Religion Pell Guilty!

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
AM said:
Bolshie journo! Catholic hating! What a load of nonsense intended as a smokescreen.

We're all familiar with your narrative. We've read the same stuff - interminably. Of course you are perfectly entitled to put your opinion, viewpoint et al. Just as we readers are perfectly entitled to consider your stuff and conclude whether it has any merit or is complete hogwash.

What those who aren't indoctrinated are pointing out is the absurdity of someone who was not present when the assaults occurred, nor has heard the evidence saying he knows Pell is not guilty.

He's appealing his conviction.



Aspersion on Judge Kidd's competence. What arrant nonsense. As distinct from Bruce, who "knows" I was - as I wrote - giving an "impression".

Judge Kidd's summation was a master class. And his use of footnotes exemplary. Something the Judicial College has been encouraging for some time but which rarely occurs.
Click to expand...
Your impression has all the hallmarks of your nickname.
 
Number37 said:
You're the one being deliberately obtuse.
We don't get to sentencing unless a defendant is found guilty. It is in fact impossible to get to sentencing without a guilty verdict.
To suggest that there is scope for the judge to not accept a guilty verdict is nonsense.
Click to expand...

I made no such suggestion. This is getting very weird.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

AM said:
Added to which, my impression from Justice Kidd's sentencing is he too considers the jury got it right.
Click to expand...
Sentencing is required to proceed from the assumption that the jury got it right. It would be unprofessional (and potentially grounds for appeal) if a judge was to give any indication of his personal opinion. Anything you are reading into it on that score is pure projection.
 
Demosthenes said:
Sentencing is required to proceed from the assumption that the jury got it right. It would be unprofessional (and potentially grounds for appeal) if a judge was to give any indication of his personal opinion. Anything you are reading into it on that score is pure projection.
Click to expand...

"I must at law give full effect to the jury's verdict. It is not for me to second guess the verdict. What this means is that I am required to accept, and act upon, J's account. That is what the law requires of me and that is what I will do."
 
sorted said:
Incorrect. The appeal is against the conviction.
Click to expand...

Here's an idea. Apprise yourself of all the information before indulging in your usual activity of jumping to conclusions. Clarification in # 2586

Demosthenes said:
Sentencing is required to proceed from the assumption that the jury got it right. It would be unprofessional (and potentially grounds for appeal) if a judge was to give any indication of his personal opinion. Anything you are reading into it on that score is pure projection.
Click to expand...

There is nothing in your post with which I disagree and have written as much elsewhere. I made it clear it was merely my "impression" based on no more the published information of the evidence during the trial.

If projection floats your boat then: "Complementary projection - assuming that others do, think and feel in the same way as you." Or more generally - impression.

It's not uncommon for speculation of this nature to occur not only regarding a judge, but juries too. I posted a link in which Mr Richter offered his impression during the Gatto matter.
 
sorted said:
'Clarified' as in you completely contradicted what you previously said without any acknowledgement of your mistake.
Click to expand...
Clarified as in "to make something clear or easier to understand". Although not easy enough for some.

You didn't apprise yourself with all the details - par for the course. Shot your mouth off and are now trying to cover your arse. The Scummo play book in action.
 
Number37 said:
What would be the potential grounds of appeal?

The judge agreed or disagreed with the verdict in his sentencing remarks?
Click to expand...
If a judge was to colour sentencing remarks with a personal opinion then it would provide substantial fuel for appealing the severity of the sentence.

Number37 said:
LOL, don't be ridiculous.
Click to expand...
I'm happy to educate, but I don't understand why you are being so confrontational when you clearly have only a rudimentary understanding of the law.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Number37 said:
You are the bestest laywer on Bigfooty.
Thanks again for the education.
Click to expand...
Dude - you clearly know very little about the law and then when someone tries to gently correct you, you get lippy and confrontational. Why would anyone want to take time to help you?

If you're not fourteen, give yourself an uppercut and revisit your life choices.
 
Number37 said:
Why would a judge apply culpability as though the defendant is anything other than guilty?
Would a judge apply culpability if a defendant was innocent?

You got on your high horse because AM wrote that Kidd's SENTENCING REMARKS gave the impression that he agreed with the jury verdict.
You claimed that judges giving an opinion on guilt would be grounds for appeal.

It was no more than another desperate attempt by you to taint the jury and the judge.
"The judge can't give an opinion on guilt, appeal appeal appeal".

Your entire posting in this thread is no more than "Pell wuz robbed".
Click to expand...

My god you have lost it.
 
We live in interesting times.

The names of those who will have to explain themselves and their coverage of Cardinal George Pell's conviction before the Supreme Court on April 15:
Click to expand...
Melissa Davey

QV8kBAE.jpg


8sNJVHI.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top