Religion Pell Guilty!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Strange Cat

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 26, 2017
12,969
20,307
AFL Club
Geelong
I was part of the mob and a teenager. I studied the case at Uni though and it is held up as an example of what should never be allowed to happen. There was never the evidence for a conviction.
I’m still struggling to understand how her case is related to Pell’s conviction? Unless you are saying that the courts gets it wrong every single time?

She was found not guilty once the evidence was contested and new evidence found, but at the time the evidence stood up.

Pell had his appeal and failed, the process is sound and he is still a convicted child rapist.

Your attempt to somehow link the two cases is beyond laughable.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Crankyhawk

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 21, 2007
13,983
9,098
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
I’m still struggling to understand how her case is related to Pell’s conviction? Unless you are saying that the courts gets it wrong every single time?

She was found not guilty once the evidence was contested and new evidence found, but at the time the evidence stood up.

Pell had his appeal and failed, the process is sound and he is still a convicted child rapist.

Your attempt to somehow link the two cases is beyond laughable.
I think he is saying courts can get it wrong; and that what he did at uni (not sure what course) found that the original lindy evidence should have been insufficient; I do not know if that is just an individual opinion from that particular lecturer or a widespread view by today’s legal system.
The other factor in that analysis reducing its relevance is we aren’t able to see what the legal system at the time would have seen the original lindy evidence as sufficient.

Bottom line is Bruce appears to believe because court got it wrong there he can argue they get it wrong whenever it suits him.
 

Strange Cat

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 26, 2017
12,969
20,307
AFL Club
Geelong
I think he is saying courts can get it wrong; and that what he did at uni (not sure what course) found that the original lindy evidence should have been insufficient; I do not know if that is just an individual opinion from that particular lecturer or a widespread view by today’s legal system.
The other factor in that analysis reducing its relevance is we aren’t able to see what the legal system at the time would have seen the original lindy evidence as sufficient.

Bottom line is Bruce appears to believe because court got it wrong there he can argue they get it wrong whenever it suits him.
So selective examples that’s irrelevant to a case in which he doesn’t have full access to the evidence at hand, nor has the appropriate experience to make a sound unbiased opinion .

Grasping at straws imo
 

BruceFromBalnarring

Norm Smith Medallist
Jan 13, 2007
6,652
8,210
Melbourne
AFL Club
Sydney
I think he is saying courts can get it wrong; and that what he did at uni (not sure what course) found that the original lindy evidence should have been insufficient; I do not know if that is just an individual opinion from that particular lecturer or a widespread view by today’s legal system.
The other factor in that analysis reducing its relevance is we aren’t able to see what the legal system at the time would have seen the original lindy evidence as sufficient.

Bottom line is Bruce appears to believe because court got it wrong there he can argue they get it wrong whenever it suits him.
You just need to hit the up arrow on the quotes. I was asked whether the RC findings should be released.
 

JeanLucGoddard

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 21, 2018
8,764
20,416
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Are you aware that part of the reason child sexual abuse was allowed to fester is that people weren’t prepared to confront the mob?
No, it was allowed to fester because people like you made endless excuses for those committing it, like you have on this thread.
 

Craven Morehead

I really don't care what you think.
Suspended
Jan 2, 2019
3,762
4,704
AFL Club
Gold Coast
Please stop abusing poor Bruce as he's obviously the victim here and deserves sound, reasoned, rational and respectful discourse in response to his well-constructed, plausible, tasteful and logical comments on the issue.

Said no-one ever.
F*** you Bruce.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

JeanLucGoddard

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 21, 2018
8,764
20,416
AFL Club
North Melbourne
“Endless excuses”. I’m just after one single example.
Bruce, are you familiar with the Chris Rock skit about the difference between an En Eye Gee Gee Ay and a black man.

N-person: "I'm ain't never been to jail!"

Chris Rock: "You ain't meant to go to jail!"

You're not MEANT to excuse the commissioning of child abuse! NOT DOING it is not something to be proud of.

The reality is you've spent this entire thread claiming a man now doing six years for child abuse didn't do it. Weaving conspiracies, blaming the victims, asserting the judges knew their decision was wrong but made it anyway.

