Everyone deserves a fair trial. Imagine being convicted in a he said she said trial when you have witnesses saying you could have never possibly been in the place at the time of the alleged crime. It should have be worrying for every Australian citizen.
YEAH RIGHT STUPID THE WHOLE ROYAL COMMISSION AGAINST CHILD ABUSE DICKHEAD WAS A WASTE OF TIME BECAUSE THE ONLY FACTS THAT MATTER COME FROM THE ADULT PERPETRATORS YOU FOOL
Pell had three fair hearings. It was not 'impossible' for him to be in the sacristy. It did not come down to a 'he said, she said' issue. He was sentenced to six years out of a possible fifth, again, fairly. Pell, convicted by the people. Overturned by a grandstanding barrister who "glossed over" the majority of the evidence. Listened to by a panel. Where has the justice in this case fled to?
We congratulate you Andrew for being, not only a descent human being but having the guts to speak the truth that is almost destinct in these modern times. You are THE only person left that so many of us can relate to on ANY media channel!!!...Sleep well.
@@bobhawke7373 idiot, Chamberlain was never guilty. Her case was trial by media too, just there was no internet then, but TV and newspaper tried her anyway.
One of the ten commandments is " thou shalt not bear false witness against your neighbor " We ought to meditate on that. It's devastating to be falsely accused. It also makes it very difficult for real victims to be believed.
The problem with your assertion is that the men who made the accusations have/had made those accusations about pell continually for years spanning into decades. Old father Bob was their priest and he tried to campaign on their behalf, which resulted in his being overlooked for leadership in that church. Yes, bolt can say what he wants but SKY needs to rethink backing this innocence of pell POV as it will only make the victims of sexual abuse loathe sky news.
@@alexanderpowell1528 So what, you're saying SKY should trust liars who have a gripe with the Catholic church, just because they state they're victims?
@@rogergibbs2937 Roger Gibbs if you're going to ascribe false memories to the long term suffering of others then that means those times you were bullied as a child Roger, well, they are false memories and that bicycle that was stolen from you and later that car that was stolen from you, well, yet again those things didn't happen because they were merely your false memories. It's a slippery slope you're arguing there.
@@alexanderpowell1528 As are you with your attempt to down play what I said. Not for a moment do I condone any sexual crime, but as has been proven over the years False memories do exist. Take for example the young girls in Queensland who had memories accidentally planted in their minds by a phyciatrist that their fathers raped them. Fathers were jailed and many committed suicide over these accusations. It was years later that it was discovered that their memories were falsely implanted. It can happen.
If a person is charged and convicted by a lower court and incarcerated and made an appeal to the high court and found innocent he should be compensated by the government for the length of time he is locked in jail and damage to his reputation.
@@gringolopez8116 Unlike your lazy ass, I actually studied the case & discovered he has had many accusations from children. You obviously have no children.
Thank you Andrew for telling it how it is. We greatly appreciate your objective journalism. One of the few left in Australia. Keep it up. There are plenty of Australians who love and appreciate what you do.
However implausible it may be that Witness J gave false evidence, it was *also* inherently implausible that Pell could have committed the abuse in the manner, place and timeframe alleged. Both the allegation and its denial admitted of reasonable doubt. Therefore, Pell should never have been convicted. The burden of proof, after all, is on the accuser.
That guy is just stupid after all his parents spent on his lavish education. How stupid is our limit? Take it from a black person, he is no role module.
That guy is just stupid after all his parents spent on his lavish education. How stupid is our limit? Take it from a black person, he is no role module.
What do you mean "However implausible it may be that Witness J gave false evidence"? False evidence is given regularly. How about $$$, is that a good enough reason to lie?
tony simon “However implausible it may be that witness J gave false evidence” is not a statement about J’s plausibility. It’s not even a statement, actually; it’s part of a statement. It doesn’t mean anything at all when cut off from the rest of the sentence.
If Pell had never started investigating Vatican finances, he'd not've been accused at all. The populace wants blood for All The Other Priests who did assault choir boys and other children. Not Pell, he was the scapegoat.
Traditional Food . Love your comment this is a lot deeper. The Vatican is corrupt but good people sometimes suffer along with the bad. Jesus’ crucification displayed this. An innocent man JESUS was condemned to death along side 2 criminals. But GOD THE FATHER’s Triumph came from that selfless act JESUS did for all of us. FORGIVENESS for our sins but Man wants his pound of flesh. We either live for the Spirit or live for the desires of the flesh. The real battle is within a man. What we call conscience. Life and death at work in the body. Choose Life which is Love who is Jesus and was displayed by Jesus in how he lives his life. Bless you take care. PEACE be with you in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth.
S H : He's accused of not exposing the malfeasance of other priests, presumably because he believed that it wasn't his place to judge others. He was about to crack Vatican financial corruption wide open. Read Milo Yiannopoulos' book: Diabolical
The Gonad He was not innocent because he was complicit in turning a blind eye to innumerable pedophile priests under his watch . That is the worst type of guilty in the eyes of God . He abrogated his clerical responsibility and his duty of care to the innocent children. Instead he chose to protect a powerful and corrupt institution whose ladder he was ambitiously determined to climb . His arrogance and disdain for victims is unforgivable .....no matter how much you try to defend this man you know in your heart he was guilty by association and for his choice of extreme negligence. A hollow victory indeed when we all know he has indelible mud on his hands . His final judgement will look far different from that of a man-made court of law where justice rarely prevails for the disempowered & voiceless .
Just as a recap for those in the comments still convinced of his guilt despite all the evidence: This [alleged assault] he accomplished immediately after Mass, with the sacristy door open, despite having all his vestments on and with the reasonable expectation that the sacristan, the master of ceremonies, the servers or concelebrants might come in and out or even pass by the open door, as would be customary after Mass. Meanwhile, there were dozens and dozens of people in the cathedral, praying or milling about. The whole affair took place within six minutes, after which the boys went off to choir practice and never spoke about it to anyone for 20 years, not even to each other. Indeed, one of the boys, who died of a heroin overdose in 2014, explicitly told his mother before he died that he had never been sexually abused. So a lower court said, "Yep... that sounds reasonable" despite the following evidence: The unchallenged evidence of the opportunity witnesses was inconsistent with the complainant's account, and described: (i) the applicant's practice of greeting congregants on or near the Cathedral steps after Sunday solemn Mass; (ii) the established and historical Catholic church practice that required that the applicant, as an archbishop, always be accompanied when robed in the Cathedral; and (iii) the continuous traffic in and out of the priests' sacristy for ten to 15 minutes after the conclusion of the procession that ended Sunday solemn Mass. The higher court said that the lower court: Failed to engage with the question of whether there remained a reasonable possibility that the offending had not taken place, such that there ought to have been a reasonable doubt as to the applicant’s guilt. In other words, they didn't care about the evidence or reasonable doubt; they were looking for a way to convict. I'm glad the higher court rectified this injustice.
@Nick Crawford You didn't read what I said did you? And it's not the defenses job to "prove that the witness was lying" it's the prosecutions job to prove the Pell is guilty without reasonable doubt. The circumstances claimed by the prosecution themselves leads to reasonable doubt due to the sheer implausibility of the alleged assault occurring as they claimed. Brainwashed by your hatred of religion.
@Nick Crawford It is not up to the defence to prove the witness is lying. It is however up the jury and the appeal judges to consider all of the evidence. It is unreasonable to assume that one person is right and 20 people are all wrong and in a conspiracy especially when the prosecution themselves accepted the 20 witnesses as being credible. The problem was they disregarded the 20 as did the jury and the appeal judges.
@Nick Crawford No it's not the defenses job to prove the witness is lying. It's the defenses job to prove reasonable doubt. Please educate yourself on the fundamentals of our legal system. "There is nothing implausible about it happening at all." Except for all the implausible circumstances which I listed above and which you failed to read. "Fact is your churches have been proven to harbour paedophiles, abusers and liars since its inception." Even if we accept your premise as true (despite numerous studies showing rates of abuse are no greater than those found in the secular school system) it still has absolutely zero bearing on whether or not Pell is guilty of this crime. Also for the record it's not my church as I'm not a Catholic. I just hate witch hunts. "Cover ups galore, yet you can stand there and think that other clergy haven’t lied to protect him." Again if you had read what I posted you would know that the implausibility doesn't rely on the witness of other clergy. It lies with the prosecutions own claims of the event in question. "Yes I hate religion" That's clear from your irrationality on this subject. "the fact you can claim it’s anything else than an abomination is what’s amazing." I haven't claimed religion to be anything. But even if we accept your "abomination" premise, it once again has absolutely zero to do with whether Pell is guilty of the crime in question. "Good for you and don’t let real life get in your way of your fantasy one." You mean like the fantasy that religious people are guilty of whatever crime you want them to be guilty of in order to justify an irrational hatred?
@Nick Crawford "there is nothing irrational about my hatred of religion." You're hatred is irrational as is your wishing for people to be guilty of crimes they're not guilty of just because you dislike their religious affiliation. "At least I was honest." The truth as you see it can still be wrong. But I believe your implication is that I was dishonest. So please tell me one thing I've said which is dishonest. "This was not a witch hunt by any means. If you think it is then you must think that if something happens to someone they should just suck it up and not come out and say something otherwise it leads to what you perceive is a “witch-hunt “." Of course people should come forward if they're abused. Likewise people should defend themselves when they're falsely accused of a crime they didn't commit. The witch hunt lies in people like yourself's assumption of guilt because you want them to be guilty. "I didn’t say you were Catholic" You called it my church as if I belonged to the Catholic church. Apologies if I misunderstood though. "thankfully religion is on the way out." Oh I see. Nobody's told you: www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/religious-projections-2010-2050/
@Nick Crawford Well we both consider the other blind so perhaps we aren't so dissimilar after all. I hope you enjoy your life as well Nick and if you have kids let them believe whatever they choose to believe. Meet a couple religious people and you might surprise yourself and end up liking them.
Anti Terrorism what a complete load of rubbish. Those sworn to secrecy who then turn around and publish or provide secrets to 3rd party commit a crime just like Assange who published it. Your view is clouded by lefty thinking and without any validity.
@john wayne so whats your point? Why cant you just say it was a strange trial..? Why the anti-Catholic sentiment? and it's pretty general to say you dislike over a billion people
Even if he didn’t do what he was accused of (probably did it), he knew that child sexual abuse was taking place and not only allowed it but also hid evidence.
African Child if he had been charged with and found guilty on the hiding of and abetting of child molestation by members of the Church then perhaps the guilty verdict may have been warranted. He was found guilty just because of his association with the Catholic Church.
@@88feji That is why in the civilised world you are innocent until proven guilty because if people could be convicted based on the assumption or likelihood they did it then a lot of people would be guilty of crimes.
