Religion Pell Guilty!

[western royboy]

Pell has said many times that child sexual abuse is an abhorrent crime. Cherry picking a quote, absent the question to which he was responding, is fatuous. But it's par for the course when it comes to the developing narrative surround him.

As to Royal Commission findings.

If they are in relation to offences he is alleged to have committed, they should absolutely not be released prior to the conclusion of this process. I shouldn't have to explain why.

If they are in relation to his alleged actions surrounding his response to abuse committed by others, they should be released. There can be no further trial of Pell, even if the HCA referred it back for retrial (and that depends on the Appeal grounds etc). It has gone way beyond the chance of a fair trial. It had already gone way beyond that.

There was no inkling of this happening when the RC was on this it is highly unlikely that anything needs to remain redacted. I contacted my local member of parliament today asking him to petition Porter to release the document as it has implications for me in a civil matter

 

[Cooldude]

If there was any faults or shortcuts taken in the trial the appeal would had been successful

The fact that you think you are more knowledgeable than the judges and QC lawyers involved in this case is very very laughable

If he is as all knowing and all seeing as he claims to be, he would either be the one in court defending Pell, or a witness giving evidence in favour of Pell

He is neither, so he is just another delusional armchair expert hiding behind his keyboard on the internet. Except he spends that time defending a convicted pedo 24/7

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

No they didn't.

Yes they did!

Which part of Pell being found guilty of being a paedophile & upheld on appeal don't you understand?

 

[Corpuscles]

Pell has said many times that child sexual abuse is an abhorrent crime. ...

Bruce

I am curious as to why you a have been so enormously active, a passionate , emotionally involved and repetitively expressing your opinion of innocence or suspicion of Pell's guilt on BF?

I wonder if you could honestly address such question ? truly curious

( Note I do not expect ANY detail disclosure of your stated obvious life long association with the Catholic Church. At times at the very least a volunteer capacity, or your obvious legal training with some connection to the original trial)

Nor, do I need a repeat of you grounds for doubt. I wasn't anywhere near BF when this thread ran to hundreds of pages , but curiously I read a lot of it belatedly)

I mean why the propaganda? Do you think you will get brownie points in the hereafter for such gallant defence in defiance of the Australia Law and Legal procedure of your country?
Are you hoping for some case for miss trial? Although isn't it now too late for that?

WHY?

As to the bit I quoted from your post what else could Pell say? Sane or Insane, Guilty or not?

Cheers

 

[Strange Cat]

If he is as all knowing and all seeing as he claims to be, he would either be the one in court defending Pell, or a witness giving evidence in favour of Pell

He is neither, so he is just another delusional armchair expert hiding behind his keyboard on the internet. Except he spends that time defending a convicted pedo 24/7

It bizarre that Bruce can make these sorts of claims considering he has no previous law experience, nor any involvement in this case and has not seen or heard the full trial of evidence .

Even more bizarre that the collective legal experience in the trial between the judges and QC lawyers would be pressing nearly 100 years and yet somehow Bruce can see the flaw in the trail

But the real head scratcher is that he can make the claims that the witness is confused and a liar despite being cross examined by one of the best QC defence lawyer in the country for nearly 3 straight days and couldn’t expose any “lies” in his story.

Delusion of grandeur

 

[HairyO]

The high court very much have a choice & there needs to be solid new grounds to be heard.

The 2 decisions so far have been sound in law.

Your knowledge of the law being stronger than an Appeals Court judge ?

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Your knowledge of the law being stronger than an Appeals Court judge ?

What makes you jump to that conclusion?

 

[HairyO]

What makes you jump to that conclusion?

"The 2 decisions so far have been sound in law".

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

"The 2 decisions so far have been sound in law".

What makes you think they weren't?

 

[HairyO]

What makes you think they weren't?

The dissenting opinion is always the interesting one.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

The dissenting opinion is always the interesting one.

So you think 3 out of 4 judges are unsound?

 

[AM]

You asked me a question. I gave you 2 reasonable answers. You respond, again, with abuse. Don't ask questions if you don't want answers.

Stern words, guilty. Abuse, nah.

The problem is you do not answer the questions asked, Bruce. That can be frustrating. But defending the indefensible is not easy so you absolution my son. That's humour in case that falls into your definition of abuse.

