ProJared and the relevance to Cardinel Pell

I was tempted to write this thread back when they dismissed cardinal Pell's appeal. However I decided the subject was too contentious and since there was a chance Pell was guilty I didn't want to defend a guilty man. I have always been opposed to organized religion and in my early days on ATS I enjoyed debating religious people to prove all their beliefs were wrong. Clearly many priests have committed sexual acts against children and they deserve whatever punishment they get.

What prompted me to give in and write this thread was the recent video from ProJared. I was completely unfamiliar with ProJared and his current controversy until I saw this video. Apparently he solicited nudes from young boys who claimed they were exploited by ProJared, and he lost a huge amounts of subscribers in a very short period of time. However in his refutation video he clearly shows that the two boys making claims against him are lying, and now most of the internet is suddenly back on his side.

What this goes to show is that we shouldn't immediately believe the accusations made by so called "victims" without any sort of evidence. These two boys clearly collaborated and formulated a plan to make ProJared look guilty and they selectively presented their interactions with ProJared. This is highly relevant to the Pell case because the complainant lacks evidence that he was abused, it's basically his word vs the word of Pell, for an event that took place more than 20 years ago.

I've had several people tell me there must be more to it than hearsay, to be found guilty they must have had some proof. However when you actually look at the explanation from the court as to why the appeal was dismissed, it's entirely based on testimony from the complainant and the premise that it's not impossible for the abuse to have occurred. Here's a quote from the judge explaining the decision:

We note that cardinal Pell did not have to prove anything in the trial, rather at all stages of trial, the burden of proof rested with the prosecution. It was a matter for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was a realistic opportunity for the offending to take place. That involved showing that the offending was not impossible.

How does this logic make any sense what so ever? So in other words, I could make any claim I wanted, and all I would have to do in court is prove that it's not impossible and could have occurred. This is essentially the complete opposite of innocent until proven guilty and it's an absurd way for the law to be enforced. Pell could have easily avoided court, he had complete immunity in Vatican City, yet he felt confident enough in his innocence to fly to Australia and face the claims being made against him.

Obviously we need to be willing to listen to potential abuse victims even if they lack evidence, because sometimes it's hard to get any evidence, and they have believable stories that make sense. However the complainant chose to wait over 20 years and until the only person who could back up his story was dead. Many aspects of his story also appear to be quite unbelievable, so much so that one of the judges concluded there's a good chance the complainant is fabricating the entire story.

In his dissenting judgment, judge justice Weinberg found that at times the complainant was inclined to embellish aspects of his account. He concluded that his evidence contained discrepancies, displayed inadequacies, and otherwise lacked probative value so as to cause him to have a doubt as to the applicants guilt. He could not exclude as a reasonable possibility that some of what the complainant said was concocted, particularly in relation to the 2nd incident. Justice Weinberg found that the complainants account of the 2nd incident was entirely implausible and quite unconvincing. ... To his mind there is a significant possibility that the cardinal may not have committed the offenses, in those circumstances justice Weinberg stated that in his view the convictions could not stand.

The other two judges "took a different view" because they felt the story of the complainant was believable and it was possible that the offense could have taken place. However I would point out that these other two judges are clearly biased against religious institutions based on their statements. They even acknowledge that the quality and consistency of the testimony given varied substantially, which they explain away as saying "well it was a long time ago".

The evidence of the opportunity witnesses varied in quality and consistency and in the degree of recall, both as between witnesses and within the evidence of individual witnesses. We cite at least two possible explanations for this. First the passage of 22 years between the alleged events and the trial meant that there was inescapably a real degree of uncertainty attaching to the memories of the opportunity witnesses. Secondly, attempting to recall particular events is all the more difficult when the events being described are, as they were here, of a kind which was repeated week after week, year after year, and involved the same participants, in the same setting, performing the same rituals, and following the same routines.

How can they admit that the testimony given is flimsy at best, while simultaneously claiming that they think it's good enough to convict a man for the rest of his life? This is clear bias and an attempt to force a dismissal despite the overwhelming indications that the complainant has alternative motives and is making up stuff to get a large victim payout. I really hate to write this type of thread because there's a chance I'm wrong, but even if I am wrong, my point is entirely valid.

