Guest essay by Eric Worrall
High profile climate skeptic Cardinal Pell, who was convicted of child abuse in 2018, has been completely exonerated and cleared of all charges following a successful appeal to the high court.
Cardinal George Pell’s abuse convictions overturned by Australia’s High Court
By Ed Condon and JD Flynn
Washington D.C., Apr 6, 2020 / 06:25 pm (CNA).- After an ordeal that began nearly four years ago, and more than 13 months of imprisonment, Cardinal George Pell is expected to be released from prison imminently, after his conviction for five alleged counts of sexual abuse was overturned Tuesday by Australia’s High Court.
Pell is expected to be released from prison within two hours.
The court ordered that “the appellant’s convictions be quashed and judgments of acquittal be entered in their place,” in its April 7 decision.
“The High Court found that the jury, acting rationally on the whole of the evidence, ought to have entertained a doubt as to the applicant’s guilt with respect to each of the offences for which he was convicted, and ordered that the convictions be quashed and that verdicts of acquittal be entered in their place,” the court said in a judgment summary April 7.
After a March hearing at the High Court in Canberra, which Pell was not permitted to attend, the cardinal will soon be released from HM Prison Barwon, a maximum-security facility southwest of Melbourne. Pell is expected to celebrate with a private Mass of thanksgiving, the first he will celebrate since his incarceration in February 2019.
…
Read more: https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/cardinal-george-pells-abuse-convictions-overturned-by-australias-high-court-66750
In 2018 the Pell conviction sent shockwaves around the world. Liberals were quick to launch a witch hunt, attacking anyone associated with Pell. As WUWT reported in 2018, a meeting between Cardinal Pell and then EPA director Scott Pruitt a few weeks before Pell was charged led to calls for Pruitt’s resignation.
Former Aussie PM Tony Abbott, who lost his seat in 2019, openly stood by his friend Cardinal Pell even after his conviction. Abbott’s loyalty to his friend likely contributed to his political defeat.
Although I was shocked, I personally accepted the decision of the court when Pell was convicted, and rejected the arguments of people who claimed the conviction was unsafe. Australians normally have a lot of faith in their court system. I’m now sorry for doubting the innocence of a good man who was wrongly convicted.
I recall that I spoke up in defense of both Pruitt and Pell and got pushback from some who are very silent today. Probably they are just formulating their mea culpas.
Congratulations to the cardinal and to Oz, maybe there’s still hope for you.
George was persocuted mostly because of his campaign against homosexuals in the priesthood and rejection of homosexuals activists who insisted on being given communion.
I see nothing in the accusations about being a climate change sceptic. The court case brought nothing about climate change to the jury.
So why does the headline start with this “Climate Sceptic”. What possible relevance to this story is this term?
What possible relevance to this story is this term?
Thank you!
The owner/moderators of this website should NEVER in the personality profile of an individual who is the subject of an article here offer anything except that which ghalfrunt approves as relevant!
I just don’t understand why people refuse to submit, do you?
Oh gee half runt
It would be obvious to any fair observer that Cdl Pell was on the “wrong” side of every issue you and your ilk hold dear. He is a Catholic. Bad enough, but he is a traditional conservative Catholic *gasp*! He believes stuff like there’s only two genders and active homosexuals can’t receive communion. Hate crimes!! He’s not a friend of the green socialist pope. And he doesn’t believe in the State religion of Climate Change (heresy!)
Malicious false accusations had to be drummed up because his actual crimes won’t be actual crimes under the law until your Revolution is completed. And if you had an ounce of honesty, you’d admit it.
In the USA, a man like this would never be exonerated. The Australian high court evaluated the weight of evidence. The USA courts do no such thing. They just check that the judge did nothing wrong. If not, the conviction stands, regardless of overwhelming evidence of innocence.
In the US this man would likely have never been brought to trial. We have educated individuals who avoid doing moronic things like painting a horse with stripes then killing it because horses don’t have stripes.
We’re not as zealous as the Japanese system where the guilty verdict is assured by collusion of a corrupt court system at the time of arrest, but there you have it.
