Religion Pell Guilty!

[FredLeDeux]

Look I accept it may have been taken down temporarily for updating but when I looked, it wasn’t there. And it certainly hasn’t been given anything close to the prominence that less favourable reports on the subject have.

And this is consistent too.

EDIT: As at 6.04am 21 stories listed on the App. No mention of Pell.

Yes, dropped off the bottom of the App list today, in the normal way for a news site; still on the website, but dropping down there as well.
They are news sites, that's what happens.
The fact remains that the news reports were there all day yesterday on both the site and the app.

Just as a matter of interest, what happens to your multiple conspiracy theories if the C/A upholds the appeal, in whole or in part?

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Yes, dropped off the bottom of the App list today, in the normal way for a news site; still on the website, but dropping down there as well.
They are news sites, that's what happens.
The fact remains that the news reports were there all day yesterday on both the site and the app.

Just as a matter of interest, what happens to your multiple conspiracy theories if the C/A upholds the appeal, in whole or in part?

Nothing happens. The facts remain what they are. The media, especially the ABC, have engaged in a disgracefully biased character assassination of George Pell right throughout. The police decided to mount an investigation into Pell before there was a complainant.

It's utterly disgraceful not least because it serves to cast doubt on legitimate victims/survivors.

 

[Gough]

I always find the theory that one of the most powerful men in the world is victim of a giant conspiracy a little difficult to swallow.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Since when does unlikely = impossible?

Do you understand that the arguments that I made a couple of months ago THAT YOU AND OTHERS RIDICULED ME FOR were precisely the same arguments made by one of the best appellate barristers in the country on Wednesday?

Did you notice the CoA judges weren't laughing?

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

I always find the theory that one of the most powerful men in the world is victim of a giant conspiracy a little difficult to swallow.

Can you then explain the series of coincidences whereby the police commenced Operation Tethering without a complainant then miraculously a couple of activist journos had the inside running on the goss right up to the point that one was able to release a book about the whole thing just a couple of months before charges were laid?

 

[Happy Mastenator]

I always find the theory that one of the most powerful men in the world is victim of a giant conspiracy a little difficult to swallow.

Well when that man has has decades of those with the power to do something about it looking the other way, it feels like a conspiracy when someone actually doesn’t look the other way...

 

[its free real estate]

I always find the theory that one of the most powerful men in the world is victim of a giant conspiracy a little difficult to swallow.

Not a JFK truther then?

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

I must have missed the part where the best appellate barrister in the country argued Pell didn't do it because BruceFromBalnarring knows he didn't.

You're really struggling aren't you.

 

[skipper kelly]

Which is why the appeal should fail.

All of the exculpatory evidence is far too general IMO.

I don't find the argument about ritual behaviour convincing either. Was there any witness that saw or spoke to Pell directly after the mass?

 

[RegHickeyStand]

Nothing happens. The facts remain what they are. The media, especially the ABC, have engaged in a disgracefully biased character assassination of George Pell right throughout. The police decided to mount an investigation into Pell before there was a complainant.

It's utterly disgraceful not least because it serves to cast doubt on legitimate victims/survivors.

The person who did the most damage to his name was Pell himself. Either that, or all the people who have previously spoken about him in such a negative light are lying. Highly improbable. Everyone from Risdale's nephew, to this gentleman:

"I immediately thought this is not right, there is something amiss here," he told the ABC. "[It was a] very strange situation for an adult to be full-frontal to three young boys."
Mr Tyack said he told the boys, aged eight to 10, to leave the change room before telling Cardinal Pell "I know what you're up to. Piss off. Get out of here" and threatening to call the police if he saw him at the club again.
https://www.theage.com.au/national/...-concerns-four-years-ago-20160728-gqfnru.html

And then there was Pell's digraceful testimony at the Royal Commision. No-one can believe after reading it he wasn't part of the Catholic church cover-up, and still going along with the charade. Despite other senior priests owning up to their part.

 

[skipper kelly]

I don't find any of the defendants arguments convincing.
IMO they have fallen a long way short of establishing that the jury's verdict is unreasonable.

That's how I see it.

 

[skilts]

Can you prove conclusively, without question, that you COULDN'T POSSIBLY have r*ped boys in the period 1996 to 1997?

Certainly. We eunuchs are unsullied in such matters. BigFooty is to blame for this condition.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

I don't find the argument about ritual behaviour convincing either. Was there any witness that saw or spoke to Pell directly after the mass?

