"Beyond Reasonable Doubt."

One of the foundation principles of our court system is that a person may only be found guilty if the verdict is 'beyond reasonable doubt." Benjamin Franklin is supposed to have said that "it is better than one hundred guilty persons should escape than that one innocent person should suffer." (Some sources say a thousand guilty persons rather a hundred.)

And this principle still applies in our courts - except, it seems, when the crime is a sex crime, especially against children. Now, to rape a child is obviously one of the vilest of crimes, but even then, there should be a presumption of innocence, not a presumption of guilt.

The most recent example is the case of Cardinal George Pell, Catholic priest, accused of a crime that happened many years before, and finally convicted on the word of one man. (There was a second alleged victim, but he had already died, and had previously stated that he was not molested.)

Now this particular crime that was supposed to have occurred was so unfeasible as to be ludicrous. (Molesting two boys he found in the sacristy, when he was supposed to be somewhere else, so were the boys, who would have been missed, and Pell, as the presiding priest, always had an attendant with him as long as he wore the vestments. Plus it was in a time frame of just 6 minutes, it was in a place where people were coming and going, the door was not locked, and Pell had around four layers of heavy ceremonial garments to raise before any action could take place.)

I try and imagine the scenario, and think of him trying to raise said heavy garments, and then probably tripping and falling while the boys laughed at him and walked out of the open door!

As I said, it is not feasible. All the same, in December, 2018, the 12 members of the jury found him guilty, and in March, 2019, he was sentenced to six years in prison.

There is a pending appeal. Maybe the scales of justice might be looked at more closely this time.


I think that George Pell was found guilty because he was a Catholic priest, and we know now that far too many Catholic priests abused children. But Pell was not on trial for being a Catholic priest, he was not on trial for turning a blind eye to abuse that he may have known was occurring, and he was not on trial for taking part in coverups.



UPDATE: 7th April, 2020. The High Court of Australia has finally given its decision. George Pell is a free man. The seven judges of the High Court were unanimous in their decision. There has been a miscarriage of justice, and an old man spent over a year in prison for a crime that he did not do. The idea that 'victims' should invariably be believed is proven false once again.

----------

Other people have been found guilty of crimes that were not the ones for which they were tried. I suspect that Rolf Harris was found guilty because known paedophile, Jimmy Saville, died before he could face punishment, and all of those powerful people who had to have known and turned a blind eye, never faced punishment at all.

Harris was accused of several different crimes, some of them sounding quite minor.

The most serious crime he was accused of,  was committing a sex act when a girlfriend of his daughter was visiting - in the room they shared. He was found guilty even though the only evidence was her word. That girl, once grown up, initiated an affair with him, but that was no crime on his part. Was she a reliable witness? I hardly think so.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-27907511

The prosecution must have known how weak their case was, and so they brought in 'witnesses of bad character.' I have never heard of that before, and am astonished that it was allowed. All the same, it was pretty fairly established that he was a bit of a sleaze. But a criminal and a paedophile? I don't think that has been established at all.

He was recently released. This is a picture of him with his wife Alwen. It is another reason I think him probably a good person. Most rich and famous men routinely exchange a wife for younger and more beautiful models. Harris did not.







Another case: John Francis Tyrrell was convicted of abusing a boy at Geelong's St. Joseph's College. The offending was supposed to have occurred in 1965 and 1966, it was a very long time before the complaint was made, and there were 'improbabilities' in the evidence.

It was appealed, and the ruling was that the verdict was unsound and was overturned. (March, 2019)
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/court-frees-priest-jury-verdict-unsound/news-story/953f14381a21e710eaff795773cc66f1

I think the same thing will happen with George Pell, though not with Rolf Harris.  I think that Harris is feeling he is too old to fight, and besides, there were too many accusers.  Note that those who made complaints against Rolf Harris were often rewarded with money, as are those who make complaints against various institutions who have tolerated abuse.


Here is another instance of a person being found guilty on the word of just one person.

Maggie Fitzpatrick,
NOT guilty of anything

Actress Maggie Kirkpatrick was found guilty of molesting a girl fan decades before. The only evidence of guilt was that of the woman, now grown. This was a judge only trial, not a jury trial, which makes it more incredible that she was found guilty.  That judge even made a deliberately humiliating order that a DNA test be performed, whether the prisoner cooperated or not. The case was in 2015.

Fitzpatrick played the part of a prison guard in a TV series. 'The Freak' as she was known, would molest prisoners with the excuse of conducting body searches.  It would seem impossible that a judge would confuse an acting role with the actor, but surely that must have been what happened.

