Religion Pell Guilty!

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.

Log in to remove this ad.

BruceFromBalnarring said:
Oh, and my information is that the accuser actually wasn't particularly compelling as a witness, and was caught out a number of times. This was partly why Pell wasn't called to give evidence himself.
Click to expand...

The key witness in the highest profile case this nation has seen in quite some time was 'caught out a number of times' and wasn't particularly compelling, yet the best defence lawyer in the land didn't convince the jury of this and Pell was still found guilty by a jury of his peers.

Yeah, I'm calling bullsh!t on this 'information' of yours.

Did you hear it in a lift from a Channel 7 reporter?
 
Craven Morehead said:
The key witness in the highest profile case this nation has seen in quite some time was 'caught out a number of times' and wasn't particularly compelling, yet the best defence lawyer in the land didn't convince the jury of this and Pell was still found guilty by a jury of his peers.

Yeah, I'm calling bullsh!t on this 'information' of yours.

Did you hear it in a lift from a Channel 7 reporter?
Click to expand...

See what it says under your pseudonym?
 
BruceFromBalnarring said:
I was told by the barrister representing one of the worst Ballarat offenders that he didn't even know about the other equally bad offender in the classroom next door at the same time. This idea that everyone must have known is simply a false one. And I've done a bit of work on this and it applies across the board. What was known collectively by the boys is not necessarily the same as what is known by the adults. And to the extent that adults knew, across the board, not just in the Church but everywhere, they failed to act.

What Pell did in terms of confronting the issue fell well short of what was needed. Even Pell says that. What people refuse to acknowledge though is that it was streets ahead of what had been done previously.

What Pell knew about other offenders will never be known. What the RC established is that he was in a room once where it may have been mentioned that Ridsdale was an offender. They established that he didn't know about Searson.

The walking to Court thing.....I get the optics. But I found the drama of lawyers (and media) judging Pell for that act at the RC sickening. Firstly he did it because he was asked to. Secondly, lawyers argue in court every single day in support of various bad people. And get paid handsomely for it. Offenders get supported in various ways all the time. It's called humanity. Maybe they don't deserve to be, but our collective humanity dictates that. In another time they'd be stoned by the mob.

I don't know whether Pell exposed himself in change rooms or whether he touched up kids in a pool. I do know, though, that he didn't do the Cathedral act because he couldn't have. And anyone can see that for themselves by standing outside the Cathedral after Mass on a Sunday morning.

Oh, and my information is that the accuser actually wasn't particularly compelling as a witness, and was caught out a number of times. This was partly why Pell wasn't called to give evidence himself.

PS: I appreciate the civility of your post. It seems to be getting more rare sadly.
Click to expand...
In time your view that “they didn’t know” will be proven to be just as big a crock of s**t as many of the beliefs of the Church”. The hammer is just about to be dropped, sentencing for Paul David Ryan commences next Monday, civil cases are ramping up and in the background is a 3 part special being prepared by 4 Corners that will torch a large number of your claims. Judgement Day for the Church is near. Oh by the way would you believe that the Ballarat Diocese is following NONE of the Truth Justice & Healing Commission guidelines? It’s no surprise to me, these campaigners are going to get down.

PS. Wait for the revelations at the end of the PDR case in terms of what the Church enabled him to do once sacked as a Priest.
 
western royboy said:
In time your view that “they didn’t know” will be proven to be just as big a crock of **** as many of the beliefs of the Church”. The hammer is just about to be dropped, sentencing for Paul David Ryan commences next Monday, civil cases are ramping up and in the background is a 3 part special being prepared by 4 Corners that will torch a large number of your claims. Judgement Day for the Church is near. Oh by the way would you believe that the Ballarat Diocese is following NONE of the Truth Justice & Healing Commission guidelines? It’s no surprise to me, these campaigners are going to get down.

PS. Wait for the revelations at the end of the PDR case in terms of what the Church enabled him to do once sacked as a Priest.
Click to expand...

That's not my view.
 
BruceFromBalnarring said:
I was told by the barrister representing one of the worst Ballarat offenders that he didn't even know about the other equally bad offender in the classroom next door at the same time. This idea that everyone must have known is simply a false one. And I've done a bit of work on this and it applies across the board. What was known collectively by the boys is not necessarily the same as what is known by the adults. And to the extent that adults knew, across the board, not just in the Church but everywhere, they failed to act.

What Pell did in terms of confronting the issue fell well short of what was needed. Even Pell says that. What people refuse to acknowledge though is that it was streets ahead of what had been done previously.

What Pell knew about other offenders will never be known. What the RC established is that he was in a room once where it may have been mentioned that Ridsdale was an offender. They established that he didn't know about Searson.

The walking to Court thing.....I get the optics. But I found the drama of lawyers (and media) judging Pell for that act at the RC sickening. Firstly he did it because he was asked to. Secondly, lawyers argue in court every single day in support of various bad people. And get paid handsomely for it. Offenders get supported in various ways all the time. It's called humanity. Maybe they don't deserve to be, but our collective humanity dictates that. In another time they'd be stoned by the mob.

