Religion Pell Guilty!

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
General Giant said:
So your record/knowledge on this isn't at 100% since we have gone through a few stages and each time you are proven wrong.
Click to expand...

I think we've only gone through the one stage, although had we been talking about this I would similarly, having watched live the prosecutor's closing, said there was no chance of a guilty verdict.

Perhaps my knowledge isn't that great, although there are some pretty senior people who shared my view both times. Or perhaps we are indeed entering a phase where the hurdle for reasonable doubt is far lower than it was. And in Pell's case, non-existent.
 
BruceFromBalnarring said:
I'm not sure you can reason that from what he said. One is worse than the other. He didn't say how much worse.

EDIT: Turns out, from your own link before, that Pell did actually condemn sexual abuse in the same statement. The media just ignored that bit.
Click to expand...

Turns out what I wrote was on the money and the disgraced Cardinal confirmed that in the opening sentence which was:

"I don't go back on my statements"

And despite making a quite clear differentiation between abortion and child molestation, contradicted himself in the very same piece by extraordinarily saying he never "...reduced it in severity by comparison to some other act" Hello! His original statement did precisely that.

Astonishing as the contradiction is he was never going to say priests sexually abusing children was okay. That would be even too much for his apologists and would have lead to his defrocking.

What I wrote was that he placed abortion in the mortal sin basket, whereas priests kiddy fiddling into the ordinary garden variety - a couple of Hail Mary's and you're away, variety. To make it even clearer, not that he said it was okay - as I said that would be the death knell to the career of a very ambitious man - but that it much less significant issue. Which is an insight into his state of mind on the matter.

On another issue, the church is doing itself no favours with some of the public utterances like that of the Melbourne Archbishop who now believes both Pell and the claimant are truthful. Haven't seen anywhere in my fleeting look-about where he's been tested on that one. Did he therefore mean another member of the clergy did it? Did some offender wander off the street all frocked-up Cardinal style and do the deed? How did this other person get into the Sacristy as it's clear from the evidence the claimant was there due to him describing a number of features which were there at that time

And what of the -I think - Cardinal from the Holy Sea who when questioned about how long this child abuse had been going on with the churches knowledge and why it wasn't addressed said something along the lines of 'we didn't realise the long term harm it would do. Amazing.

Oh and I wonder whether you might respond directly to my question as to whether you'd support the redacted parts of the child abuse RC being made publicly available. Including - and especially - those parts relating to Pell?
 
Number37 said:
Except in certain limited circumstances, no attempt should be made to explain or embellish the meaning of the phrase “beyond reasonable doubt” : R v Green


How you can claim that reasonable doubt has been turned on its head by the judgment of the SCA is completely ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Do you accept the premise that there was no evidence led.....at all.....not one sentence......that a crime had been committed in February 2017.

Indeed, the only evidence that was led was that no crime had been committed after Christmas 2016, including the evidence of the complainant.

Does Pell's guilty finding in relation to that crime, confirmed by two judges of the SCA, not disturb you in the slightest there?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

BruceFromBalnarring said:
Do you accept the premise that there was no evidence led.....at all.....not one sentence......that a crime had been committed in February 2017.

Indeed, the only evidence that was led was that no crime had been committed after Christmas 2016, including the evidence of the complainant.

Does Pell's guilty finding in relation to that crime, confirmed by two judges of the SCA, not disturb you in the slightest there?
Click to expand...
Nope he is at the very least protector of pedos, denier of help to child victims.

He is scum
 
HairyO said:
Which is what he should be charged for then? I suspect it would be a very long list if there was an historical search for those who covered up and protected.
Click to expand...
These are mostly moral standpoints which he failed miserably and caused a mountain of pain and suffering.

He is also guilty of being a pedo
 
AM said:
Turns out what I wrote was on the money and the disgraced Cardinal confirmed that in the opening sentence which was:

"I don't go back on my statements"

And despite making a quite clear differentiation between abortion and child molestation, contradicted himself in the very same piece by extraordinarily saying he never "...reduced it in severity by comparison to some other act" Hello! His original statement did precisely that.

Astonishing as the contradiction is he was never going to say priests sexually abusing children was okay. That would be even too much for his apologists and would have lead to his defrocking.

What I wrote was that he placed abortion in the mortal sin basket, whereas priests kiddy fiddling into the ordinary garden variety - a couple of Hail Mary's and you're away, variety. To make it even clearer, not that he said it was okay - as I said that would be the death knell to the career of a very ambitious man - but that it much less significant issue. Which is an insight into his state of mind on the matter.