 

[AM]

Marr has been ridiculously wrong lately with legal predictions no one with any sense will believe him.

Unfortunately their is a clear appeal to the HC, they will hear it and there is a chance he will get off. Hopefully it takes a while for them to sit

Yeah! He's a lefty so that must be so.

Pell may not be granted the right appeal. Getting the HC to hear his case is a way off.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Once again he clearly distinguished between the significance of the two matters. Waffling on about Pell attempting to calm the waters - as he clearly would in his and the churches interests - doesn't change that fact. Nor does you massaging information as you do so often and have once again in this instance.

The main reason for withholding the details of those matters - child abuse RC - is so juries won't be influenced. There is no way the HC will face such an issue. That said, I understand why you don't want the matters relating to Pell in the public arena as any criticism of him would further damage your blind faith in him.

If there is a high court case to be heard it is probably (in my untrained opinion) to maintain the redaction until after the case. If no case release the full findings of the RC

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Bruce

I am curious as to why you a have been so enormously active, a passionate , emotionally involved and repetitively expressing your opinion of innocence or suspicion of Pell's guilt on BF?

I wonder if you could honestly address such question ? truly curious

( Note I do not expect ANY detail disclosure of your stated obvious life long association with the Catholic Church. At times at the very least a volunteer capacity, or your obvious legal training with some connection to the original trial)

Nor, do I need a repeat of you grounds for doubt. I wasn't anywhere near BF when this thread ran to hundreds of pages , but curiously I read a lot of it belatedly)

I mean why the propaganda? Do you think you will get brownie points in the hereafter for such gallant defence in defiance of the Australia Law and Legal procedure of your country?
Are you hoping for some case for miss trial? Although isn't it now too late for that?

WHY?

As to the bit I quoted from your post what else could Pell say? Sane or Insane, Guilty or not?

Cheers

If this is a genuine question perhaps if you couch it in less insulting terms I’ll give you an answer.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

If there is a high court case to be heard it is probably (in my untrained opinion) to maintain the redaction until after the case. If no case release the full findings of the RC

No. That’s a ministerial decision and you’d need to establish a pressing (in context) purpose. Thirst for blood doesn’t cut it.

 

[Crankyhawk]

No. That’s a ministerial decision and you’d need to establish a pressing (in context) purpose. Thirst for blood doesn’t cut it.

I thought (and willing to be corrected) that the reason for redaction was due to this and the Ballarat court case.

Plus we all know ministers decide things for political expediency...

 

[Strange Cat]

If this is a genuine question perhaps if you couch it in less insulting terms I’ll give you an answer.

You don’t answer anything

Just another keyboard w***er

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

You don’t answer anything

Just another keyboard w***er

False.

And from you who has offered the discussion nothing more than abuse.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

I thought (and willing to be corrected) that the reason for redaction was due to this and the Ballarat court case.

Plus we all know ministers decide things for political expediency...

This case is not finalised.

 

[Strange Cat]

False.

And from you who has offered the discussion nothing more than abuse.

Because that’s all you deserve when you don’t answer any questions that myself and many others have put to you

 

[Corpuscles]

If this is a genuine question perhaps if you couch it in less insulting terms I’ll give you an answer.

Yes. I am genuinely curious.
Just strike out whatever it is you find offensive and then perhaps post that first as an introduction , so I know which part you do not wish to respond too?

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Yes. I am genuinely curious.
Just strike out whatever it is you find offensive and then perhaps post that first as an introduction , so I know which part you do not wish to respond too?

I’ll give you one short reason.

The more abuse I receive the more motivated I am to express my genuinely held beliefs. I hate mobs.

 

[Crankyhawk]

This case is not finalised.

Yes and I did note that; in that I would maintain redaction until high court proceedings are completed.

 

[Cooldude]

I’ll give you one short reason.

The more abuse I receive the more motivated I am to express my genuinely held beliefs. I hate mobs.

Ha, told ya all

Nah it's the complete opposite, being the lone voice reinforces how he is the only special one who can see the truth and how the mob is persecuting him for being the only enlightened one

He is just an arrogant narcissist with a massive narcissistic persecution complex, that kind of self centred egotists can always be found affiliated with religious orgnaisations, they love the idea of speaking for god aka being god. It feeds their god complex and their ego just right. Pell is another classic example