Paedo Pell gets six years

Warning: not economics, via Domain:

Chief Judge Kidd acknowledged George Pell’s sentence would have been lower at the time of offending, but says he needs to take into account the current understandings of the issue of child sex abuse.

He says he must technically have regard of “protection of the community from you”, however he believes Pell does not pose this risk.

Pell will be a “serious sexual offender” for life, says Chief Judge Kidd.

Six years with three year non-parole period.

Comments

    • I doubt the severity of the sentence matches his crime. Not to make an example of him or to punish the Catholic Church, but because he used his uniquely privileged standing as a priest to aid his sexual penetration of children. His appeal of the sentence may well result in a longer period of porridge, which he has unquestionably earned.

      Sadly, he will be put in a ‘safe’ wing of a minimum security jail protected by Catholic guards from ‘Bubba’ and the pleasures of the flesh.

      • I wonder if that old pederast will be defrocked.

        Or if he continues to be a cardinal/bishop/archbishop/priest even when in jail?

      • Why would Pell risk a jury if the evidence be was weak circumstancial and uncorroborated? Innocent people should go the judge alone trial no??

      • harreba, mind filling us in on ALL the evidence the jury heard?

        Your 12.03 post; “Objective”, LMFAO!

    • Your insightful comment is no doubt, based on high legal qualifications, extensive experience and a comprehensive review of all the evidence (the important parts of which were held ‘in camera’ and are thus unknown)? Let’s not have the facts get in the way of excuses for a powerful pedophile with mates in all the right places.

      • Just had read to me the grounds, and know nothing of the facts, but have been to that court.

      • So what are the facts? Enlighten me smarty pants. Where is the evidence? A couple of young boys said they were molested. Maybe true. Still doesn’t seem enough for a conviction to me.

        My comment may not be insightful but it is objective. You. No.

      • @Hareeba
        ” A couple of young boys said they were molested. Maybe true. Still doesn’t seem enough for a conviction to me.”
        By that standard virtually no sexual assault case is convictable. Is that what you are saying?

      • I just judge the grounds, not the facts. I have been to that court 63 times. One is purely a question of law that may win.

      • Hareeba, my reply was to Jason but as you ask, I don’t have the facts. That’s my point – neither does anyone else including you. The man has been tried fairly in a court of law and found guilty by 10 jurors based on all available evidence which you haven’t heard. That’s the way it works. As you don’t have that evidence, why would you assert the judgement is wrong? Your opinion is certainly not objective.

      • ” in the trial process, because the accused was not arraigned in the presence of the jury panel as required,” the appeal, filed by Cardinal Pell’s barrister Robert Richter QC, reads.”

        CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2009 – SECT 210

        When trial commences
        (1) A trial commences when the accused pleads not guilty on arraignment in the presence of the jury panel in accordance with section 217.

        CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2009 – SECT 217

        Arraignment in presence of jury panel
        If an accused has not pleaded guilty to all of the charges on an indictment—

        (a) the accused must be arraigned in the presence of the jury panel or, if a jury panel is split into 2 or more parts under section 30(5) of the Juries Act 2000 , the first part of the jury panel that is present in court; and

        (b) a jury for the trial must be empanelled from that jury panel.
        “Must” makes the provision mandatory. The Victorian County Court is a creature of statute. The error may mean that the Court has no jurisdiction. Technical Certainly.

      • Yep, the appeal will be argued on the basis of minor technical errors and procedural disputes – not on whether he did it or not. If the appeal is upheld on these legal technicalities, the verdict will be overturned – but he’s still a pedophile (just powerful and lucky one).

      • fitzroy,

        I think you need to get online and check out the appeal arguments, not sure what they all were, but one was the evidence was insufficient to get a guilty verdict, anyway, now a C&P of the appeal grounds below:

        “The verdicts are unreasonable and cannot be supported, having regard to the evidence … it was not open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt on the word of the complainant alone,” his first appeal ground says.
        Pell is also arguing that there was a “fundamental irregularity” in the trial process because he was not able to enter a not guilty plea in front of the jury.
        The third ground is that his defence lawyer should not have been stopped from using a “moving visual representation” as part of its closing argument.

        Not a lawyer, but I seriously doubt a “procedural” error like that will result in the conviction being thrown out, I’d have thought it would need to show it had an impact on the decision.

