Religion Pell Guilty!

[sideswipe]

https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwi05I37xI3hAhVTcCsKHVz4AuAQzPwBegQIARAC&url=https://www.smh.com.au/national/history-will-judge-george-pell-the-cardinal-who-sought-to-crush-me-20190227-p510ma.html&psig=AOvVaw1NaAPvEWOA5mYBiqAwNra8&ust=1553062006814385 Read this then go and have a spell for a bit

Just before my spell, consider this, any legal defence by the Church would have included the involvement of the insurers, CCI. One of their requirements would likely have been that in order to cover the insured, they would require the matters to be strenuously defended - I recall that the Vic Parliamentary Inquiry may have examined this? It all sounds bloody minded, but that is it. So to say Pell was running a defence is a bit of a stretch. That was my point.

I do sincerely wish you every success - hope you get plenty.

 

[western royboy]

Just before my spell, consider this, any legal defence by the Church would have included the involvement of the insurers, CCI. One of their requirements would likely have been that in order to cover the insured, they would require the matters to be strenuously defended - I recall that the Vic Parliamentary Inquiry may have examined this? It all sounds bloody minded, but that is it. So to say Pell was running a defence is a bit of a stretch. That was my point.

I do sincerely wish you every success - hope you get plenty.

In some cases - yes CCI was involved, but I think you are too quick to dismiss the involvement of “George” in the Ellis Case and the underlying principle that MR and Towards Healing were largely about minimising the payments to victims. If the piece by John Ellis doesn’t give you some reality - nothing will. The vast majority of people who signed up to these programs did so without options and in many cases without legal advice - the sell was “you don’t need a lawyer - we can do this without them and Igbo you go down that track we’ll destroy you.” Really compassionate approach to kids abused within them church ‘eh?
The bottom line is this - there’s no amount of money in the world that can resolve the situation - yet that’s all they can offer and what they are offering is a pittance and they draw it all out in an attempt to break you - so * them - I’m prepared to get screwed in Court to see the scum squirm and then they might metaphorically find out what it’s like

 

[AM]

Possibly Brucie- wucie will now put that had his chum Pelly taken the stand he also knows he would have gotten away with it been found not guilty on the 5 counts.

HOLDING PATTERN

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Possibly Brucie- wucie will now put that had his chum Pelly taken the stand he also knows he would have gotten away with it been found not guilty on the 5 counts.

HOLDING PATTERN

I'm not even really sure what this means.

I don't think a great deal turned on whether Pell did or did not give evidence.

There's not a lot to be gained, and a helluva lot to lose, by putting a Defendant in the box in historical matters. They can't give positive evidence as to any kind of alibi. They can only get tied up in knots under cross examination.

I don't think a denial from the witness box would have changed much. I know, however, that there is a lot of disagreement about this.

 

[AM]

I'm not even really sure what this means.

I don't think a great deal turned on whether Pell did or did not give evidence.

There's not a lot to be gained, and a helluva lot to lose, by putting a Defendant in the box in historical matters. They can't give positive evidence as to any kind of alibi. They can only get tied up in knots under cross examination.

I don't think a denial from the witness box would have changed much. I know, however, that there is a lot of disagreement about this.

One of your more sensible comments. Less "I know" and more of this would have got you into far less trouble.

On another note, I understand the flu has gone through the Remand Centre and your friend, who can do no wrong, has succumbed and is in hospital.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

One of your more sensible comments. Less "I know" and more of this would have got you into far less trouble.

On another note, I understand the flu has gone through the Remand Centre and your friend, who can do no wrong, has succumbed and is in hospital.

One of your more condescending posts. In trouble from who? The mob? I couldn't be less troubled.

 

[AM]

One of your more condescending posts. In trouble from who? The mob? I couldn't be less troubled.

There you go again. Just as I thought you may have found the reasoning part of your noggin.

Accurate would have been more apt I would have thought, Bruce. Your continued "I know' folderol has got you into all sorts of trouble here. I rarely respond to your stuff because I find it risible.

Not sure who the "mob" is but should you be referring to the posters here who have torn your posts to shreds - then who's being condescending?

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

There you go again. Just as I thought you may have found the reasoning part of your noggin.

Accurate would have been more apt I would have thought, Bruce. Your continued "I know' folderol has got you into all sorts of trouble here. I rarely respond to your stuff because I find it risible.

Not sure who the "mob" is but should you be referring to the posters here who have torn your posts to shreds - then who's being condescending?

"You're wrong because the Jury said so" is not tearing an argument to shreds.

And that's the best anyone has been able to produce.

 

[AM]

"You're wrong because the Jury said so" is not tearing an argument to shreds.

And that's the best anyone has been able to produce.

Seeing it's now weeks, the chances of you ever getting past your closed mind are inconceivable. But let me once more point out the reality.

You, Bruce, are asking us to believe that despite having no firsthand knowledge of the matter - ie you weren't present. Nor were you present during the long trial, you know Pell is innocent. You expect people to believe you are better placed to know than a jury that heard all the evidence, including the 4 days of cross examination by - many believe - the best silk in the land. And who visited the sacristy and examined the garments in question.

