Cardinal Pell honorary role with Richmond - Is this the last straw?

[Phar Ace]

The vanilla comment.. amazing .

Yep, staggering. Good luck explaining that one at home tonight Mr Richter!

 

[Sir_Loin]

Out of interest, did you experience any sort of compulsion to think guilt over innocence because of the environment you were in. Not suggesting it swayed you in any way, because you seem unlikely to anyway, but did you feel a presence or compulsion of some kind?

Not really. The judge gives you such specific instructions that you can’t prejudge or consider things not submitted as evidence. I think I was lucky because I was on a very good jury who took it seriously and any BS like that got called out and discussed.

 

[Sir_Loin]

Wow. Interesting. See, to me, if I'm sitting on a jury in these situations I'm gonna take the accusers testimony on balance. But for me to convict someone, I'm gonna need a lot more from the prosecution. I'm gonna need what I call genuine evidence to accompany that testimony. Witnesses, corroboration, forensics, , confessions, highly connected circumstances, patterns of behaviour. In other words, tangible proof accompanying the accusers testimony.

I couldn't convict someone on the basis of an accusers story alone. No way. That's not how the law system is supposed to work imo. Then again, I look at this Pell case and I think geez, what was so compelling about this accusers testimony that warranted a unanimous guilty verdict. ?I need to get it and find out why, I guess. Would be good learning.

I’m not disagreeing with you - I had the same thoughts and feelings. But you have to come to a decision on the facts and evidence presented. We had plenty of discussion on exactly the things you’ve mentioned. It’s especially hard when the offences are decades old.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

Wow. Interesting. See, to me, if I'm sitting on a jury in these situations I'm gonna take the accusers testimony on balance. But for me to convict someone, I'm gonna need a lot more from the prosecution. I'm gonna need what I call genuine evidence to accompany that testimony. Witnesses, corroboration, forensics, , confessions, highly connected circumstances, patterns of behaviour. In other words, tangible proof accompanying the accusers testimony.

I couldn't convict someone on the basis of an accusers story alone. No way. That's not how the law system is supposed to work imo. Then again, I look at this Pell case and I think geez, what was so compelling about this accusers testimony that warranted a unanimous guilty verdict. ?I need to get it and find out why, I guess. Would be good learning.

I totally agree. As a criminal case you must be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt. It's not a civil case where there's just a balance of probability. How you can be so certain on just testimony alone is staggering. Even more staggering if it happened over 20 years ago and ones recollections (especially the accused if innocent) would be hazy to say the least.

 

[Rubber Hips]

Never been to court...just seen some Hollywood crap on TV...

So in these courts of law...the abused victim...when asked to tell the truth and nothing but the truth...so help me God...is placing his/her hand on the Bible ? The same Bible that laid the foundations for these abuse....?

The irony.

It’s just a book rewritten and interpreted over the centuries to suit the times

 

[Bojangles17]

It doesn't matter how much was said in court. It only matters what evidence could be presented that could convict Pell. There was no DNA evidence on clothing for instance (Lewinski type!) No eye witnesses other than the victim and the accused. We have had no other victims of previous assaults come up to present evidence on Pell either. So no matter how much evidence was presented that we do not know, the fact that solid evidence that puts the crime beyond a reasonable doubt was not present which is why I'm surprised that he was found guilty. And this is from someone who thinks he was guilty. And that is why an appeal I think will succeed.

From a legal view where our justice is based on the premise of beyond all reasonable doubt , that premise that failed to get a guilty verdict in the Walsh st or Jayden Leskie case would appear for all reasons above didn’t seem to be the case here . I’m surprised at the verdict but given he was like the godfather of the Catholic Church , not surprised at the public sentiment , much more to come me thinks

 

[Bojangles17]

The vanilla comment.. amazing .

Staggering from a defence lawyer , not sure he did his client too many favours

 

[SunshineBoy]

Out of interest, did you experience any sort of compulsion to think guilt over innocence because of the environment you were in. Not suggesting it swayed you in any way, because you seem unlikely to anyway, but did you feel a presence or compulsion of some kind?

