owen87
Premium Gold
- Apr 23, 2016
- 30,959
- 43,400
- AFL Club
- Essendon
Very unbiased view.
Even suggesting the pro-Pell view that the money must have been used for nefarious purposes against him.
Updated George Pell * Dead at 81yo
- Thread starter Cactus_
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Very unbiased view.
Even suggesting the pro-Pell view that the money must have been used for nefarious purposes against him.
Thats Ambitious
Debutant
- Apr 13, 2011
- 71
- 93
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- German sycronised weight-lifting
IIRC the 'priest who testified' could not recall if, at the dates in question, Pell was at the front of the church, only that it was "this was generally his usual practice". So, not really iron-clad...
In regard to the possible retrial, the amount already spent on the matter by the DPP and the deep pockets of the church would have also been a fair consideration in not going ahead with the retrial.
Without being a smart arse, I am not sure how people choose to tie in 'Vatican bribing money... used to influence the case', when there is no evidence whatsoever that this is the case, whilst ignoring the facts that the people who were presented with the evidence in the Pell case chose to take it to trial, a jury unanimously found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt based on that evidence, and the majority of the Court of Appeal supported the jury verdict.
I have read the decisions, I have (obviously) not seen the evidence. Given that there was a unanimous jury verdict, one would assume that the evidence of offending was damning, enough so for the jury to give this evidence (of offending) greater weight than the 'lack of opportunity' evidence.
FWIW, regardless of the people involved, I believe that the High Court decision sets a bloody dangerous precedent. The role of the jury is to weigh up the evidence and determine the facts on that basis. I mean, why bother with a jury when the High Court can just come along and decide what the jury can and cannot consider and what weight the jury must or must not apply to certain evidence?!!
In regard to the possible retrial, the amount already spent on the matter by the DPP and the deep pockets of the church would have also been a fair consideration in not going ahead with the retrial.
Without being a smart arse, I am not sure how people choose to tie in 'Vatican bribing money... used to influence the case', when there is no evidence whatsoever that this is the case, whilst ignoring the facts that the people who were presented with the evidence in the Pell case chose to take it to trial, a jury unanimously found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt based on that evidence, and the majority of the Court of Appeal supported the jury verdict.
I have read the decisions, I have (obviously) not seen the evidence. Given that there was a unanimous jury verdict, one would assume that the evidence of offending was damning, enough so for the jury to give this evidence (of offending) greater weight than the 'lack of opportunity' evidence.
FWIW, regardless of the people involved, I believe that the High Court decision sets a bloody dangerous precedent. The role of the jury is to weigh up the evidence and determine the facts on that basis. I mean, why bother with a jury when the High Court can just come along and decide what the jury can and cannot consider and what weight the jury must or must not apply to certain evidence?!!
owen87
Premium Gold
- Apr 23, 2016
- 30,959
- 43,400
- AFL Club
- Essendon
Bonus points for coming in over the top in a highly unusual situation for a high profile person as well. We know these are never dubious or questionable considerations.
- Apr 4, 2006
- 4,779
- 9,237
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
Oh, 100%, I mean who ever heard of a priest (or more senior cleric) of lying to cover anything up?! But victims on the other hand, they lie all the time right? (Per your assertion in a previous post, which I questioned, and you conveniently ignored.)
Are you ****ing serious in typing that, or just taking the absolute p1ss?!
You may be technically correct regarding the appeal, but you are on the wrong side of history, and devoid of morality, it seems.
I'm just waiting for you to roll out the Pell (verbatim) quote from the RC as your justification, as your posts are certainly hinting at it:
Pell to the RC:
"It was a sad story and of not much interest to me,”
- Aug 9, 2016
- 4,433
- 5,609
- AFL Club
- Sydney
I've already used that quote here to suggest Pell lacked humanity. Separate issue. Quite amusing you insinuate it as my sentiment then given that context
Is it possible for someone to lie .....yes. Apparently one of the boys did because he recanted. Did the priest? No idea. I don't think it's feasible it happened as was alleged so I tend to believe the priest as much more likely than not on this occasion. The fact there was a recant simply adds to my belief around the feasibility it occurred as the boys suggested. I don't.
Put simply no pedophile is going to flop his d**k out in the busiest part of the church on the busiest time without any grooming and hope no one sees him. In my mind it's a ludicrous suggestion.