      • You would be surprised what is said to be an irregularity. Brett Walker is a very able Barrister and will be all over it.. The word “irregularity” is a reference to this in sub paragraph (b)
        CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2009 – SECT 276

        Determination of appeal against conviction
        (1) On an appeal under section 274, the Court of Appeal must allow the appeal against conviction if the appellant satisfies the court that—

        (a) the verdict of the jury is unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence; or

        (b) as the result of an error or an irregularity in, or in relation to, the trial there has been a substantial miscarriage of justice; or

        (c) for any other reason there has been a substantial miscarriage of justice.

        (2) In any other case, the Court of Appeal must dismiss an appeal under section 274.

        I think the argument would be that if the trial is irregular it doesn’t matter about the evidence as the court has not lawfully exercised its jurisdiction.

        Cheers

      • fitz,

        “(b) as the result of an error or an irregularity in, or in relation to, the trial there has been a substantial miscarriage of justice; or….”

        How about this part of it “…..there has been a substantial miscarriage of justice; or…”

      • There’s a bit of law on that. The statute and Hansard and some older cases take a strict view, but a ground that some members of the court may find unpalatable. Your guess is as good as mine.

    • Three years for lives destroyed. He lived in heaven and them in hell for life. Not to mention his covering his other mates. Some justice, but not much.

      • peterbruceMEMBER

        At least the witness was prepared to subject himself to 2 full days of cross examination by one of our top silks.
        The cardinal chose not to.
        We were not able to hear or witness that cross examination.
        A jury did, and they found him guilty..
        End of.

      • I assume that is meant to be above. So how about you answer the actual question.
        Unless a sexual assault happens in the middle of a public place with multiple witnesses, how is it ever any more than someone claimed to be abused, and someone else says he didn’t?
        Although given you can’t even operate a comments section properly I’m not expecting a lot of sense from you. No doubt you are one of the logically challenged god botherers.

      • BJ. Not that it is relevant but i am atheist. You guys get all emotional. The guy is a creep. Not defending him. And yes sometimes rapists and sickos get off for lack of evidence. Plenty of people, young and old make allegations that are heinous but you still need evidence. And you and Dennis saying the jury heard all the evidence and the rest of us didn’t maybe true but he has been convicted on the what supposedly happened to a two young boys along time ago.

        I couldn’t give a faark really. I ain’t defending him but plenty of young people and girls who have been allegedly sexually assaulted have later proven to have made it up. Yet the supposed perpetrators have been done over.

        Get a grip.

      • yeborskyMEMBER

        His jail time will be spent pretty comfortably, I’d imagine – sequestered from the hoi polloi, in no danger at all from the general populace. It may take some time before we see if the Church publicly denounces or supports its son. My guess is not much will be said until the bast*rd has died. It all gets swept under the carpet, doesn’t it?

  1. Too much like the Salem* witch trials for my liking: widespread madness whipped up by the media and extremists (who based on media footage look like a bunch of crackpots). Not guilty in my opinion.

    *The Salem witch trials were a series of hearings and prosecutions of people accused of witchcraft in colonial Massachusetts between February 1692 and May 1693. More than 200 people were accused, 19 of whom were found guilty and executed by hanging (14 women and five men).

    • Every day I think “I won’t see anything more stupid than that”. Then someone compares George Pell’s conviction by a jury to a 17th century US witch hunt because the TV pictures show crackpot extremists (with the extreme undefined), and once again I am proved wrong. You would think I would have learned by now.

      • turncoatMEMBER

        I’m not the first to draw the analogy to a witch hunt. It seems quite apt – and imagining that the human condition has changed in a few centuries after forming over millions of years of evolution seems rather implausible to me. Here are some cases:

        Cleveland U.K.:
        In 1987, during the period of February to July, many children living in Cleveland were removed from their homes by social service agencies and diagnosed as sexually abused. The 121 diagnoses were made by two paediatricians at a Middlesbrough hospital, Marietta Higgs and Geoffrey Wyatt, using the later-discredited diagnostic of reflex anal dilation

        Kern County USA:
        The Kern County child abuse cases started the day care sexual abuse hysteria of the 1980s in Kern County, California. The cases involved claims of paedophile-sex-ring-performed Satanic ritual abuse, with as many as 60 children testifying they had been abused. At least 36 people were convicted and most of them spent years imprisoned. Thirty-four convictions were overturned on appeal. Two convicts died in prison, unable to clear their names.