I might add Melissa Davey, the chief of Guardian Australia's Melbourne bureau, who heard all the evidence, apart from the 4 days cross examination of the primary witness during which the court was closed, also came to the same conclusion as the jury.

Added to which, my impression from Justice Kidd's sentencing is he too considers the jury got it right.

But Bruce from Balnarring knows better.

Jury's don't always get it right, but their record is good. Appeals fail most of the time.

The system is working with Pell getting to appeal. My guess is, if the verdict is upheld, you'll still claim Bruce from Balnarring knows better.

You probably still believe in the infallibility of Il Papa. Or has that been transferred to you by delegation!!!!!!

 

[Frank Bunn]

I might add Melissa Davey, the chief of Guardian Australia's Melbourne bureau, who heard all the evidence, apart from the 4 days cross examination of the primary witness during which the court was closed, also came to the same conclusion as the jury.

The crucial part you would think.

Added to which, my impression from Justice Kidd's sentencing is he too considers the jury got it right.

I don't think you can draw that conclusion.

Jury's don't always get it right, but their record is good. Appeals fail most of the time.

About 50/50 ratio in Victoria I believe. Less for sentencing appeals.

 

[AM]

The crucial part you would think.

Waaaay more than Bruce, I "would think". And the jury, which Bruce claims to know better than, did hear it all.

I don't think you can draw that conclusion.

I did say it was my impression. And I'll add it's almost a universal impression among those I know. Who are quite well versed in these matters.

About 50/50 ratio in Victoria I believe. Less for sentencing appeals.

Waaaay less in sentencing. Which is what we are addressing.

My point is that Bruce, who has no knowledge of the primary matters, claims to know Pell is not guilty.

 

[gordo2016]

I'm not even really sure what this means.

I don't think a great deal turned on whether Pell did or did not give evidence.

There's not a lot to be gained, and a helluva lot to lose, by putting a Defendant in the box in historical matters. They can't give positive evidence as to any kind of alibi. They can only get tied up in knots under cross examination.

I don't think a denial from the witness box would have changed much. I know, however, that there is a lot of disagreement about this.

There is a lot to be gained by putting the defendant in the box. If they have nothing to hide and tell the truth, they have everything to gain. The worst enemy for a liar like Pell is someone with a good memory (the principal witness).
You would really have to be a complete deadshit to believe anything that came out of Pell's mouth. The appeal is a waste of time, it is doomed. It will be thrown out quicker than what it took for the freak to get his utensil out of his robes.

 

[Richard Pryor]

It looks like Pell has little to worry about regarding his position in the Catholic Church going off this story about another Cardinal involved in a child molestation case:
https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com...rdinal-convicted-of-ignoring-child-sex-abuse/

It should’ve been easy for the Catholic Church to rid itself of French Cardinal Philippe Barbarin. Earlier this month, he announced he would resign from the Church after a secular court found him guilty of not reporting a pedophile priest who had sexually abused minors.

But Pope Francis said yesterday that he would not accept the resignation.

#rottentothecore

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Seeing it's now weeks, the chances of you ever getting past your closed mind are inconceivable. But let me once more point out the reality.

You, Bruce, are asking us to believe that despite having no firsthand knowledge of the matter - ie you weren't present. Nor were you present during the long trial, you know Pell is innocent. You expect people to believe you are better placed to know than a jury that heard all the evidence, including the 4 days of cross examination by - many believe - the best silk in the land. And who visited the sacristy and examined the garments in question.

I might add Melissa Davey, the chief of Guardian Australia's Melbourne bureau, who heard all the evidence, apart from the 4 days cross examination of the primary witness during which the court was closed, also came to the same conclusion as the jury.

Added to which, my impression from Justice Kidd's sentencing is he too considers the jury got it right.

But Bruce from Balnarring knows better.

Jury's don't always get it right, but their record is good. Appeals fail most of the time.

The system is working with Pell getting to appeal. My guess is, if the verdict is upheld, you'll still claim Bruce from Balnarring knows better.

You probably still believe in the infallibility of Il Papa. Or has that been transferred to you by delegation!!!!!!

Can you get me a journo that isn't a Catholic hating Bolshie from Pravda? Seriously.

I went to some lengths to explain just why I think it was impossible for Pell to have committed the offense.

I have never believed in the infallibility of the Pope. In particular I believe the current Pope is entirely fallible. For the sake of the world I hope he doesn't last long.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Waaaay less in sentencing. Which is what we are addressing.

My point is that Bruce, who has no knowledge of the primary matters, claims to know Pell is not guilty.

Hang about. You think the appeal is about the sentence?

 

[sideswipe]

Waaaay more than Bruce, I "would think". And the jury, which Bruce claims to know better than, did hear it all.



I did say it was my impression. And I'll add it's almost a universal impression among those I know. Who are quite well versed in these matters.



Waaaay less in sentencing. Which is what we are addressing.