The US requires PHYSICAL EVIDENCE and not just the boredom and bigotry of a jury in order to result in a conviction for felonies.
The Australian high court evaluated the weight of evidence. The USA courts do no such thing. They just check that the judge did nothing wrong.
In the SCOTUS case referenced below, what did the judge do wrong?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/06/21/supreme-court-rules-curtis-flowers-mississippi-death-penalty-case/1120908001/
Dear Ms. Gebert,
Please cite the Federal Rule(s) of Criminal Procedure and also some interpreting case law which support your amazing assertion about appellate review in the United States of America.
Using my little “smart phone,” I have been unable to find an advance sheet or an unpublished (officially) decision or a session law or, well, anything about this enormous departure from well-established appellate review of a jury verdict.
Thank you for your help.
Janice
Pell had other controversial thoughts which you did not headline – why not???
e.g.
Pell on immigrants
“while Australia has the right to regulate the number of refugees it accepts, as a rich and prosperous country, it can “afford to be generous” and must treat humanely those refugees who reach Australia”
Pell on Muslims
“Pell has written of a need to “deepen friendship and understanding” with Muslims in the post–September 11 environment”
Pell on homosexuality
“while he recognised that homosexuality existed, such activity was nevertheless wrong and “for the good of society it should not be encouraged.”
In Australia, we do treat those refugees who come in LEGALLY very generously.
There are a lot of Muslims in Australia, I have many friends who are Muslims.
Its the radical totalitarian fundementalists that are the problem, just like climate alarmists.
His comments on homosexuality, are also sensible comments.
Noting controversial in any of them, why mention them.?
Your and Cardinal Pell’s comments with regard to homosexuality are bigoted nonsense.
Andrew Wilkins,
That is your opinion, not a statement of fact. Your opinion adds nothing to this conversation. Also, name calling is a lame tactic.
Whether you like it or not, homophobia is bigotry, akin to racism.
As rational sceptics, we should not be hitching our wagon to someone who holds such an irrational dislike of homosexuals.
A Catholic Cardinal holding to the Catholic churches teachings on a subject being controversial? Bwahahahahahaha. What would have been controversial would be if he *didn’t* hold to the churches teachings.
So what? I don’t agree with everything he says.
On our side of the fence you can like someone and support them without demanding utter compliance with a rigid shared dogma.
On our side of the fence you can like someone and support them . . .
Yep. Key distinction: “our side of the fence”
This sorry episode illustrates a serious unresolved issue: being able to level accusations against people long after something was supposed to have happened when it is difficult to prove guilt and even more difficult for the innocent to escape unscathed. This gives enormous power to whoever brings false accusations and to the media. Three millennia ago a wise man observed: A good name is more desirable than great riches. The law should not allow false public accusations that destroy people. We need real justice. If a false accuser were to be punished – the way he hopes the accused will – there will be far fewer accusers and less media speculation. If we believe in a final judgement should we not expect ultimate justice?
A non Catholic and boarder at a Roman Catholic school long ago.
Australians can act in strange ways. I am one and I do. Therefore, I rather like this e3ssay from the Journal “Quadrant” just published. A read of the article by Christopher Akehurst will give you a good look inside more contemporary Australian bastardry, the left way. Geoff S
https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2020/04/deconstructing-the-calendar/
You flap like a flag in the wind dont you! Just because there is now ‘reasonable doubt’ (based apparently on his (in)ability to get his tackle out after mass, because of the amount of robe he wears, and anyway, rape is defined as any sexual act, fondling for example, doesnt have to be penetrative) the Church has been a refuge for gays and paedos for centuries.
Two people have come forward, that I know of, and accused him of raping them when they were in his choir. I would be very wary of calling him innocent.
“the Church has been a refuge for gays and paedos for centuries”
Linking homosexuality to paedophilia is disgusting and holy unwarranted.
*wholly
Mis-spelling it as “holy” is quite amusing in this case.
He still yet may be charged for those 2 cases and the existing complaint is very likely going to go to civil proceedings. So it is far from over for the Cardinal.
Matt,
How very fascist of you. In free countries he is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty.
