Updated George Pell * Dead at 81yo

[Angry Red Bull]

Nope, read the judgement. The 'witnesses' to where Pell was at the time of the alleged offences could say where Pell 'usually' was at that time. He could not swear that is actually where Pell was at that time and date.

As is common with historical sex offence cases, the passage of time creates uncertainty and doubt as witnesses cannot recall details from years prior with precision.

Which creates reasonable doubt just as that priest testimony should have as well especially given one of the children had retracted

 

[Thats Ambitious]

Which creates reasonable doubt just as that priest testimony should have as well especially given one of the children had retracted

Yeah, that is kinda the point of the High Court Judgement... they found that the jury in the original trial, and the bench in the appeal, could have entertained reasonable doubt.

For what it is worth, there is a massive difference between the Court finding that there could have been reasonable doubt and a finding that the sexual assaults absolutely did not occur.

Whilst of course it is not for an accused to prove innocence (the prosecution needs to prove guilt), in practice, this is often how a defence will approach it. The defence dont want to rely on reasonable doubt, as it can be such a fine margin.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

I always thought it was an unsound decision, was surprised it wasn't overturned on appeal but gratified sense prevailed at High Court..I really don't know if he had history. The police advertising for victims didn't instill confidence he had either..Predictably you will have some come forward and seek to victimise Pell as the person responsible for church attitude on its own offenders..

This is what tends to happen when you advertise for victims..happened too for Ralph Harris. Sounds like he was correctly convicted but at least one of the cases against him it was ultimately proven he wasn't even there at the time of the alleged offence and his appeal succeeded on that conviction I recall from memory.

Dangerous territory when we allow this I believe

 

[kranky al]

Absolutely. It's totally ludicrous suggestion he flopped it out in sacristy at the busiest time with it being pitt central and without any grooming on very first meet because the children had drank a glass of wine. That a jury ever found him guilty is sad indictment on judgement. Even worse that 2 of 3 judges on appeal confirmed the decision. And he had a priest attest to where he was. Thankfully the most experienced realised the mistake in High Court. 7 - 0

All we have left is suspicion.... AND he was the head of the church who had made regrettable decisions around those in their ranks making him a target. Did one of the kids retract his allegation......yes..Possibly pangs of conscience in trying to frame him. On the back of being made a target the police also advertised for victims to come forward..Forgive me but that's not how the justice system should work especially in those circumstances..Woeful judgement by LE

We will never know. That is my point.

Having a priest attest he was elsewhere isn’t the alibi you think it is….

 

[Cactus_]

I'm not a troll and I don't 'support' him..if you are going to draw a line and condemn those on the other side I just believe that line should be as confidently precise as would exist in court convictions. And if you can't get to that point then he deserves the same lattitude that is accorded those that are alive and have faced and met their judgement. Otherwise we all become vigilante justice just as you are now attempting to impart your judgement on me. Why? Because you can't understand and jump to hasty judgement attempting to convict me for merely having the good judgement and temperament to hesitate. The justification is YOU KNOW and only that..that is my very point though you DON'T KNOW and we never will because he has never been judged and successfully convicted. I hesitate and would with anyone on any offence because I resist becoming red neck vigilante justice even in death. I think all people deserve that dignity and respect including Pell. Have your suspicions but treat them as suspicions rather than advance them to conclusive findings simply because he is no longer here and you can take that liberty in his absence. Sorry, I won't.

I don’t know why I’m bothering but

I didn’t “condemn” anyone for wanting to be “confidently precise”

I wondered about your motivations for using long words, appeals to emotion, and hair splitting to try to undermine other posters who are expressing their thoughts and feelings about Pell

As for you implying that I am, by writing a post on the internet, committing an act of “vigilante justice” . . . and then casting yourself as some kind of a hero standing up to “vigilantes” . . . “I resist becoming red neck vigilante justice even in death”

And as to people “jumping to hasty judgement” . . . hasty? Why don’t you check the date this thread was started, (and who the poster was who started it)?