Texas Cheesecake allegedly covered up, another allegation that’s actually lacking proof. An unsubstantiated allegation is no more than a rumour and is certainly no grounds for a trial let alone a conviction.
The Judges freed Pell because they said "the jury should have had doubts as to his guilt". They DIDN'T say he was innocent at all, just that there should have been doubt.
RODS you’re full of shit stop lying. That’s not why he was let out and the court never said that there was evidence that he definitely didn’t do it. Troll
I used to be an alter boy and now I am not religious neither do I know cardinal pell so I haven't got a horse in this race. From the start the accusations didn't have the slightest ring of truth to them. Under different circumstances I would have just said "there goes another one" but this case seemed ridiculous on so many levels. That's without even bringing his character into it.
I respect your view John and it has credibility. However the alleged victim was still believed and said to be a credible witness. What people don't get is that the High Court deals with the law and how it is applied. Their decision on the Pell matters is that the "reasonable doubt" test, (in their opinion), was not met in the lower courts. The prosecution did not prove their case "beyond a reasonable doubt" So at law, Pells sentence is now quashed. That's all the court is required to do. It does not mean in reality something actually did or did not happen.
@@125sloth you are absolutely right Brian. Cardinal pell could be a mass murderer for all I know. The point is that the circumstances of this case, in my opinion, are not credible and the supreme court appears to agree with me.
Spot on John. This is how the law should work. If there is a better way, it will be a long time before we see it. At least we are not like Retardistan, (America), with it's silly legal system at times, in all states, God knows how many police departments in each state either. That is a joke. They just can't get out of their wild west mentality, and no disrespect to the average American either.
@@crossroads670 I don't think you understand how the justice system works. If he has committed a crime that you can prove you can put him away for it. You can't just put him away because you think he's a bad person and you don't agree with his politics.
Utter rubbish. There are 8 more complainants coming at Pell now. It's not one man's word against another that Pell is a child abuser. Pell is a liar. The church was no moral authority left. He miraculously got away with this particular case. The subject of Pell and his child abuse is far from being over. Just the usual trash news from sky.
I understand how you could think this, because this is the current spin from the ABC after they have been humiliated again after yet again getting it wrong on an important matter of law. The new complainants are not accusing him personally
No evidence... Except for his own attorney arguing that "it was vanilla sex with the other party not party not consenting", that is an admission of guilt, what more evidence do you need? Unless I'm mistaken, sex with anyone under the age of 18 is illegal in this nation. He all but admitted to having sex with one of those accusers, admitting that the other party was not consenting. What is the definition of rape? What is the definition of paedophilia? I'm sorry but if the decision was made based on some kind of procedural error, that's just weak as piss. Please someone inform me how he "couldn't have possibly done it", when his own lawyer was not denying that he had sexual interactions with the accusers? I'll just re-iterate my point about the whole definition of paedophilia and rape, and add statutory rape to that list, there have been how many high-school teachers sent to jail and their careers ended because of consensual sex with a minor/student, yet this mother fucker admitted that it wasn't consensual and is still walking away a free man with no conviction. I had a lot of respect for this news channel, I think today I've completely lost every last ounce.
Congratulations Daniel Andrews and the Victorian Police, on stuffing up and not having the balls to own it, absolute disgrace then the accusers hide like cowards, we’ll done Bolt on doing the DPP’s job.
Pell should never have been convicted in the first place on such flimsy evidence. Sadly we have become a society of modern day witch burners, always looking for someone to persecute so we can feel good about ourselves.
@@salokin3087 Precisely. If you can't prove it then you can't throw a man into prison and destroy his reputation. This was never any more than a he said/she said case and on that alone throwing people into prison makes our legal system a farce.
This man is adding a biased spin and presenting his version of the facts. The court didn't rule that it was impossible to have happened. They ruled that there was reasonable doubt that it happened. BIG DIFFERENCE.
What? "Proving beyond reasonable doubt" is the judicial process _all courts,_ in any context, go through to reach an accurate conclusion. The evidence however, proves that the actions that were alleged to have taken place were impossible. The court will never put out a statement literally saying - "it was impossible". That would be malpractice.
Disagree on this one. He ruined himself by at the very least turning a blind eye to others around him doing the very horrific things that he himself was found guilty of.
I don't know anything about whether he covered up other crimes. It should obviously be investigated and scrutinised to the full extent of the law. Say he had covered up past crimes. That's not evidence for whether or not he committed this crime. At best it's evidence about his character. But it should have very little to do with whether or not he is found guilty.
So you want to convict him for a crime based on allegations of something else he did entirely where the evidence for those allegations isn't even mentioned in court? Would you be okay being found guilty of speeding even though all the evidence except one person says you weren't speeding, because there was a rumour circulating that you regularly jaywalked back in the day?
I think Ejembi Moses is referring to the two judges who upheld his guilty verdict in the Court of Appeal, Justice Anne Ferguson and Justice Chris Maxwell. They must have recognised the huge flaws in the prosecution’s case yet lacked the backbone to make the right call. Shame on them.
Good news. Having been an altar boy many years ago, I know how busy the sacristy is straight after church. Not a good time to steal wine. We all have our sins including M. Pell but this he could not have done in the alleged manner.
HMQ why do you think your educational accomplishments make your opinion worthy of acceptance? I’m wondering why you found it necessary to preface your view with that information.
@HMQ WOW!! Just WOW!! What about all the paedo politicians in britain where are the accusations against them gone or all the celebrities as it look like at this period in time it's open season on all catholics. What about the Jehovah's Witness religion? In Australia during the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse the Jehovah's Witness was found to have had over 1000 pedophilic incedents but we do not hear about that do we. From what you have stated you are against the Catholic church just because it is Catholic. I did not read you accuse any other religion or Groups (Boy Scouts come to mind) or Politicians.
@HMQ Yes of course , but that just shows how biased you have been in accusing Pell and the Catholic church in general. There are thousands of priest that you have accused by association. I could put forward the idea that most of the Peado priests are of Irish descent that would make me biased towards the Irish.
Sometimes accusations are all a victim has. If the predator has the power behind them, few will listen to the victim, especially children. It has happened time and time again. At least Pell was exposed and that is something. The Catholic Church has a lot to answer for.
There's something I'll never like about George Pell and how he seemed impervious to the suffering of victims within his church. However, what I learnt from Lindy Chamberlain is that the person being odd plus an accusation doesn't just add up to guilt unless there's credible evidence to support the accusation. Also worth mentioning that the Salem witch trials also cleaned the town out of all the odd people. Also how many innocent people were convicted because of dodgy behaviour unrelated to what they were accused of, such as people having affairs found incorrectly guilty of murder. A trial should never be about convicting a person for their personality and reputation but for tangible crimes based on evidence.
Courts only ever find people 'not guilty' or 'guilty', you crap for brains. That's because a civilised justice system works on the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. But you barbarous douche bags wouldn't understand that, because you're still stuck in the mentality that threw virgins into volcanoes.
Innocent = Didn't do crime. Not Guilty = Either: Didn't do crime or Not sufficient evidence to convict someone of said crime. Guilty = Sufficient evidence to convict someone of crime, if they did that crime or not. I mean, it's not that complex is it? A Jury in Victoria found him Guilty. To that Jury there was enough evidence beyond reasonable doubt that he was guilty. Was he? The only people that know that are George Pell, and his two Victims, one of which committed suicide. The High Court of Australia has found otherwise. Do I think that should have happened? Not at all, I don't think the High Court should have accepted his appeal in the first place, but they did, and this is the decision that they have reached. Well, that's the end of this. But I guess all of that is cold comfort for anyone that has being sexually abused by someone in a position of power now, because, hey, people can just keep appealing until they reach the High Court now and just buy their way to a Not Guilty.
WHY is Australian media SOOOOO untrustworthy??? Thank You Andrew . . . . I do appreciate your consistent research, logic and honesty!! Stands in stark contrast to the twisted and cowardly attack on ANYONE who provides them with a manipulative platform to make a NAME for themselves!!?? Anything for money!! ANYTHING for Fame!! ANYTHING to grab the public attention!! Pathetic!!
@@africanchild5935 Ummmm Common Sense and reality clearly demonstrates "Global Warming" . . . . Ooooops, er, Um , . . . I really meant to say - "Climate Change" Meaning AnYtHiNg!! As exposed by the Teenage Genius - Gerta Hamberger is a complete FRAUD!! Bah, ha, ha, ha, ha, . . . .
This is what happens when accusers are given power that is dangerous for a civil society.... This also happens in false rape cases in which women are given the power to accuse to cause great damage without evidence.
Absolutely right{. I live in Brisband and I well remember a car where a QUT female student failed one of her exams. She was so revengeful that she falsely accused the lecturer who failed her, of sexually assaulting her. That poor lecturer suffered immeasurably, in ways that you cannot imagine. Eventually the truth came out and her accusations and malicious lies were all found out to be completely false and the case was withdrawn. The immeasurable damage which was sufferedb y the lecturer could never e undone. Every of her accusation were dirty rilthy lies, just like this current case against an innocent man. The media are like dirty rotten vultures, hanging around buildings and service stations yelling out at Cardinal Pell. There a big idiot named Steve Marhsll, a supposed journalist on Channel 9's a current affair is one of those precise monsters. The same monsters who chased down to her death, while trying to get away from media vultures; I am talking about Diana, Princess of Wales.
@@annekelly6616 If there is a break down of trust between the citizen and the law then it usually results in more crime and corruption and real victims not getting justice. For example if a female got raped for real the police would say she is lying.....
@@Angrybogan Could have, exactly. Is it possible? Absolutely. I don't understand how a single witness, whose claimed second victim never said anything, could prove this beyond reasonable doubt.
@@wiblatole7868 It is quite likely their drug use grew was from abuse if it occurred, but that alleged victim never said they were abused, even when asked if anyone in the Church had abused them. This doesn't prove either side, but is more supportive of Pell being innocent. It is unreasonable to think that their death proves Pell's abuse beyond reasonable doubt.
It reminds me of the crucifixion of Lindy Chamberlain. People used to say "She's evil; She's guilty; She's a witch" & I would say "HOW do you know!?" & they'd say "I just know!" or "I can just tell! Look at her face!" & such BS. The FACT IS they DIDN'T know. It made me FURIOUS that people would judge so ignorantly & prematurely & harshly. I could NEVER respect those people. I felt they were the evil ones!
The title is dramatic. We have so many “miscarriages” of justice DAILY. Just because he is a religious leader doesn’t make his conviction “Australia’s biggest miscarriage of justice”.. like yes, it’s important to acknowledge the flaw but Sky news please chill out on the dramatisation. I hope if anything this opens up our law system to ensure justice is served across ALL cases.
