Religion Pell Guilty!
- Thread starter Colonial
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
CheapCharlie
Norm Smith Medallist
- Jun 12, 2015
- 6,416
- 7,985
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Banned
- #3,078
Many. I can be just as immature about this as you.
s**t Fred thats a nasty remark, so because twelve jury people who had been hammered for several years as normal citizens by media about this bloke, you think they must have been correct, well, they may have been, all I'm saying is that I haven't seen anything quite like the hate and public lynching style attitude of people , and the jury would have been watching that media stuff for years before about him not reporting abuse as well as lately him being accused.
But once again I mention something and it becomes about the individual not the actual discussion, this is not about his guilt or non guilt its about how it was arrived at, and if you read the news you'd see that it was not beyond reasonable doubt, that's it, but hatred and deserved by the way, was at boiling point against church paedophiles the church hierarchy, Catholics in the sights mainly and Anglicans and the monks who have different colleges around the place these horrid institutions , the abuse we know about to the absolute degree. There is no argument about that.
But you refer to me as ignorant nonsensical and then in comes your little environment remark? And automatically I know where you are coming from , YOUR right and EVERYONE else that doesn't think in your direction is wrong. Bet I've got you right on the button.
So as you know , my conversation in any debates that have been on FB , are about the way the system worked that could be seen as unfair.
No one in Australia would not have seen a story one way or the other about the Church s', or about their leaders or about abuse or non reporting of abuse.
So just maybe the trial should have been somewhere totally neutral, where? I am not sure.
Judge only? I am not sure either , as we now have people accusing judges of the same thing as Pell.
But someone neutral , there must be some decent people in the legal system that can't be accused of bias .
But trial outside of Australia? YES/NO? what do you reckon?
But as you said.
I can think for myself , but I certainly don't know everything, you people always revert to being nasty and abusive with people you don't see eye to eye with.
This is a forum for debate and comment and a bit of fun , but you accuse me of being one way .
Yet all I 'm saying is not about Pell one way or the other , my comments are about whether the trial was fair or whether it should have been done in neutral territory. Because of the mass publicity it was getting before it ever got started at all????
Also I think maybe your the one being presumptuous here, not me, and, you , being the only person who can think for themselves because what you have said to me , about what I said. It is so off the point that you obviously did not read exactly what I said?
This trial was swamped by media, news papers, TV, and hatred in some quarters ? And a fair trial?
Well according to the transcript oF what I read or heard about it, the Judge wasn't too bloody sure himself and it read that way
with every get out in the book. That Judge left it open to anything and everything and an appeal what do you reckon that might mean I don't know you tel;l me?
I might be wrong , but I'm not worried about guilt or innocence just the way it was arrived at. So give me an answer to that and don't behave like you accuse me of behaving.
Personally I couldn't give a stuff about Pell , if rots in jail!
He should get time anyway even if he's convicted of not informing authorities about other priests'.
So he'll probably die in jail and there you'll have it, he'll be punished as you wish. But that was never the argument???
Yes he probably is a slime, but whats that got to do with whether the trial was really unbiased or not.
He is a creepy looking old Priest, absolutely, looks bad look like a creep too, and with their celibacy nonsense in his church its any wonder they fill their ranks with weirdo's.
And abusers and lost souls with no where to go but into a church to escape from the world.
I agree, and the odds are he is an abuser!
BUT THAT WAS NOT MY POINT AT ALL.
It could have been Fred Nerk on trial for all we know , for double parking or something much worse, its how the court was run in a city with the noose out and ready to be used. Before the verdict!
- Aug 2, 2012
- 34,820
- 56,390
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Yes, it was.
Clearly true though, as amply demonstrated by the rest of your farrago of nonsense.
I'm not being immature, I'm asking you to back up your claims with fact. It is something you can't do, and it's a consistent theme throughout this thread.
- Banned
- #3,083
How about you do your own frigging research. These are matters of fact. I've given you references but I'm buggered if I'm going to spend the time digging up old news items for you.
CheapCharlie
Norm Smith Medallist
- Jun 12, 2015
- 6,416
- 7,985
- AFL Club
- Sydney
I dont buy that
The catholic propaganda machine had been in full swing for years to protect Pell.
As a human being Pell fails the basic tests
You haven't given references other than the movie wasn't playing at the cinema. If there are so many "disproven" allegations the information would be easy to reference. But you won't.
"Matters of fact" - at best you are consistently clumsy with the English language, however the consistent nature with which you repeatedly assert your opinions as fact, and misuse words like "impossible" suggests to me something worse.
- Banned
- #3,086
Pell was accused of standing in the doorway whilst Ridsdale was abusing a boy. Pell was in Europe at the time.
Pell was accused of saying at St Pats in Ballarat that "Ridsdale's been rooting boys again". Pell was saying Mass in Horsham that day.
Pell was accused of offering bribes for Ridsdale's nephew to stay silent about his abuse. Problem was, the story was already out as Pell knew. There was no purpose to a bribe.