As an Australian, I followed the George Pell case. He was railroaded. Just the timeline of when the claimed assault could have happened was blatantly suspect. There just was no opportunity for the assault to occur.
The jury simply did not give the benefit of beyond reasonable doubt because the media and the system had deemed him guilty and he had to prove himself innocent.
Magna Carta is the very foundation stone of our society. George Pell was denied this very basic right of being innocent until proven guilty. If you think about it, it is difficult to prove innocence if you have been assumed to be guilty merely by accusation. Bit like AGW where humans have been deemed guilty but not even allowed to defend themselves because we have been assumed to be guilty. Even harder to refute claims that have no basis whatsoever when the science is bogus science (or bogus evidence that has been assumed to be true.)
George Pell , to his great credit is a rational climate skeptic. I read an article from him years ago. I was very impressed that such a man of the cloth, cloistered as they are, could give such a worldly argument. He was absolutely on the money when he exposed the climate religion. In reality, the climate religion is paganism. All religious leaders should have that hard look in the mirror. Who controls the universe and in particular, the climate/ temperature on planet earth? Is it the spiritual entity (I am agnostic ) they represent, or is it man via the 3% of CO2 increase that can be attributed to human activity? This is a question that must be asked of religious leaders that plug the cAGW / “climate change” line. Perhaps put them on the spot- who has the Hand on the thermostat. God or Man? If it is man, they are guilty of heresy and they have no right to be representing God.
On another note, George Pell was investigating some of the dodgy aspects of Vatican finance. Could it be the mafia elements that have infiltrated the Vatican that railroaded George Pell ?
I do note that the acid-tongued leftist media are still claiming and insinuating he is guilty, in spite of the unanimous High Court decision. Just heard on the radio that former PM Julia Gillard( There will be no carbon tax under a Government I lead) insinuating George Pell was guilty . This is blatant slander. Realistically, he should be suing these propagandists. If the boot were on the other foot, the noise from the left would be deafening.
There are some level-headed religious groups that are well aware of the climate religion. In particular, Reverend Fred Nile (who I know well) is a very level-headed skeptic.
This reminds me of a case in Manhattan Beach years ago. A couple ran a day care center. Accusations of child abuse arose and the were prosecuted and persecuted by the court and the press. Turns out the children were “coached” in their answers by not so well meaning psychologists. Things were overturned but not before lives were ruined.
Cardinal Pell maybe innocent of those charges, but that doesn’t make him any less of a nasty little homophobe. With regards to homosexuality, here are two quotes made by Pell:
“Homosexual activity is a much greater health hazard than smoking”
““Homosexuality—we’re aware that it does exist. We believe such activity is wrong and we believe for the good of society it should not be encouraged”
I would have no time for such a bigot.
So what. They are his opinions and he is entitled to them as you are to yours. Your opinions are an anathema to me so that makes you a nasty bigot too. Something you accuse Cardinal Pell of.
Let me say in defense of the accuser that anyone is capable of what’s known as False Memory Syndrome and they’re utterly convinced they’re telling the truth. That makes them extremely convincing particularly when the falsehood is so horrific the listener cannot begin to fathom how anybody could possibly concoct such a falsehood, with such devastating consequences for the accused, unless clear malice was involved. That’s the point with FMS that there is no malice involved but for whatever reason they’ve come to firmly believe in something that isn’t true.
How can that be you may well ask? Well it first reared its head with a shameful period of quack therapy whereby largely women in stressful situations or life crises faced suggestive therapy that their problems were all related to repressed memory and abuse as a child and in that situation the power of suggestion was lethal. Accusations of child sexual abuse were visited on many unsuspecting fathers and just like the Pell case with the rise of the women’s movement and shelters from abusive relationships they were all to be believed. That was until one particular innocent father stood up to the falsehood to discover many like him and their daughters had all been through what can only be described as quack therapy and the False Memory Syndrome Foundation was born- http://www.fmsfonline.org/ along with research into the phenomenon.
