I see that, reviewing my previous comments on Pell, I initially did not think it likely the High Court would readily overturn the conviction after a jury and three judges thought it could stand. (I'm including the trial judge, who could in theory have directed the jury that the evidence was so weak that they must acquit.)
I've always been ambivalent about the likelihood of the allegation, and thought it wise that no one, on the either side of the culture wars, should be expressing certainty about the case. I specifically said that David Marr should not have spoken as if he had complete vindication after the initial conviction - it was a bit of grandstanding.
But today I award my "nonsense Culture War reaction of the day" to - guess who - Sinclair Davidson, reverting to his "physically unimpressive man who compensates by talking like Conan the Barbarian when it comes to politics" mode with this silly claim:
CRUSHING DEFEAT FOR THE LEFT, THE ABC, THE VICTORIAN POLICE, THE VICTORIAN CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM.
Yeah - because every single person on the Left had exactly the same view of the matter, and this "defeat" will change the mind of every person who believes Pell was undoubtedly guilty.
As it happens, I have talked to people who would never vote Labor (and are not, I think, especially big viewers of the ABC) who thought Pell was guilty after his initial conviction. I have also spoken to people of Leftist persuasion who didn't know what to think. There is also the possibility of ongoing civil action involving Pell - although how much there may be to gain from that, I don't know.
In a way, the process has given something that could be seen to "please" both sides: those who were unduly certain of his guilt see that he still served a fair bit of time in jail; those who were convinced that this is the greatest injustice ever* get to jump around with the warpaint on a few days, although they'll soon enough be fuming again if civil actions proceed.
But what is 100% clear is that the final outcome will do nothing to remove the incredible loss of reputation of the Church over child abuse, or resolve its slow moving, painful internal conflict over its loss of credibility on all matters sexual, which really started with its disastrous 1960's decision on contraception.
Good luck with the bigger picture, culture war warriors of the Right...
* It pales into insignificance compared to the Chamberlain case
11 comments:
Oh so your court superstition not working for you any more?
"As it happens, I have talked to people who would never vote Labor (and are not, I think, especially big viewers of the ABC) who thought Pell was guilty after his initial conviction. "
You talked to people. Talk superstition. Court superstition. Opinion superstition. But what you always hate is evidence. You hate science.
The high Court went the way most legal scholars thought the court of appeals should have gone for the very reasons given.
I always though the initial trial and then the appeal judgement was strange given the very low probability of the incident occurring and said so.
Wasn't the first time a decision like this occurs and won't be the last.
Fancy the Da Left having the police and judiciary all their pocket. sarc
He was not found innocent. his conviction was quashed.
A person is never found innocent. They are found not guilty at a trial.
He's presumed innocent. It's not that difficult, surely.
The funniest thing is all the people who were convinced of his guilt even though none of them would have been aware of anything more than snippets of the evidence. Who cares how many uninformed persons thought he was guilty. That's part of the problem when immoral deviates at the ABC set about defaming someone with impunity.
"immoral deviates at the ABC": sounds a tad homophobic, if you ask me.
No the guilty verdict is set aside. In a normal trial a person is found either guilty or not guilty never innocent. That is not the point of the trial.
Funny how Steve is always taking the Deep State perspective. The Deep State wants a financial investigation neutralised? Steve says he guilty. The CDC wants to hide Covid-19 under vaping injuries? Steve cannot stop talking about vaping. Coincidence? Or COENcidence?
Steve I'm not a Catholic. You could call me culturally Christian but I aren't even a believer. Soon, a Chinese man born in Muslim Malaysia is not a Catholic either. So somehow we got it right when you got it wrong. Soon told me right from the start that he was deeply disturbed by the first judgement.
Now how is it that we got it right and you got it wrong. Surely its your disdain for evidence that is the thing in common here? Wake up to yourself. Try to be a patriotic Australian. Go forth and sin no more.
""immoral deviates at the ABC": sounds a tad homophobic, if you ask me."
So the fuck what? I believe that Pell has dabbled with that developmental disorder when in Rome. The backward speech implies some pretty rough stuff going on with a professional. I don't give a fuck thats lawful if somewhat disgusting if true. Its much much more disgusting that you should join a witch-hunt against an innocent man. You knew the evidence was crap. How could you not know?
Last night Bolt kept on and on about it. He has a point about the ABC. I watched some interviews of ABC News and there clearly was some pathetic rationalisations being expressed. The screening of the Sarah Ferguson docs on Pell at the time of the High Court considerations, which I haven't watched, was very bad judgment. So I can appreciate why Bolt is glorying in the decision but I couldn't stand listening to him going on about it for so long. I was flipping to it occasionally while watching other stuff.
The Victorian Police also need to explain to the general public their zeal in this matter.
I'm a leftist and I never thought Pell was guilty and I thought the case as an abomination of justice. Davidson is wrong to think it is a crushing defeat for the Left.
The civil cases should fold. This matter should be put to rest. The 7-0 decision by the HC sends a very strong message that the standards of evidence in such matters must be higher. Civil cases require lower standards than criminal cases but I think it will now be more difficult to bring these cases to court because members of the legal profession might now feel tainted in continuing to mount cases against Pell.
Post a Comment