There's 3. In addition to the cinema. And that's not all. Do your own frigging research. You've offered SFA to this thread beyond more Pell hate.
Bit rich you of all people critiquing others for poor research. I'd add overblown comments and unsubstantiated claims.
I do wonder why, as you claim to know so much, Richter didn't call you as a witness. Despite not being there, your absolute knowledge of Pell's innocence would have surely assured a not guilty finding on all charges. Would you be an unreliable witness perhaps.
- Aug 2, 2012
- 34,820
- 56,390
- AFL Club
- Geelong
I've always thought Bruce has the good fortune of having a photographic memory - Barry Jones style.
- Aug 2, 2012
- 34,820
- 56,390
- AFL Club
- Geelong
You know him personally Chasa the cheap? Once again hate him all you like, I have no idea if he's an a-hole or an innocent man. All I said was the trial was unfair with all the media bias that was on the streets, before during and after.
So like any one. I could ask you... do you know the bloke personally if you know that he is not a decent human being worth a fair trial. ?
Then you must know him, to make a comment like that.
So are you a victim of his? Or do you simply hate him because you think he is guilty no matter what.
That in fact is the only thing I have ever said about this s**t, is that he was in trouble before the balances of the law ever were supposed to kick in.
Why? Because we all know the reputation of the Catholic church, and the odds were that he was guilty, according to public opinion before he ever went to trial, and I too thought , yeah he's got that look? What ever that look is , but a priest and a back to front collar , well that is now a badge of dishonour, and with reason, so he may be guilty as sin, but I think his trial was ruled by the media years before it ever wnet to trial , not just as iit was happening.
So if you hate that much , that's for you to deal with, but on the real question as to whether bias was even a tiny amount of the reason he was found guilty means that anyone charged with any thing any time anywhere can be condemned by media who create mind sets before a trial.
That is all I've ever frigging well said, Pell??? Who the hell is he??? Its about his case, not him, eff him, it should have been done outside in a neutral area!
So forget that and think about something else when discussing a trial . Ho can anything be fair when the media has set a thopught pattern and angry people hit the streets and want to kill him. This argument is turning int bulldust now.
And the worst thing is he will probably win his appeal because of how the trial was conducted , and THE BASTARD MIGHT BE GUILTY??????????????
Ever thought of that .
CheapCharlie
Norm Smith Medallist
- Jun 12, 2015
- 6,416
- 7,985
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Pell is a pathetic human being
Given a position of power he misused and abused it to the detriment of the people he was meant to be looking out for.
Its clear he is a chronic liar who has assumed he is untouchable in anything he does
- Feb 14, 2002
- 17,797
- 6,858
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- Lexton, Northcote Park
I think your post has some merit but I also think it would be nigh impossible to accurately assess the effect of media bias on the trial's outcome. It seems to me that with the attempt to prevent reporting of parts of the case against Pell and of the verdict when it was first delivered were genuine, if flawed, attempts to address the issues you raise. The thing with which I have most problems is the way Pell was forced to run the gauntlet outside the court throughout proceedings, while the cops stood idly by.
- Feb 14, 2002
- 17,797
- 6,858
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- Lexton, Northcote Park
At this point, it's more likely he's getting somebody else off.
- Aug 2, 2012
- 34,820
- 56,390
- AFL Club
- Geelong
It was the prosecution which applied for and obtained the suppression order on reporting the trial on the cathedral charges, and its purpose was not related to ensuring a fair trial on those charges; it was granted in order to ensure that the jury on on the second lot of charges, the alleged swimming pool offences, would not be unduly influenced by evidence it had seen in reports of the first trial. It was lifted as soon as the prosecution announced that they would not be proceeding with the swimming pool case.
The suggestion that the jury found him guilty on the cathedral charges as a result of anti-Pell media bias in the lead-up is fundamentally illogical, because mainstream media comment in that period, especially from the Murdoch media (eg Bolt/Henderson et al), was in fact overwhelmingly and virulently pro-Pell. Therefore, if media bias did significantly influence the jury, it would have found him not guilty.
People who think media bias drove the jury's decision are just displaying their own pro-Pell bias.
TheGreatBarryB
Hall of Famer
It’s not just media coverage at the time of the cathedral trial that can effect a jury, it has an accumulative effect. People remember the commission, how bad he came out of that and rightfully so. His reluctance to appear, the stories of protecting priests by moving them etc.
Actions that he should’ve been punished for but should not be relevant to this particular case. To assume all of that past coverage did not effect the jury is a little naive. Jury systems the world over have been shown to be impacted in higher profile cases
CheapCharlie
Norm Smith Medallist
- Jun 12, 2015
- 6,416
- 7,985
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Why would the Police be involved?
The trouble is all these priests genuinely believe they are innocent as they’ve all gone to confession and been forgiven their sins of raping children, and all it took was a few Hail Marys.
- Status