I was in a jury for an ex collingwood captains court case , his position never swayed my thoughts, the facts were the facts.

 

[Tiges1229]

From a legal view where our justice is based on the premise of beyond all reasonable doubt , that premise that failed to get a guilty verdict in the Walsh st or Jayden Leskie case would appear for all reasons above didn’t seem to be the case here . I’m surprised at the verdict but given he was like the godfather of the Catholic Church , not surprised at the public sentiment , much more to come me thinks

you think he will win the appeal ?

 

[Phar Ace]

I was in a jury for an ex collingwood captains court case , his position never swayed my thoughts, the facts were the facts.

Well done! Once an a-hole always an a-hole then?

 

[biaseddustyfan]

The vanilla comment.. amazing .

tbf the rest of his religious buddies probably give him s**t for how vanilla it was

 

[SunshineBoy]

Well done! Once an a-hole always an a-hole then?

Guilty your honour,but he was

 

[Bojangles17]

you think he will win the appeal ?

I think he could yes on basis of reasonable doubt , if he wasnt a catholic clergyman, I’m not sure it would have got this far with zero witness accounts to support the evidence.

 

[tora tora tora]

I totally agree. As a criminal case you must be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt. It's not a civil case where there's just a balance of probability. How you can be so certain on just testimony alone is staggering. Even more staggering if it happened over 20 years ago and ones recollections (especially the accused if innocent) would be hazy to say the least.

The police don't seem to have a problem with the length of time that has elapsed between the crime and the court action. They are taking to court incidents that happened 40 years ago. There are half a dozen cases before Australian courts in 2019 for historical sex crimes. Hundreds of convictions have been handed down over the last 20 years. Victims being as young as 10 years old. Their recollection trusted enough to convict. On that basis I see Pell not being successful in his appeal.
http://www.brokenrites.org.au/drupal/node/246

 

[Tiges1229]

I think he could yes on basis of reasonable doubt , if he wasnt a catholic clergyman, I’m not sure it would have got this far with zero witness accounts to support the evidence.

Yes I agree with you on that .

 

[Tiger_Of_Old]

I went to a Christian Brothers school where pedo brothers and priests were moved around by Pell and his filthy campaigners
At a school reunion recently I was told that 1 of my school mates suicided bc he could no longer live with the torture...constantly trying to get people to listen and to believe him
So many turned a blind eye...covered up
Other brothers and priests now behind bars
The fact that this bastard Pell announced a redress system ( to favour the Catholic Church) at the same time he sexually abused the 2 alter boys is beyond reprehensible

I look at my kids and can’t understand how adults protect pedos and not believe their own kind...this is ******

As I’ve said earlier...this campaigner Pell can go rot in the hottest part of hell

I’m proud of the club for doing the right thing

Hear Hear RH.
The Church has alot to answer for.Sadly any positive outcome(Justice) is to late for some.

 

[Tiger_Of_Old]

I'm going to hell aren't I.

We won the flag in 17.
Your in heaven mate.

 

[Tiger_Of_Old]

I wonder if Richter's lines will come back to haunt during an appeal? If I was the prosecution, I certainly would be using that quote in an appeal.

Hats off too Richter.Threw Pell under a bus.(if only it was a real bus).

 

[Rodney Dangerfield]

Doesn’t matter what happens to these blokes anyway. I have a mate that works in the prisons and he said when Ridsdale entered he did so raising his hand and his very first words uttered were “I fear for my safety”. Consequently he has never mixed with any other prisoners and basically gets what he wants.
Mate said they gave it max ten mins (for another prisoner to get hold of him)from the time he raised his hand but even that was really pushing the envelope as they’d lose their jobs without question.
He and a couple of other blokes who work there have been off for 5 months pending investigation for assaulting a different paedophile, the irony being whilst he admits he’s given the odd sneaky clip here and there this bloke has his arm grabbed and bit one and dived in behind a door away from camera. Yet here is this paedo who has all these blokes being investigated whilst he makes constant demands in prison.
Demands that are continually met. That section of the prison is infamous for the constant complaining, demands, false claims and opportunism and the system empowers them.
It’s a truly ****ed up world we live in.