I think your posts are weird enough that they might be some misguided attempt at comedy, but if they are they’re in pretty poor taste

 

[Cactus_]

Absolutely. It's totally ludicrous suggestion he flopped it out in sacristy at the busiest time with it being pitt central and without any grooming on very first meet because the children had drank a glass of wine. That a jury ever found him guilty is sad indictment on judgement. Even worse that 2 of 3 judges on appeal confirmed the decision. And he had a priest attest to where he was. Thankfully the most experienced realised the mistake in High Court. 7 - 0

All we have left is suspicion.... AND he was the head of the church who had made regrettable decisions around those in their ranks making him a target. Did one of the kids retract his allegation......yes..Possibly pangs of conscience in trying to frame him. On the back of being made a target the police also advertised for victims to come forward..Forgive me but that's not how the justice system should work especially in those circumstances..Woeful judgement by LE

We will never know. That is my point.

. . . “regrettable decision” . . .

Yeah, you could say that

if you were trying to imply his actions were little, relatively unimportant, oversights . . .

“Ooops, I’ve protected a predator (again) . . . silly me” . . . “don’t tell me l’ve been intimidating the victims of CSA again . . . I have! What a duffer I am”

 

[Angry Red Bull]

. . . “regrettable decision” . . .

Yeah, you could say that

if you were trying to imply his actions were little, relatively unimportant, oversights . . .

“Ooops, I’ve protected a predator (again) . . . silly me” . . . “don’t tell me l’ve been intimidating the victims of CSA again . . . I have! What a duffer I am”

Omg..grow up.. no one is trying to condone sexual abuse of a child. You are now trying to associate me with the conduct..don't.. I abhor pedophiles and pedophilia. Anyone does. That's not the point here. The point is we don't know. You want to hate the crime and try and identify people who MAY be perpetrators or supporters so you can then vent your hatred at them by that identification.. No problem with that. Let's just be sure we use objective criteria for that shall we? You wouldn't want to be falsely accusing someone.

Yes the Catholic churches behaviour is regrettable..That view comes from the perspective that I don't believe the church would condone such behaviour either. They take humanitarian aim to all people and believe all people are capable of absolution. That regrettably places them and Pell as then leader in a situation of causing a cover up by that process with horrible devastating long term outcomes for victims. A horrible mistake we can all agree..regrettable because with better vision and judgement it shouldn't have happened. The right path was consequences for the perpetrator. That didn't happen and they and Pell will have had to deal with that mistake as they should. That wont of itself make him a pedophile. It makes him misguided becoming the tool to hurt innocent people with their choices unintentionally protecting the pedophiles. the Catholic church has had to deal with these endemic problems ......that Spotlight movie giving us some idea the depth to which this caused devastation for those they hurt worldwide

 

[kranky al]

Omg..grow up.. no one is trying to condone sexual abuse of a child. You are now trying to associate me with the conduct..don't.. I abhor pedophiles and pedophilia. Anyone does. That's not the point here. The point is we don't know. You want to hate the crime and try and identify people who MAY be perpetrators or supporters so you can then vent your hatred at them by that identification.. No problem with that. Let's just be sure we use objective criteria for that shall we? You wouldn't want to be falsely accusing someone.

Yes the Catholic churches behaviour is regrettable..That view comes from the perspective that I don't believe the church would condone such behaviour either. They take humanitarian aim to all people and believe all people are capable of absolution. That regrettably places them and Pell as then leader in a situation of causing a cover up by that process with horrible devastating long term outcomes for victims. A horrible mistake we can all agree..regrettable because with better vision and judgement it shouldn't have happened. The right path was consequences for the perpetrator. That didn't happen and they and Pell will have had to deal with that mistake as they should. That wont of itself make him a pedophile. It makes him misguided becoming the tool to hurt innocent people with their choices unintentionally protecting the pedophiles. the Catholic church has had to deal with these endemic problems ......that Spotlight movie giving us some idea the depth to which this caused devastation for those they hurt worldwide

Regrettable….

Mate I took my caravan out last week with the missos Ute, was too lazy to get the tyre pressure management system out of my truck, a tyre went flat (4 wheel van) I didn’t notice and I shredded a tyre.

That’s regrettable.

Criminal is the word that applies to what the church did. They knowingly covered for paedos.