 

BruceFromBalnarring

Norm Smith Medallist
Jan 13, 2007
6,652
8,210
Melbourne
AFL Club
Sydney
Bruce, are you familiar with the Chris Rock skit about the difference between an En Eye Gee Gee Ay and a black man.

N-person: "I'm ain't never been to jail!"

Chris Rock: "You ain't meant to go to jail!"

You're not MEANT to excuse the commissioning of child abuse! NOT DOING it is not something to be proud of.

The reality is you've spent this entire thread claiming a man now doing six years for child abuse didn't do it. Weaving conspiracies, blaming the victims, asserting the judges knew their decision was wrong but made it anyway.

None of that is excusing child abuse.

Argue with what I write. Don’t make up shit that I’ve said then argue with that and award yourself some sort of moral victory.

I asked before. Where did the altar servers go. Where did the sacristan go? Where did the assistant priests go?

That was the EVIDENCE. Unrebutted evidence. They were all in the sacristy in the period immediately after Mass. you don’t get to ignore evidence. You can rebut it. You can reject it (but only with reason). But you can’t ignore it.

The 2 judges elected to reject it. Their reasons for doing so were flimsy. “Witness of truth” is not a basis for rejecting unchallenged evidence. You have to, by law, prove beyond reasonable doubt that the evidence led was false.

The prosecution didn’t. They simply danced around it by saying it was possible it was false.

That is not enough, by law, to convict a man. And that’s why the judges are wrong.
 

JeanLucGoddard

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 21, 2018
8,764
20,416
AFL Club
North Melbourne
None of that is excusing child abuse.

Argue with what I write. Don’t make up s**t that I’ve said then argue with that and award yourself some sort of moral victory.

I asked before. Where did the altar servers go. Where did the sacristan go? Where did the assistant priests go?

That was the EVIDENCE. Unrebutted evidence. They were all in the sacristy in the period immediately after Mass. you don’t get to ignore evidence. You can rebut it. You can reject it (but only with reason). But you can’t ignore it.

The 2 judges elected to reject it. Their reasons for doing so were flimsy. “Witness of truth” is not a basis for rejecting unchallenged evidence. You have to, by law, prove beyond reasonable doubt that the evidence led was false.

The prosecution didn’t. They simply danced around it by saying it was possible it was false.

That is not enough, by law, to convict a man. And that’s why the judges are wrong.
The same sacristan who told the court it was "impossible" to move the robes? Which was patently untrue.

Frankly, I don't believe him if he says it was "impossible" for Pell to have been alone there,given we know what his "impossible" means.
 

Number37

24.96
Oct 5, 2013
14,158
14,243
AFL Club
Sydney
Once again, yet again, you are horribly out of your depth on the subject.

It's not 1st year legal studies.

Try this.........Google Presumption of innocence, alibi evidence, alternative possibilities. It's a bit more reading than you've done but you'll learn something.

Alternatively, there's a pretty good explainer in Weinberg's Judgement.

I'll take that as confirmation that your claim that reasonable doubt has been turned on its head as another of your baseless claims.

I'm still trying to work out if that is the most ridiculous claim you've made in this thread. There is a long list of your ridiculous claims.



That there is a dissenting decision to you seems to indicate that Pell was wronged. Worse than that you dismiss the majority decision as if it is nothing. Worse than that you claim that the majority decision is a result of the the Chief of the Supreme Court and another judge putting it in the too hard basket.


You are merely parroting the same unsubstantiated drivel that we hear from DHs like Andrew Bolt.
It is disgraceful that you would attempt to trash the entire justice system just because you don't like the verdict.
The one glaring omission from all your unsubstantiated drivel is an explanation as to how Pell was found guilty by a jury, now confirmed on appeal, when you keep claiming he is so obviously innocent. The best legal representation that money can buy couldn't convince a jury or the CofA that Pell is so obviously innocent. F me, you are delusional.
 
Last edited:

Strange Cat

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 26, 2017
12,969
20,307
AFL Club
Geelong
The same sacristan who told the court it was "impossible" to move the robes? Which was patently untrue.

Frankly, I don't believe him if he says it was "impossible" for Pell to have been alone there,given we know what his "impossible" means.
Bruce said it was impossible a few times too

But he’s not dismissing the evidence remeber , just presenting his theory as to why Pell is innoncent despite the evidence contradicting him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top Bottom