Why didn’t Pell defend himself?

The complainant had to ensure a grilling, why not the cardinal?

Greg Craven, a lawyer, writes with passion about the inadequacies of the judicial system (“A case in which justice never had a fair chance”, 27/2). How true. But from which side of the fence does he speak?

As a former police prosecutor, for more than 20 years I witnessed a questionable legal system that undoubtedly favours the criminal. Innocent people charged with an offence, or those charged with an offence when they had a reliable alibi, always go into the witness box, take the Bible in their hand and call upon the Almighty to witness their oath to tell the truth.

George Pell failed to make this plea. He did not go into the witness box, which prevented the Crown from cross-examining him.

In the most harrowing cases, involving children who have been sexually assaulted, the complainant must enter the witness box to give their evidence. They must take an oath to tell the truth. They are regularly, dare I say it, brutally cross-examined by eloquent and professional defence lawyers. I have regularly watched this cruel performance with sadness.

I ask this question: Why did George Pell not go into the witness box?

Oscar Taylor, Frenchs Forest, NSW

Greg Craven questions whether George Pell’s trial was capable of delivering justice, given the prior reportage by sections of the media presenting Pell as an evil “ogre”. Certainly, the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse exposed an appalling incidence of sexual abuse of vulnerable children in institutional care and wantonly deficient responses by institutions.

This seems to have led to an increasingly prevalent view that all accusations of child sexual abuse must be accepted as true. “J’accuse!” implies “guilty”. It leaves anyone accused of such a crime presumed guilty, with an often herculean task of establishing their innocence. Abandonment of the presumption of innocence and the requirement for the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt would herald a very dark future.

David Phillips, Tea Tree Gully, SA

Like Greg Craven, a reading of press reports yesterday concerning the case against Cardinal George Pell suggests to me that the verdict doesn’t pass the pub test. It seems to me to perpetuate a trend whereby verdicts in similar cases are more in keeping with prevailing social fads than actual evidence: with assertions rather than facts, or even common sense.

Maris Dabars, Murray Bridge, SA

Greg Craven is spot on. It is a stretch of the imagination to think any jury could have considered the evidence in Cardinal George Pell’s trial in an unprejudiced and objective way given the massive media coverage and publicity for many months beforehand. Rules and ideas of subjudice seem a forgotten notion, and public trust in justice and the jury process has taken another knock.

Peter M. Wargent, Mosman, NSW

Thanks to letter writer John Bell (27/2) for making the valid analogy between the cases of George Pell and Lindy Chamberlain. Indeed, we saw the presumption of innocence recently trashed in the US, too, with the Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh. Nonetheless, the worthy follow up articles on the Pell case penned by Frank Brennan (“I still hope for truth, justice”, 27/2)and by Greg Craven indicate — for me at least — that Pell’s guilt has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Let the appeal process begin.

Mandy Macmillan, Singleton, NSW

The case of Cardinal George Pell, after years of innuendo and a gathering storm-cloud of hatred and prejudice, has run its course and a verdict has been reached. It would be much easier to join the merciless throng baying for blood, but there’s a lingering feeling something’s not quite right. The cardinal’s appeal is sure to be the cynosure of all eyes.

Rosemary O'Brien, Georges Hall, NSW

Everyone hurt by members of the Catholic Church — priests, Christian brothers, lay teachers and others — should take some value from the imprisonment of George Pell yesterday, if only for a week or two. It is a good start.

Tony Brownlee,Sydney, NSW

Guilty or not, Cardinal George Pell might just have to take a hit for the team, just like Jesus did all those years ago for a sinful humanity.

Francis Bede, Penguin, Tas