My point is that Bruce, who has no knowledge of the primary matters, claims to know Pell is not guilty.

That bit about the sentence indicating the judge’s belief on guilt is nonsense. Judges take a guilty verdict as an instruction that the charges were proven. And sentence accordingly. Any suggestion that a judge’s belief in guilt/innocence will raise/lower a given sentence is an aspersion on their competence.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

That bit about the sentence indicating the judge’s belief on guilt is nonsense. Judges take a guilty verdict as an instruction that the charges were proven. And sentence accordingly. Any suggestion that a judge’s belief in guilt/innocence will raise/lower a given sentence is an aspersion on their competence.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Exactly. For Kidd to have acted in any other way would have invited all sorts of criticism. The televised sentencing though I thought was a bit much. If you want to be transparent, then set up a channel and show the lot. Otherwise it's just grandstanding.

 

[AM]

Can you get me a journo that isn't a Catholic hating Bolshie from Pravda? Seriously.

I went to some lengths to explain just why I think it was impossible for Pell to have committed the offense.

I have never believed in the infallibility of the Pope. In particular I believe the current Pope is entirely fallible. For the sake of the world I hope he doesn't last long.

Bolshie journo! Catholic hating! What a load of nonsense intended as a smokescreen.

We're all familiar with your narrative. We've read the same stuff - interminably. Of course you are perfectly entitled to put your opinion, viewpoint et al. Just as we readers are perfectly entitled to consider your stuff and conclude whether it has any merit or is complete hogwash.

What those who aren't indoctrinated are pointing out is the absurdity of someone who was not present when the assaults occurred, nor has heard the evidence saying he knows Pell is not guilty.

He's appealing his conviction.

That bit about the sentence indicating the judge’s belief on guilt is nonsense. Judges take a guilty verdict as an instruction that the charges were proven. And sentence accordingly. Any suggestion that a judge’s belief in guilt/innocence will raise/lower a given sentence is an aspersion on their competence.

Aspersion on Judge Kidd's competence. What arrant nonsense. As distinct from Bruce, who "knows" I was - as I wrote - giving an "impression".

Judge Kidd's summation was a master class. And his use of footnotes exemplary. Something the Judicial College has been encouraging for some time but which rarely occurs.

 

[western royboy]

They will repeat the lies about the judge and the jury so that when the CA throws out the appeal then it will give them an excuse to pretend that the only reason Pell is guilty is because the judge was a Bolshie Commie Catholic hating bla bla bla...

I believe mad Maddie Devine termed it “Hunting Catholics” - no one is hunting Catholics but we are actively hunting rapists, perverts and child abusers who wear dresses and are hidden and shifted by their cohorts to “protect the Church” and as long as they remain at large they’ll continue to be hunted down like mongrel dogs

 

[sideswipe]

Really? How so?

Ever heard of "instinctive synthesis"?

Don't judges consider culpability when sentencing?

One of the elements of instinctive synthesis isn’t whether the judge agrees with a jury which was suggested as being an “impression”.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Why would it invite criticism?

In determining a sentence a judge is duty bound to consider many things.
Isn't culpability just a fancy word for degree of guilt?

IF the Defendant is found guilty, which the judge must accept (but I don't have to) the judge must apply culpability as though the Defendant is guilty. And IF Pell is guilty, then of course it follows that all of the levels of culpability exist. There is very little mitigation although a "not guilty due to temporary insanity" might have carried weight. He'd have to have been insane to have attempted it.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

I believe mad Maddie Devine termed it “Hunting Catholics” - no one is hunting Catholics but we are actively hunting rapists, perverts and child abusers who wear dresses and are hidden and shifted by their cohorts to “protect the Church” and as long as they remain at large they’ll continue to be hunted down like mongrel dogs

No. We're not. And no, sadly, they won't.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Bolshie journo! Catholic hating! What a load of nonsense intended as a smokescreen.

We're all familiar with your narrative. We've read the same stuff - interminably. Of course you are perfectly entitled to put your opinion, viewpoint et al. Just as we readers are perfectly entitled to consider your stuff and conclude whether it has any merit or is complete hogwash.

What those who aren't indoctrinated are pointing out is the absurdity of someone who was not present when the assaults occurred, nor has heard the evidence saying he knows Pell is not guilty.

He's appealing his conviction.



Aspersion on Judge Kidd's competence. What arrant nonsense. As distinct from Bruce, who "knows" I was - as I wrote - giving an "impression".

Judge Kidd's summation was a master class. And his use of footnotes exemplary. Something the Judicial College has been encouraging for some time but which rarely occurs.

Were you the Uni Academic that was on the jury?

 

[sideswipe]

Why would that be a problem?

Put simply, it isn’t for the judge to have an opinion on the question of guilt. If you can’t see why that would be a problem then maybe think about the problem of a judge going light because he disagreed with a guilty verdict.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Ummm the judge wouldn't be sentencing unless the defendant was found guilty.
Judges get to decide how guilty through sentencing, don't they?

I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse...