Updated George Pell * Dead at 81yo

[HirdsTheWord]

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.

You can say whatever you want as an opinion. Which is what yours is.

 

[faible]

You can say whatever you want as an opinion. Which is what yours is.

Well, yes. I didn't say 'Pell is a convicted pedophile'.

 

[Kurve]

You can say whatever you want as an opinion. Which is what yours is.

If he was still alive, would you be comfortable with him taking children swimming and in to the showers? On sleepovers?

 

[Kurve]

Well, yes. I didn't say 'Pell is a convicted pedophile'.

Oh ... very good.

 

[GreyCrow]

Technically Jimmy Saville is a good person as well then

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Well, yes. I didn't say 'Pell is a convicted pedophile'.

You know that the verdict was quashed. Right? When it is that means the conviction ceases to exist. So the statement remains erroneous.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

If he was still alive, would you be comfortable with him taking children swimming and in to the showers? On sleepovers?

No, apart from the fact i dont know him, there is a clear track record of him likely knowing about sexual abuse proven to have occurred by other priests and not investigating it and or ignoring it. He also has terrible victim awareness and clearly gave zero shits about victim complaints about what the priests have done.

The guy is far from a good person. But he is no pedophile until he is proven to be one in a court of law. Anything to the contrary should be labelled as an opinion.

 

[Kurve]

No, apart from the fact i dont know him, there is a clear track record of him likely knowing about sexual abuse proven to have occurred by other priests and not investigating it and or ignoring it. He also has terrible victim awareness and clearly gave zero shits about victim complaints about what the priests have done.

The guy is far from a good person. But he is no pedophile until he is proven to be one in a court of law.

Not necessarily, given this is starting to feel like semantics. There was nothing on his charge sheets either that referenced 'paedophilia'.

paedophile
noun [ C ]
UK (US pedophile)

UK

/ˈpiː.də.faɪl/ US

/ˈped.oʊ.faɪl/

someone who is sexually interested in children

 

[Maxy76!]

Yeh I can't see him coming back here either, especially not to Ballarat.

They won’t bring him back here (Ballarat) highly doubt he’ll be able to “RIP” [emoji23]


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[faible]

You know that the verdict was quashed. Right? When it is that means the conviction ceases to exist. So the statement remains erroneous.

Your belief in innocence until proven guilty in this case as compared to the McCann one is noted.

 

[faible]

So the statement remains erroneous.

But he is no pedophile until he is proven to be one in a court of law

Neither of these are accurate.

One can be a pedophile without being a convicted pedophile.

Same as one can be a murderer without being a convicted murderer.

If you're going to argue semantics, be certain you're arguing the right thing.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Neither of these are accurate.

One can be a pedophile without being a convicted pedophile.

Same as one can be a murderer without being a convicted murderer.

If you're going to argue semantics, be certain you're arguing the right thing.

Ok, please explain how is someone is titled a murderer, if they have not been proven to murder anyone? On what basis are they a murderer, apart from your personal opinion as to what you personally think they did.

This really is a semantic dumb argument that is doing this thread no justice.

 

[AvantGardener]

Ok, please explain how is someone is titled a murderer, if they have not been proven to murder anyone? On what basis are they a murderer, apart from your personal opinion as to what you personally think they did.

This really is a semantic dumb argument that is doing this thread no justice.

Fake story

January 1 Person A dies and investigation is commenced.

June 30 Person B arrested

September 30 Person B found guilty of murder.

Was Person B a murderer from Jan 1 or were they a murderer from Sept 30?

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Fake story

January 1 Person A dies and investigation is commenced.

June 30 Person B arrested

September 30 Person B found guilty of murder.

Was Person B a murderer from Jan 1 or were they a murderer from Sept 30?

it's doesn't matter because they were found guilty? once they are found guilty they are a murderer from when they committed the crime

Pell was not found guilty of sexual assault on a minor now an established interest in sexual attraction to kids. He is however a POS for nignoring abuse and not listening to victims at the time

thank you for proving my point.

my last post on this now

 

[Kurve]

Ok, please explain how is someone is titled a murderer, if they have not been proven to murder anyone? On what basis are they a murderer, apart from your personal opinion as to what you personally think they did.

This really is a semantic dumb argument that is doing this thread no justice.

There's been quite a few cases actually where suspects have admitted to murder after being acquitted at trial.

Are they then not a murderer?

 

[faible]

Ok, please explain how is someone is titled a murderer, if they have not been proven to murder anyone? On what basis are they a murderer, apart from your personal opinion as to what you personally think they did.