You can immediately see the political problem with that and how it can divide along lines like climate change has and the political maelstrom Pell found himself in. How do we choose between true child sexual abuse and the quackery of repressed memory and how real id false memory dredged up like that? You’d need the wisdom of your maker but I do know a woman retractor that for 14 years held to the belief that her father had abused her as an infant after such repressed memory therapy. Tertiary educated and with a failing marriage to a husband who was developing paranoid tendencies she fled to a women’s shelter with 2 young boys. It was there and subsequent with repressed memory therapy she came to believe in a total fantasy she would retract in writing to her extended family some 14 years later.
I recall hearing just such a woman come forth with the selection of a US Supreme Court Judge and make an accusation and I’m hearing it now with Joe Biden too so I will maintain healthy skepticism with a Metoo movement that wants every accuser to be taken at their word because I know differently. That’s the disgrace of the witch hunt against George Pell that the adult accuser could hide behind State anonymity and his background and any therapy he had dissected and questioned as it should be just like the accused was sliced and diced publicly.
I don’t want to see paedophiles go free but I don’t want innocent men having to prove their innocence against very convincing accusers in secret without knowing where they’re coming from and when and how did they come to believe in their story. Thankfully the 7 Justices of the High Court recognised the uncorroborated (the other boy actually denied it to his mother) plus fanciful nay impossible circumstances of the events all with no background questioning of the accuser allowed was a travesty of justice. Any of us innocent of such a finger being pointed would respond initially exactly as Pell did when first confronted by it-
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-26/cardinal-george-pell-police-interview-rape-claims/10233556
He wasn’t lying George he just believed in a complete falsehood and I reckon I know how he came by it.
Some wonder why climate was mentioned with respect to Pell.
Well when you read what the fear mongers are suggesting, that is how a trial of a climate skeptic would proceed – little evidence but many false charges.
So skeptics should be ready. Check how many have suggested jailing skeptics.
Many have suffered abuse for not agreeing with climate change by loss of grant, position and reputation. And other causes and agendas.
The evidence was not there to convict yet it seems he was convicted from the street always a good place for a lynching.
Jamie Moodie in comments put it very well: There is no greater ill than to deliberately do damage to another human who has done nothing to or against you.
The left wing Australians are particularly nasty and have converted that beautiful country to a nanny Police state I hope they get over it left that country years ago for BEAUTIFUL South America. lol
The left wing Australians are particularly nasty espeially going after this person and have converted that beautiful country to a nanny Police state I hope they get over it left that country years ago for BEAUTIFUL South America. lol BTW SKY NEWS AUSTRALIA is one the most vociferous anti AGW stations in the world so there not that bad cheers!
George Pell on Joannenova’s site.
http://joannenova.com.au/2020/04/george-pell-catholic-climate-skeptic-old-white-man-vilified-demonized-finally-walks-free/
Miranda Devine, Conservative Australian columnist, said:
“His false conviction raises urgent questions about the jury system, for so long the bedrock of our criminal justice. But that system was perverted by politicians pursuing ideological outcomes, who created legislation in Victoria that altered the balance of justice, so that defendants in sex trials now have to prove their innocence, turning the onus of proof on its head.”
That I never new,. Hence further evidence of totalitarian, government being pushed on us”.
Regards
Climate Heretic
“His false conviction raises urgent questions about the jury system, for so long the bedrock of our criminal justice.”
I wouldn’t condemn the jury system outright in this case thinking back on it. As I pointed out those who are troubled can be the victims of quack recall therapy and coaching about repressed memory. For some time the good society has been paranoid about paedophilia so that’s certainly impacted the thinking of the shrink industrial complex. No longer were you locked in the broom cupboard but you must have been fiddled with as a child if you’ve got psych problems and there’s no doubt all pervasive leftist ideology seeks answers in their dichotomous victim/oppressor view of the world. Having problems? You poor thing you must be a victim so let’s see if we can ferret out the oppressor for you here. (you can see hockey sticks and culprits in tree rings if you look hard enough too)
So as I explained and have experienced a case of False Memory Syndrome the believer in a complete fantasy can sound very convincing and there’s nothing like the Big Lie to be believed. Yet the first jury listening to both sides couldn’t decide until a second one was led by the Judge around the impossibility of Pell being where the accuser said it happened and there was a guilty verdict. Pell’s senior Counsel Richter even admitted he stuffed up and ultimately the jury believed in the sincerity of the unquestioned and untouchable accuser given the political climate at the time and a redacted Royal Commission report into the Church dealings so as not to impact the jury unfairly. Yeah sure thing.