Luckily for Kirkpatrick, the finding was overturned on appeal.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/12038401/Prisoner-actress-Maggie-Kirkpatrick-cleared-of-abusing-girl-in-Australia.html

And yet, while the guilty finding was widely and loudly publicised, I only discovered the 'Cleared' verdict by accident, much later.  Even now, with an internet search, the 'Cleared' article comes in at No. 6 on a search, while there are 5 before that, with the 'Guilty.'  How is that fair on poor Maggie?

It is like the media love to make people appear guilty, and any 'not guilty' verdict is a disappointment. 

Geoffrey Rush, well known actor, was accused of acting inappropriately while filming 'King Lear.'  The newspapers relished this, publishing a picture of him in costume,looking quite evil,  and labelled it 'King Leer.'  Rush sued them, and they thoroughly deserved it!  

Extra note added 15/4/19.  Rush won his defamation case.  

There has never been a criminal case, and yet Rush appears to have been judged guilty by the newspaper.



You cannot establish guilt 'beyond reasonable doubt' on the word of one person. 

Even if that person is not knowingly lying,   they may have forgotten details, or an incident may have occurred with another person and they became confused. They might even have dreamed it, or maybe it was a 'recovered' memory elicited by a psychologist.  (The idea that 'recovered' memories can be relied upon has long since been discredited.)

Because any complaint of sexual misconduct is almost automatically believed these days, it is being used more and more often for political purposes.

Last year, Brett Kavanaugh was nominated for the US Supreme Court. They have an odd system in America;  it seems that anyone in Congress can question the nominee, in detail, about whatever they want.  Almost at the last moment, there was an accusation made public.  A woman named Christine Blasey Ford accused him of sexually assaulting her during a high school party, many years before.  There was no corroborating evidence, and some evidence against it ever happening.  All the same, Kavanaugh nearly lost the nomination because of it.

It is my bet that next time Trump nominates someone for the US Supreme Court,  it will be a woman, simply because it is less believable that a rape might have taken place. The case of Maggie Kirkpatrick, of course,  shows that it can still happen.  

There is another factor that may make it more likely that accusations will be made, that of monetary gain.  If there is a likelihood of  'compensation,' whether from a rich man like Rolf Harris (maybe only formerly rich now)  or from compensation schemes set up after the Royal Commission into Institutional Abuse (Australia)  there will be always people putting their hand up to make an accusation.  And if the accusers are automatically labelled 'brave,'  and if there is not likely to be any nasty cross examination, why not?  Pell's accuser was not even named.

Some accusers will be genuine.  I know there were victims in the small country town I grew up in.  I only recently heard that the local doctor took on the Catholic heirarchy to try and get rid of the rotten priest.  He succeeded only in having him 'moved on' to abuse somewhere else.

So it does happen.

But after many years, memories become unreliable.  Some accusers will simply misremember - maybe blaming a high profile priest instead of the lowly one who did actually abuse him.

It is so easy to accuse.  Maybe too easy. And it is becoming more and more common, for many reasons, justice for some, maybe revenge for an unrelated crime, for example, a cruel care giver.  Money for others, and, of course, it is so effective in discrediting a political opponent.  

I even wrote a book with that theme, published a couple of years ago. It was one of the Penwinnard Stories, 'Mutty's Fort.'

These are set in a Boys' Home, and one boy set out, quite deliberately to bring down the manager.  In my book, the complaint was specific, and the manager was able to prove his innocence with a  strong alibi.  If the accusation had been made years later, with no definite date given, would the poor manager, who did his best for his boys, have wound up with a long prison sentence?
Probably.


And the mud does stick, whether found guilty or not.  It is unfair.

My conclusion and my plea:

DO NOT JUDGE ANY MAN OR WOMAN GUILTY ON A MERE ACCUSATION.

There must be guilt 'beyond reasonable doubt.'

Postscript added 21/8/19

Result of  George Pell's Appeal: 

And I AM FLABBERGASTED.   

Pell was accused of a crime that would have been almost impossible to commit, and based on the evidence of just one anonymous accuser. Evidence that he could not have committed the crime was ignored. He was tried and convicted by a jury. He went to Appeal, and he failed. There were three judges, the result was two to one.  So Pell returns to prison.

My faith in Australia's system of justice has dropped enormously.

He still has the option of an appeal to the High Court. But our High Court has made some very poor decisions in recent years, and his legal team might not consider it warranted. 

* 

Another postscript added December, 2019

Not every application to have an appeal lodged with the High Court is accepted.  This one has been. It will be heard some time in 2020.  Meantime, George Pell remains in solitary confinement in a high security gaol.



UPDATE:
7th April, 2020. The High Court of Australia has finally given its decision. George Pell is a free man. The seven judges of the High Court were unanimous in their decision. There has been a miscarriage of justice, and an old man spent over a year in prison for a crime that he did not do. The idea that 'victims' should invariably be believed is proven false once again.