- Sep 26, 2017
- 26,703
- 43,984
- AFL Club
- Geelong
You can only hopeComensoli will live to regret this for the rest of his sad, pathetic closeted life
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You can only hopeComensoli will live to regret this for the rest of his sad, pathetic closeted life
The mistaken identity argument is the biggest crock of s**t.
Victims don’t make a mistake on who abused them, especially when it’s someone they’ve known
So you think they purposely accused Pell even though they knew it wasn’t him?I don't think that's a mistake. I think that bit was calculated.
I highly doubt it unfortunately. He's just as bad as the rest of them, and knew what he was saying.Comensoli will live to regret this for the rest of his sad, pathetic closeted life
So you think they purposely accused Pell even though they knew it wasn’t him?
Narrator: he didn’t.Comensoli will live to regret this for the rest of his sad, pathetic closeted life
Lol, so you have a better understanding than the esteemed judges.They had to, at the absolute very least, dismiss the second charge. There was no evidence led that could possibly sustain the second charge.
The complainant insisted in evidence it occurred before Christmas. The objective evidence was that it couldn't have.
There is absolutely no justification whatsoever for the Appeal Court not to have acquitted on that second charge. None.
He definitely knew what he was saying, but it will stay with him like the Fisher “dwelling crankily on old wounds” and the Hart “Go to hell bitch”I highly doubt it unfortunately. He's just as bad as the rest of them, and knew what he was saying.
Yet you have no evidence of this.I don't think that's a mistake. I think that bit was calculated.
I'll argue reason, logic and law. I'll leave the other stuff to you.
I haven't read Weinberg yet but the Judgement of Ferguson and Maxwell can, viewing it in its most favourable terms, only be described as "High Court, you do it, because we haven't got the courage."
Yet you have no evidence of this.
You are the lowest form of society when you call a brave witness who was sexually abused a liar, when they were thoroughly cross-examined... yet you protect a proven paedophile Pell, who was too gutless to be cross-examined.
The high court won’t touch this case
Well given your track record of predictions in this thread I guess that means it’s all overThe High Court won't have a choice. The SCA have turned Reasonable Doubt on its head. Leaving aside the various opinions on Pell, the decision can't be allowed to stand as precedent.
Well given your track record of predictions in this thread I guess that means it’s all over
The High Court won't have a choice. The SCA have turned Reasonable Doubt on its head. Leaving aside the various opinions on Pell, the decision can't be allowed to stand as precedent.
The High Court won't have a choice. The SCA have turned Reasonable Doubt on its head. Leaving aside the various opinions on Pell, the decision can't be allowed to stand as precedent.
Well given your track record of predictions in this thread I guess that means it’s all over
The High Court won't have a choice. The SCA have turned Reasonable Doubt on its head. Leaving aside the various opinions on Pell, the decision can't be allowed to stand as precedent.
Didn't you say the Appeals won't have a choice and the decision will be overturned?The High Court won't have a choice. The SCA have turned Reasonable Doubt on its head. Leaving aside the various opinions on Pell, the decision can't be allowed to stand as precedent.
Didn't you say the Appeals won't have a choice and the decision will be overturned?
So your record/knowledge on this isn't at 100% since we have gone through a few stages and each time you are proven wrong.Yeap. I did.
He should see that being a lone voice usually means you are the one who is incorrect.