It's sets an extremely dangerous precedent to convict a person based purely on the premise "it could have happened" and things like "the robe could have been pulled apart". We let our emotions override our logic and we collectively demonize people for things they may not even have done. Could you possibly imagine how ProJared felt with all the extreme hatred directed towards him for something he didn't actually do? I dislike organized religion, but what I dislike more is organized propaganda and the herd mentality.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Do they have "innocent until proven guilty" in Australian law?

originally posted by: funbobby
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Do they have "innocent until proven guilty" in Australian law?

I'm far from an expert on our legal system, but it would seem we don't, at least not anymore.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

America is a pretty awesome place, I think in most places people are not innocent until proven guilty.

originally posted by: funbobby
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Do they have "innocent until proven guilty" in Australian law?

Yeah, obviously we do... to state the obvious!

The guy was found guilty without a doubt by a jury.

His a dirty old Pedophile and got off light, imo... He'll be out of prison in 3 years.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
Yeah, obviously we do... to state the obvious!

Seems anything but obvious considering the facts of this case.

The guy was found guilty without a doubt by a jury.

I would hardly trust my fellow Australians to reach a rational conclusion about a priest accused of child abuse, our MSM takes every opportunity they get to attack conservatives and religious institutions, but more importantly no one wants to be the person who says the victim is lying, and that's the essence of the issue here, it's why I almost didn't write this thread. Even so, if you watch the court explanation video they indicate some people in the jury had concerns over the validity of the complainants story. Until someone can show me any sort of evidence more solid than saying "it's not impossible" then I cannot see how this case doesn't violate the principle of "innocent until proven guilty".

His a dirty old Pedophile and got off light, imo... He'll be out of prison in 3 years.

Do you really think if they were so sure he did what is claimed the sentence would be that short?

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Seems anything but obvious considering the facts of this case.

The facts of this case are that in Australia the "innocent until proven guilty" doctrine is taken to the extreme. The public was not even allowed to know that he was charged or that the trial was on or what the result was until a second, possibly even more damning case was dealt with (in the end prosecutors decided not to press that second case, mostly due to outside pressure).

The facts of this case are that Pell's trial was scrupulously above board. There was ZERO publicity during the trial for example. Unless you were in the room, you didn't know it was happening.

The facts of this case are that he had an open, fair trial, in front of a jury, with the best legal team that money could buy. He had very powerful figures, both political and religious, speaking up for him and they had an impact (on the second case).

The jury was convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.

Do you really think if they were so sure he did what is claimed the sentence would be that short?

What is the point of making it any longer? It is a life sentence as it is.

And did you not notice all the pressure being applied by the Church and Politicians from ex-PM's down.

I'd be happier with a longer sentence sure, but that will be taken care of with an hour or so in general population.

a reply to: rnaa

The facts of this case are that in Australia the "innocent until proven guilty" doctrine is taken to the extreme.

You saying it with an authoritative tone doesn't make it true. If it were taken to the extreme as you claim then solid proof would be required. It seems quite clear there is no hard evidence left from this event which took place two decades ago. Also the statements from the court make it quite clear that testimony from the complainant is at the foundation of the case, and the prosecution merely had to prove the story wasn't impossible.

The facts of this case are that Pell's trial was scrupulously above board. There was ZERO publicity during the trial for example. Unless you were in the room, you didn't know it was happening.

It seems to me the only thing that suppression of information achieved is wide spread uncertainty to what the facts of this case really are. If the public had full access to the details of this case I suspect they'd find it harder to believe the guilty conclusion.

The facts of this case are that he had an open, fair trial, in front of a jury, with the best legal team that money could buy.

If his legal team entertained the ridiculous premise that it's their job to prove the accusations against their client were impossible then they clearly need to be fired. Their attempt to argue nonsense like "it was impossible to pull apart the robes" is precisely what made Pell lose the case. If we really do have an extreme adherence to "innocent until proven guilty" then their focus should have been on showing how weak the "evidence" against their client was, and the unreliability of human memory over long periods of time. Notice how in the courts explanation they use the word evidence in place of testimony, witness testimony is circumstantial evidence at best, especially when the only other witness to the actual crime is deceased.

The jury was convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.

Well 1 of the 3 judges certainly seemed to think there was more than enough room for doubt. They are better than the average person at detecting deception because it's their job. The other 2 judges claim the story was believable but they admit the accounts given were inconsistent, showing that they're willingly ignoring the highly unreliable nature of memory recall. Things like the Mandela Effect prove we cannot even reliability recall extremely common things we see all the time. If the other boy wasn't deceased then at least we could get some collaboration for the story and there would be little reason to doubt both victims. If you're so sure there's solid evidence which isn't just based on theoretical possibilities then present it.

