As the shock-waves of the George Pell trial continue to be felt throughout Australia, Crikey readers took to the comments section in droves to discuss Pell’s conviction and its implications. Some agreed with Guy Rundle’s point that there are dangers in blindly celebrating the justice system (as many progressives seem to be doing for the sake of seeing Pell’s fall), while others maintained their faith that justice had been served.
On the trial of George Pell
Joe Black writes: In the absence of CCTV or a confession, we don’t have 100% proof on pretty much anything that ever happened. In this case, as I understand, we had Pell’s defence trying to unravel any and every link in the chain of the victim’s testimony and they could not find one broken link. After 20 years that’s a pretty polished performance if the victim made the whole thing up.
Richard Cobden writes: John Howard says that he has always found George Pell to be “lacking hypocrisy and cant”. Surely this judgement should be accepted, coming as it does from an expert on both topics.
Ian Farquhar writes: One can’t help but draw the comparison to a similarly polarising situation: Joh Bjelke-Petersen’s 1991 perjury trial and jury foreman Luke Shaw’s role in preventing a unanimous verdict. In a group of 12 people randomly chosen, the idea that one may be a rusted-on Catholic who daily reads The Australian and believes this to be some massive left-wing conspiracy against the church is hardly a stretch. So I contest that we can’t take any concern from the original hung jury in Pell’s case, and commend the prosecutors in seeking a retrial. Pity they didn’t do so with Joh.
Marion Williams writes: Pell had the best defence that money can buy. He took his time consenting to appear. He waited until it suited him to face his accusers. He was treated with the utmost respect throughout. He was treated as if he were innocent of child abuse. The jury listened to the evidence and found him guilty. The jury is satisfied, so am I.
Marcus Hicks writes: There are a few key differences between Pell and the African-Australians you mention, such as: Pell had the best defence lawyers money could buy; there was a media blackout for the bulk of Pell’s trial, whereas African-Australians are subjected to trial by media; regardless of what is decided on appeal, Pell is already guilty of shielding paedophiles from justice, whilst allowing them to continue their crimes in new parishes.
Send your comments, corrections, clarifications and cock-ups to boss@crikey.com.au. We reserve the right to edit comments for length and clarity. Please include your full name if you would like to be considered for publication.
Bravo, Richard Cobden.
Despite the overwhelming expert advice & inspections those weapons of mass destruction must be out there somewhere….
Dog is like a lame bluey..he moves mysteriously ..
Was Rundle’s argument particular to the Pell case or is that just his broader position on sexual assault convictions, which almost always lack eye witnesses? Is this his response every time a person (usually a woman) seeks justice for sexual assault? While it strived to look like it was making a complex case about truth, justice and rights, his article was really just a straightforward argument for maintaining the status quo: you can’t really believe a rape victim.
It is obvious at a glance that the case against Pell is a steaming load of dog’s droppings. Many do not share my opinion. The case is a Rorschach test. Some will never believe he is guilty, others will never believe he is innocent.
The main stream media is a myth making machine. This is not in itself a bad thing. Perhps we need myths to live by.
The Chamberlain case shows how easy it is to have a mob howling for blood, like a medieval witch trial.
The most obvious interpretation of the facts is that the witness is a drug addict, or former drug addict, who is an easy candidate for “false memory training”. His story is so far fetched that it is far more believable that it is made up than true. HIs story is comparable in believability to him saying that he found Pell in the sacristy having sex with a wombat or a hippotaomus. It is most likely that his story of a perverted imagination, consistent with the tall tales that can be told by drug addicts.