was he actually cleared? What do that actual victims say?
So the Sydney Morning Herald is playing fast and loose with the truth...a lot like the New York Times,the Washington Post,etc,etc.
Why would you assume he’s guilty?
You mean alleged victims, don't you? Well, one of the two, before he died, declared that it never happened.
He has been found Not Guilty by an unanimous decision of Australia’s highest court.
Presumably his accuser is going to continue to insist it happened.
At his trial, the accuser was the only witness who said it happened.
There were over twenty witnesses who said it could not have happened.
The second jury chose to ‘believe the victim’ over and above all other witnesses.
Note that - the second jury. The first jury ended in a hung jury - according to some reports that jury voted to acquit 10-2. A second trial was then held.
Both these trials were held in secret - no publicity was allowed. The media couldn’t even tell people they were happening.
Seriously - while I do think there are cases where it is reasonable to doubt even a unanimous court decision - this one does not seem to be one of those.
I think it is fair to say, justice has finally been done today.
It’s just a pity an innocent man had to spend over a year in prison waiting for the appeals process to be completed.
The Sydney Morning Herald, and it’s sister paper The (Melbourne) Age are basically the two most left wing major papers in Australia. They, along with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, represent the main part of the left wing biased media in Australia.
I would not call them reliable.
The ABC is the one who falsely said these were new accusations - they broadcast a program on it last Thursday - it’s possible other media organisations have just repeated their claims without properly checking.
The whole case seemed spurious from the start.
Gee, just like they did to Kavanaugh.
And you are willing to swallow it hook, line and sinker because you are so virtuous and open-minded.
As for your snarky remark about my virtue...that's something that the DUmpster Kids would do.
Law here allows an 11-1 verdict or a 10-1 verdict if a cases has been reduced to 12 jurors, but not a 10-2.
Alleluia!
Says Mr. Snark himself as he quotes sleazy sources and feigns ignorance.
you missed the point
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.