A FAIR TRIAL?
Like many others, I have never been a fan of George Pell. Nevertheless, the fact that his defence attorneys were not permitted to present a critically-relevant video depicting the layout of the sacristy where the claimed offence was alleged to have occurred (on the ground that it may have confused the jury), raises the inevitable question as to whether the particular selected jury members were bereft of sufficient intelligence as to form a reasoned and impartial verdict?
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
If the chosen jury members could be so easily swayed, it beggars belief that Pell was afforded a fair trial, especially since there was only a single complainant, there was no witness to corroborate the unsupported allegations, and since the claimed assault was alleged to have occurred in an ostensibly public space immediately following completion of Sunday mass when undoubtedly crowds of people would have been lingering about, many of whom quite likely were attempting to chat with the Archbishop.
Even the Victorian County Court Chief Judge himself described the trial as a "perfect storm of potential prejudice against Pell that could damage his right to a fair trial".
There can be no doubt that Pell, as the figurehead and leader of the Catholic Church in Australia, has endured massive scapegoating and has been subjected to a sustained vendetta over several years thereby making the verdict all but inevitable. Where is the actual empirical evidence to verify that Pell ever offended against the complainant? And, it appears that the guilty verdict was based merely on the unsupported and belated allegations of this one complainant. How can a guilty verdict produced under such circumstances be sustained?
George Boyle, Jamboree Heights
FIGHT FOR SURVIVAL
Congratulations to the academics and staff who are taking action to bring pressure to abandon the secret deal to accept the Ramsay Centre course.
A flawed course that no Australian university has accepted.
They uphold the university’s proud tradition.
It was the first to introduce free education for the mature aged.
Ramsay rejects the mature aged.
And it taught all histories objectively.
Ramsay has another view of history.
It was expressed by Tony Abbott who sits on its board and says "Ramsay is not merely about Western civilisation it is in favour of it".
Another Ramsay Board member is John Howard who belittled aboriginal history dismissing it as the “black arm band view of
history”.
This confirms that at Ramsey ideology will trump objective history.
It's an ideology that is foreign to our city that spawned the university.
The fight to save its independence and reputation is therefore also our fight.
Reg Wilding, Wollongong
Letters on election issues must bear the name and full address of the writer.
Responsibility for election comment in this issue is accepted by the Illawarra Mercury editor Julian O'Brien.
Writers should disclose any alliance with political or community organisations and include their phone number for verification.
Election candidates should declare themselves as such when submitting letters.