You can't exactly fix on an alibi if the prosecution can't fix on a date. Portelli said that on all occasions leading up to Christmas 1996 he was with Pell on the steps of the Cathedral after Mass for at least 10 minutes. Then accompanied him back to the sacristy.

 

[skipper kelly]

I wonder if Pell will go to the HC if he fails?

Probably will exhaust all avenues. I can't see it finishing anytime soon.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

If you know Pell didn't do it, as you continue to claim, why weren't you called as a witness in the trial?
You could have cleared it all up.

They got Bret Walker to do it instead. He's far more articulate than I.

But as I have said, he made the same points.

 

[skipper kelly]

You can't exactly fix on an alibi if the prosecution can't fix on a date. Portelli said that on all occasions leading up to Christmas 1996 he was with Pell on the steps of the Cathedral after Mass for at least 10 minutes. Then accompanied him back to the sacristy.

I thought Portellis evidence/ the defense argument was that Portelli was usually with him. Surely someone remembers talking to Pell directly after the mass. He was an up and coming rock star in the catholic church.

 

[FredLeDeux]

I thought Portellis evidence/ the defense argument was that Portelli was usually with him. Surely someone remembers talking to Pell directly after the mass. He was an up and coming rock start in the catholic church.

The prosecution yesterday characterised the steps in Portelli's evidence as 1. he would normally have been with him, then 2. he was with him, then 3. he would normally have been with him, and adduced support for that characterisation from evidence ha gave in the examination in chief, the cross examination and the re-examination.
One of the amusing parts of the day was Boyce's avoiding several attempts from the bench to get him to say whether he thought Portelli was deluded, or lying, or merely gilding the lily to help Pell.

 

[skipper kelly]

You can't exactly fix on an alibi if the prosecution can't fix on a date. Portelli said that on all occasions leading up to Christmas 1996 he was with Pell on the steps of the Cathedral after Mass for at least 10 minutes. Then accompanied him back to the sacristy.

Also Bruce, I find it highly improbable that no-one would remember talking to Pell on the steps of the Cathedral.

 

[skipper kelly]

The prosecution yesterday characterised the steps in Portelli's evidence as 1. he would normally have been with him, then 2. he was with him, then 3. he would normally have been with him, and adduced support for that characterisation from evidence ha gave in the examination in chief, the cross examination and the re-examination.
One of the amusing parts of the day was Boyce's avoiding several attempts from the bench to get him to say whether he thought Portelli was deluded, or lying, or merely gilding the lily to help Pell.

Yeah, that last part was weird. What would be the ramifications if Boyce had said he thought Portelli was lying?

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

I always find the theory that one of the most powerful men in the world is victim of a giant conspiracy a little difficult to swallow.

Not a giant conspiracy, just accusation of one man against one who due to his unforgivable non action in similar matters, could be considered to be a prime candidate for possible vendetta (not saying it was). Not that hard to believe is it?

 

[Chief]

Much earlier in this thread, I made a pretty comprehensive list of unlikely circumstances that all had to occur simultaneously for this offence to have occurred. So you’re not still waiting. I articulated why I believe it to have been impossible.

If you want to see a more articulate version of exactly that, try watching the first day of the Appeal.

Do you know when the biggest disasters happen?

When a strong of unlikely events coincide.

Unlikely is still possible.

 

[skipper kelly]

Not sure they have anywhere else to go if they can't establish that the jury's verdict was unreasonable.
They've done a terrible job so far.
Highly improbable that Richter at trial was less effective than the new guy.

Yeah, nothing has changed other than those who will make the decision. That's why none of this is breaking news for the general public. The decision will be breaking news.

 

[Frank Bunn]

Do you know when the biggest disasters happen?

When a strong of unlikely events coincide.

Unlikely is still possible.

That's all true. But showing that something is possible is not the same as proving that it is likely to have occured. The onus is on the prosecution to prove that the events occured not that they possibly could have.

 

[FredLeDeux]

Yeah, that last part was weird. What would be the ramifications if Boyce had said he thought Portelli was lying?

It was just a bit of judicial humour.
They and Boyce both knew there was no chance he was going to accuse a Monsignor of lying, in open court, without any extra evidence.

 

[skipper kelly]

It was just a bit of judicial humour.
They and Boyce both knew there was no chance he was going to accuse a Monsignor of lying, in open court, without any extra evidence.

Cheers.