Updated George Pell * Dead at 81yo

[nut]

Circular reasoning. You've made a subjective judgement about him being a pedophile and challenge people to prove he wasn't. Thanks but I'll just rely on the learned judges I think......that and the concept of presumption of innocence

Yer and OJ was found “not guilty” too…

 

[jason_recliner]

So? if it's overturned, he isn't guilty of it. You cannot be semi guilty of something. You either are or you aren't.

There's nothing wrong with being factually correct.

Pell can still be an incredible POS and certainly an enabler of other pedophiles without being labelled as a pedophile himself.

The High Court of Australia suggesting a Jury should have had doubt is far beyond a "legal technicality" by the way. Only someone with prejudice against Pell would minimise that High Court ruling to a "technicality".

Again Pell is a POS. But he is not guilty of being a pedophile.

He was not found guilty, eventually, of being a paedophile but he abused boys (not referring to the only accusations on which he was tried) so he was a paedophile.

 

[CD Xbow]

I've already posted this link from The Saturday Paper in the 'other' Pell thread, it's very illuminating and if you are interested in his holiness, you should read it. It is by a fellow seminarian and it lays to rest some of the myths about Pell.. It's behind a paywall but you should be able to read it here A few tidbits:

'....he was often described as “God’s ruckman” and it was noted that he would have played for Richmond. This isn’t quite true, either. Because of his bulk, he dominated schoolboy football, but this advantage did not last into adulthood. When he played against men in the seminary, he was best described as slow and lumbering. He was not a draft pick.'

'...not the Southwell inquiry in 2002, which examined incidents at a church summer camp in 1961, nor the royal commission, nor the High Court, has ever completely exonerated George Pell, saying only that the available evidence had not surmounted the legal hurdle of reasonable doubt.'

 

[faible]

Just overturning an unjust conviction

Why am I not in the slightest surprised you’ve decided this.

 

[Jacky Boy]

One small step toward a better world, good riddens

 

[geoffjennings79]

Circular reasoning. You've made a subjective judgement about him being a pedophile and challenge people to prove he wasn't. Thanks but I'll just rely on the learned judges I think......that and the concept of presumption of innocence

There are numerous men who grew up in Ballarat who experienced Pell's over-friendly 'playfulness' in the Eureka pool as boys. None were part of the trial, but your assertion is fundamentally wrong. He enjoyed a good hands-on frolick. Or are you saying those men are liars? Separate instances, unknown to each other, same experience.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

There are numerous men who grew up in Ballarat who experienced Pell's over-friendly 'playfulness' in the Eureka pool as boys. None were part of the trial, but your assertion is fundamentally wrong. He enjoyed a good hands-on frolick. Or are you saying those men are liars? Separate instances, unknown to each other, same experience.

Not necessarily liars but clearly they are unsubstantiated allegations. If they were substantiated then it's reasonable to assume that charges would have followed AND they DIDN'T. Allegations are just that. Due process under the law is how justice is achieved. Unsubstantiated allegations fills no role in that process

 

[Pure_Ownage]

There are numerous men who grew up in Ballarat who experienced Pell's over-friendly 'playfulness' in the Eureka pool as boys. None were part of the trial, but your assertion is fundamentally wrong. He enjoyed a good hands-on frolick. Or are you saying those men are liars? Separate instances, unknown to each other, same experience.

His assertion which is that legally pell is exonerated is fundamentally correct as a fact of law.

Your assertion which is moral not legal (because the allegations that you refer to havent been tested or proven) is a different story. That said pell is a POS so it wouldnt surprise me if they were true.

 

[HK_Hawk]

Oh FFS, let’s apply the pub test… did Pell fail miserably in supporting victims and holding the Catholic Church pedophiles to accountability?… faaark yeah. The rest is logistics, diversions and denial.

 

[jason_recliner]

Not necessarily liars but clearly they are unsubstantiated allegations. If they were substantiated then it's reasonable to assume that charges would have followed AND they DIDN'T. Allegations are just that. Due process under the law is how justice is achieved. Unsubstantiated allegations fills no role in that process

You have literally no idea why those accusations were never tried in court. Nether do I. But it is too incredibly coincidental to be beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

You have literally no idea why those accusations were never tried in court. Nether do I. But it is too incredibly coincidental to be beyond reasonable doubt.