Well, it is a huge miscarriage. The DPP of Victoria could not get up a case on other charges so went with this manufactured one. That could happen to anyone of us. It's pretty scary, what they did to him. I'm no supporter of PEll or the Catholics, butI am jurisprudence. This was a dreadful failure.
Whether you think him guilty or not, you have to agree that it was more about the Catholic Church as a whole and the decades of mistreatment of children. His position as the head of the Church in Australia was an ideal opportunity to push that injustice that they’d/he’d mostly turned a blind eye too. Added to that Pells media persona only appeared to reinforce that public indignation.
That would be another case. This is a personal case. Because he didn't do enough to stop abuse within the church doesnt mean he is a molester himself. I think all this are driven by blind hate and anger and not driven by facts
That's ridiculous. You might as well say the High Court got it wrong, the Vic Police witchhunt is entirely the way of the future for criminal investigation and that he should be put back behind bars, throw away the key etc.
Just remember that although the conviction has been quashed this does not mean that Pell is innocent. If you watch "Revelation" you will see that there are many accounts by different people of abuse by Pell and many of these accounts are very similar in nature (i.e. Pell repeated the same behaviour with children). The other thing is that Pell is certainly guilty of cover-ups of sexual abuse by his mates in the church and was involved in and supported a prolific serial child sex abuser. It is a damn shame that he has not been jailed for this behaviour alone. Shame Shame Shame
True, it's frightening because it sets the precident that acculations equals guilt. My biggest fear are the sane judges who will then be smeared by the public thus scaring future judges into giving the lynch mob what they want.
There were no 'false allegations '!!! The supreme court said they found the complainants testimony credible ! As a matter of law they simply found the jury should have found 'reasonable doubt' !
@keith gould Oh that's right an old slimy prick like Murdoch is so much more powerful than a culture wide insane leftist cult. I pay for the ABC and I would rather not. I don't pay Murdoch a cent and I only comment here because ABC is too gutless to have comments. Maybe they would cry too much poor little puppies. The world is just too complex for you keith. Go have a lie down.
@keith gould So you have TDS too. Not surprised. Love the guy. He is the funniest and yet most competent President the USA has had in generations. Good luck to 45 in 20.
@keith gould no just amused by the talented orator and representative of the people. The only obsessed behavior expressed around Trump is by those who baselessly try to destroy his presidency and fail miserably. Very entertaining. Fade away DemoRATs, fade away.
You've done an outstanding job of covering this story, Andrew. In the past, dedicated friends and committed lawyers made campaigns for justice work, but the most effective have been crusading journalists although you probably won't thank me for the use of the term "crusading". While some wrongful convictions may be overturned without the public taking notice, most high-profile cases have only returned to the court of appeal after lengthy campaigns and the engagement of a dedicated lawyer. You must have suffered extraordinary pressure, both professional and personal, to not cover this story and you have done so in an objective and balanced way. It reminds of us how important it is for people who have been wrongly convicted to have a champion fighting on their behalf - for their sake, but also the sake of the society in which we live.
A GREAT DAY FOR JUSTICE!! Well said AB! Anyone ever read 'The Lottery" by Shirley Jackson, or Lord of the Flies by William Golding? Cardinel Pell's incarceration reminds me of these stories because his treatment has been a witch hunt, involving a mob mentality.
You are absolutely right Andrew, this is a gross miscarriage of justice but I believe that a man like George Pell would have spent his long time in jail in prayer for humanity. God upheld justice for Pell and the Church. Amen
It's more that the evidence is not convincing enough to convict a influencial person like him, but think how hard it is yo get watertight evidence for something you did twenty thirty years ago. Absence of evidence is not evidence of innoncence
problem is so many people can not do what you have done and rise above their personal feelings, and it is not just Pell who gets that unfair treatment. No matter, he has been vindicated no matter anyone's personal feelings towards him
And you don't like the man because of what the bullshit the media has told you and he did not get a fail trial because of that bullshit. Did you call out to the media and demand a fair trial.
Yep. The hounding of Tommy Robinson by sections of the POLICE and JUSTICE SYSTEM of Britain because he exposed the abuse of young girls by one particular ethno-religious group was incredible to behold.
They do that for all their videos, regardless of the topic. The ABC News channel has no interest in inciting discussion, because that's not their job; they simply deliver news.
They always are. The ABC is not accountable to the public. It considers contrary opinions to be beneath their consideration. Cut their funding now, I say.
@@schmurble2254 "simply deliver the news" what decade do you live in, your statement is absolutely true if you go back to the 70's. . . . James Dibble was a legend, but if you are talking about the ABC of the last 20 years you are way off the mark. The ABC is one of Australia's last bastions of manufacturing. . They manufacture news.
George Pell was not found innocent, the judges stated the evidence available was insuffcient. We can be sure that this is not the end of this appalling saga, that the victims have to live through
Henry James I suggest you read the courts ruling, the appeal was upheld and the lower courts ordered to replace the verdict with a not guilty verdict. In the eyes of the law he is not guilty irrespective of how much the media want to spin this decision.
Why even bother to have a trial by jury. This man is responsible for so many crimes that he had knowledge of,and people who paint him as a saint should be ashamed and go to hell.
Often cite Chamberlain's case when discussing capital punishment with pro capital debaters. Would you execute someone who cut their child's throat with scissors? Invariably the answer is yes. You mean someone like Lindy Chamberlain? Usually stops the debate.
Kathy that is untrue, this case was closed to protect the “Victims” not pell, this case was a farce from the start. I don’t like pell but facts before feelings.
Was he bishop with robes then supposedly heavy attire or a Priest in normal robes light attire it was a historical case plus other cases were at a swimming pool no robes there but unfortunately these were dropped charges as not enough proof didn’t mean they were not done! Just not enough evidence from victims or witnesses which is the same way all alleged and accused pedophiles use to get off and burden on the victims having to procure witnesses pedophiles rarely do crimes to victims in public they pick times even whilst someone turns their back that cannot be ruled out in Pell’s case they entered they left his so called minders! as they prep first they see how far they go before going further a well know fact in cases of pedophilia fear is the sword used by them on young children and religion used on the congregation to shut them down and up including the parents of alleged victims this case just allowed all pedophiles with plenty money to appeal high court for exactly the same reasons its unheard of and rare you have to ask just how powerful the Catholic Church is in this country and the World it stinks of corruption and certainly coverup including media unable to report on the case as they were restricted with access to all of the facts which again smells Mr Bolt! Why was the public not allowed the real complete facts includes the charges there was more than 2 btw 😢
Thank you Andrew Bolt, for your consistent support for the principles of our criminal justice system through this whole process. The High Court has, and rightly so, upheld the golden thread that runs through the web of our criminal law: "that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner‘s guilt...If...there is a reasonable doubt...the prosecution has not made out the case and the prisoner is entitled to an acquittal“ (Viscount Sankey in Woolmington v Director of Public Prosecutions [1935] UKHL 1.
Not guilty doesn't mean innocence, it means the evidence required by law was not presented. It is disturbing that the judgement of judges was lacking. Like the mafia said, you don't go in the same room with somebody's wife or children before they dumped their victim in Davy Jones Locker. Time churches adopt this common sense policy.
@@samtcgan068 It is a fact that at least 3 of them got it wrong in the previous court cases. He is found not guilty, it means the burden of proof was inadequate. This is just basic high school stuff. The previous court cases failed to recognize this. This is what is disturbing.
I am not religious and I agree that how pell has been treated is nothing short of an atrocity! Our nation and many others are moving away from reason and science towards trial by social media and decisions based upon nothing more than prejudice and emotional responses that arise from such prejudices.
The real problem is how these cases are framed to begin with. Once you start off by qualifying the complainant as "the victim" and then assert that "the victim must always be believed," the case is already prejudged against the defendant, who will then be found guilty even with no evidence whatsoever and solely on the basis of implausible allegations. And this seems to be what happened in the Pell case, where no evidence was presented, just unsubstantiated allegations from a single "victim". Allegations that were so implausible that they would have been dismissed immediately by an unbiased court. Then, at the Victorian appeal, while one justice examined the facts, the other two preferred to follow their "feelings" (biases?) and, moreover, inverted our very system of justice by demanding not proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, but proof of innocence! Now it's up to the federal high court to put an end to this Victorian legal farce. AND NOW IT HAS BEEN DONE !
4 роки тому+6
🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼GREAT NEWS! ON APRIL 6 2020. THE WITCH HUNT WAS OVER. HE WAS FOUND INNOCENT AND RELEASED. TRUTH ALWAYS WINS🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼
Bolt is ludicrously deluded. Even as this specific decision is reversed on a legal technicality, there are numerous other allegations about Pell from different sources stretching over decades. Quite apart from whatever abuse Pell himself perpetrated, the guy is directly responsible for protecting several of the worst child abusers in history. He shared a house with Gerald Ridsdale - the worst child abuser in Victoria's history - for a year and was responsible for moving him to different parishes to avoid justice. Yet he claims to know nothing about those offences. Unbelievable. Pell also orchestrated the policy of paying off victims to secure their silence and protect the church against legal recrimination. To believe Pell is anything other than extremely lucky in getting off is to ignore mountains of evidence over four decades.
Thank God for the high Court judges , Today my faith in Australian justice system is been restored. Cardinal Pell’s case shouldn’t be a court case in the first place. It’s like anyone can say or accuse anyone as they feel like. At last Justice has prevailed.
Pay the man Restitution,how can the judicial system be so wrong? I am not a believer but this stinks,how dare they to crucefy a person be it a priest or who ever. Shame on you,this truly sucks!!
I was never a fan of Cardinal Pell, but I knew he was innocent! The alleged abuse in the way it was reported stunk of impossibility!! An innocent man walks free!!
Life's experiences have taught me not to believe what I hear and half of what I see. The gullibility of some investigative journalists is a great concern. I would ask the librarians of this country to relocate Louise Milligan's book about George Pell from the non fiction section to the fictional.
Librarians take years to perform mammoth tasks like changing Dewey number and reallocating book space. You could be asking for an impossible dream. But good luck.
@Max Raider That may be a fair assessment. The ABC especially is agenda driven. It was designed to be a medium of impartiality to compensate for privately owned media that may propagate the interests of a few. Talk about acting contrary to your charter. With fragmentation of media as a consequence of advances in technology we may ask, do we need this white elephant that costs in excess of a billion dollars annually?
I have no time for the Catholic Church (Or any church for that matter) but I always felt that Pell has wrongly convicted and have said so in my little circle..... I do feel for the many victims of the Catholic Church's many evils but that is no reason to crucify Pell, an innocent man.
GERALD RISDALE ! Oh it’s not a crime to cover up for paedophile dogs that went on to destroy more lives. He’s innocent of this one thou walks free from his enabling past. All washed clean
This guy was basically second in charge at the Vatican. He knew everything that is and has gone on. This person has never shown remorse or empathy towards the poor souls that were subjected to those atrocities. He is just as sick as the people who committed the acts. God has the final say!
