# Cardinal George Pell found guilty of child sex offenses (Update: April 2020. appeal overturned it)



## Deleted User (Mar 7, 2019)

The lion king was dragged out of his den and locked in a cage.

This is big news here in Australia right now. He is the highest ranking Australian in the Catholic Church and had previously claimed to be taking action to prevent sexual abuse in the Catholic Church. He still asserts his innocence and is going to appeal. He will be sentenced on the 13th.

I was not one of the jurors but here are my thoughts:

Given that multiple people claim to have been sexually abused by him and one person claims to have witnessed him sexually abusing others he is probably guilty; but without DNA evidence I don't think you can find him guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.

Making an example of the lion king himself sends a clear message to other people in religious organisations that there is a very real danger of getting caught in Australia. It also encourages other victims who have remained silent to speak up. Religious organisations have long been an ideal den for sexual offenders, especially pedophiles because the victims are unlikely to speak up and churches provide adults with easy access to children.

While not a religious person myself I don't think religion is evil either. If you want to follow a religion you are welcome to do so but don't try to force it onto me.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 7, 2019)

All blatant abuses of power should be handled with this kind of expediency.  Especially when it comes to pedophilia.  Lock 'em up until trial, no bail.  Good on ya Australia, hopefully we follow your lead and stop giving pieces of shit like Jeffery Epstein sweetheart plea deals.


----------



## Noctosphere (Mar 8, 2019)

Is that the man claimed as being #3 in Vatican?
If it is, it's old news, heard about it more than a week ago


----------



## FAST6191 (Mar 8, 2019)

"but without DNA evidence"
DNA is nice and getting a good sample admitted would make the case far easier but it is far from the whole story. I don't know what discovery would have dragged up as far as timelines, descriptions from the claimed victims about things they might not have reasonably otherwise known (markings on things normally hidden by clothes), any fixers that might be involved, claims to third parties... but we do see convictions when lacking it, and prior to it being a thing.

"and is going to appeal"
Do we have any idea what they are going to appeal on?


----------



## Deleted User (Mar 13, 2019)

He was sentenced to 6 years in jail and is eligible for parole after 3 years and 8 months





Noctosphere said:


> Is that the man claimed as being #3 in Vatican?
> If it is, it's old news, heard about it more than a week ago


That's the one. I wasn't sure how far the news had spread internationally.


FAST6191 said:


> "and is going to appeal"
> Do we have any idea what they are going to appeal on?


They're going to appeal both the conviction and the sentence.

EDIT: Can a staff member please remove the hyphen from the thread title?


----------



## Clydefrosch (Mar 13, 2019)

So what's the actual mandatory minimum sentence for child abuse for normal people in Australia?

Because 6 years plus parole seems very moderate

Edit: apparently, the maximum sentence would've been 50 years, so lots of air. And while I can understand taking his age and health situation into account, he's unlikely to survive 6 more years, they apparently also used his lives work as a reason for the low sentence, which is kind of appaling...


----------



## FAST6191 (Mar 13, 2019)

leafeon34 said:


> They're going to appeal both the conviction and the sentence.
> 
> EDIT: Can a staff member please remove the hyphen from the thread title?


Done.

Also I imagine they would appeal those (not much point otherwise). I just did not know on what grounds that might be -- bad law, bad evidence, bad trial procedure... I did not know if anybody had sat in on the trial and noted what the lawyer might have objected to, or ran the analysis past another lawyer for what they would pick up on.


----------



## Deleted User (Mar 13, 2019)

Clydefrosch said:


> So what's the actual mandatory minimum sentence for child abuse for normal people in Australia?
> 
> Because 6 years plus parole seems very moderate
> 
> Edit: apparently, the maximum sentence would've been 50 years, so lots of air. And while I can understand taking his age and health situation into account, he's unlikely to survive 6 more years, they apparently also used his lives work as a reason for the low sentence, which is kind of appaling...


I was thinking the same thing myself. Only 6 years after being found guilty of using force to insert his penis into a minor's mouth. Not sure what the minimum sentence is.




FAST6191 said:


> Also I imagine they would appeal those (not much point otherwise). I just did not know on what grounds that might be -- bad law, bad evidence, bad trial procedure... I did not know if anybody had sat in on the trial and noted what the lawyer might have objected to, or ran the analysis past another lawyer for what they would pick up on.


The appeal for the conviction is going to argue that it was impossible for these events to have taken place.

I would assume that the appeal for the sentence will be to reduce his sentence under grounds of his good character, old age, poor health, spending his life helping troubled people in the community and no prior convictions.

He was also charged with groping young boys at a swimming pool and intentionally exposing himself to them in the change rooms. I strongly suspect he is guilty but the evidence was deemed inadmissible so the charges were dropped.


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 13, 2019)

Good, hope they lock up that subhuman dumpster fire in prison for life. I have zero compassion for those who physically or psychologically harm children and animals.


----------



## FAST6191 (Mar 13, 2019)

Is that not the sort of thing you would argue in the first trial, or indeed when first discussing the case/evidence with the judge, state lawyer type or whatever? Means, motive, opportunity... fairly basic stuff there.


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 13, 2019)

FAST6191 said:


> Is that not the sort of thing you would argue in the first trial, or indeed when first discussing the case/evidence with the judge, state lawyer type or whatever? Means, motive, opportunity... fairly basic stuff there.



Like, maybe I'm just not aware of how the human mind works, but to me, I can't conceive in any way, shape, or form, how anyone can think to abuse a child in such a cruel manner. It doesn't make sense to me. How can people be so intrinsically evil?