On another issue, the church is doing itself no favours with some of the public utterances like that of the Melbourne Archbishop who now believes both Pell and the claimant are truthful. Haven't seen anywhere in my fleeting look-about where he's been tested on that one. Did he therefore mean another member of the clergy did it? Did some offender wander off the street all frocked-up Cardinal style and do the deed? How did this other person get into the Sacristy as it's clear from the evidence the claimant was there due to him describing a number of features which were there at that time

And what of the -I think - Cardinal from the Holy Sea who when questioned about how long this child abuse had been going on with the churches knowledge and why it wasn't addressed said something along the lines of 'we didn't realise the long term harm it would do. Amazing.

Oh and I wonder whether you might respond directly to my question as to whether you'd support the redacted parts of the child abuse RC being made publicly available. Including - and especially - those parts relating to Pell?
Click to expand...

Pell has said many times that child sexual abuse is an abhorrent crime. Cherry picking a quote, absent the question to which he was responding, is fatuous. But it's par for the course when it comes to the developing narrative surround him.

As to Royal Commission findings.

If they are in relation to offences he is alleged to have committed, they should absolutely not be released prior to the conclusion of this process. I shouldn't have to explain why.

If they are in relation to his alleged actions surrounding his response to abuse committed by others, they should be released. There can be no further trial of Pell, even if the HCA referred it back for retrial (and that depends on the Appeal grounds etc). It has gone way beyond the chance of a fair trial. It had already gone way beyond that.
 
Doesn’t who you think you are, doesn’t matter how much money you have, doesn’t matter who you think your mammy is, or anything about what you believe you represent.

WE ARE COMING FOR YOU.

Your elitist fairytale is over, the rape and torture of our children by you and your kind is finished.

Welcome to the new world.

END TRANSMISSION
 
HairyO said:
Which is what he should be charged for then? I suspect it would be a very long list if there was an historical search for those who covered up and protected.
Click to expand...
I think technically, you can only be charged as a criminal accessory where the crime is a 'serious indictable offence,' a criminal offence that carries a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment or more. Someone with legal expertise can perhaps confirm.
 
BruceFromBalnarring said:
Do you accept the premise that there was no evidence led.....at all.....not one sentence......that a crime had been committed in February 2017.

Indeed, the only evidence that was led was that no crime had been committed after Christmas 2016, including the evidence of the complainant.

Does Pell's guilty finding in relation to that crime, confirmed by two judges of the SCA, not disturb you in the slightest there?
Click to expand...

You are trying to move the goal posts.

You asserted that reasonable doubt had been turned on its head.
You then used that assertion as the basis of why it will go to the HC.

1. One of the reasons that R v Green says that reasonable doubt shouldn't be explained is because reasonable doubt is for the JURY to decide.
2. It is for the jury decide because the jury is SPECIFICALLY instructed to make a finding based ONLY ON the evidence presented.
3. This implies that like guilt, reasonable doubt CAN ONLY come from the evidence.
4. This implies that reasonable doubt, whilst having an ordinary meaning, is individual to each case.
5. This creates consistency in reasoning as it all flows directly from the evidence.

Your assertion that the HC will grant leave because reasonable doubt had been turned on its head is complete bollocks.


BruceFromBalnarring said:
Do you accept the premise that there was no evidence led.....at all.....not one sentence......that a crime had been committed in February 2017.
Click to expand...

Are you that in a tizz that you have shifted the crime 30 years?
 
BruceFromBalnarring said:
Pell has said many times that child sexual abuse is an abhorrent crime. Cherry picking a quote, absent the question to which he was responding, is fatuous. But it's par for the course when it comes to the developing narrative surround him.

As to Royal Commission findings.

If they are in relation to offences he is alleged to have committed, they should absolutely not be released prior to the conclusion of this process. I shouldn't have to explain why.

If they are in relation to his alleged actions surrounding his response to abuse committed by others, they should be released. There can be no further trial of Pell, even if the HCA referred it back for retrial (and that depends on the Appeal grounds etc). It has gone way beyond the chance of a fair trial. It had already gone way beyond that.
Click to expand...
Once again he clearly distinguished between the significance of the two matters. Waffling on about Pell attempting to calm the waters - as he clearly would in his and the churches interests - doesn't change that fact. Nor does you massaging information as you do so often and have once again in this instance.

The main reason for withholding the details of those matters - child abuse RC - is so juries won't be influenced. There is no way the HC will face such an issue. That said, I understand why you don't want the matters relating to Pell in the public arena as any criticism of him would further damage your blind faith in him.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Marr has been ridiculously wrong lately with legal predictions no one with any sense will believe him.

Unfortunately their is a clear appeal to the HC, they will hear it and there is a chance he will get off. Hopefully it takes a while for them to sit
 
Number37 said:
You are trying to move the goal posts.

You asserted that reasonable doubt had been turned on its head.
You then used that assertion as the basis of why it will go to the HC.