      • Your two cherry-picked (no pun intended) examples have as much relevance to Pell’s case as a 17th century US witch hunt. But since you like data, during your 30-year sample period, now expanded to the US and UK, how many correct convictions for paedophilia have there been? Then I can weigh up your null hypothesis of “Pell is innocent coz….crazies!”

        The George Carlin quote is creeping into my brain now, so maybe I should stop at this point.

    • Yeah turncoat, exactly like the Salem witch trials!! Man, the similarities are just amazing! I reckon you should form a gang of apologists for pedophiles who ruin kids lives. You could have a special section for the apologists of very holy pedophiles.

      • turncoatMEMBER

        “Yeah turncoat, exactly like the Salem witch trials!! Man, the similarities are just amazing!”

        If you don’t like Salem as an example then consider the McMartin preschool trial which was a day care sexual abuse case in the 1980s. Members of the McMartin family, who operated a preschool in Manhattan Beach, California, were charged with numerous acts of sexual abuse of children in their care. Accusations were made in 1983. Arrests and the pretrial investigation ran from 1984 to 1987, and the trial ran from 1987 to 1990. After six years of criminal trials, no convictions were obtained, and all charges were dropped in 1990.

        The trial lasted seven years and cost $15 million, the longest and most expensive criminal case in the history of the United States legal system, and ultimately resulted in no convictions. The McMartin preschool was closed and the building was dismantled; several of the accused have since died. In 2005, one of the children (as an adult) retracted the allegations of abuse.

        Never did anyone do anything to me, and I never saw them doing anything. I said a lot of things that didn’t happen. I lied. … Anytime I would give them an answer that they didn’t like, they would ask again and encourage me to give them the answer they were looking for. … I felt uncomfortable and a little ashamed that I was being dishonest. But at the same time, being the type of person I was, whatever my parents wanted me to do, I would do.

        In The Devil in The Nursery, Margaret Talbot for The New York Times summarized the case:

        When you once believed something that now strikes you as absurd, even unhinged, it can be almost impossible to summon that feeling of credulity again. Maybe that is why it is easier for most of us to forget, rather than to try and explain, the Satanic-abuse scare that gripped this country in the early 80’s – the myth that Devil-worshipers had set up shop in our day-care centers, where their clever adepts were raping and sodomizing children, practicing ritual sacrifice, shedding their clothes, drinking blood and eating feces, all unnoticed by parents, neighbors and the authorities.

        Mary A. Fischer in an article in Los Angeles magazine said the case was “simply invented”, and transmogrified into a national cause celebre by the misplaced zeal of six people: Judy Johnson, seriously mentally ill mother who died of alcoholism; Jane Hoag, the detective who investigated the complaints; Kee MacFarlane, the social worker who interviewed the children; Robert Philibosian, the district attorney who was in a losing battle for re-election; Wayne Satz, the television reporter who first reported the case, and Lael Rubin, the prosecutor.

      • This is what I do FFS.

        I spoke to an expert neuropsychologist (former senior neuropsychologist at the Royal Melbourne Hospital) last week who asked me ‘How are things in Salem?”

  2. From everything they have allowed us to read about this case, I do find it disturbing that a person, be accused and jailed based on one other mans word alone. No witnesses, no other victims other than a dead one and 2 sexual attacks under questionable circumstances. The jury convicted without reasonable doubt? Im afraid of where our legal system is heading. I am an atheist, and dont know pell nor the victim. my over-analysing brain tells me it all has to do with the Vatican accounts Pell was working on at the time these charges came to the fore. I hope an investigative journo is onto this stinking rat that is the Vatican bank and its mafia minions.

    • There is an interesting analogy with the Brett Kavanaugh US Supreme Court nomination process and the allegations from Christne Blasey Ford in particular. Both accused of long ago sexual assaults by credible complainants but with no corroborating evidence. One goes to gaol and gets a date with Bubba, the others gets appointed the US Supreme Court bench.

      • C.M.BurnsMEMBER

        One was tried before a jury with no stake in the outcome.