So off to the Supreme Court for an appeal and it goes 2 to 1 against Pell and the 2 rely on how convincing the accuser is and that’s that. Only when 7 of the top Jurists in the land look over it all do they unanimously determine the second jury erred and so did 2 Supreme Court judges at the very centre of the political storm and for those of you who don’t know Victoria makes California look like a bunch of conservatives.
All in all 1 undecided jury and one guilty with a Vic Judge leading proceedings and then 2 against 1 with appeal in Vic but they’re overruled by 7 High Court judges away from the political maelstrom looking over it all. I wouldn’t dismiss the jury system lightly yet as a lot can depend on the presiding judge steering proceedings but consider yourselves suitably admonished those who got it wrong and why you did. The first jury is excused naturally.
really? you are touting a pedophile as a champion of climate denial?
wow. I’m speechless.
chris, you win the liberal bingo.
Which pedophile was that ?
Prepared to name him or her ?
Here let me help you get your speech back with some sentencing facts once the second jury had found Pell guilty- https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-13/george-pells-full-sentencing,-as-issued-by-peter-kidd/10897650
Now note what the Judge has to say about the defendant and secret accuser-
“Victim Impact Statement of J
In relation to the victim J, these crimes have had a significant and long-lasting impact on J’s emotional wellbeing, which has, in turn, affected many aspects of his life.
J has experienced a range of negative emotions which he has struggled to deal with for many years since this offending occurred. Sometimes those feelings have been overwhelming.
In particular, the offending has had a significant impact on J’s relationships. He has found it difficult because of issues of trust and anxiety.
I take into account the profound impact that your offending has had on J’s life.”
So he’s had problems most of his life and what sort psychiatric help and counselling has he had over 20 odd years while he never told a soul about what he and his mate were terrified about frightened and crying to be let go in the sacristy that for once wasn’t a hive of activity? You can read all about that from the judge but his mate R who when his mother first heard about it all and asked him to corroborate the story told her it never happened. Why would he lie to his own mother about that when backing his mate J could have seen him rolling in heroin money via the Catholic Church? Doesn’t make sense except we know J had lots of psychological problems he was only too happy to let the judge know about.
As for R’s dad and mum too even though their son denied it ever happened they don’t want to believe R because not believing him gives them something to hang onto as a reason for him hitting the heroin and overdosing. That’s because we know for many parents facing such tragedy with their offspring they’ll inevitably ask themselves where did we go wrong when there isn’t any rhyme or reason to it. Still even the judge goes there after dismissing R’s father’s impact with his comment-
“Absence of Victim Impact Statement of R
I do not have the benefit of a Victim Impact Statement from R, who is deceased.
However, on the basis of J’s account at trial, I am able to say that your offending must have had an immediate and significant impact on R.
The defence submit that I should not speculate as to the long-lasting impact upon R. Whilst it is not possible for me to quantify the harm caused, or articulate precisely how it impacted upon R in the long run, I have no doubt that it did in some way.
I am mindful of the authorities which recognise that sexual activity with children is presumed to cause long-term and serious harm, both physical and psychological to the child.”
Well obviously R was lying to his own mother and we’re not to believe R or Pell who we know from the Judge-
“First, there is no medical or psychological evidence before me of any kind, which supports any inference that your mental functioning was impaired or diminished in any way at the time of either episode. I note your counsel did not seek to engage the principles of mental impairment under the case of Verdins.
Second, there is no evidence before me from any witness at the trial that you were other than a fully functioning, competent, lucid and intelligent man, during the relevant period of time.
To the contrary, there is evidence that on the day of the first episode, you had successfully delivered Sunday Solemn Mass, as Archbishop, this being a public role requiring discipline and focus.