This really is a semantic dumb argument that is doing this thread no justice.

it's doesn't matter because they were found guilty? once they are found guilty they are a murderer from when they committed the crime

Pell was not found guilty of sexual assault on a minor now an established interest in sexual attraction to kids. He is however a POS for nignoring abuse and not listening to victims at the time

thank you for proving my point.

my last post on this now

You're a murderer from the moment you murder someone.

You're a convicted murderer from the moment you're convicted of murdering someone.

Glad I could clear this up for you.

 

[royboy2]

Glad the Rock Spider is rotting in hell with his scumbag mate Risdale

 

[geoffjennings79]

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.

Not at all, it seems you're just devoid of any consideration for victims of child abuse. I wonder why that is? Having seen you on other crime forums engaging in hypotheticals, I wouldn't have pegged you as a Pell apologist. Yet here we are...

 

[geoffjennings79]

i know.

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

Just ignore all the clerical child abuse victims, eh? Pell apologists out in force (of two) it seems. You must be so proud of your blind commitment to the justice system, which is far from infallible, coupled with a complete lack of empathy.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Not at all, it seems you're just devoid of any consideration for victims of child abuse. I wonder why that is? Having seen you on other crime forums engaging in hypotheticals, I wouldn't have pegged you as a Pell apologist. Yet here we are...

Pell hadn't been convicted of anything. Indeed despite police advertising for victims to come forward only one case made it to charges and court and that case was quashed 7 to nil in HC. They are the facts of his innocence or guilt.

You want to suggest I have no consideration for child abuse victims but the only ones you suggest have not reached court or charges. So I'm reliant on the say so of people I don't even know. I rarely do that. Too many people lie for too many reasons or agendas.

 

[faible]

You want to suggest I have no consideration for child abuse victims

I'm reliant on the say so of people I don't even know. I rarely do that. Too many people lie

Glad you made that clear.

 

[geoffjennings79]

Too many people lie for too many reasons or agendas.

What are the stats in Australia of child abuse victims who have been proven to lie when the cases go to courts in all jurisdictions? Negligible.

If you're so au-fait with the justice system, you would be well aware of that. But it seems you're not. Funny that.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

What are the stats in Australia of child abuse victims who have been proven to lie when the cases go to courts in all jurisdictions? Negligible.

If you're so au-fait with the justice system, you would be well aware of that. But it seems you're not. Funny that.
[/QUOTE

At or about the time of Pell's case an amount of 700k euro was transferred by a representative of Cardinal Angelo Becciu
(Under fraud charges in Italy) for the specific purpose it's said of influencing the outcome of the Pell case. Picked up through Austrac and information passed to police.

We don't know who received this sum of money nor what the money 'bought'. It's reasonable to assume it was nefarious in nature and may have involved lies.

 

[utility]

Pell hadn't been convicted of anything. Indeed despite police advertising for victims to come forward only one case made it to charges and court and that case was quashed 7 to nil in HC. They are the facts of his innocence or guilt.

Huh? He was convicted in 2018 which resulted in a six year prison sentence. It was overturned by the High Court related to procedural matters. But he was convicted, plus one complainant died during proceedings.

People do lie, but I don't know of any cases where a number of people lie about the same thing.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Huh? He was convicted in 2018 which resulted in a six year prison sentence. It was overturned by the High Court related to procedural matters. But he was convicted, plus one complainant died during proceedings.

People do lie, but I don't know of any cases where a number of people lie about the same thing.

I've been through this several times already. The conviction was quashed meaning it was determined to be invalid from inception. There was no technicality or procedural matter allowing Pell to be freed. He was allowed to be freed because he was successful in his appeal. The original verdict and the appeal were both flawed, the jury verdict being unsafe. They could have ordered a retrial but given he had already served a significant portion of his sentence they instead resolved the proper thing was to free him so they did.

There was a priest who had testified he was with him at all times and it wasn't possible he even been alone enough to offend. The sacresty at the time of the purported offence is the hub of activity of the church with people entering and leaving like central station and isn't the place an abuser would corner wine drinking choir boys that he previously hadn't met flop out his d**k and ask for them to have this as first interaction. I don't for one second believe there was interaction with the boys at all. My opinion. Indeed one of the boys recanted entirely after the initial allegation.

There is this mire of the Vatican source bribery money and how it was used to influence the case. Love to know where that money went because if you were able to follow that trail I think it would be illuminating.

In my opinion Pell was innocent and the jury verdict was obviously wrong.