        The other was “tried” before republican senators with huge personal stakes on the outcome.

    • You think a priest would abuse a kid when there are witnesses around?? If pedos were sentenced only when there were witnesses, none of them (including Risdale) would be in jail.

      • Not a witness to the incident, witnesses of other instances. Or witnesses from his colleagues etc. Paedophiles dont stop at one or 2, they continue with their sexual depravity. I did hear about allegations of a pool incident with others, why isnt that going to trial also? Then a clearer picture can be had of the man and stop us thinking that this is either a witch hunt or a cover up by the Vatican bankers. Either way, it scares me that someone can accuse me of something that I didnt do and I go to jail. We should all be scared the precedent this is setting.

      • Nonsensical strawman argument Georgi – the question should be: “What if someone can accuse me of something that I did do and I get found guilty by a jury and then go to jail?” It’s called justice.

      • @georgi
        “Either way, it scares me that someone can accuse me of something that I didnt do and I go to jail.”
        It should scare you even more that someone can make a claim of domestic violence against you and an order can be made restricting your liberty without even requiring your appearance before a court.
        You are highly naïve if you think there are no innocent people that have been convicted under our criminal justice system.

      • And Georgi,
        the reason no other victims come forward is because they don’t want to put up with BS like you are spouting accusing them of lying.

      • The law has changed, and it needed to, over the last 30 years from being unfair to the complainant to unfair to the accused.

    • Ronin8317MEMBER

      Plenty of people have been convicted on witness testimony alone without physical evidence : Rolf Harris, Bill Cosby, Robert Hughes. The witness is credible to the jury, and Pell had a really bad lawyer.

      Personally, I have no idea. The only people who knows the truth is Pell and the witness.

      • Those names you mention, I believe afew victims came out. In Pell’s case, one only with another who dyed afew years ago. Dont get me wrong, not supporting Pell. Questioning the circumstances under which he has been convicted. start reading up on what he uncovered when he took on the finance role at the Vatican and you too will question what has happened. I repeat, not saying he is innocent. Only he knows.

      • “Only he knows”?? I reckon that provides an insight into your position on this Georgi. I think his victims know too. Or don’t you think about them?

      • Georgi,
        I hope I get to meet you face to face in private one day. I’d love to smash your face in with a cricket bat. Since no one else saw, and I’ve never done it to anyone else, I should have no trouble avoiding a conviction 🙂

    • Don’t waste your time. You’re dealing with typical spoonfed Aussies. The tv said he was a pedo so he’s a pedo. The fact he was uncovering and reporting massive corruption in the Vatican Bank right before an alleged indiscretion that occurred 20 years ago based on hearsay alone pops up out of nowhere is pure cohencidence. You’re just a conspiracy theorist maaaaayte. Loosen your tin foil hat, cobber…

      • Nothing to do with Vatican corruption and everything to do with secretly fiddling with innocent small boys who trusted him while he was simultaneously covering up identically disgusting perversion by his fellow priests. And all at a time when he was telling the rest of us how we should live our lives.

      • So the victim is a long ago planted sleeper agent of the vatican intelligence services? Or a paid actor they’ve got to make the allegations? What exacty is the mechanism for this fantasy? Would make a great novel I bet.

      • Pell has had a history of allegations of this sort, you don’t have to go far (SMH) and see the lady who was hired by the CC to investigate and passed on info to the higher levels and was shut down.

  3. Regardless of whether this conviction gets quashed or not, the measure of the man was revealed when it was shown he acted to protect the Catholic Church over abused children. Scum. Absolute reptile.

    • When I held a junior role in a large corporate, I witnessed some extreme cases of workplace bullying by senior management to my peers. I was in no position to do anything about it, does that make me guilty?

      From what I have read, when these things happened, Pell was not a senior member, once he became senior he did something about it. Not enough I agree, but he was the first to establish an investigation etc.

      • Did you witness things that seemed like they might have been criminal behaviour? If so, you should’ve called the police to investigate.

      • – Pell was part of the Ballarat diocese leadership team that moved Gerard Ridsdale from Mortlake to Sydney in response to the second set of complaints against Ridsdale.
        – When questioned why he accompanied Ridsdale to trial in his capacity as Auxillary Bishop Pell said it was ‘to lessen his punishment’.