Third, in relation to the first episode, you offended over a period of minutes, where there was ample opportunity for you to both reflect, and to stop.”
Yes folks Pell has just been made Archbishop with all his marbles and wits about him and contrary to Portelli, et al describing the impossibility of him whizzing off from the meet and greet out on the steps he has whizzed off to the hive of activity at the sacristy and you beauty here’s my chance to get my dick sucked for a minute or two and nobody will be any the wiser. 7 High Court jurists listening to it all weren’t so easily convinced by the mob baying for blood.
The Guardian gave more coverage to Pell than it did to the Rotherham scandal where 1400 girls fell prey to Islamic child “grooming” gangs. While Pell was charged with assaulting two boys. And the Guardian is based in London, which is hardly adjacent to Australia whearas Rotherham is 3 hours away by train. Of course the Graun is shot through with bloviating crap about AGW or as they insist on calling it “global heating”. Not kidding, it’s in the paper’s style manual along with “climate crisis”.
Anyway, it’s instructive of the bias in the leftist media and shows how you can’t trust them to report the straight dope.
Global heating?
Why not “central heating”?
Central heating is very bad as it usually is a potent source of greenhouse gases, unless it’s powered by a rooftop solar array (Al Gore) , the plebs must make do with animal dung fires in their woad huts.
The Conversation (ironically named because it is just brow beating and propaganda) wrote the leftwing line that he got off on a mere technicality.
“The High Court found the interests of the administration of justice required their involvement. This does not itself indicate any view about Pell’s guilt.”
They wrote
“The High Court found that the jury, acting rationally on the whole of the evidence, ought to have entertained a doubt as to the applicant’s guilt with respect to each of the offences for which he was convicted, and ordered that the convictions be quashed and that verdicts of acquittal be entered in their place”
The ‘technicality’ is that witnesses testifying how improbable it was were ignored. Still, the leftwing media play along with the lie.
While I don’t like Bishop Pell ..similar to his near namesake Dr Fell..
I don’t like thee, Dr Fell
The reason why I cannot tell
But I don’t like thee, Dr Fell
…the guilty verdict was not a verdict against Pell himself but against the Catholic Church’s handling of child abuse cases. Any objective review of the evidence agains Pell must have concluded that the case was unsound.
The jury system should be supported but it can get things wrong particularly in periods of “heightened awareness”[aka lynch mob mentality].
Now wait for the ABC and fellow travellers to dredge up whatever they can from Pell’s past to try and implicate him in additional child abuse cases.
I saw a statistic that there were something like 600 Catholic Priests accused of abusing children in a single year in the U.S. In the same year something like 20,000 public school teachers, overwhelmingly women, were accused of the same crime.
“Chris Hoff April 7, 2020 at 8:39 pm”
There is a similar statistic that shows men commit abuse of children where women dwarf those figures. Who’s right?
Yes, there’s a whole trend of unattached female teachers pushing mid thirties getting impregnated by adolescent boys. Sometimes the boys parents even facilitate the abuse, people think he got lucky. Then the boy gets hit with 18 years court ordered child support, either he pays his rapist or goes to jail as a dead beat dad for it.
https://www.quora.com/Why-does-a-boy-who-fathered-a-female-teacher-s-child-have-to-pay-child-support-when-he-becomes-18
According to one study, when asking boys if they have been sexually assaulted by adult women, only one quarter of them will answer yes in proportion to a group of girls the same sample size. However, if you then go on to ask the boys if a woman has touched specific parts of their bodies in a sexual manner consistent with sexual assault/molestation, four times as many will say yes. The problem, is that we live in a society that has conditioned males that they are the predators and women the victims. The reality is that women abuse underage boys at the exact same rate that men abuse underage girls.
Eric Worrall said:
“I’m now sorry for doubting the innocence of a good man who was wrongly convicted.”
A good man?
Pell said that if someone confessed to him that they committed child sexual abuse, that he wouldn’t tell the police.
“If that is done outside the confessional (it can be reported to the police) … (But) the Seal of Confession is inviolable.”
Source:
https://www.abc.net.au/7.30/archbishop-pell-reacts-to-abuse-inquiry/4370042