The Law Cardinal Pell

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jan 13, 2007
14,553
17,676
Melbourne
AFL Club
Sydney
There's plausible deniability & then there's Pell levels of denial.....What he would have us all believe, is that he has achieved the highest office in Oz, encompassing the levels of awareness & responsibilities that come with that office for the RCC, while at the same time, being completely ignorant of all that transpired around him.

"I don't recall" & "I don't remember" simply will not do, as any kind of a defense on his behalf.

Complete & utter hogwash.

I watched his evidence and I thought his levels of recall were extraordinary, as supported by his detailed diary notes. But to expect absolute specific recall of events that were, from Pell's perspective, not particularly extraordinary (and by that I mean no direct knowledge of pedophilia) is just silly.
 

AM

The standard you walk past is the one you accept
Aug 18, 2006
24,579
23,475
Here there and everywhere
AFL Club
Geelong
I watched his evidence and I thought his levels of recall were extraordinary, as supported by his detailed diary notes. But to expect absolute specific recall of events that were, from Pell's perspective, not particularly extraordinary (and by that I mean no direct knowledge of pedophilia) is just silly.
I guess the view of Cardinal Pell's evidence to date depends on ones predilection.;)

Twill be interesting to see how he goes when being tested under intense cross examination should that occur.
 
I watched his evidence and I thought his levels of recall were extraordinary, as supported by his detailed diary notes. But to expect absolute specific recall of events that were, from Pell's perspective, not particularly extraordinary (and by that I mean no direct knowledge of pedophilia) is just silly.
Extraordinary? They most definitely were not!
We must have watched a different Pell.
 
I do admit I wasn't sitting there forming a noose with a rope.
He had been well trained by his legal people and if you want a refresher in how professionally (clever) he responded to questions, here is an example.







Further, no need for rope as a noose, his own words and actions will suffice.
 
Jan 13, 2007
14,553
17,676
Melbourne
AFL Club
Sydney
He had been well trained by his legal people and if you want a refresher in how professionally (clever) he responded to questions, here is an example.







Further, no need for rope as a noose, his own words and actions will suffice.


Oh Maggie, if that's your example of deceit, my Deity!!!

1. Everything he said there is entirely compatible with him not having been told.
2. The standards in a Royal Commission are quite different to those of a criminal court. In a criminal court there would have been at least a dozen objections around badgering and asking questions predicated on allegations denied.
3. None of his answers suggest legal training. He is a quite brilliant man, that is a fact, which speaks neither to his innocence nor guilt of the allegations the subject of which we're discussing now.

Pell was imperfect, understandably so in my opinion given the circumstances, in his evidence to the Royal Commission. But that little video you've put up is an example of Counsel Assisting and the Royal Commissioner making complete legal fools of themselves.
 
Jan 13, 2007
14,553
17,676
Melbourne
AFL Club
Sydney
I guess the view of Cardinal Pell's evidence to date depends on ones predilection.;)

Twill be interesting to see how he goes when being tested under intense cross examination should that occur.

The rules of cross examination in a criminal court are quite different to a Royal Commission and work far more in Pell's favour. The badgering that he got at the Royal Commission won't be allowed in a criminal trial.
 

Lebbo73

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 20, 2014
18,274
19,359
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Liverpool
He had been well trained by his legal people and if you want a refresher in how professionally (clever) he responded to questions, here is an example.







Further, no need for rope as a noose, his own words and actions will suffice.

Is this a joke Maggie? You and Bradley should both stay out of this thread.
 
Oh Maggie, if that's your example of deceit, my Deity!!!

1. Everything he said there is entirely compatible with him not having been told.
2. The standards in a Royal Commission are quite different to those of a criminal court. In a criminal court there would have been at least a dozen objections around badgering and asking questions predicated on allegations denied.
3. None of his answers suggest legal training. He is a quite brilliant man, that is a fact, which speaks neither to his innocence nor guilt of the allegations the subject of which we're discussing now.

Pell was imperfect, understandably so in my opinion given the circumstances, in his evidence to the Royal Commission. But that little video you've put up is an example of Counsel Assisting and the Royal Commissioner making complete legal fools of themselves.
Where did I mention deceit?
Stop making things up!
As to the rest of your post, didn't read.
 
Feb 24, 2013
45,365
37,740
The GoldenBrown Heart of Victoria
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Man Utd Green Bay Melb Storm
The rules of cross examination in a criminal court are quite different to a Royal Commission and work far more in Pell's favour. The badgering that he got at the Royal Commission won't be allowed in a criminal trial.

LOL....I wonder if he'll be allowed to wear an ear-piece & wire this time.
 

AM

The standard you walk past is the one you accept
Aug 18, 2006
24,579
23,475
Here there and everywhere
AFL Club
Geelong
Well it's a fact......but anyway....
Wrong!

There is a saying by Senator Moynihan which is 'You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.'

The adversarial nature of cross examination in a court setting is much more unsettling and intimidating than a Royal Commission. So much so I would not be at all surprised if the ' Red Baron' sought to prevent him from taking the stand.
 
Aug 2, 2012
34,820
56,387
AFL Club
Geelong
Wrong!

There is a saying by Senator Moynihan which is 'You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.'

The adversarial nature of cross examination in a court setting is much more unsettling and intimidating than a Royal Commission. So much so I would not be at all surprised if the ' Red Baron' sought to prevent him from taking the stand.

The main difference from the RC situation is that a prosecutor is far more precise and forensic, and far more flexible, ie better at quickly changing tack in order to pursue weaknesses in particular answers. The above clip is a notable illustration of this point, where counsel just proceeded with pre-set questions, and allowed inconsistent or inadequate answers to float past without pursuing (or, seemingly, even noticing) them. This won't happen in court.