@ken john Expresses sympathy. Doesn't have any empathy . Have not heard from him expressing great remorse. What do our views matter anyway. God has the last word.
pete john it doesn’t matter because the bigger picture is you’re still defending him knowing that he covered up for others, what does that say about you and your lack of morals. You’re a kiddie fiddler yourself because there’s no other reason to defend someone for that.
Your words said “he’s not on trial for that”, which indicates that your opinion is “the covering up is a separate irrelevant issue even though it’s the exact same person I’m defending” don’t fake outrage and stand by your own words or shit your trap.
@@mariamm7695 are you kidding, no evidence, a witness who noone with half a brain would believe a word that come out of his mouth, with a story that had more holes in it than a cheese grater. And a dead man who said he wasnt molested, how he was convicted by law in the first place is staggering.
An innocent man ... I’ve never thought this accusation was probable. Pell represents a church that has failed so badly on every level that he became the face of the criminality and depravity of the church. Not surprising that Pell does not garner much sympathy, even hatred. I’ve always thought there was reasonable doubt. My logical brain sees that this original conviction was wrong and the law was not working in the way we aspire our system of law to operate. I actually wanted him to face trial for his covering up of activities and there are plenty of other allegations against him regarding sexual assault. An innocent man? Unfair? Unjust? The law may have been served by his release but victims will see this as another kick. I’m personally satisfied to see he served time in jail for all that he was never tried for. Was this unjust? Technically. Was his trial, conviction and jailing morally unjust? He was complicit in the rape of children by his willingness to pass offenders around from one place to another. If he feels rage, injustice at his treatment, it’s a small thing compared to the little children he failed to protect. I cant gather the outrage within me for this man’s “suffering” at being unjustly imprisoned. They just got him on the wrong charge.
You take pleasure in the small time he was "served" in jail. Shameful. If you looked at how hard Pell fought for the victims of sexual assault as far back in the 80s and 90s, you wouldn't be saying this right now. Assigning blame on an innocent man, as you put it, is never the way to go about the reformation of a corrupt institution.
Akhnaten that's actually not true. Pell set up an inquiry board that was revealed to be a complete sham and whose sole purpose was to silence victims. This was revealed in court documents and the notes those church "investigators" wrote were disgusting. And Pell set the whole thing up. Watch this investigative journalism piece about it m.ua-cam.com/video/oAZmxkphdwU/v-deo.html
@@pandamandimax Of course you would believe that. I never doubted people like you would believe the feckless media. These purported documents have never surfaced or been publicly released, and why should we expect an 80 year old man to remember something he did over twenty years ago regarding that photo? The man who apparently investigated the Melbourne response is a Vatican insider, an ideologue on the side of Francis who had George Pell removed from office of his treasury status because he uncovered documents revealing the corruption of the Vatican. We know the media are liars and now we know the state courts can be corrupted as well.
What if the allegations were actually completely fabricated??? He should sue the media and whoever was driving this thing (if that's even possible) for defamation
@@jefflayton8070 obviously you have no idea about criminal legal proceedings and anyone with half a brain and looking at this particular case would realise that it has absolutely no basis, it is actually criminal that it actually progressed this far.
If he has not committed the crime he should go free. Down the history of any religion there has been dis honest people who has abused other people. That does not prove that everybody in this or that religion is an abuser.
If you are talking about a public figure - YES - however many innocent people have been the victims of injustice committed by those in positions of trust in law, psychiatry, policing and social work
EresirThe1st his own defence lawyer admitted that it was “vanilla penetrative sex” maybe look it up. Plus he definitely covered up for others, and that’s just as bad as doing it himself
EresirThe1st he admitted it on tape “it didn’t interest me”, he just wasn’t on trial for the cover up (yet, who knows what’s going to happen you’re all acting like the case is over, certainly isn’t). Maybe you should look it up because it doesn’t seem like you have much knowledge of the whole picture, apart from what bolt tells you.
Everyone deserves a fair trial. Imagine being convicted in a he said she said trial when you have witnesses saying you could have never possibly been in the place at the time of the alleged crime. It should have be worrying for every Australian citizen.
this lockdown should be more worrying... Will it be lifted when the crisis is over or just toned down...
PEDOFILES do not deserve anything fair
Only in beyond reasonable doubt not with reasonable doubt. Pell will go down in a civil case.
YEAH RIGHT STUPID THE WHOLE ROYAL COMMISSION AGAINST CHILD ABUSE DICKHEAD WAS A WASTE OF TIME BECAUSE THE ONLY FACTS THAT MATTER COME FROM THE ADULT PERPETRATORS YOU FOOL
Pell had three fair hearings. It was not 'impossible' for him to be in the sacristy. It did not come down to a 'he said, she said' issue. He was sentenced to six years out of a possible fifth, again, fairly. Pell, convicted by the people. Overturned by a grandstanding barrister who "glossed over" the majority of the evidence. Listened to by a panel. Where has the justice in this case fled to?
We congratulate you Andrew for being, not only a descent human being but having the guts to speak the truth that is almost destinct in these modern times. You are THE only person left that so many of us can relate to on ANY media channel!!!...Sleep well.
Ask Lindy Chamberlain about being falsely accused and convicted!
Lindy Chamberlain is guilty too. Dingos can’t unbutton and fold matinee jackets.
Very good point.
That's a totally different story. Many people have been found guilty, when in fact, they were innocent, but George Pell wasn't one of those.
@@bobhawke7373 idiot, Chamberlain was never guilty. Her case was trial by media too, just there was no internet then, but TV and newspaper tried her anyway.
@@bobhawke7373 wrong, wrong, wrong. Stupid men. You cannot have one inkling of a morhers compassion for their baby. You are so wrong Bob Hawke!!!!
One of the ten commandments is " thou shalt not bear false witness against your neighbor " We ought to meditate on that. It's devastating to be falsely accused. It also makes it very difficult for real victims to be believed.
The problem with your assertion is that the men who made the accusations have/had made those accusations about pell continually for years spanning into decades. Old father Bob was their priest and he tried to campaign on their behalf, which resulted in his being overlooked for leadership in that church.
Yes, bolt can say what he wants but SKY needs to rethink backing this innocence of pell POV as it will only make the victims of sexual abuse loathe sky news.
@@alexanderpowell1528 So what, you're saying SKY should trust liars who have a gripe with the Catholic church, just because they state they're victims?
@@alexanderpowell1528 No but they can hold false memories. This is a proven fact, not always but it does happen.
@@rogergibbs2937 Roger Gibbs if you're going to ascribe false memories to the long term suffering of others then that means those times you were bullied as a child Roger, well, they are false memories and that bicycle that was stolen from you and later that car that was stolen from you, well, yet again those things didn't happen because they were merely your false memories.
It's a slippery slope you're arguing there.
@@alexanderpowell1528 As are you with your attempt to down play what I said.
Not for a moment do I condone any sexual crime, but as has been proven over the years False memories do exist.
Take for example the young girls in Queensland who had memories accidentally planted in their minds by a phyciatrist that their fathers raped them. Fathers were jailed and many committed suicide over these accusations. It was years later that it was discovered that their memories were falsely implanted. It can happen.
If a person is charged and convicted by a lower court and incarcerated and made an appeal to the high court and found innocent he should be compensated by the government for the length of time he is locked in jail and damage to his reputation.
You do realise that Pell faces other trials right? Are you dumb?
@@salokin3087 Meaning he is *STILL* innocent
Being on trial by very definition means you are still innocent.
Not a supporter of Pell or the Catholic church, but you are right, it was a witchhunt.
Like Asange.
Nonsense. He is guilty as hell.
@@bgregg55 Thank you Americano.
@@bgregg55 The peanut in the gallery comes out with a nonsense statement, back it up.
@@gringolopez8116 Unlike your lazy ass, I actually studied the case & discovered he has had many accusations from children. You obviously have no children.
Thank you Andrew for telling it how it is. We greatly appreciate your objective journalism. One of the few left in Australia. Keep it up. There are plenty of Australians who love and appreciate what you do.
However implausible it may be that Witness J gave false evidence, it was *also* inherently implausible that Pell could have committed the abuse in the manner, place and timeframe alleged. Both the allegation and its denial admitted of reasonable doubt. Therefore, Pell should never have been convicted. The burden of proof, after all, is on the accuser.
That guy is just stupid after all his parents spent on his lavish education. How stupid is our limit?
Take it from a black person, he is no role module.
That guy is just stupid after all his parents spent on his lavish education. How stupid is our limit?
Take it from a black person, he is no role module.
One word. RISDALE.
What do you mean "However implausible it may be that Witness J gave false evidence"? False evidence is given regularly. How about $$$, is that a good enough reason to lie?
tony simon “However implausible it may be that witness J gave false evidence” is not a statement about J’s plausibility. It’s not even a statement, actually; it’s part of a statement. It doesn’t mean anything at all when cut off from the rest of the sentence.
If Pell had never started investigating Vatican finances, he'd not've been accused at all. The populace wants blood for All The Other Priests who did assault choir boys and other children. Not Pell, he was the scapegoat.
No if he didn’t molest children he wouldn’t be accused
Traditional Food .
Love your comment this is a lot deeper. The Vatican is corrupt but good people sometimes suffer along with the bad. Jesus’ crucification displayed this. An innocent man JESUS was condemned to death along side 2 criminals. But GOD THE FATHER’s Triumph came from that selfless act JESUS did for all of us.
FORGIVENESS for our sins but Man wants his pound of flesh. We either live for the Spirit or live for the desires of the flesh.
The real battle is within a man. What we call conscience. Life and death at work in the body.
Choose Life which is Love who is Jesus and was displayed by Jesus in how he lives his life.
Bless you take care. PEACE be with you in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth.
and he did a great job of proctecting the church's coffers from claims of those damaged by the pedophiles it harbored.
S H : He's accused of not exposing the malfeasance of other priests, presumably because he believed that it wasn't his place to judge others. He was about to crack Vatican financial corruption wide open. Read Milo Yiannopoulos' book: Diabolical
The Gonad He was not innocent because he was complicit in turning a blind eye to innumerable pedophile priests under his watch . That is the worst type of guilty in the eyes of God . He abrogated his clerical responsibility and his duty of care to the innocent children. Instead he chose to protect a powerful and corrupt institution whose ladder he was ambitiously determined to climb . His arrogance and disdain for victims is unforgivable .....no matter how much you try to defend this man you know in your heart he was guilty by association and for his choice of extreme negligence. A hollow victory indeed when we all know he has indelible mud on his hands . His final judgement will look far different from that of a man-made court of law where justice rarely prevails for the disempowered & voiceless .
