Cardinal Pell's initial guilty verdict 'an international embarrassment'

YouTube ^ | 04-07-2020 | Sky News

[NRx]

The conduct of some parts of the Victoria legal system in regards to the George Pell case is an "international embarrassment" according to The Australian's Legal Affairs editor Chris Merritt.

[NRx]

See also...

https://youtu.be/BGsRUFD7Wo4

This whole affair is rightly being described as a fiasco and perversion of justice, likely fueled by a virulently anti-Catholic press/media. Thank God for Australia's High Court.

[ebb tide]

Ping

[marktwain]

Good discussion. Shows how the prosecution witheld evidence about the credibility of the accuser.

It was witheld under Victorian law which gives special privileges to victims of sexual abuse.

But, of course, in this case, the only evidence of sexual abuse was the "victim's" testimony. The victim had a long history of mental problems. The accusation was not made until 41 years after the supposed crime, which was alledged to have occurred in 1961, when the accuser was 12 years old.

It is hard for me to see how any court could find a guilty verdict in such a case, which was simply one person's word against another, about events from over 40 years previous.

This does not even consider the sheer implausibility of the account of the alledged crime.

[marktwain]

By Victorian law, I mean the law of the Australian state of Victoria, not the laws of the Victorian era, under Queen Victoria.

[Gay State Conservative]

Naturalman1975,an Aussie Freeper who posts here from time to time,has posted here several times about this case,a case which he obviously followed very closely.He's stated here that Cardinal Pell is the man hated most by Australia's left because he preaches traditional Catholic values and refuses to apologize for doing so.

[MurphsLaw]

Also to note Jury selection in Australia is random..... Without the opportunity for either side to interview and dismiss obvious juror bias...... So in the anti-Catholic areas down under.......Justice may be just a tad tainted....ya think....

Imagine sitting an all white jury in Alabama today, deliberating over the fate of an accused black man......

Yep and you think Roger Stone had it bad........ .

[Salvation]

#5

[Gay State Conservative]

Really? Lawyers can't question potential jurors before they're seated??

A few years ago I was summoned to jury duty in Massachusetts.Having reported on the appointed day I was put in a room with several dozen others and then,after having sat for about 30 minutes I,and a few others,were brought into a courtroom.The case in question was a drunk driver case and,at one point,the judge asked us if any of us thought we shouldn't sit on that jury.

I raised my hand (as did a couple of others) and was told to approach the bench where the judge and several lawyers were.The judge asked me why I shouldn't serve and I replied "because my 18 year old niece was killed by a drunk driver" (which was true).

Immediately on hearing this the judge...and the lawyers...said in unison "no,this man should not serve".So then the judge said I was dismissed and could go home.