I don't know whether Pell exposed himself in change rooms or whether he touched up kids in a pool. I do know, though, that he didn't do the Cathedral act because he couldn't have. And anyone can see that for themselves by standing outside the Cathedral after Mass on a Sunday morning.

Oh, and my information is that the accuser actually wasn't particularly compelling as a witness, and was caught out a number of times. This was partly why Pell wasn't called to give evidence himself.

PS: I appreciate the civility of your post. It seems to be getting more rare sadly.
Click to expand...
blah blah blah
 

Attachments

  • 1557446164042.png
    1557446164042.png
    496.4 KB · Views: 126
It didn't seem possible, but Bruce from Fantasyland has become even more disengaged from this world. He is still beguiled by that other, supposedly better one.

The only plausible reason he could state with certainty that Pell couldn't possibly have committed sex acts with the boys would be that he was hiding under Pell's cassock at the relevant time. In the absence of such certain, irrefutable and compelling evidence of this nature, the only sane conclusion is that Bruce is, at best, deluded. An alternative conclusion might be that he has a dog in this fight. For some unknown and unexplained reason, he is still under the exploitative sPell of this vicious rapist.

As for his assertion that there are only a few bad apples acting as priests in the Catholic Church; the very fact that they are priests at all condemns them. To feel that they have a right to dictate morals, and thereby control people's lives, betrays a sociopathic bent. The abuse of an authority they pretend to have, about a ludicrous and preposterous fantasy, is the maintenance of a lie created for this very purpose. If any priest still believes in a god after seven years of supposedly serious study, they're plain stupid.

Their abuse of the gullible (read Bruce), is deliberate and vile conduct, which reduces the priest class to the level of the worst manipulators of the susceptible in history. The priest class's only interest is in the maintenance and enhancement of a dominant power they perceive as their god-given right.

It is obvious that Bruce has an uncontrollable hatred for the surviving victim of Pell's sexual exertions, for what he has done to the reputation of his hero. Don't continue with this lost cause Bruce, there is no reputation left to defend.

Finally, that you profess not to be any longer a believer in the faith which has done you so much damage is risible. They've still got their claws into you, up to their armpits.

I would feel sorry for you, were your sad and persistent condition not of your own construction.
 
BruceFromBalnarring said:
I was told by the barrister representing one of the worst Ballarat offenders that he didn't even know about the other equally bad offender in the classroom next door at the same time. This idea that everyone must have known is simply a false one. And I've done a bit of work on this and it applies across the board. What was known collectively by the boys is not necessarily the same as what is known by the adults. And to the extent that adults knew, across the board, not just in the Church but everywhere, they failed to act.

What Pell did in terms of confronting the issue fell well short of what was needed. Even Pell says that. What people refuse to acknowledge though is that it was streets ahead of what had been done previously.

What Pell knew about other offenders will never be known. What the RC established is that he was in a room once where it may have been mentioned that Ridsdale was an offender. They established that he didn't know about Searson.

The walking to Court thing.....I get the optics. But I found the drama of lawyers (and media) judging Pell for that act at the RC sickening. Firstly he did it because he was asked to. Secondly, lawyers argue in court every single day in support of various bad people. And get paid handsomely for it. Offenders get supported in various ways all the time. It's called humanity. Maybe they don't deserve to be, but our collective humanity dictates that. In another time they'd be stoned by the mob.

I don't know whether Pell exposed himself in change rooms or whether he touched up kids in a pool. I do know, though, that he didn't do the Cathedral act because he couldn't have. And anyone can see that for themselves by standing outside the Cathedral after Mass on a Sunday morning.

Oh, and my information is that the accuser actually wasn't particularly compelling as a witness, and was caught out a number of times. This was partly why Pell wasn't called to give evidence himself.

PS: I appreciate the civility of your post. It seems to be getting more rare sadly.
Click to expand...

You call for civility yet debase the standard yourself as per your previous post re getting laid.

Maybe it was just a very very poor choice of words that isn’t indicative of your true character, but in relation to the topic at hand and in relation to behaviour/ language of some cold reprehensible predatory individuals who should never have been anywhere near a church let alone the privileged powerful positions they’ve held, it correlates with the similar dismissive distasteful and creepy rhetoric they’ve used - It is sickening and hypocritical when anyone representative of Christianity talks like this. But maybe you aren’t a Christian, well not a real one and your bullish defence of Pell is not based on any consistent church attendance. If that is the case, your words aren’t quite as insulting but still inappropriate.

I/ we get your initial point about the amount of foot traffic around the sacristy after mass, a valid and relevant one (in contrast to the robes defence) but obviously one well tested by Richter that subsequently failed to create reasonable doubt or sway the jury. That is significant.

Beyond that, arguing repeatedly and agressively from heresay mixed with seeds of sceptic indifference about abuse victims does little to raise the civility of a very sensitive discussion.

Just wait for the appeal, you can’t add anything new or beneficial it seems til then.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Jack Gun Cyril Stun said:
You call for civility yet debase the standard yourself as per your previous post re getting laid.