 

[tora tora tora]

It doesn't matter how much was said in court. It only matters what evidence could be presented that could convict Pell. There was no DNA evidence on clothing for instance (Lewinski type!) No eye witnesses other than the victim and the accused. We have had no other victims of previous assaults come up to present evidence on Pell either. So no matter how much evidence was presented that we do not know, the fact that solid evidence that puts the crime beyond a reasonable doubt was not present which is why I'm surprised that he was found guilty. And this is from someone who thinks he was guilty. And that is why an appeal I think will succeed.

Pell was charged with historical child sexual abuse, which is even unwanted touching. In these cases DNA evidence is not required and statements from kids 13 years or less is proof enough. So far one living victim, one dead. It seemed like another case against Pell was thrown out.
But that does not preclude other victims coming forward. Father Ryan in Maitland ~ already convicted on 11 counts from the 1970s. Now has been found guilty for acts involving 2 more victims.

In NSW Courts
For there to be sufficient evidence for an offender to be charged on indictment, there needs to be a specific offence, a specific touching or sexual act that is remembered with enough particularity. At any one time in the history of the criminal law of NSW, the same offending sexual conduct against a child can constitute completely different criminal offences, depending on precisely when the offence was committed.

 

[This Is Anfield]

While I personally think he is guilty from other stories that have been posted, I'm still amazed that a jury found him guilty of this crime. To do so would require evidence. They talk about how he had 5 minutes to commit this crime, but that isn't the point. How did they prove beyond reasonable doubt that he actually did the crime when it was basically one persons word against another's? Ultimately because of this I think he will win an appeal. Unfortunately the victims, living and deceased, will never be vindicated if that is the case. I feel so sorry for them. We put our trust in these people to look after our children and they not only let us down, but completely screw up lives in a way nobody can repair. Ultimately, I really wish there is a God who has seen the truth because if these priest really believe in what they preach, they ultimately know what will happen to their souls, and it won't be anything like the wet lettuce slap they usually get on earth.

It's like the Feds getting Al Capone for tax evasion. I have no doubt, no evidence either, that Pell was involved in the cover ups and reassigning of guilty priests to protect the church.

Also, if anyone committed "plain vanilla abuse" on my kids... the retribution would be anything but plain vanilla!!!
Extraordinary.

 

[Phar Ace]

Also, if anyone committed "plain vanilla abuse" on my kids... the retribution would be anything but plain vanilla!!!
Extraordinary.

I'd suggest running red raspberry for these scum who pray on young innocence.

 

[Bojangles17]

It's like the Feds getting Al Capone for tax evasion. I have no doubt, no evidence either, that Pell was involved in the cover ups and reassigning of guilty priests to protect the church.

Also, if anyone committed "plain vanilla abuse" on my kids... the retribution would be anything but plain vanilla!!!
Extraordinary.

I thought of that analogy too since the public backlash has been very much around Pell taking the rap for the systemic failure of the Catholic Church and with his comments over the journey he hasn’t helped himself

 

[Socrates2]

With convicted paedophile George Pell barred from having Richmond membership , is it time to get rid of other ratbags? Andrew Bolt is a Richmond member and a convicted racist, a climate change denier a, African Gangs wolfwhistler and homophobe. To add insult to injury, he is now a paedophile sympathizer, defending George Pell at every opportunity.I sent numerous emails to club regarding Pell's membership at the club but they only now have disowned him.Richmond leads the AFL community on important social issues but I have never heard any club spokesman distance themselves from Bolt.Are they afraid of the Herald Sun or just slow off the mark?

 

[parmy2balmey]

doesnt bolt post on bigfooty as Shazza_ ?