Just as a recap for those in the comments still convinced of his guilt despite all the evidence:
This [alleged assault] he accomplished immediately after Mass, with the sacristy door open, despite having all his vestments on and with the reasonable expectation that the sacristan, the master of ceremonies, the servers or concelebrants might come in and out or even pass by the open door, as would be customary after Mass. Meanwhile, there were dozens and dozens of people in the cathedral, praying or milling about. The whole affair took place within six minutes, after which the boys went off to choir practice and never spoke about it to anyone for 20 years, not even to each other. Indeed, one of the boys, who died of a heroin overdose in 2014, explicitly told his mother before he died that he had never been sexually abused.
So a lower court said, "Yep... that sounds reasonable" despite the following evidence:
The unchallenged evidence of the opportunity witnesses was inconsistent with the complainant's account, and described: (i) the applicant's practice of greeting congregants on or near the Cathedral steps after Sunday solemn Mass; (ii) the established and historical Catholic church practice that required that the applicant, as an archbishop, always be accompanied when robed in the Cathedral; and (iii) the continuous traffic in and out of the priests' sacristy for ten to 15 minutes after the conclusion of the procession that ended Sunday solemn Mass.
The higher court said that the lower court:
Failed to engage with the question of whether there remained a reasonable possibility that the offending had not taken place, such that there ought to have been a reasonable doubt as to the applicant’s guilt.
In other words, they didn't care about the evidence or reasonable doubt; they were looking for a way to convict. I'm glad the higher court rectified this injustice.
@Nick Crawford You didn't read what I said did you? And it's not the defenses job to "prove that the witness was lying" it's the prosecutions job to prove the Pell is guilty without reasonable doubt. The circumstances claimed by the prosecution themselves leads to reasonable doubt due to the sheer implausibility of the alleged assault occurring as they claimed. Brainwashed by your hatred of religion.
@Nick Crawford It is not up to the defence to prove the witness is lying. It is however up the jury and the appeal judges to consider all of the evidence. It is unreasonable to assume that one person is right and 20 people are all wrong and in a conspiracy especially when the prosecution themselves accepted the 20 witnesses as being credible. The problem was they disregarded the 20 as did the jury and the appeal judges.
@Nick Crawford No it's not the defenses job to prove the witness is lying. It's the defenses job to prove reasonable doubt. Please educate yourself on the fundamentals of our legal system.
"There is nothing implausible about it happening at all." Except for all the implausible circumstances which I listed above and which you failed to read.
"Fact is your churches have been proven to harbour paedophiles, abusers and liars since its inception." Even if we accept your premise as true (despite numerous studies showing rates of abuse are no greater than those found in the secular school system) it still has absolutely zero bearing on whether or not Pell is guilty of this crime. Also for the record it's not my church as I'm not a Catholic. I just hate witch hunts.
"Cover ups galore, yet you can stand there and think that other clergy haven’t lied to protect him." Again if you had read what I posted you would know that the implausibility doesn't rely on the witness of other clergy. It lies with the prosecutions own claims of the event in question.
"Yes I hate religion" That's clear from your irrationality on this subject.
"the fact you can claim it’s anything else than an abomination is what’s amazing." I haven't claimed religion to be anything. But even if we accept your "abomination" premise, it once again has absolutely zero to do with whether Pell is guilty of the crime in question.
"Good for you and don’t let real life get in your way of your fantasy one." You mean like the fantasy that religious people are guilty of whatever crime you want them to be guilty of in order to justify an irrational hatred?
@Nick Crawford "there is nothing irrational about my hatred of religion." You're hatred is irrational as is your wishing for people to be guilty of crimes they're not guilty of just because you dislike their religious affiliation.
"At least I was honest." The truth as you see it can still be wrong. But I believe your implication is that I was dishonest. So please tell me one thing I've said which is dishonest.
"This was not a witch hunt by any means. If you think it is then you must think that if something happens to someone they should just suck it up and not come out and say something otherwise it leads to what you perceive is a “witch-hunt “." Of course people should come forward if they're abused. Likewise people should defend themselves when they're falsely accused of a crime they didn't commit. The witch hunt lies in people like yourself's assumption of guilt because you want them to be guilty.
"I didn’t say you were Catholic" You called it my church as if I belonged to the Catholic church. Apologies if I misunderstood though.
"thankfully religion is on the way out." Oh I see. Nobody's told you: www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/religious-projections-2010-2050/
@Nick Crawford Well we both consider the other blind so perhaps we aren't so dissimilar after all. I hope you enjoy your life as well Nick and if you have kids let them believe whatever they choose to believe. Meet a couple religious people and you might surprise yourself and end up liking them.
I always felt that George Pell was the peoples 'pound of flesh' that they wanted from the wrong doings of the Catholic church.
Absolutely he was being punished for the wrong doing of others over the decades
@john smith That isn't a legal argument.
You can see that in the comments here!
john smith He wasn’t made Cardinal until 2003.
Any scalp will do so long as it's a big scalp
THE CHURCH HAS DEEP POCKETS!!!.....
Free Julian Assange...too.
Who.
Obviously you are not. Or react he admitted posting the stolen information HE ADMITTED IT.
I have books for people. All types of subjects.
Anyone?
He's an admitted agent of Russia. Helped in fraudulently electing that dumbass Trump Who loves dictators
Anti Terrorism what a complete load of rubbish. Those sworn to secrecy who then turn around and publish or provide secrets to 3rd party commit a crime just like Assange who published it. Your view is clouded by lefty thinking and without any validity.
trial by media......glad that it failed miserably
@john wayne so whats your point? Why cant you just say it was a strange trial..? Why the anti-Catholic sentiment? and it's pretty general to say you dislike over a billion people
Yes he is innocent,Well said Andrew,So fabricated, a great man has been persecuted,and God knows that.
Me too bro.
@john wayne you are delusional.There are good and bad everywhere and in every religion.That man is Innocent whether you like it or not.
You guys do realise Pell still has half a dozen court cases left
Even if he didn’t do what he was accused of (probably did it), he knew that child sexual abuse was taking place and not only allowed it but also hid evidence.
It amazing how quickly you people change your tune and move on some other unsubstantiated BS
Please, take your hatred feelings to other place, not in this real world.
African child I completely agree. Just because they believe in silly story’s doesn’t mean they can get away with atrocities such as this
African Child if he had been charged with and found guilty on the hiding of and abetting of child molestation by members of the Church then perhaps the guilty verdict may have been warranted. He was found guilty just because of his association with the Catholic Church.
Maybe he knew maybe he did ,
But he wasn't on trial for that was he 🤔
I hope he sues the state into oblivion to make sure another innocent man isn't convicted for a crime he didn't commit.
max p Pell still did cover up for convicted pedophiles.
@@88feji That is why in the civilised world you are innocent until proven guilty because if people could be convicted based on the assumption or likelihood they did it then a lot of people would be guilty of crimes.
Are you stupid? You understand he faces other trails going forward?
Texas Cheesecake allegedly covered up, another allegation that’s actually lacking proof. An unsubstantiated allegation is no more than a rumour and is certainly no grounds for a trial let alone a conviction.
@@peterbuckley3877 How do we prove cases in rape or abuse trials?
The accuser in this case should be held to task for lying to the court.
That's what I reckon yep name and shame him and Pell should recover his costs!
Pell is guilty by ACCUSATION NOT PROOF! Mob mentality has not died...alas.
The Judges freed Pell because they said "the jury should have had doubts as to his guilt". They DIDN'T say he was innocent at all, just that there should have been doubt.
@john smith The evidence is that it could not have happened that was the only evidence !
RODS you’re full of shit stop lying. That’s not why he was let out and the court never said that there was evidence that he definitely didn’t do it. Troll
I used to be an alter boy and now I am not religious neither do I know cardinal pell so I haven't got a horse in this race. From the start the accusations didn't have the slightest ring of truth to them. Under different circumstances I would have just said "there goes another one" but this case seemed ridiculous on so many levels. That's without even bringing his character into it.
I respect your view John and it has credibility. However the alleged victim was still believed and said to be a credible witness. What people don't get is that the High Court deals with the law and how it is applied. Their decision on the Pell matters is that the "reasonable doubt" test, (in their opinion), was not met in the lower courts. The prosecution did not prove their case "beyond a reasonable doubt" So at law, Pells sentence is now quashed. That's all the court is required to do. It does not mean in reality something actually did or did not happen.
@@125sloth you are absolutely right Brian. Cardinal pell could be a mass murderer for all I know. The point is that the circumstances of this case, in my opinion, are not credible and the supreme court appears to agree with me.
Spot on John. This is how the law should work. If there is a better way, it will be a long time before we see it. At least we are not like Retardistan, (America), with it's silly legal system at times, in all states, God knows how many police departments in each state either. That is a joke. They just can't get out of their wild west mentality, and no disrespect to the average American either.
Are you joking? A boy killed himself due to Pell. He also said abortion is worse than priests molesting boys.
@@crossroads670 I don't think you understand how the justice system works. If he has committed a crime that you can prove you can put him away for it. You can't just put him away because you think he's a bad person and you don't agree with his politics.
Utter rubbish. There are 8 more complainants coming at Pell now. It's not one man's word against another that Pell is a child abuser. Pell is a liar. The church was no moral authority left. He miraculously got away with this particular case. The subject of Pell and his child abuse is far from being over. Just the usual trash news from sky.
I understand how you could think this, because this is the current spin from the ABC after they have been humiliated again after yet again getting it wrong on an important matter of law. The new complainants are not accusing him personally
No evidence... Except for his own attorney arguing that "it was vanilla sex with the other party not party not consenting", that is an admission of guilt, what more evidence do you need? Unless I'm mistaken, sex with anyone under the age of 18 is illegal in this nation. He all but admitted to having sex with one of those accusers, admitting that the other party was not consenting.
What is the definition of rape? What is the definition of paedophilia?
I'm sorry but if the decision was made based on some kind of procedural error, that's just weak as piss.
Please someone inform me how he "couldn't have possibly done it", when his own lawyer was not denying that he had sexual interactions with the accusers?
I'll just re-iterate my point about the whole definition of paedophilia and rape, and add statutory rape to that list, there have been how many high-school teachers sent to jail and their careers ended because of consensual sex with a minor/student, yet this mother fucker admitted that it wasn't consensual and is still walking away a free man with no conviction.
I had a lot of respect for this news channel, I think today I've completely lost every last ounce.
Thats BS taken totally out of context, Liar
That didn't happen. That was an argument to address precedent. Best to leave this to the pros. They've got this.
www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/feb/27/cardinal-pell-will-go-straight-to-jail-as-bail-application-is-withdrawn
My husband is a QC. I'll go wth his advice.