It depends upon what comes out in the evidence, but a jury is (whatever the judge says) likely to be less sympathetic if he doesn't take the stand.
 

AM

The standard you walk past is the one you accept
Aug 18, 2006
24,579
23,475
Here there and everywhere
AFL Club
Geelong
The main difference from the RC situation is that a prosecutor is far more precise and forensic, and far more flexible, ie better at quickly changing tack in order to pursue weaknesses in particular answers. The above clip is a notable illustration of this point, where counsel just proceeded with pre-set questions, and allowed inconsistent or inadequate answers to float past without pursuing (or, seemingly, even noticing) them. This won't happen in court.

It depends upon what comes out in the evidence, but a jury is (whatever the judge says) likely to be less sympathetic if he doesn't take the stand.
Agree! I doubt the 'Red Baron' would follow that course. More attempting to reinforce a point.
 
Jan 13, 2007
14,553
17,676
Melbourne
AFL Club
Sydney
There is no way, in a criminal court setting, that a prosecutor would be allowed to proceed on the basis that a defendant had given different answers to those he had given.

Both Counsel Assisting and the Royal Commissioner were guilty of that throughout the above clip. It wasn't "more forensic". It was simply a series of failed attempts at entrapment.
 

chelseacarlton

BLUE it's the Magic Number
10k Posts Sensible Type Chess Club Member Pantskyle
Apr 13, 2008
23,737
33,143
So Frang
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
The Anti-Theists
Is this a joke Maggie? You and Bradley should both stay out of this thread.
Maybe you could find a mod sympathetic to your cause and sky fairy delusions and have me thread banned so you and your catholic mates can sit quietly and pray for George together?
 
Aug 2, 2012
34,820
56,387
AFL Club
Geelong
There is no way, in a criminal court setting, that a prosecutor would be allowed to proceed on the basis that a defendant had given different answers to those he had given.

Both Counsel Assisting and the Royal Commissioner were guilty of that throughout the above clip. It wasn't "more forensic". It was simply a series of failed attempts at entrapment.

If he tries to avoid answering questions the way he did in that clip or, worse, answering them with non sequiturs the way he also did in that clip, he'll be crucified. So to speak.
 
Jan 13, 2007
14,553
17,676
Melbourne
AFL Club
Sydney
If he tries to avoid answering questions the way he did in that clip or, worse, answering them with non sequiturs the way he also did in that clip, he'll be crucified. So to speak.

Complete rubbish. Which question, and try to be precise here if you can, did he avoid answering or answer with a "non-sequitur".
 

Lebbo73

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 20, 2014
18,274
19,359
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Liverpool
Maybe you could find a mod sympathetic to your cause and sky fairy delusions and have me thread banned so you and your catholic mates can sit quietly and pray for George together?
I ain't praying for George at all. I suspect and hope he didn't molest anyone at all. Yhe difference between slanderous people like you and I is that I will let the legal system decide. Not my hatred for particular religions.
 

Windhover

Premiership Player
Mar 16, 2010
3,470
2,862
Ruffy
AFL Club
Carlton
There is no way, in a criminal court setting, that a prosecutor would be allowed to proceed on the basis that a defendant had given different answers to those he had given.

Both Counsel Assisting and the Royal Commissioner were guilty of that throughout the above clip. It wasn't "more forensic". It was simply a series of failed attempts at entrapment.

The issue was whether Pell, who was a Consultor at the time, knew of the reasons for Ridsdale being moved.

Pell's evidence was that having read the minutes of the meeting which stated that it was "reasonably necessary" to move Ridsdale, he accepted the accuracy of the minutes in its generality as being consistent with his state of knowledge as to the specifics of what was said. That is, that there was no discussion at the meeting of the reason why moving Ridsdale had become "necessary". Pell had no direct memory of the meeting otherwise but was able to be certain that paedophilia on the part of Ridsdale had not been discussed because he would have remembered it.

Thus counsel assisting properly put to Pell that although he had no memory of what was said, he had a memory of what was not said.

The RC established that Pell as a Consultor had a duty to know why Ridsdale was moved. Pell accepted that there was an expectation that if there was criminal misconduct then the meeting would have been told. Pell accepted all the others at the meeting knew why Ridsdale was being moved.

Pell claimed he could be sure that Risdale's misconduct was not explained because of the difference between the minutes in the case of Fr Day cf the minutes regarding Risdale. When he was taken by counsel assisting to the Day minutes those minutes did NOT set out the reasons for Day being removed.

The only difference between the generality of the Day minutes and the generality of the Ridsdale minutes was that the Day minutes referred to His Lordship "explaining the reasons" it had become necessary for Day's removal whereas in Risdale's case the minutes simply noted it had become "necessary".

The point of the earlier concession Pell made that as a Consultor there was an expectation he would know why it was necessary to move a priest so that, the minutes recording that would be a simplification of what was known - namely that the necessity to move Ridsdale was because of his criminal misconduct - makes his claim that the minutes SHOULD NOT be read as assuming the reasons it had been necessary to move Ridsdale had been discussed.

In circumstances in which all the others at the meeting knew, it was Pell's duty as a Consultor to know, and the fact that the minutes recorded it was necessary to move Ridsdale point to 1 conclusion. That one conclusion is that Pell was lied to by all the others at the meeting as to the real reason for Ridsdale being moved, Pell failed to make any enquiry as to the real reason himself because he completely trusted Mulkearns and the others and Pell - a brilliant man by your reckoning - failed in his duty as a Consultor. Oh, and despite having lived with Ridsdale previously and subsequently being close enough to him to give character evidence in Court, presumably never had the human decency to discuss the matter of Ridsdale's necessary movement with Ridsdale himself proximate in time to the event. You would have to believe in the tooth fairy to believe all tha . . . . oh yeah, anyway.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back