Also, I find the term "opportunity witnesses" to be quite peculiar phraseology. It seems that isn't a term which has been used in legal cases before Pell. It was on the prosecution to prove there was a "realistic opportunity for the offending to take place", so what that term means is witnesses not to the actual crime, but witnesses to whether or not Pell had a reasonable opportunity to commit the crime. Again, this is a completely absurd way for the law to be enforced. I had an opportunity to commit many crimes today, doesn't mean I actually committed a crime given the opportunity. This logic is completely insane and it really does baffle me how anyone could be convicted based on such baloney.

Well 1 of the 3 judges certainly seemed to think there was more than enough room for doubt.

The jury deals with trials of fact and were unanimous. The Appeal Judges do not examine facts, the only look for errors in the proceedings.

They are better than the average person at detecting deception because it's their job.

That is NOT true.

I repeat, Appeal Judges are not looking for "deception" in the testimony, it is the jury's job to decide on the facts of the case. Appeal judges are looking for errors in the proceedings, not ruling on fact. Never-the-less, all three of the judges agreed that the testimony of the principle witness was both consistent and compelling even after days of ruthless cross-examination.

Appeal judges are looking for errors in the proceedings, not ruling on fact. Never-the-less, all three of the judges agreed that the testimony of the principle witness was both consistent and compelling even after days of ruthless cross-examination.

That explanation from the court clearly states one of the judges felt "there is a significant possibility that the cardinal may not have committed the offenses, in those circumstances justice Weinberg stated that in his view the convictions could not stand.". The core point I'm making is that claims being made by a single person with no other direct witnesses for something that occurred 20 years is no where near enough to prove Pell is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

The ProJared case clearly demonstrates even if you have two people making the same claim there needs to be room for doubt. Those two boys at least provided screenshots of their interactions with ProJared to back up their testimony, nevertheless their testimony and their other evidence was carefully manipulated to make ProJared look guilty. Just because the "opportunity witnesses" say there was a reasonable opportunity to commit a crime doesn't mean that crime actually occurred. Even if we could consider that as evidence, the judges clearly state that the "evidence of the opportunity witnesses varied in quality and consistency and in the degree of recall, both as between witnesses and within the evidence of individual witnesses".

All we really have at the end of the day is the word of one man who waited two decades to make an accusation against a person who had an opportunity to avoid court and when the only other witness to the event was no longer alive. Once again I ask you to present any sort of evidence which isn't purely based on the testimony of the complainant or theoretical possibilities. We have some extremely good liars in this world, just because someone "seems believable" or is "compelling" doesn't automatically mean they are telling the truth, and based on the statements from the court it seems clear the testimony and memories recalled were questionable.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

That explanation from the court clearly states one of the judges felt "there is a significant possibility that the cardinal may not have committed the offenses, in those circumstances justice Weinberg stated that in his view the convictions could not stand.". The core point I'm making is that claims being made by a single person with no other direct witnesses for something that occurred 20 years is no where near enough to prove Pell is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

That judge was NOT commenting on the facts of the case. The jury ruled on the facts of the case, and the Appeals Court cannot second guess that.

That Appeals Judge was suggesting that the Trial Judge should have instructed the jury differently with respect to the testimony, that is the jury was 'not properly prepared'. The other two Appeals Judges disagreed with that one judge, so the appeal was lost two votes to one. That is why there it is tribunal so the appeal doesn't rely on the one person and there is not a tie vote - a two to one vote means the decision from the Tribunal is that the appeal fails. The opinion of one judge is irrelevant - it is the opinion of the tribunal that counts.

Pell was found guilty by a jury of his peers, and his appeal was found to have no merit. He has one further chance to appeal, to the High Court, but there doesn't seem to be any likelihood of success there.

a reply to: rnaa

George Pell: Court quashes cardinal's sexual abuse convictions

a reply to: chr0naut

Yep... just saw the news and I'm very glad he got justice. I also hate to say it, but I mean, I told you guys this was likely to happen because the evidence was just so weak. And to re-iterate, I am not at all religious, I just don't like seeing anyone locked up for the rest of their life when there is a massive lack of evidence.