You're right, I don't. But the point is they WEREN'T tested in court. They remain unsubstantiated. You want to judge on the basis of rumour innuendo and gossip or uncle Henry's friend's brothers say so. Your choice. I'll pass thanks. Any allegation not tested remains untrue in my mind. The justice system isn't perfect but it's all we have. I'll be guided by it unless of course I have analysed the decision and consider it wrong in which case I'll judge after the appeal process is concluded as I did with Pell. The jury decision was just plain wrong. The appeal court decision too because all it focussed on was whether it was feasible for the jury to decide as they did NOT whether there was reasonable doubt. The HC decision addressed all this and found unanimously for Pell. I think it was right and corrected an injustice in relation to that decision which was the only one being tested.

Did he despite the correctness of quashing, engage in other pedophile offences? Don't know. Don't care. Test them then I will.

 

[geoffjennings79]

Did he despite the correctness of quashing, engage in other pedophile offences? Don't know. Don't care. Test them then I will.

There's the rub. Says it all.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

There's the rub. Says it all.

Of course I'm not going to care about what amounts to gossip.

Allegation.....investigation.......evidence......charges......due process.....adversarial testing of evidence in court.........conviction

It seems that you want to forget 5 of the steps.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

He was not found guilty, eventually, of being a paedophile but he abused boys (not referring to the only accusations on which he was tried) so he was a paedophile.

incorrect.

Unless he has been charged and found guilty of being one (without it being overturned), he isn't.

Again, he certainly is a POS for the abuse he knew about and did nothing to stop. But he personally is not a pedophile, as he has not been found guilty of being one.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

He was found not guilty …. That doesnt mean he wasn’t a pedophile…

I know this is very hard to grasp.

Everyone in this country is afforded the presumption of innocence, if you are found not guilty of a crime you revert back to that presumption of innocence.

Pell could very well be a pedophile. but he was not found to be one.

Yours and others personal opinions are utterly irrelevant. As far as Australian law is concerned, he is not a pedophile.

You are welcome to call Pell a pedophile all you want, but that is opinion. Not fact.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

The fact is he was found guilty by a jury, then that guilty verdict was upheld by the court of appeal.

He was granted a further appeal in highly unusual circumstances.

I’m comfortable with the first two verdicts as to the fact of whether he committed offences against young boys, ergo, pedophile.

Just one who had his guilty verdict(s) overturned on a technicality. The High Court never said he didn’t do the things the jury decided he did.

So basically, anyone in history who has had their verdict overturned at a higher court is still just guilty in your opinion.

You keep saying it was a "technicality". The high Court of Australia found that previous Jury's were fundamentally incorrect and should have returned a not guilty verdit, IE he should never have been found guilty in the first place. That is not just a "technicality". What's next? the High court is corrupt?

just a shear and complete disregard for the justice system. And the fact you find comfort in rulings that the High Court says were incorrect, is quite telling to be honest.

Whatever though, your opinion is your opinion, as wrong as it is. As long as you know your opinion doesnt equal fact than whatever.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Of course I'm not going to care about what amounts to gossip.

Allegation.....investigation.......evidence......charges......due process.....adversarial testing of evidence in court.........conviction

It seems that you want to forget 5 of the steps.

All this shows is that people have zero understanding of how the justice system works, or they completely disrespect it. Exact same as the higgins case. Accusation = guilt, regardless of the court process.

It's also quite horrifying that people, have this level of bias who could be very well chosen for jury duty.

There plenty of ammo to bash pell, he was a POS for a magnitude of reasons. But the pettiness to call him a pedophile, when he hasn't been proven to be one, just shows our dumb this society is.

The High Court of Australia literally said that he should never have been found guilty by the previous jurys. yet people ignore that like is a "technicality" jesus christ....

 

[MSB ROYS]

On the flipside you have many Ballarat boys says that he fondled them in the pool. He covered up for convicted paedophiles by moving them to other places where they continue to offend and wreck lives. Also, showed little remorse to victims.
For some people on Bigfooty who grew up in Ballarat, Geelong and Melbourne in the 1970s/80s this is not a hypothetical situation. We almost all know of people who were molested and there are some who were victims. They were a minority but everywhere around children from teachers, priests/ministers and activities/sports leaders (football, scouts etc). Also the family member can be common, which is something that is still happening.

 

[nut]

I know this is very hard to grasp.