I’ll take the 7 nil legal expertise of the highest court in the land rather than listen to an idiot like you
Congratulations Daniel Andrews and the Victorian Police, on stuffing up and not having the balls to own it, absolute disgrace then the accusers hide like cowards, we’ll done Bolt on doing the DPP’s job.
Finally some sanity in the courts
How is this "sanity"?
@@salokin3087 The accusers should be ashamed of themselves and yes this is sanity, glad Pell is freed from
jail!
@@truthjusticeforall8393 Why are you glad that pedophiles are freed exactly? You understand there are new trails going forward?
Salokin the evidence in this case could not stand up - as the judges said - the contrary evidence was not contested.
@@salokin3087 He is by law *NOT* a pedophile.
So what makes you think your opinion is above the law by calling innocent men pedophiles?
Pell should never have been convicted in the first place on such flimsy evidence. Sadly we have become a society of modern day witch burners, always looking for someone to persecute so we can feel good about ourselves.
"Flimsy evidence"
How do you prove that rape or abuse occurs without hard physical evidence?
@The Gonad Uh source?
@The Gonad But who was the person's name that died?
@@salokin3087 Precisely. If you can't prove it then you can't throw a man into prison and destroy his reputation. This was never any more than a he said/she said case and on that alone throwing people into prison makes our legal system a farce.
@@braxxian How do you prove that abuse occurs in court without relying solely on witnesses?
This man is adding a biased spin and presenting his version of the facts. The court didn't rule that it was impossible to have happened. They ruled that there was reasonable doubt that it happened. BIG DIFFERENCE.
7 nil quashing of the conviction...that’s a BIG DIFFERENCE
Haylee Anne andrew bolt is notorious for this kind of thing. He treats news like a kid running in a field with a new toy.
What? "Proving beyond reasonable doubt" is the judicial process _all courts,_ in any context, go through to reach an accurate conclusion. The evidence however, proves that the actions that were alleged to have taken place were impossible. The court will never put out a statement literally saying - "it was impossible". That would be malpractice.
A unanimous 7-0 ruling is excellent news.
Disagree on this one. He ruined himself by at the very least turning a blind eye to others around him doing the very horrific things that he himself was found guilty of.
garry nelson Glad you weren’t on the jury. This is the mindset than led to the wrongful conviction in the first place.
I don't know anything about whether he covered up other crimes. It should obviously be investigated and scrutinised to the full extent of the law.
Say he had covered up past crimes. That's not evidence for whether or not he committed this crime. At best it's evidence about his character. But it should have very little to do with whether or not he is found guilty.
@john smith you would have to jail big chunks of all churches, boy AND girls schools, convents etc etc etc. . .
So you want to convict him for a crime based on allegations of something else he did entirely where the evidence for those allegations isn't even mentioned in court? Would you be okay being found guilty of speeding even though all the evidence except one person says you weren't speeding, because there was a rumour circulating that you regularly jaywalked back in the day?
@john smith You are entitled to your own bigoted opinions but not your own facts.
The judges who found him guilty should be arrested and prosecuted without bail, fools.
Ejembi Moses:
it was a jury that found him guilty, a jury of 12 regular people that had spent months listening to witness and testimony
Not a judge
I think Ejembi Moses is referring to the two judges who upheld his guilty verdict in the Court of Appeal, Justice Anne Ferguson and Justice Chris Maxwell. They must have recognised the huge flaws in the prosecution’s case yet lacked the backbone to make the right call. Shame on them.
@@Thetruthmatters154 Thank You very much
My faith in the legal system has been restored #Pell was the real victim here.
ABC owes GEORGE PELL a huge public apology.
Good news. Having been an altar boy many years ago, I know how busy the sacristy is straight after church. Not a good time to steal wine. We all have our sins including M. Pell but this he could not have done in the alleged manner.
0k ped0
HMQ why do you think your educational accomplishments make your opinion worthy of acceptance? I’m wondering why you found it necessary to preface your view with that information.
@HMQ WOW!! Just WOW!! What about all the paedo politicians in britain where are the accusations against them gone or all the celebrities as it look like at this period in time it's open season on all catholics. What about the Jehovah's Witness religion? In Australia during the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse the Jehovah's Witness was found to have had over 1000 pedophilic incedents but we do not hear about that do we. From what you have stated you are against the Catholic church just because it is Catholic. I did not read you accuse any other religion or Groups (Boy Scouts come to mind) or Politicians.
@HMQ that "getting jizzed on" as punishment story is so implausible it's laughable. Some people just believe any shit ttey are told.
@HMQ Yes of course , but that just shows how biased you have been in accusing Pell and the Catholic church in general. There are thousands of priest that you have accused by association. I could put forward the idea that most of the Peado priests are of Irish descent that would make me biased towards the Irish.
Let’s hear Andrew talk about all the other people who may have been innocent who can’t afford to take matters to the high court, not just his mate’s.
Thank God trials are not actually conducted by the media.
@Jeff Layton got any other lines SoyBoy ?
This was at a time of the me too movement. Where no evidence is required, just accusations.
Sometimes accusations are all a victim has. If the predator has the power behind them, few will listen to the victim, especially children. It has happened time and time again. At least Pell was exposed and that is something. The Catholic Church has a lot to answer for.
There's something I'll never like about George Pell and how he seemed impervious to the suffering of victims within his church. However, what I learnt from Lindy Chamberlain is that the person being odd plus an accusation doesn't just add up to guilt unless there's credible evidence to support the accusation. Also worth mentioning that the Salem witch trials also cleaned the town out of all the odd people. Also how many innocent people were convicted because of dodgy behaviour unrelated to what they were accused of, such as people having affairs found incorrectly guilty of murder. A trial should never be about convicting a person for their personality and reputation but for tangible crimes based on evidence.
So right 👍
Daniel Yu But...that was the point I was making
@Daniel Yu so true.he
Is a innocent man and the media needs to eat humble pie now👍
ITS FUNNY THAT YOU WOULD USE THE DEATH OF A CHILD FOR COMPARISON
ASSHOLE
He was found Not Guilt, not Innocent.
There is a difference. The Courts in Victoria found him Guilty by Jury.
Ben Frank so was oj simpson
He's not guilty, and innocent. Simple.
Using your logic, once somebody has been wrongfully convicted they can never be innocent again. So Lindy Chamberlain is not innocent?
Courts only ever find people 'not guilty' or 'guilty', you crap for brains. That's because a civilised justice system works on the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. But you barbarous douche bags wouldn't understand that, because you're still stuck in the mentality that threw virgins into volcanoes.
Innocent = Didn't do crime.
Not Guilty = Either: Didn't do crime or Not sufficient evidence to convict someone of said crime.
Guilty = Sufficient evidence to convict someone of crime, if they did that crime or not.
I mean, it's not that complex is it? A Jury in Victoria found him Guilty. To that Jury there was enough evidence beyond reasonable doubt that he was guilty. Was he? The only people that know that are George Pell, and his two Victims, one of which committed suicide. The High Court of Australia has found otherwise. Do I think that should have happened? Not at all, I don't think the High Court should have accepted his appeal in the first place, but they did, and this is the decision that they have reached. Well, that's the end of this.
But I guess all of that is cold comfort for anyone that has being sexually abused by someone in a position of power now, because, hey, people can just keep appealing until they reach the High Court now and just buy their way to a Not Guilty.
Truth wins
WHY is Australian media SOOOOO untrustworthy??? Thank You Andrew . . . . I do appreciate your consistent research, logic and honesty!! Stands in stark contrast to the twisted and cowardly attack on ANYONE who provides them with a manipulative platform to make a NAME for themselves!!?? Anything for money!! ANYTHING for Fame!! ANYTHING to grab the public attention!! Pathetic!!
Saying Andrew Bolt has done any research or is logical is laughable. This living fossil still denies climate change is a threat
Bolt? Logic? Absolutely laughable.
@@africanchild5935 Ummmm Common Sense and reality clearly demonstrates "Global Warming" . . . . Ooooops, er, Um , . . . I really meant to say - "Climate Change" Meaning AnYtHiNg!! As exposed by the Teenage Genius - Gerta Hamberger is a complete FRAUD!! Bah, ha, ha, ha, ha, . . . .
@@jasonmitchell7243 D o Y o u S P E A K E N G L I S H ? ? ? ? Do you understand what Andrew is saying???? Ask mum to explain it to you?????
I bet he did do it
So you didn't listen to a word of this video, got it.
I bet you are an ass. The High Court spoke and pinheads don't count for anything.
Tea Bubbles and I bet you are related to the devil 👿
To all not happy with this news, with a lot of hatred feelings, please, show us what prove do you have to support your words .... Come on, show us....
@ hahaha true
This is what happens when accusers are given power that is dangerous for a civil society.... This also happens in false rape cases in which women are given the power to accuse to cause great damage without evidence.
Absolutely right{. I live in Brisband and I well remember a car where a QUT female student failed one of her exams. She was so revengeful that she falsely accused the lecturer who failed her, of sexually assaulting her. That poor lecturer suffered immeasurably, in ways that you cannot imagine. Eventually the truth came out and her accusations and malicious lies were all found out to be completely false and the case was withdrawn. The immeasurable damage which was sufferedb y the lecturer could never e undone. Every of her accusation were dirty rilthy lies, just like this current case against an innocent man. The media are like dirty rotten vultures, hanging around buildings and service stations yelling out at Cardinal Pell. There a big idiot named Steve Marhsll, a supposed journalist on Channel 9's a current affair is one of those precise monsters. The same monsters who chased down to her death, while trying to get away from media vultures; I am talking about Diana, Princess of Wales.
@@annekelly6616 If there is a break down of trust between the citizen and the law then it usually results in more crime and corruption and real victims not getting justice. For example if a female got raped for real the police would say she is lying.....
I want to thank God for Cardinal Pell's freedom and to all the people I know who must have prayed for justice to be done.
How terrible! "A crime he could not have committed"- wow! Now this man and his friends have been impoverished to boot. Can they sue for damages?
The evidence against Pell was always iffy.
Just how much sexual abuse could he have perpetrated to two altar boys in 5 minutes?
@@Angrybogan Could have, exactly. Is it possible? Absolutely.
I don't understand how a single witness, whose claimed second victim never said anything, could prove this beyond reasonable doubt.
Dylan B the second victim died of a drug overdose after suffering PTSD. Now I wonder where he he got it from.
@@dylan7476 Agreed. I'm not Catholic and hold no brief for Pell, but the ethic of 'beyond reasonable doubt' must be applied. In this case, it wasn't.
@@wiblatole7868 It is quite likely their drug use grew was from abuse if it occurred, but that alleged victim never said they were abused, even when asked if anyone in the Church had abused them. This doesn't prove either side, but is more supportive of Pell being innocent.
It is unreasonable to think that their death proves Pell's abuse beyond reasonable doubt.
