The Law Cardinal Pell

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Procrastinator35 said:
Should be interesting to see how a bloke who is head of the Papish treasury, manages to claim impaired memory loss while managing such a responsible position at the same time....Go Georgy Porgy.
Click to expand...

How is one to, hypothetically, have memory of an event that never occurred.

Where were you at midday on Sunday, say, 25 July 1997?

How long did you shower for and remain naked in the change rooms at Torquay on a given day in 1978?

Describe specifically how you threw young Mr X in the pool at Ballarat in 1974 on that hot Summer day?

An innocent man would have no recollection of any of these events.
 
Donners said:
Through careful directions, and emphasis of the need for separate consideration. A judge I know dubs such directions as metaphysical.

Even Vic, pre-Hughes, allowed such situations - eg. in Alexander. TK alleged buggery, ME alleged indecent assault, AA alleged both. TK's buggery was cross-admissible to AA's buggery, ME's indecent assault was cross-admissible to AA's indecent assault, but TK and ME were not cross-admissible.

Contrary to what one might expect, the Royal Commission's jury study showed that juries do indeed give separate consideration in such circumstances. This case turned out to be a perfect example - they were hung on TK's sole charge, had mixed acquittals and convictions on ME and convicted on AA.

This situation is less likely to occur today; this was an example of Rapson reasoning, which has been rejected by the High Court.
Click to expand...

I'm not familiar with the case you mentioned, although I'll read it when the kids have gone to bed. This case would appear to be different in that, to the extent that we know, the alleged forms of abuse are quite distinct. The psych in the Royal Commission described 3 distinct types of child abuse, and none were related to the other. They are rapists, fondlers/fiddlers, and those that like their sex with post pubescent but not yet adults.

Now as we understand it, the first two apply to the charges but they are not related. They don't establish a pattern as much as Milligan would like to represent them as doing so. So I would be surprised to see a ruling that they get heard together. But of course we don't know that they are the charges or even all of the charges.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

BruceFromBalnarring said:
How is one to, hypothetically, have memory of an event that never occurred.

Where were you at midday on Sunday, say, 25 July 1997?

How long did you shower for and remain naked in the change rooms at Torquay on a given day in 1978?

Describe specifically how you threw young Mr X in the pool at Ballarat in 1974 on that hot Summer day?

An innocent man would have no recollection of any of these events.
Click to expand...

Lol
Logic fail
What if young Mr X remembers how and where Pells hands were placed before the throw or how Mr Pell touched young Mr X in the change rooms and revealed his privates to Mr Young X.
I know I'd certainly remember an incident like that had it occurred.
You're kidding yourself mate,blinded by the light,as usual!
 
chelseacarlton said:
Lol
Logic fail
What if young Mr X remembers how and where Pells hands were placed before the throw or how Mr Pell touched young Mr X in the change rooms and revealed his privates to Mr Young X.
I know I'd certainly remember an incident like that had it occurred.
You're kidding yourself mate,blinded by the light,as usual!
Click to expand...
If this is the best the Victorian Police can come up with, Pell is in so much trouble! :thumbsu:
 
chelseacarlton said:
Lol
Logic fail
What if young Mr X remembers how and where Pells hands were placed before the throw or how Mr Pell touched young Mr X in the change rooms and revealed his privates to Mr Young X.
I know I'd certainly remember an incident like that had it occurred.
You're kidding yourself mate,blinded by the light,as usual!
Click to expand...

Comprehension fail.

You'll see I wrote "hypothetically". OK?

So. In the event that these incidents didn't occur, as other events ascribed to George Pell haven't occurred, how is Pell to remember them?

I know you have him guilty as charged. We can put that down to your blind bigotry. I admit that I have my doubts, given the multitude of false accusations made against Pell in the past. So unless you're prepared to debate the issue in some semblance of good faith, can I ask you politely to stay out of discussion with me on the issue.
 
BruceFromBalnarring said:
Comprehension fail.

You'll see I wrote "hypothetically". OK?

So. In the event that these incidents didn't occur, as other events ascribed to George Pell haven't occurred, how is Pell to remember them?

I know you have him guilty as charged. We can put that down to your blind bigotry. I admit that I have my doubts, given the multitude of false accusations made against Pell in the past. So unless you're prepared to debate the issue in some semblance of good faith, can I ask you politely to stay out of discussion with me on the issue.
Click to expand...
No bruce,you just couldn't help yourself including the "innocent man" jumbo jumbo as usual.
As for "good faith", I don't any.
In regards to you,NO!
I'll do I please!!
 
BruceFromBalnarring said:
Seriously, take your hate elsewhere.
Click to expand...
I'm not hateful,I'm a loving caring father of two and a thoughtful devoted partner to my lovely gorgeous woman.
Just because I despise faith and religion,does not make me hateful:
In fact,I godblessed an elderly Sri Lankan Christian lady this morning I was doing work for.
We had a wonderful conversation about her homeland and the problems it is facing.
I told her I was an atheist and she didn't bat an eyelid and said "I suppose many young people will turn to non-belief given what's happening around the world because of religion,it's probably a good thing".
I like people,I just don't agree with their belief that their particular brand of "my god is the right one"!
You see,I'm not a blind sided bigot like your particular brand of faith tells you to be,all the while the clergy are engaging in raging homosexual orgies on Vatican grounds and protection whilst ordering pizza to enable their drug filled bodies to continue to do so.
I'm more moral and good willed in my day to day life because of my lack of faith than any faith believer could ever dream.
I don't need a book to tell me "how" to behave,I do it because I'm good and would like the world to be good.
No atheist ever strapped a bomb on themselves or raped anyone or hurt anyone in the name of "nothing".
But yeah,I'm the hateful guy!!
Pfft
 