        Both of these actions were taken by Pell in a senior capacity relative to Ridsdale, and there is no doubt the second time around Pell knew what the allegations were. Although Ridsdale’s most prolific period was apparently during the ’70s, he has been convicted of abusing victims he first came into contact with after 1982 – those victims would not have met Ridsdale had the Ballarat Diocese referred Ridsdale to police in 1982.

  4. surflessMEMBER

    The same people enable Pell and protected him, and wrote glowing pre sentencing letter, the same people who protected the bankers. When will they face justice?

    • Stewie GriffinMEMBER

      “does it feel good to be such a whiny lil sooky la la?”

      Apologies for the delay – I was just waiting for the count down ticker allowing you to amend your comment to expire before replying.

      Let me assure you it feels great knowing that at the very least you have to go through the rigmarole of setting up another sock puppet account after this one gets banned.

      None to smart are you.

      Hi,

      Once again I regret to ask that you consider sanctioning or taking action against a MB user, who has resurfaced under another guise to harass me and again imply that I’m a pedophile:

      https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2019/03/paedo-pell-gets-six-years/#comment-3310722

      I strongly suspect that this is the same user “teerol” that my previous request (below) was in regards to, given that without provocation he sought out my comment, then proceeded to made the same disgusting implication as last time and finally when challenged with the accusation that he was the previously banned individual ‘teerol’ he refused to deny it.

      The user is not a paying subscriber to MB and is plainly engaging in unproductive and unprovoked trolling amounting to little more than targeted harassment – especially since he first sought out my comment. Again I respectfully request that this user be sanctioned with either a temporary or permanent ban.

      My sincere apologies over having to once again make this request.

      Kind regards

      Stewie Griffith”

  5. “Too often in complex cases such as these we are quick to label someone a criminal, without letting the system work in the way it was designed. Too often, we judge someone based on the findings of a rigorous legal process, rather than waiting to see what Mr Bolt’s opinion on the matter may be. After all, he wasn’t there.

    Unquestionably, the opinions of those twelve jurors were influenced by the fact that they were there in court at the time of the hearing, listening to the evidence. Mr Bolt’s opinions were never tarnished in such a way. At arms-length from the evidence, Bolt is better equipped to come to an objective conclusion about what took place, and – more importantly – what didn’t.”

    http://www.theshovel.com.au/2019/03/05/george-pell-the-assumption-of-innocence-until-proven-guilty-by-andrew-bolt/

    It was written about Bolt declaring innocence from a position of ignorance but seems applicable to a few above.

  6. Just from what I have read and without access to the evidence…so from my superficial point of view I get the feeling that “beyond reasonable doubt” has not been meet. But thinking on the overall picture, someone has decided that the church shall be held account from their sins regardless …meaning heads will roll… and anyone slightly involved will have the book thrown at them. There has to be high profile convictions to show the public that action is being taken by the state against the Church.

  7. I find it impossible to believe he’s guilt on the basis that apparently he is a luvely conversationalist.

    And if that’s good enough for John Howard and Amanda Vanstone, that’s good enough for me.

  8. So to all those people who and confident that “beyond reasonable doubt” has not been met (bizarrely without knowing what all the evidence is) – if Pell was innocent, why wouldn’t he take the stand and be willing to be cross examined under oath?

    • His barrister NEVER lets his clients testify.

      And the rules of evidence are very clear in that if a defendant does NOT testify the judge should instruct the jury that there should be no inference as to guilt or innocence that can be drawn from the fact.

    • Its not about being confident of reasonable doubt, more that the information that has been made public is not convincing. All I see of a leadership position like an Archbishop is that people always want something and you never get a moment’s peace. So how did he get the opportunity to do what he is supposed to have done? And the mania that swept along with it in the media is unnerving. If he is guilty then fine. But show the proof in public so it can be accepted. At present all I see are cheering haters. I await the appeal.

      • bolstroodMEMBER

        Pell is Guilty under Law and has been sentenced, and is in jail.
        These are the facts.
        That he has appealled his conviction does not alter the facts under the Law.
        It is possible that by appealing he may find himself with an increased sentence.


      • But show the proof in public so it can be accepted.

        The public is neither the jury nor the judge, so doesn’t need to see the evidence. The actual jury and judge saw the evidence, and we have their decision.