----------



## FAST6191 (Mar 13, 2019)

Not sure why I was quoted there. The post you quoted was aimed at the previous post to yours (yours appeared while I was typing that).

Anyway I am less familiar with the full psychology of this one. Some ponder whether it could be related to the whole vows of chastity bit (if your options are limited your standards go down). Some ponder whether such people are drawn to the life (if people have been reliably able to get away with it and get access for decades now...). Some ponder whether it is some kind of fundamental miswire that leads to such an attraction. Instead of nature it could possibly be nurture (if some nasty shit happened when they were young and it was not resolved well then in turn...).
The human mind, while pretty resilient, still has massive failings and evolution does not work to just select the nice people.


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 13, 2019)

FAST6191 said:


> Not sure why I was quoted there. The post you quoted was aimed at the previous post to yours (yours appeared while I was typing that).
> 
> Anyway I am less familiar with the full psychology of this one. Some ponder whether it could be related to the whole vows of chastity bit (if your options are limited your standards go down). Some ponder whether such people are drawn to the life (if people have been reliably able to get away with it and get access for decades now...). Some ponder whether it is some kind of fundamental miswire that leads to such an attraction. Instead of nature it could possibly be nurture (if some nasty shit happened when they were young and it was not resolved well then in turn...).
> The human mind, while pretty resilient, still has massive failings and evolution does not work to just select the nice people.



It's been an off day for me, hell, the past few days, been having withdrawals and trying to overcome a pretty deeply-ingrained psychological addiction. But that's for another post, so I apologize for quoting you out of context. I'm just trying to contribute to this thread.


----------



## Deleted User (Mar 14, 2019)

FAST6191 said:


> Is that not the sort of thing you would argue in the first trial, or indeed when first discussing the case/evidence with the judge, state lawyer type or whatever? Means, motive, opportunity... fairly basic stuff there.


My best guess is

If his appeal against the conviction fails:
- He will be stripped of his priesthood, preventing him from returning the the Vatican
- He will lose his last opportunity to clear his name and mitigate his disgrace
- He will spend a significant portion, if not all of his remaining days in jail

If his appeal against his sentence fails he’s more likely to die in jail.

I sure wouldn’t want to die locked in jail and isolated from my inmates for the sake of my own safety. He’s using every option available to him, probably to avoid the above.


FAST6191 said:


> Anyway I am less familiar with the full psychology of this one. Some ponder whether it could be related to the whole vows of chastity bit (if your options are limited your standards go down). Some ponder whether such people are drawn to the life (if people have been reliably able to get away with it and get access for decades now...). Some ponder whether it is some kind of fundamental miswire that leads to such an attraction. Instead of nature it could possibly be nurture (if some nasty shit happened when they were young and it was not resolved well then in turn...).
> The human mind, while pretty resilient, still has massive failings and evolution does not work to just select the nice people.


I think it's some sort of fundamental miswire. The offenses occurred in Victoria in late 1996 and early 1997. Prostitution was legalised in Victoria in 1984.

Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...nced-six-years-child-sex-abuse-australia/amp/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Australia


----------



## dAVID_ (Mar 15, 2019)

the_randomizer said:


> Good, hope they lock up that subhuman dumpster fire in prison for life. I have zero compassion for those who physically or psychologically harm children and animals.


The double standards of human morality.


----------



## Deleted User (Apr 7, 2020)

And now he's ready to get out


----------



## FAST6191 (Apr 7, 2020)

Well that was rather uninformative. Quashed conviction and leave to appeal in that video. Rest of it chatting about nothing of interest to it all.
Did a search and all that was said across multiple stories was the high court (the final court in the land and with lower courts upholding the conviction) quashed it as the evidence left reasonable room for doubt. Said high court being unanimous as well.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/06/world/australia/cardinal-george-pell-conviction.html


			
				New York Times article above said:
			
		

> While the jury found him credible, along with a majority of judges in the Court of Appeal, the High Court sided with a dissenting appeals court judge who stated that the jury ought to have had a reasonable doubt about Cardinal Pell’s guilt based on testimony from other witnesses who argued that Cardinal Pell’s regular Sunday routine failed to match what his accuser described.



https://www.afr.com/work-and-careers/leaders/george-pell-wins-appeal-20200406-p54ho2 has more including the full decision.

If true (and I have no basis upon which to question things) that would be a fairly fundamental miscarriage of justice, the appeals court also possibly wanting to reconsider matters there, though I return to my earlier comment of means, motive, opportunity -- how was that not established or seriously seriously questioned by the defence lawyers (and indeed prosecution in what must have been a serious build up to bring that case), though looking at the earlier thing then if what was said about the appeals being filed immediately I guess it was considered. I could possibly see a jury being all emotional but appeals court too?


----------



## IncredulousP (Apr 8, 2020)

BANANA_SLAMMER said:


> And now he's ready to get out



Sickening. I wonder what higher power got him out.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Apr 8, 2020)

leafeon34 said:


> The lion king was dragged out of his den and locked in a cage.
> 
> This is big news here in Australia right now. He is the highest ranking Australian in the Catholic Church and had previously claimed to be taking action to prevent sexual abuse in the Catholic Church. He still asserts his innocence and is going to appeal. He will be sentenced on the 13th.
> 
> ...




You know why ? Catholic law dont allowed priests and nuns to get married and in relationship at all. To be honest, it was never mention in the Bible. That's the reason why they are having those behaviours and that's the problem. I never understand Catholic laws because it wasn't mentioned AT all in the Bible!!


----------

