How We Reported on the Cardinal Pell Sex Abuse Case That for Months Was Kept Secret From the Public

I am a long-time passionate critic of the Church of Rome and of Cardinal Pell. I should be rejoicing that a mighty Prince of the Church has been brought low. Yet, I am not. All my instincts tell me that this verdict will not stand, just as the guilty verdict against the Welsh footballer, Ched Evans, was overturned eventually. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Evans_and_McDonald

I cannot speak of the "rules" of media in Australia, however, I know as fact that a growing amount of news from the AP is written by computer bots and algorithms. Why weren't they used since the paid human labor didn't do their job right (or at all)? Can Australian judges who want to keep the public out of the know, tell a computer without emotion what to write or not write? The media always portrays itself as fighting the power at any cost, but then complies with gag orders, veiled threats of lawsuits or jail... that's spineless. When everyone in the media is colluding to be silent on stories, how can we believe anything. Shame on the Fourth Estate, and all the wimps in it today.

He wasn't guilty. It would have been impossible for the abuse to have happened the way it was reported. The real witnesses could have told the court that if they had been allowed. Pell got crucified by an anti-Catholic public.

Thanks for your background story. Other news reports were more detailed including that one of the alleged victims died denying he had ever been sexually abused. And with the second alleged victim as the only witness to what happened without corroboration. The incident was alleged to have happened immediately after big Sunday Mass in a large very open sacristy. The archbishop did not know the boys yet he allegedly forced one boy on the floor while fully vested and pinning him down and forcing him to perform oral sex. Having treated sexual perpetrators, this behavior is uncharacteristic for five reasons: 1. educated sex offenders carefully groom their victims; these boys were strangers. 2. Sex offenders usually avoid witnesses. The other boy was present; 3. Sex offenders usually follow a pattern of sexual abuse yet no similar accusation were filed against the archbishop; 4. Sex offenders take risks but they don’t want to get caught; this alleged incident took place within minutes after a well attended Sunday Mass; sacristies for archbishops are very crowded places with traffic by a Master of ceremonies, other priests, deacons, multiple altar servers, and visitors.5. The alleged victim stated he was not sure of the behavior was “normal.” Having been sexually abused by clergy and having family also abused by clergy, I am very inclined to believe victims but having treated sexual abuse perpetrators and their victims for over five years, I am unconvinced.

I am glad that Livia recognises that the gag order would jeopardise the complainants' case in the second trial. From an ethical, moral and justice standpoint this is a no-brainer, so why the ambiguous stance about the gag order?

Whilst I appreciate the need for a free and fair press, the peril of 'tainting' the second trial outweighs the reporting of the first. To this end it was the right call by the judge and the suppression order was subsequently lifted as soon as was able. I think it's a bit rich to question the suppression order when some press outlets and tech companies voluntarily suppress stories or modify their information to gain access to markets such as China. You must hold universal values in order to be trusted.

1 I am glad you guys did not go against the suppression order, if only for the sake of the accusers and what was at the time, the long shot that if a guilty verdict happened, it could be upheld. 2 Any of the journos out there who did try to test the suppression order one way or another need to realise, that, at least to me, I need to ask: Did you receive a kick back from the Catholic Church for you services to Pell's appeal case? Fair call to question the system, but not when a sexual abuse survivor is having their day in court. NOW is a fair time to have that discussion.

I understand that not every witness may want their names revealed and that sometimes secrecy is in the best interest for them and the fairness of a trial. But it seems odd to me that these gag orders are enforced even when victims *want* their names and stories told, and even a bit like these people are sometimes being victimised twice: first during the initial crime and then by not being allowed to share their own stories. It feels more like these laws are in place to protect defendants.

It is important to remember that the vast majority of the commentary written about the suppression order comes from the news industry - and comes with the inherent biases of that industry. The need to ensure the Cardinal a fair trial is only ever mentioned as an aside. To my mind, I can see no great harm in forcing the media to simply delay it's reporting for a period so the person on trial can receive a fair trial. Essentially, our news media seems to be arguing that their right to report whenever they want should override a defendant's right to a fair trial.