  9. The instant John Howard, Tony Abbott, Miranda Devine, Andrew Bolt and Amanda Vanstone came out testifying to Pell’s character… I knew the sucker was guilty.

    • Jordan Peterson is right about identity politics and its connection with 20th century totalitarianisms. Guilt by class membership, never mind about facts and evidence and due process and the rule of law.

  10. It’s a frightening time to be in some positions that are associated with reactionary conservatism.
    I see it as highly likely that “progressive” haters are quite willing to commit perjury to get people they hate “put away” because those targeted “deserve it anyway”. Same goes for juries convicting on one person’s word. Someone like Pell “deserves it anyway” so who cares if he actually committed the specific crime the court case is about?

    I’ve got a lot of issues with the Catholic Church but I’ve got even more issues with modern progressives. Both will lie and cover up and suborn evidence “for a good cause”. From what I’ve read of the case, I see the “victim’s” account as fantastical and riddled with reasonable doubt. Pell would seem to have completely avoided suspicion-arousing behavior (eg like Michael Jackson having boys in for a sleepover) so the best someone could claim is that he did a quickie in a side room with an open door, immediately after a service, with his ceremonial robes still on? The serious paedos who’ve been busted before were setting up opportunities for themselves all the time. If Pell was one of those, that’s what he would have done. One accusation of a one-off quickie, in a lifetime of vows of celibacy seemingly honoured by all other accounts, doesn’t pass the smell test. Same thing with Ford and Kavanaugh.

    The other frightening possibility is this whole “recovered memory” thing which should be regarded as highly controversial. There are institutional battles going on in the psychology profession over it. I strongly suspect that many of the “memories” are being literally planted in toto by a form of hypnosis – again, out of a wish to “get” someone on the wrong side of the culture wars. The “science” is as much a matter of wishing it into being so, as the culture-war progressive’s constructs themselves are. This is not the only branch of science thus perverted.

      • What that suggests to me is that some jurors needed bullying into complying. Jury confidentiality is all very well, but there needs to be transcripts of what happens in jury rooms available for review by jurisprudence experts. The rule of law is of utmost importance, and fewer and fewer citizens these days have a clue what it even is. What is coming to predominate is identity politics, and that is a dangerous thing.

    • bolstroodMEMBER

      The Ballarat doicese was a nest of paedophile priests, but was not an exception.
      Ridsdale and others openly preyed ( not prayed) on the children, to the extent of grabbing them in the playground and carrying them kicking and screaming away to rape them.
      When 16 abuse survivors of these rapists set off for Rome to watch and hear Pell give evidence to the police, thousands of Ballarat citizens lined the streets to offer their support, and see them off.
      The whole Church connived and covered for these monsters for decades if not centuries.
      The whole show should be closed down.

    • “The rule of law is of utmost importance, and fewer and fewer citizens these days have a clue what it even is. ”
      The rule of law is predominantly nothing to do with the courts. It is mostly in what is or isn’t actually placed before them. See foreign property ownership, banking, and thousands of other examples. Getting all high and mighty about the court process is irrelevant when most laws are simply ignored with impunity anyway due to lack on enforcement.

      • How is what I am saying, in any way in disagreement with what you are saying? I too think bankers should go to jail for the institutional-scale frauds they have participated in; but if one banker was being tried for one particular incident in his career and there was reasonable doubt that it even happened, my opinion about bankers would not bias me towards judging that that banker “should go to jail anyway and therefore should be declared guilty in that particular incident”.

        This is the stuff of slippery slopes. Before you know, to your horror, you too will be “found guilty” of something you didn’t do, because of “who you are” and because of “#believeall (fill in the gap)…..”

        The ignorant masses who support revolutions never understand the monster they are letting out of its box. I am reminded of a magnificent one-liner from the too-little-known Yuri Bezmenov: “some people will never stop believing until the boot heel comes down upon their own face”.

      • And I’d add to what I just said: the principle of #believeall(fill in gap) will, as a matter of absolute certainty, create a whole new class of fake victims committing perjury “for the cause”. Because to do so will be a “good thing” not a bad thing. Even if these people believe in God, they’ll expect Him to “understand” and approve of their treachery.

Leave a reply

You must be logged in to post a comment. Log in now