Everyone in this country is afforded the presumption of innocence, if you are found not guilty of a crime you revert back to that presumption of innocence.

Pell could very well be a pedophile. but he was not found to be one.

Yours and others personal opinions are utterly irrelevant. As far as Australian law is concerned, he is not a pedophile.

You are welcome to call Pell a pedophile all you want, but that is opinion. Not fact.

A guilty person could work free in the eyes of the court because not enough evidence was presented.
Very hard to find someone guilty of a historical event.
It doesn’t mean it didn’t happen…
Plenty of people are guilty of doing something … but found not guilty…
Not guilty doesn’t equal innocent!!!!

 

[faible]

incorrect.

Unless he has been charged and found guilty of being one (without it being overturned), he isn't.

Again, he certainly is a POS for the abuse he knew about and did nothing to stop. But he personally is not a pedophile, as he has not been found guilty of being one.

I know this is very hard to grasp.

Everyone in this country is afforded the presumption of innocence, if you are found not guilty of a crime you revert back to that presumption of innocence.

Pell could very well be a pedophile. but he was not found to be one.

Yours and others personal opinions are utterly irrelevant. As far as Australian law is concerned, he is not a pedophile.

You are welcome to call Pell a pedophile all you want, but that is opinion. Not fact.

So basically, anyone in history who has had their verdict overturned at a higher court is still just guilty in your opinion.

You keep saying it was a "technicality". The high Court of Australia found that previous Jury's were fundamentally incorrect and should have returned a not guilty verdit, IE he should never have been found guilty in the first place. That is not just a "technicality". What's next? the High court is corrupt?

just a shear and complete disregard for the justice system. And the fact you find comfort in rulings that the High Court says were incorrect, is quite telling to be honest.

Whatever though, your opinion is your opinion, as wrong as it is. As long as you know your opinion doesnt equal fact than whatever.

All this shows is that people have zero understanding of how the justice system works, or they completely disrespect it. Exact same as the higgins case. Accusation = guilt, regardless of the court process.

It's also quite horrifying that people, have this level of bias who could be very well chosen for jury duty.

There plenty of ammo to bash pell, he was a POS for a magnitude of reasons. But the pettiness to call him a pedophile, when he hasn't been proven to be one, just shows our dumb this society is.

The High Court of Australia literally said that he should never have been found guilty by the previous jurys. yet people ignore that like is a "technicality" jesus christ....

This is a lot of words to defend a pedophile. Awks.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

This is a lot of words to defend a pedophile. Awks.

not defending a pedophile, defending someones rights under Australian law.

Would do the same for you if someone every questioned your legal rights also.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

A guilty person could work free in the eyes of the court because not enough evidence was presented.
Very hard to find someone guilty of a historical event.
It doesn’t mean it didn’t happen…
Plenty of people are guilty of doing something … but found not guilty…
Not guilty doesn’t equal innocent!!!!

Thats how it works.

if there is not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt than you are not guilty.

i didn't say he was innocent. I said he is PRESUMED innocent on that specific charge.

 

[faible]

not defending a pedophile, defending someones rights under Australian law.

Would do the same for you if someone every questioned your legal rights also.

Very kind of you.

As I said, I'm comfortable with the findings of the jury. There's more than enough out there that the only way someone can defend Pell as not being a pedophile is by relying on a legal technicality.

The claims that went to court, the claims that are out there that didn't go to court, and the repeated coverups of behaviour of other members of the clergy all add up to Pell being a horrible human being who had no issues whatsoever with children being abused.

I'm also comfortable calling OJ a murderer, if that makes you feel better about consistency.

 

[Kurve]

I know this is very hard to grasp.

Everyone in this country is afforded the presumption of innocence, if you are found not guilty of a crime you revert back to that presumption of innocence.

Pell could very well be a pedophile. but he was not found to be one.

Yours and others personal opinions are utterly irrelevant. As far as Australian law is concerned, he is not a pedophile.

You are welcome to call Pell a pedophile all you want, but that is opinion. Not fact.

Of course I'm not going to care about what amounts to gossip.

Allegation.....investigation.......evidence......charges......due process.....adversarial testing of evidence in court.........conviction

It seems that you want to forget 5 of the steps.

Bigfooty isn't a court of law.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Bigfooty isn't a court of law.

i know.

Im just stating they are opinions. Not fact. As long as thats clear than go for it.