Maybe it was just a very very poor choice of words that isn’t indicative of your true character, but in relation to the topic at hand and in relation to behaviour/ language of some cold reprehensible predatory individuals who should never have been anywhere near a church let alone the privileged powerful positions they’ve held, it correlates with the similar dismissive distasteful and creepy rhetoric they’ve used - It is sickening and hypocritical when anyone representative of Christianity talks like this. But maybe you aren’t a Christian, well not a real one and your bullish defence of Pell is not based on any consistent church attendance. If that is the case, your words aren’t quite as insulting but still inappropriate.

I/ we get your initial point about the amount of foot traffic around the sacristy after mass, a valid and relevant one (in contrast to the robes defence) but obviously one well tested by Richter that subsequently failed to create reasonable doubt or sway the jury. That is significant.

Beyond that, arguing repeatedly and agressively from heresay mixed with seeds of sceptic indifference about abuse victims does little to raise the civility of a very sensitive discussion.

Just wait for the appeal, you can’t add anything new or beneficial it seems til then.
Click to expand...

You'll see what I was responding to a couple of pages earlier.

There are men all over this country being destroyed because of "believe all victims". Men who haven't done a thing wrong. Whose ex-spouses want to deprive them of access to kids. There are also many many men who have treated their wives brutally.

My point is that "believe all victims" is overly simplistic and destructive in its outcome.
 
BruceFromBalnarring said:
You'll see what I was responding to a couple of pages earlier.

There are men all over this country being destroyed because of "believe all victims". Men who haven't done a thing wrong. Whose ex-spouses want to deprive them of access to kids. There are also many many men who have treated their wives brutally.

My point is that "believe all victims" is overly simplistic and destructive in its outcome.
Click to expand...

I saw it, but to me you discredited it and yourself with your ending comment.
I acknowledge your revised point but that’s why our courts apply ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ which you clearly believe is not being fairly applied in this and many other cases.

We have to wait for the appeal for closure on this particular one.

As for the other cases you mentioned, I don’t have enough information to comment.
 
Jack Gun Cyril Stun said:
I saw it, but to me you discredited it and yourself with your ending comment.
I acknowledge your revised point but that’s why our courts apply ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ which you clearly believe is not being fairly applied in this and many other cases.

We have to wait for the appeal for closure on this particular one.

As for the other cases you mentioned, I don’t have enough information to comment.
Click to expand...

Don't confuse the issues. General Giant dished off the now cliched "believe all victims". There was more to my response than just the getting laid bit.

The cases I referred to are not "beyond reasonable doubt" jurisdictions. Certainly this one is, and, as you point out, I think the jury got it wrong.
 
BruceFromBalnarring said:
Don't confuse the issues. General Giant dished off the now cliched "believe all victims". There was more to my response than just the getting laid bit.

The cases I referred to are not "beyond reasonable doubt" jurisdictions. Certainly this one is, and, as you point out, I think the jury got it wrong.
Click to expand...
I’ve stated before that I have no knowledge of the details in this case, but one of the complainants in the now discontinued “Eureka Pool”
Case is in my Men’s CASA group. At the very best George is a sick pervert...at the very best. He rightly deserves his place in the Mulkearns Wing and as architect of the Melbourne Response it’s credibility is absolute ******* zero. That’s regardless of the outcome of the appeal
 
BruceFromBalnarring said:
Don't confuse the issues. General Giant dished off the now cliched "believe all victims". There was more to my response than just the getting laid bit.

The cases I referred to are not "beyond reasonable doubt" jurisdictions. Certainly this one is, and, as you point out, I think the jury got it wrong.
Click to expand...

I didn’t read General Giant’s statement as cliched.
 
BruceFromBalnarring said:
No. You get a clue you ignorant fool.

You have it the wrong way around.

The behaviour of SOME in the Church is a disgrace not just to the Church in our country, but the world.

But if you want to be a ******* and label all priests, many of them utterly decent people, pedophiles, then prepare for that collective judgement to come back on you. It is the worst of society that wants to hang a collective for the actions of some. But that is what you are doing.

And by the way, Pell didn't commit, and couldn't have committed, the crime for which he has been found guilty.
Click to expand...

The fact that the Catholic Church Worldwide, spent hundreds of millions of dollars and decades covering up child sexual abuse puts lie to your selfish
indignance.
No matter what your personal opinion on Pell, and that is all it is, that will never wipe away the many hundreds, even thousands of church officials who molested and physically abuse children and adults alike in every country the Church has a presence.
The Church itself, not just some within it, are directly responsible.
 
Happy Mastenator said:
“An appeal against sentence would have to argue the sentence was "manifestly excessive".”

Probably not the best look to be arguing 3 and a bit years non parole for sexually abusing boys is “manifestly excessive” if he’s still found guilty
Click to expand...
Kidd is regarded as a particular expert on the sentencing laws and rules and their application.
The chances of him making an appellable mistake are extremely remote.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top