1. One of the reasons that R v Green says that reasonable doubt shouldn't be explained is because reasonable doubt is for the JURY to decide.
2. It is for the jury decide because the jury is SPECIFICALLY instructed to make a finding based ONLY ON the evidence presented.
3. This implies that like guilt, reasonable doubt CAN ONLY come from the evidence.
4. This implies that reasonable doubt, whilst having an ordinary meaning, is individual to each case.
5. This creates consistency in reasoning as it all flows directly from the evidence.

Your assertion that the HC will grant leave because reasonable doubt had been turned on its head is complete bollocks.

Are you that in a tizz that you have shifted the crime 30 years?
Click to expand...
Yes I did * up the date.

R v Green is nearly 50 years old. There is far more relevant and recent stuff written on the subject. Try R v Moore for instance (eliminating other possibilities).

AM said:
Once again he clearly distinguished between the significance of the two matters. Waffling on about Pell attempting to calm the waters - as he clearly would in his and the churches interests - doesn't change that fact. Nor does you massaging information as you do so often and have once again in this instance.

The main reason for withholding the details of those matters - child abuse RC - is so juries won't be influenced. There is no way the HC will face such an issue. That said, I understand why you don't want the matters relating to Pell in the public arena as any criticism of him would further damage your blind faith in him.
Click to expand...

You asked me a question. I gave you 2 reasonable answers. You respond, again, with abuse. Don't ask questions if you don't want answers.
 
BruceFromBalnarring said:
Yes I did fu** up the date.

R v Green is nearly 50 years old. There is far more relevant and recent stuff written on the subject. Try R v Moore for instance (eliminating other possibilities).



You asked me a question. I gave you 2 reasonable answers. You respond, again, with abuse. Don't ask questions if you don't want answers.
Click to expand...

R v Green was reaffirmed for the umpteenth time in 2016.
 
BruceFromBalnarring said:
I did say it was a theory. At another point I said it was a suspicion.

I've given, repeatedly, my foundations for its formulation.

It makes more sense than the sudden vaporisation of a dozen odd altar boys, a Master of Ceremonies, a sacristant, various odd money counters and whoever else was coming and going in that room.

Or the vision of an Archbishop, dressed in all his gear, racing past the procession to get back to the sacristy to bust a couple boys drinking "sweet red wine" which was apparently only white as evidenced by purchase orders etc.
Click to expand...
The courts twice found your theories or suspicions a deluded nonsense!
 
Number37 said:
R v Green was reaffirmed for the umpteenth time in 2016.
Click to expand...

Once again, yet again, you are horribly out of your depth on the subject.

It's not 1st year legal studies.

Try this.........Google Presumption of innocence, alibi evidence, alternative possibilities. It's a bit more reading than you've done but you'll learn something.

Alternatively, there's a pretty good explainer in Weinberg's Judgement.
 
BruceFromBalnarring said:
The High Court won't have a choice. The SCA have turned Reasonable Doubt on its head. Leaving aside the various opinions on Pell, the decision can't be allowed to stand as precedent.
Click to expand...
The high court very much have a choice & there needs to be solid new grounds to be heard.

The 2 decisions so far have been sound in law.
 
BruceFromBalnarring said:
Once again, yet again, you are horribly out of your depth on the subject.

It's not 1st year legal studies.

Try this.........Google Presumption of innocence, alibi evidence, alternative possibilities. It's a bit more reading than you've done but you'll learn something.

Alternatively, there's a pretty good explainer in Weinberg's Judgement.
Click to expand...
If there was any faults or shortcuts taken in the trial the appeal would had been successful

The fact that you think you are more knowledgeable than the judges and QC lawyers involved in this case is very very laughable
 
BruceFromBalnarring said:
Do you accept the premise that there was no evidence led.....at all.....not one sentence......that a crime had been committed in February 2017.

Indeed, the only evidence that was led was that no crime had been committed after Christmas 2016, including the evidence of the complainant.

Does Pell's guilty finding in relation to that crime, confirmed by two judges of the SCA, not disturb you in the slightest there?
Click to expand...
Given how many years ago the abuse was, I'm not so concerned about the exact date as it's irrelevant... rather more concerned about the child abuse incident itself.
 
HairyO said:
Which is what he should be charged for then? I suspect it would be a very long list if there was an historical search for those who covered up and protected.
Click to expand...
Should be charged for these if he looks like ever being released... as has done untold damage.
 
AM said:
Once again he clearly distinguished between the significance of the two matters. Waffling on about Pell attempting to calm the waters - as he clearly would in his and the churches interests - doesn't change that fact. Nor does you massaging information as you do so often and have once again in this instance.

The main reason for withholding the details of those matters - child abuse RC - is so juries won't be influenced. There is no way the HC will face such an issue. That said, I understand why you don't want the matters relating to Pell in the public arena as any criticism of him would further damage your blind faith in him.
Click to expand...
Bruce is so indoctrinated and poisoned, no reason will ever overcome his neural childhood pathways!
👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top