No jury trial is perfect as mistakes by jurors and judges can be made. Critics point to the conviction of Lindy Chamberlain for the murder of her baby Azaria in Alice Springs.
There have been TV commentators who criticized conviction of Cardinal George Pell for sexual abuse of 2 altar boys 22 years ago in Melbourne.
Commentators Alan Jones and Andrew Bolt have spoken out on Sky News Australia arguing that he could not possibly have committed sex abuse.
(1) The cardinal arrived with a retinue of clergy and was not alone. (How did the Court establish the exact day 22 years ago?)
(2) His vestments did not permit removal in the sacristy to abuse two boys.
(3) The boy claimed they were drinking red wine but a senior clergyman said it was white wine.
(4) How could he leave the retinue and rush into the sacristy and abuse boys with the door open? (That is pure guesswork by a witness perhaps bearing false witness. How did the witness know the door was open 22 years later?)
(5) How could he be convicted of molesting a boy who died? (Did the boys tell anyone about the abuse? The father of the dead boy blamed Pell outside thje Court.)
It may be that Jones and Bolt have never been to mass in the cathedral in Melbourne. Perhaps as TV journalists they are omnipresent and can see through time and space.
(1) The presiding archbishop and retinue would leave by the front door.
(2) How long after the service did the claimed abuse take place? (Did the altar boys have the job of disrobing the archbishop?)
(3) Did the boys mistake the colour of the wine? Pehaps the bottle was red.
(4) The boy took 22 years to speak out. (That is normal for many abused children who do not have the courage to speak for fear of punishment and blame. Some may surely never speak out and die of old age with their secret deeply hidden.)
How can Pell appeal when he remained silent in the closed trial? No outsiders knew what evidence was given. There is a saying of speak now or forever hold your peace.
(3) The boy claimed they were drinking red wine but a senior clergyman said it was white wine.
(4) How could he leave the retinue and rush into the sacristy and abuse boys with the door open? (That is pure guesswork by a witness perhaps bearing false witness. How did the witness know the door was open 22 years later?)
(5) How could he be convicted of molesting a boy who died? (Did the boys tell anyone about the abuse? The father of the dead boy blamed Pell outside thje Court.)
It may be that Jones and Bolt have never been to mass in the cathedral in Melbourne. Perhaps as TV journalists they are omnipresent and can see through time and space.
(1) The presiding archbishop and retinue would leave by the front door.
(2) How long after the service did the claimed abuse take place? (Did the altar boys have the job of disrobing the archbishop?)
(3) Did the boys mistake the colour of the wine? Pehaps the bottle was red.
(4) The boy took 22 years to speak out. (That is normal for many abused children who do not have the courage to speak for fear of punishment and blame. Some may surely never speak out and die of old age with their secret deeply hidden.)
How can Pell appeal when he remained silent in the closed trial? No outsiders knew what evidence was given. There is a saying of speak now or forever hold your peace.
No comments:
Post a Comment