It reminds me of the crucifixion of Lindy Chamberlain.
People used to say "She's evil; She's guilty; She's a witch" & I would say "HOW do you know!?" & they'd say "I just know!" or "I can just tell! Look at her face!" & such BS.
The FACT IS they DIDN'T know.
It made me FURIOUS that people would judge so ignorantly & prematurely & harshly.
I could NEVER respect those people. I felt they were the evil ones!
The title is dramatic. We have so many “miscarriages” of justice DAILY. Just because he is a religious leader doesn’t make his conviction “Australia’s biggest miscarriage of justice”.. like yes, it’s important to acknowledge the flaw but Sky news please chill out on the dramatisation. I hope if anything this opens up our law system to ensure justice is served across ALL cases.
Not every case has someone imprisoned for over 400 days!
Well, it is a huge miscarriage. The DPP of Victoria could not get up a case on other charges so went with this manufactured one. That could happen to anyone of us. It's pretty scary, what they did to him. I'm no supporter of PEll or the Catholics, butI am jurisprudence. This was a dreadful failure.
Obviously you know of your words many other miscarriage of justice you need to report them to the police. Justice has been served not trial by media.
Whether you think him guilty or not, you have to agree that it was more about the Catholic Church as a whole and the decades of mistreatment of children. His position as the head of the Church in Australia was an ideal opportunity to push that injustice that they’d/he’d mostly turned a blind eye too. Added to that Pells media persona only appeared to reinforce that public indignation.
But none of what you've just mentioned should have had any bearing on a conviction of Cardinal Pell. It should have been entirely evidence based.
@@warty3620 exactly.
Warty - That’s my point
That would be another case. This is a personal case. Because he didn't do enough to stop abuse within the church doesnt mean he is a molester himself. I think all this are driven by blind hate and anger and not driven by facts
That's ridiculous. You might as well say the High Court got it wrong, the Vic Police witchhunt is entirely the way of the future for criminal investigation and that he should be put back behind bars, throw away the key etc.
Great news for an innocent man. Justice served.
Thank god he is innocent I’m glad he is out and walking free
Just remember that although the conviction has been quashed this does not mean that Pell is innocent. If you watch "Revelation" you will see that there are many accounts by different people of abuse by Pell and many of these accounts are very similar in nature (i.e. Pell repeated the same behaviour with children). The other thing is that Pell is certainly guilty of cover-ups of sexual abuse by his mates in the church and was involved in and supported a prolific serial child sex abuser. It is a damn shame that he has not been jailed for this behaviour alone. Shame Shame Shame
Amazing the number of people who are mad that molestation case is proven false. Everyone should be rejoicing at this.
True, it's frightening because it sets the precident that acculations equals guilt.
My biggest fear are the sane judges who will then be smeared by the public thus scaring future judges into giving the lynch mob what they want.
When will people who bring false accusations be sent to jail???
what was false? anything pell said?
thats a big statement for someone not on the receiving end of secret abuse
Ol richo's a bit creepy
@@Jason-rs6co Was their sufficient proof in this case? We are dealing with the rule of law not the lynch mob.
There were no 'false allegations '!!! The supreme court said they found the complainants testimony credible ! As a matter of law they simply found the jury should have found 'reasonable doubt' !
Newscorp will never be as fair and professional as the ABC
Well said Andrew Bolt
Actually the ABC should be investigated over this..
there shouldn't even be an ABC anymore. It needed closing a decade ago.
@keith gould Like most MSM the ABC are fairly unfamiliar with "reporting" and more about spinning.
@keith gould Oh that's right an old slimy prick like Murdoch is so much more powerful than a culture wide insane leftist cult. I pay for the ABC and I would rather not. I don't pay Murdoch a cent and I only comment here because ABC is too gutless to have comments. Maybe they would cry too much poor little puppies. The world is just too complex for you keith. Go have a lie down.
@keith gould So you have TDS too. Not surprised. Love the guy. He is the funniest and yet most competent President the USA has had in generations. Good luck to 45 in 20.
@keith gould no just amused by the talented orator and representative of the people. The only obsessed behavior expressed around Trump is by those who baselessly try to destroy his presidency and fail miserably. Very entertaining. Fade away DemoRATs, fade away.
Justice was delivered today by our Supreme Court. I am sooo relieved for our national justice system.
You clearly dont understand what their ruling means, rather, youd rather defend pedos walking free
It was the High court and you seem to be a fan of people who cover up paedophilia. Hope you're good with that...
Grandma the case isn’t even over yet “deal with it sunshine”
George Pell was victim. I believe he is innocent since the beginning.
@Kate Kingston you can laughing as hard you can kids. I the end, you must face the fact, HE IS INNOCENT. Just move on and accept the fact.
You've done an outstanding job of covering this story, Andrew. In the past, dedicated friends and committed lawyers made campaigns for justice work, but the most effective have been crusading journalists although you probably won't thank me for the use of the term "crusading".
While some wrongful convictions may be overturned without the public taking notice, most high-profile cases have only returned to the court of appeal after lengthy campaigns and the engagement of a dedicated lawyer. You must have suffered extraordinary pressure, both professional and personal, to not cover this story and you have done so in an objective and balanced way.
It reminds of us how important it is for people who have been wrongly convicted to have a champion fighting on their behalf - for their sake, but also the sake of the society in which we live.
Well said Andrew!!! What has Australia become?!!!
A GREAT DAY FOR JUSTICE!! Well said AB! Anyone ever read 'The Lottery" by Shirley Jackson, or Lord of the Flies by William Golding? Cardinel Pell's incarceration reminds me of these stories because his treatment has been a witch hunt, involving a mob mentality.
I don’t care about timings or even Pell’s guilt or innocence. No one should be convicted on the word of one witness with no other evidence.
Catholic Priests had that covered.
Agree totally
Sounds like he's been a victim of family court.
It's the same shit.
Nah, he's just a sycophant. Any news story is a good story for self serving bolt.
You are absolutely right Andrew, this is a gross miscarriage of justice but I believe that a man like George Pell would have spent his long time in jail in prayer for humanity. God upheld justice for Pell and the Church. Amen
As much as I don't like the man a fair trial must be observed and abided by.
It's more that the evidence is not convincing enough to convict a influencial person like him, but think how hard it is yo get watertight evidence for something you did twenty thirty years ago.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of innoncence
problem is so many people can not do what you have done and rise above their personal feelings, and it is not just Pell who gets that unfair treatment. No matter, he has been vindicated no matter anyone's personal feelings towards him
It's disgraceful that in a country like Australia this happened. One victim was at least saved from the witchhunt mob.
And you don't like the man because of what the bullshit the media has told you and he did not get a fail trial because of that bullshit. Did you call out to the media and demand a fair trial.
well good to see coronavirus isnt the worst thing in the news today
Ever heard of Tommy Robinson? Tell him about injustice and the dreadful judicial system in the UK
Yep.
The hounding of Tommy Robinson by sections of the POLICE and JUSTICE SYSTEM of Britain because he exposed the abuse of young girls by one particular ethno-religious group was incredible to behold.
@@dukadarodear2176 And they are still after him even now....disgusting
When the Sh!t hit the fan, wasn't Pell investigating corruption at the Vatican?
What a perfect time to get him 'accused'.
all of ABC's comments are turned off
Always are.
They do that for all their videos, regardless of the topic. The ABC News channel has no interest in inciting discussion, because that's not their job; they simply deliver news.
They always are. The ABC is not accountable to the public. It considers contrary opinions to be beneath their consideration. Cut their funding now, I say.
@@schmurble2254 "simply deliver the news" what decade do you live in, your statement is absolutely true if you go back to the 70's. . . . James Dibble was a legend, but if you are talking about the ABC of the last 20 years you are way off the mark. The ABC is one of Australia's last bastions of manufacturing. . They manufacture news.
If ABC cannot control debate they are not interested.
Chardonnay Socialists.
George Pell was not found innocent, the judges stated the evidence available was insuffcient. We can be sure that this is not the end of this appalling saga, that the victims have to live through
Henry James I suggest you read the courts ruling, the appeal was upheld and the lower courts ordered to replace the verdict with a not guilty verdict. In the eyes of the law he is not guilty irrespective of how much the media want to spin this decision.
@@peterbuckley3877 And the victims continue to suffer, Karma will happen for them !
At long last JUSTICE. Well said Andrew Bolt ….. Shame on the Australian Nation for this miscarriage.
Why even bother to have a trial by jury.
This man is responsible for so many crimes that he had knowledge of,and people who paint him as a saint should be ashamed and go to hell.
How do you know all this - psychic?
@@CarolFremel-my4hs common sense,I dont need to look up to know the sky is blue.
There was one other in recent times Andrew , Lindy Chamberlain , trial by media .
Often cite Chamberlain's case when discussing capital punishment with pro capital debaters. Would you execute someone who cut their child's throat with scissors? Invariably the answer is yes. You mean someone like Lindy Chamberlain? Usually stops the debate.
I hope Pell sues Vicpol , and the ABC for millions.
Why was this case closed to the public?
To protect him from the public. The evidence made it too obvious that he is guilty. That's why the jury at his trial found him guilty.
Kathy that is untrue, this case was closed to protect the
“Victims” not pell, this case was a farce from the start. I don’t like pell but facts before feelings.
Kathy and also not true. The High Court judged that the evidence showed he was innocent. The truth is not strong with you.
Was he bishop with robes then supposedly heavy attire or a Priest in normal robes light attire it was a historical case plus other cases were at a swimming pool no robes there but unfortunately these were dropped charges as not enough proof didn’t mean they were not done! Just not enough evidence from victims or witnesses which is the same way all alleged and accused pedophiles use to get off and burden on the victims having to procure witnesses pedophiles rarely do crimes to victims in public they pick times even whilst someone turns their back that cannot be ruled out in Pell’s case they entered they left his so called minders! as they prep first they see how far they go before going further a well know fact in cases of pedophilia fear is the sword used by them on young children and religion used on the congregation to shut them down and up including the parents of alleged victims this case just allowed all pedophiles with plenty money to appeal high court for exactly the same reasons its unheard of and rare you have to ask just how powerful the Catholic Church is in this country and the World it stinks of corruption and certainly coverup including media unable to report on the case as they were restricted with access to all of the facts which again smells Mr Bolt! Why was the public not allowed the real complete facts includes the charges there was more than 2 btw 😢
@@kathy8260 One lone accuser and contradicting evidence means his guilt is "too obvious"? ...what are you smoking? >.>
Reminds me of crucify him crucify him.... mob group think that crucified Jesus on the cross.
Reminded me of the same.
Stell Tame, don't compare that man actions with Our Lord Jesus!! That man is a sinner!
Yes I agree with this show and comment. The guilty verdict was legally unsound!