 

[leon123]

Omg..grow up.. no one is trying to condone sexual abuse of a child. You are now trying to associate me with the conduct..don't.. I abhor pedophiles and pedophilia. Anyone does. That's not the point here. The point is we don't know. You want to hate the crime and try and identify people who MAY be perpetrators or supporters so you can then vent your hatred at them by that identification.. No problem with that. Let's just be sure we use objective criteria for that shall we? You wouldn't want to be falsely accusing someone.

Yes the Catholic churches behaviour is regrettable..That view comes from the perspective that I don't believe the church would condone such behaviour either. They take humanitarian aim to all people and believe all people are capable of absolution. That regrettably places them and Pell as then leader in a situation of causing a cover up by that process with horrible devastating long term outcomes for victims. A horrible mistake we can all agree..regrettable because with better vision and judgement it shouldn't have happened. The right path was consequences for the perpetrator. That didn't happen and they and Pell will have had to deal with that mistake as they should. That wont of itself make him a pedophile. It makes him misguided becoming the tool to hurt innocent people with their choices unintentionally protecting the pedophiles. the Catholic church has had to deal with these endemic problems ......that Spotlight movie giving us some idea the depth to which this caused devastation for those they hurt worldwide

Im not even going to attempt to be polite.

Originally from Ballarat.. kid in the 1970s...Pell is scum, hope he rots down under in hell.

You have no clue, so STFU.

You may not realise, you are being incredibly insensitive and hurtful to many people... my advice... go play somewhere else

 

[Angry Red Bull]

The Catholic church have altruistic ideals.

Im not even going to attempt to be polite.

Originally from Ballarat.. kid in the 1970s...Pell is scum, hope he rots down under in hell.

You have no clue, so STFU.

You may not realise, you are being incredibly insensitive and hurtful to many people... my advice... go play somewhere else

And you have a clue that's why it's seen court? oh no, that's right, your clue is rumour and innuendo not having seen court but you most surely know. My point exactly. This behaviour convicts people on nothing

I'm not insensitive to anyone who has suffered trauma as a victim......nor behaviour of church who does have to answer accusations and did I understand in paying millions of victims after the royal commission recommendations were released. Doesn't fix the trauma. Nothing will not even accusing people on the back of rumour and innuendo. The truth won't necessarily remove the stain for victims but vigilante justice will only serve to potentially create more victims of a different kind using a scatter gun to vent vengeance which may or may not hit the intended target

 

[Kurve]

Which itself is also untested suspicion and hearsay. You don't think the church is free of politics and disputes do you? Again suspicion

Not in this case, no.

 

[leon123]

The Catholic church have altruistic ideals.

And you have a clue that's why it's seen court? oh no, that's right, your clue is rumour and innuendo not having seen court but you most surely know. My point exactly. This behaviour convicts people on nothing

I'm not insensitive to anyone who has suffered trauma as a victim......nor behaviour of church who does have to answer accusations and did I understand in paying millions of victims after the royal commission recommendations were released. Doesn't fix the trauma. Nothing will not even accusing people on the back of rumour and innuendo. The truth won't necessarily remove the stain for victims but vigilante justice will only serve to potentially create more victims of a different kind using a scatter gun to vent vengeance which may or may not hit the intended target

One of my happiest days as a child was when my dog (big tough dog as well) attacked Pell, happy memories. The said dog, lived a long life, always gentle to others and people,.

 

[faible]

I'm not insensitive to anyone who has suffered trauma as a victim......nor behaviour of church who does have to answer accusations and did I understand in paying millions of victims after the royal commission recommendations were released.

So the Church paid compensation after the Royal Commission?

Hardly altruistic.

Any other organisation with their history of covering up sex offenders would have been shut down by now.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Not in this case, no.

So he was trying to sound the alarm but never quite could ring the bell OR no one listened because???

So seemingly all we need is a consensus of red neck opinions and he's guilty. Anyone ever thought of criminal charges and court? I mean that's why they exist. LE obviously did that's why they advertised to attempt to get some too close accuse him

 

[faible]

So seemingly all we need is a consensus of red neck opinions

Well. That’s certainly a way of referring to victims of sexual abuse.