chelseacarlton said:
I'm not hateful,I'm a loving caring father of two and a thoughtful devoted partner to my lovely gorgeous woman.
Just because I despise faith and religion,does not make me hateful:
In fact,I godblessed an elderly Sri Lankan Christian lady this morning I was doing work for.
We had a wonderful conversation about her homeland and the problems it is facing.
I told her I was an atheist and she didn't bat an eyelid and said "I suppose many young people will turn to non-belief given what's happening around the world because of religion,it's probably a good thing".
I like people,I just don't agree with their belief that their particular brand of "my god is the right one"!
You see,I'm not a blind sided bigot like your particular brand of faith tells you to be,all the while the clergy are engaging in raging homosexual orgies on Vatican grounds and protection whilst ordering pizza to enable their drug filled bodies to continue to do so.
I'm more moral and good willed in my day to day life because of my lack of faith than any faith believer could ever dream.
I don't need a book to tell me "how" to behave,I do it because I'm good and would like the world to be good.
No atheist ever strapped a bomb on themselves or raped anyone or hurt anyone in the name of "nothing".
But yeah,I'm the hateful guy!!
Pfft
Click to expand...

You have faith & power mixed up....2,000 years thereof, for corruption to take hold of & become rife to be sure.

But otherwise.....As you were.
 
Procrastinator35 said:
You have faith & power mixed up....2,000 years thereof, for corruption to take hold of & become rife to be sure.

But otherwise.....As you were.
Click to expand...
Maybe pro,maybe.
Faith being 'a belief without evidence'.
On occasion,as a tradesman I'll attempt to do things on an assertion or belief that a shortcut might work because of time or monetary constraints,they more often than not fail.
Some may call this 'faith'.
My father being an electrical engineer,always suggested that relying on faith would have him 'dead'.
"Don't rely on faith son,rely on the science and you won't end up 'dead'.
I'm still here,so I think I'll keep relying on me da'.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

BruceFromBalnarring said:
How is one to, hypothetically, have memory of an event that never occurred.

Where were you at midday on Sunday, say, 25 July 1997?

How long did you shower for and remain naked in the change rooms at Torquay on a given day in 1978?

Describe specifically how you threw young Mr X in the pool at Ballarat in 1974 on that hot Summer day?

An innocent man would have no recollection of any of these events.
Click to expand...
Did you stick your Penis in "anthony X"? would seem to be a more specific question though.
 
Pie eyed said:
Did you stick your Penis in "anthony X"? would seem to be a more specific question though.
Click to expand...
What if one was a serial molester and didn't consider it to be an offense, why would they remember?
Of course the victim would remember no matter what time had elapsed.
 
BruceFromBalnarring said:
How is one to, hypothetically, have memory of an event that never occurred.

Where were you at midday on Sunday, say, 25 July 1997?

How long did you shower for and remain naked in the change rooms at Torquay on a given day in 1978?

Describe specifically how you threw young Mr X in the pool at Ballarat in 1974 on that hot Summer day?

An innocent man would have no recollection of any of these events.
Click to expand...

It's almost a cleft stick, isn't it?

If he's innocent, he wouldn't remember, and would/must say "I don't remember".

If he's guilty, he probably would remember, but, since an innocent man wouldn't remember, he can't answer by giving the requested details, he still has to say "I don't remember".

And if he says that too often, he runs a risk of alienating the jury.

He'll need some coaching in the 63 ways of saying "I don't remember".
 
FredLeDeux said:
It's almost a cleft stick, isn't it?

If he's innocent, he wouldn't remember, and would/must say "I don't remember".

If he's guilty, he probably would remember, but, since an innocent man wouldn't remember, he can't answer by giving the requested details, he still has to say "I don't remember".

And if he says that too often, he runs a risk of alienating the jury.

He'll need some coaching in the 63 ways of saying "I don't remember".
Click to expand...

I prefer "familiarise".;) I'd surmise the prosecution will be well prepared for the use of any form of words that suggests the Cardinal's memory lacks clarity on all of the yet unspecific number of "multiple charges". We live in interesting times and will do so for some years I suspect.
 
FredLeDeux said:
It's almost a cleft stick, isn't it?

If he's innocent, he wouldn't remember, and would/must say "I don't remember".

If he's guilty, he probably would remember, but, since an innocent man wouldn't remember, he can't answer by giving the requested details, he still has to say "I don't remember".

And if he says that too often, he runs a risk of alienating the jury.

He'll need some coaching in the 63 ways of saying "I don't remember".
Click to expand...

I have never molested a child. Therefore I think I'd be answering "I don't know what I was doing on the given date but I can assure you with absolute certainty that I wasn't molesting a child."

I reckon, though, there's a fair chance Pell will be able to establish his whereabouts for any matters relating to his time as Archbishop.
 
Procrastinator35 said:
If only someone could apply the same to the World Banks, MSM & Western Politicians.
Click to expand...

100%

I wouldn't limit it to western politics though and chuck in lobby groups, big pharma, arms manufacturers and NGOs
 
Maggie5 said:
What if one was a serial molester and didn't consider it to be an offense, why would they remember?
Of course the victim would remember no matter what time had elapsed.
Click to expand...
Agree, though "I have stuck my penis in so many young boys I don't think I would remember Anthony X specifically" is not really a valid defence.

Not that I am claiming anyone has stuck their penis in Anthony X, just pointing out that such mundane things as being naked while showering are not really what is going to be the question....
And as FredeLux pointed out regardless of the strength of memory, the answer in any event would most likely be " I don't remember" regardless of that memory.

Any case is going to be based on the strength of memory of the victims and witnesses, not the accused, regardless of the case.

Not many murderers remember the crime when questioned, more do after conviction, even then many lie.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top