Thank you Andrew Bolt, for your consistent support for the principles of our criminal justice system through this whole process. The High Court has, and rightly so, upheld the golden thread that runs through the web of our criminal law: "that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner‘s guilt...If...there is a reasonable doubt...the prosecution has not made out the case and the prisoner is entitled to an acquittal“ (Viscount Sankey in Woolmington v Director of Public Prosecutions [1935] UKHL 1.
Shows what endless expenditure on expensive lawyers can do. No matter what the legal outcome, Pell has a dark cruel heart.
Not guilty doesn't mean innocence, it means the evidence required by law was not presented. It is disturbing that the judgement of judges was lacking. Like the mafia said, you don't go in the same room with somebody's wife or children before they dumped their victim in Davy Jones Locker. Time churches adopt this common sense policy.
you know the law better than the 7 learned Justices of the High Court of Australia eh?
@@samtcgan068 It is a fact that at least 3 of them got it wrong in the previous court cases. He is found not guilty, it means the burden of proof was inadequate. This is just basic high school stuff. The previous court cases failed to recognize this. This is what is disturbing.
I am not religious and I agree that how pell has been treated is nothing short of an atrocity! Our nation and many others are moving away from reason and science towards trial by social media and decisions based upon nothing more than prejudice and emotional responses that arise from such prejudices.
The real problem is how these cases are framed to begin with. Once you start off by qualifying the complainant as "the victim" and then assert that "the victim must always be believed," the case is already prejudged against the defendant, who will then be found guilty even with no evidence whatsoever and solely on the basis of implausible allegations. And this seems to be what happened in the Pell case, where no evidence was presented, just unsubstantiated allegations from a single "victim". Allegations that were so implausible that they would have been dismissed immediately by an unbiased court. Then, at the Victorian appeal, while one justice examined the facts, the other two preferred to follow their "feelings" (biases?) and, moreover, inverted our very system of justice by demanding not proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, but proof of innocence! Now it's up to the federal high court to put an end to this Victorian legal farce. AND NOW IT HAS BEEN DONE !
🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼GREAT NEWS! ON APRIL 6 2020. THE WITCH HUNT WAS OVER. HE WAS FOUND INNOCENT AND RELEASED. TRUTH ALWAYS WINS🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼
Amen to dat.
"truth always wins" Say that to the past 120 years of history
Bolt is ludicrously deluded. Even as this specific decision is reversed on a legal technicality, there are numerous other allegations about Pell from different sources stretching over decades. Quite apart from whatever abuse Pell himself perpetrated, the guy is directly responsible for protecting several of the worst child abusers in history. He shared a house with Gerald Ridsdale - the worst child abuser in Victoria's history - for a year and was responsible for moving him to different parishes to avoid justice. Yet he claims to know nothing about those offences. Unbelievable. Pell also orchestrated the policy of paying off victims to secure their silence and protect the church against legal recrimination. To believe Pell is anything other than extremely lucky in getting off is to ignore mountains of evidence over four decades.
Thank God for the high Court judges , Today my faith in Australian justice system is been restored. Cardinal Pell’s case shouldn’t be a court case in the first place. It’s like anyone can say or accuse anyone as they feel like. At last Justice has prevailed.
I agree with you Andrew Bolt. Thank you for your introduction. Your are supporting the justice by defending this innocent man.
Pay the man Restitution,how can the judicial system be so wrong?
I am not a believer but this stinks,how dare they to crucefy a person be it a priest or who ever.
Shame on you,this truly sucks!!
I was never a fan of Cardinal Pell, but I knew he was innocent! The alleged abuse in the way it was reported stunk of impossibility!! An innocent man walks free!!
Life's experiences have taught me not to believe what I hear and half of what I see. The gullibility of some investigative journalists is a great concern. I would ask the librarians of this country to relocate Louise Milligan's book about George Pell from the non fiction section to the fictional.
Librarians take years to perform mammoth tasks like changing Dewey number and reallocating book space. You could be asking for an impossible dream. But good luck.
@@gregdeane8937 Thanks for the response. You're clearly more informed in that area.My comment was only an exercise in cynicism.
@Max Raider That may be a fair assessment. The ABC especially is agenda driven. It was designed to be a medium of impartiality to compensate for privately owned media that may propagate the interests of a few. Talk about acting contrary to your charter. With fragmentation of media as a consequence of advances in technology we may ask, do we need this white elephant that costs in excess of a billion dollars annually?
Pell is a creep
But he's a winner.
What the hell is he doing here?
He doesn't belong here.
INNOCENT 🙌
@@jamescowden7055 fool
Should rot in jail, jury found him guilty.
Just appealed until he got the outcome
he wanted, he is evil.
with a high court stacked of conservatives who are sympathetic towards him. hardly impartial
@ken john please explain?
Yeah hate those pesky facts they all ways get in the way of a good persicution 😜
I have no time for the Catholic Church (Or any church for that matter) but I always felt that Pell has wrongly convicted and have said so in my little circle..... I do feel for the many victims of the Catholic Church's many evils but that is no reason to crucify Pell, an innocent man.
So why did he feel the need to flee to Rome and become the Treasurer?
Brian killen I hope you will come to know Our Lord Jesus Christ.
@@marygrotaers9857 Any form of sexual immorality is a work of the religious spirit, NOT The Holy Spirit (Gal. 5:18-21 Aramaic) Worth remembering.
Great job Andrew you got it correct again just like you do on most subjects. Keep up great work.
GERALD RISDALE ! Oh it’s not a crime to cover up for paedophile dogs that went on to destroy more lives. He’s innocent of this one thou walks free from his enabling past. All washed clean
This guy was basically second in charge at the Vatican. He knew everything that is and has gone on. This person has never shown remorse or empathy towards the poor souls that were subjected to those atrocities. He is just as sick as the people who committed the acts. God has the final say!
@ken john Expresses sympathy. Doesn't have any empathy . Have not heard from him expressing great remorse. What do our views matter anyway. God has the last word.
HE WAS GUILTY BY KNOWING OF CRIMES OF PRIESTS
pete john it doesn’t matter because the bigger picture is you’re still defending him knowing that he covered up for others, what does that say about you and your lack of morals. You’re a kiddie fiddler yourself because there’s no other reason to defend someone for that.
Your words said “he’s not on trial for that”, which indicates that your opinion is “the covering up is a separate irrelevant issue even though it’s the exact same person I’m defending” don’t fake outrage and stand by your own words or shit your trap.
The Gonad savage for showing someone the irony and hypocrisy in their own comment? Nice bait🙄 🎣 troll.
@@mariamm7695 are you kidding, no evidence, a witness who noone with half a brain would believe a word that come out of his mouth, with a story that had more holes in it than a cheese grater. And a dead man who said he wasnt molested, how he was convicted by law in the first place is staggering.
An innocent man ... I’ve never thought this accusation was probable. Pell represents a church that has failed so badly on every level that he became the face of the criminality and depravity of the church. Not surprising that Pell does not garner much sympathy, even hatred. I’ve always thought there was reasonable doubt. My logical brain sees that this original conviction was wrong and the law was not working in the way we aspire our system of law to operate. I actually wanted him to face trial for his covering up of activities and there are plenty of other allegations against him regarding sexual assault. An innocent man? Unfair? Unjust? The law may have been served by his release but victims will see this as another kick. I’m personally satisfied to see he served time in jail for all that he was never tried for. Was this unjust? Technically. Was his trial, conviction and jailing morally unjust? He was complicit in the rape of children by his willingness to pass offenders around from one place to another. If he feels rage, injustice at his treatment, it’s a small thing compared to the little children he failed to protect. I cant gather the outrage within me for this man’s “suffering” at being unjustly imprisoned. They just got him on the wrong charge.
Don't blur the man with the institution.
You take pleasure in the small time he was "served" in jail. Shameful. If you looked at how hard Pell fought for the victims of sexual assault as far back in the 80s and 90s, you wouldn't be saying this right now. Assigning blame on an innocent man, as you put it, is never the way to go about the reformation of a corrupt institution.
Akhnaten that's actually not true. Pell set up an inquiry board that was revealed to be a complete sham and whose sole purpose was to silence victims. This was revealed in court documents and the notes those church "investigators" wrote were disgusting. And Pell set the whole thing up. Watch this investigative journalism piece about it m.ua-cam.com/video/oAZmxkphdwU/v-deo.html
@@pandamandimax Of course you would believe that. I never doubted people like you would believe the feckless media. These purported documents have never surfaced or been publicly released, and why should we expect an 80 year old man to remember something he did over twenty years ago regarding that photo? The man who apparently investigated the Melbourne response is a Vatican insider, an ideologue on the side of Francis who had George Pell removed from office of his treasury status because he uncovered documents revealing the corruption of the Vatican. We know the media are liars and now we know the state courts can be corrupted as well.
An innocent man now free. Sincerest thanks to Andrew Bolt, steadfast throughout.
How does Pell get released after one week and Assange has been held in custody for 10years!
Because Pell is innocent and assange is a spy that gave gave govt. Docs to terrorists.
What if the allegations were actually completely fabricated??? He should sue the media and whoever was driving this thing (if that's even possible) for defamation
Andrew Bolt " The Corona Virus is a hoax"
Andrew Bolt " Climate Change is a hoax"
Andrew Bolt "George Pell is innocent"
@@jefflayton8070 obviously you have no idea about criminal legal proceedings and anyone with half a brain and looking at this particular case would realise that it has absolutely no basis, it is actually criminal that it actually progressed this far.
If he has not committed the crime he should go free. Down the history of any religion there has been dis honest people who has abused other people. That does not prove that everybody in this or that religion is an abuser.
Skeggi Skjeldarson yes, but extend that to every institution.
@@mmmmmmmmmmhhhhhh Extend it to anything you choose. Everybody in every institution is not an abuser. That is collective branding my friend.
If you are talking about a public figure - YES - however many innocent people have been the victims of injustice committed by those in positions of trust in law, psychiatry, policing and social work
This is Divine Justice!! An innocent walks free at last!!
😇
Victoria is not part of Australia. It is a power onto.its self and we need protection from it's unjust judges...
Not a first for Australia the land of proud convicts. Remember Lindy Chamberlain. Same thing all over again.
@Mike fu is he. . .
@Mike fu "we all knew" ?????
EresirThe1st his own defence lawyer admitted that it was “vanilla penetrative sex” maybe look it up. Plus he definitely covered up for others, and that’s just as bad as doing it himself
EresirThe1st he admitted it on tape “it didn’t interest me”, he just wasn’t on trial for the cover up (yet, who knows what’s going to happen you’re all acting like the case is over, certainly isn’t). Maybe you should look it up because it doesn’t seem like you have much knowledge of the whole picture, apart from what bolt tells you.