Thats Ambitious
Debutant
- Apr 13, 2011
- 71
- 93
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- German sycronised weight-lifting
I used to work with a bloke who was fired for masturbating in his office during work hours. An office where customers could (and did) see him. Do I know what his motivation was or what made him choose that time or place? Absolutely not, because it is not something I have experienced nor desired.
My point is, that whilst it may be a ludicrous suggestion to your mind, your view is (one would hope) not borne from a known experience.
Of course you are still entitled to your opinion, just as we are entitled to challenge that opinion. Are we going to change your mind/view? Hell no, but that has never stopped anyone on the internet before!
Do I think Pell was guilty? Based on my reading of the decisions and the jury verdict, I believe it was more probable than not. However, I have not seen or heard all the evidence, and therefore cannot say one way or the other with absolute certainty.
Overturning a jury verdict effectively neuters the whole point of a jury... very dangerous. The concept of a jury is an incredibly powerful pillar for justice.
I'm not surprised with the HCA though given the High Court ruled that "absolute" does not mean absolute.
It also doesn't absolve Pell from his protection and support of pedo priests.
royboy2
Average Old Bastard
- Dec 7, 2007
- 13,043
- 15,136
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- Rabbitohs, Villa, McLaren F1, ENG
Not Carlton?
GreyCrow
TheBrownDog
- Mar 21, 2016
- 74,527
- 118,298
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Sturt, White Sox
jason_recliner
Club Legend
- Dec 9, 2020
- 2,538
- 2,833
- AFL Club
- West Coast
The fact is he's most likely a paedophile. A man who is attracted to children. Whether he's been found guilty is irrelevant. You don't become a paedophile the instant you're found guilty.
Kane McGoodwin
Make me an Admin!
- May 21, 2001
- 81,477
- 82,029
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Adelaide Crows
He was best friends with paedophiles.
He protected paedophiles at the expense of vulnerable victims.
More than 1 witness has accused him of being a paedophile.
There is a hell of a lot of smoke...
- Dec 9, 2015
- 5,737
- 10,160
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Even if he wasn't personally diddling (doubtful... but anyway), the fact that he enabled pedos to become and/or continue to be prolific abusers basically makes him a pedo himself.
What a putrid creature.
Well with Father Bob passing away, I think we'll see who has the better quality of people at their funeral.
Absurd that a religious institution is more interested in feting a political animal like Pell over a guy who was on the front lines helping make peoples lives better.
Absurd that a religious institution is more interested in feting a political animal like Pell over a guy who was on the front lines helping make peoples lives better.
- Apr 4, 2006
- 4,779
- 9,237
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
Pell's mate Ridsdale charged again - another victim (#72), and up to 192 charges.
www.abc.net.au
It's ok though, this one took place in Horsham, so George wouldn't have known about it. I mean how would he know anyway, when one of his closest personal and professional friends has been charged with abusing 72 victims? He only shared a house with him for years, many of the offences took place under Georgie boy's diocese, any number of family members and victims took it up with Pell directly, but the poor bugger was never aware that Ridsdale was probably the most notorious and prolific paedophile priest in Victoria.
"Going out again tonight Gerry?"
"Ah, yes George, more lambs to tend to, seems my work amongst the flock is never done. George?"
Absolute pieces of sh1t, the pair of them.
Fresh charge and guilty plea from one of Australia's most prolific paedophile priests
Gerald Ridsdale appeared via video link from St John's Hospital at Port Phillip Prison, appearing very frail and significantly weaker than the last time he appeared in front of the court.
www.abc.net.au
It's ok though, this one took place in Horsham, so George wouldn't have known about it. I mean how would he know anyway, when one of his closest personal and professional friends has been charged with abusing 72 victims? He only shared a house with him for years, many of the offences took place under Georgie boy's diocese, any number of family members and victims took it up with Pell directly, but the poor bugger was never aware that Ridsdale was probably the most notorious and prolific paedophile priest in Victoria.
"Going out again tonight Gerry?"
"Ah, yes George, more lambs to tend to, seems my work amongst the flock is never done. George?"
Absolute pieces of sh1t, the pair of them.
The pricks still dead right? That’s the important part now.
Similar threads
