Religion Pell Guilty!

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
BruceFromBalnarring said:
The complainant said he was offended against twice.

At Sunday am Mass.

Before Christmas.

A month apart.

In 1996.

It’s not in dispute that Pell said Mass only on the 15th and 22nd December in 1996.

Reasonable doubt. Right there.

That is the evidence.
Click to expand...

Bruce,

you have made hundreds of posts. You claim to have read the Supreme Court Judgment and were privy to original evidence.
You claim ("Falsehood after Falsehood" yada yada.) and yet:

All of that is more than adequately explained in such judgement.

Complainant originally indicated:
-the second half of the second part of the year. But originally thought it was 1997 until he was corrected as to which year he obtained scholarship and started year 7 at school.
- said it was "more than" a month apart
- did not know the dates
- The defence tried to raise the exact dates as an issue

It was established that the second date could be in Feb 1997

All judges (including Weinberg) indicated exact recall , of the exact actual dates, was not necessary for conviction.

Suggest you take off your Superman Cape or fancy vestments and calmly carefully read it ALL again

OH, and it was not established that someone accompanied Pell at all times ! Rather rather it was claimed it usually the case but none of the defence witnesses could discount times they were not certain he was accompanied.
( Potter even admitted to be a chain smoker hand had to disappear to the carpark for a f** often!)
 
BruceFromBalnarring said:
Cute answer. And not dissimilar in seriousness to the various “theories” proffered by the prosecutor. But there was no evidence, except from them saying that like always they went straight to the sacristy.

Unrebutted.

Reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...

BS.
 
Corpuscles said:
Bruce,

you have made hundreds of posts. You claim to have read the Supreme Court Judgment and were privy to original evidence.
You claim ("Falsehood after Falsehood" yada yada.) and yet:

All of that is more than adequately explained in such judgement.

Complainant originally indicated:
-the second half of the second part of the year. But originally thought it was 1997 until he was corrected as to which year he obtained scholarship and started year 7 at school.
- said it was "more than" a month apart
- did not know the dates
- The defence tried to raise the exact dates as an issue

It was established that the second date could be in Feb 1997

All judges (including Weinberg) indicated exact recall , of the exact actual dates, was not necessary for conviction.

Suggest you take off your Superman Cape or fancy vestments and calmly carefully read it ALL again

OH, and it was not established that someone accompanied Pell at all times ! Rather rather it was claimed it usually the case but none of the defence witnesses could discount times they were not certain he was accompanied.
( Potter even admitted to be a chain smoker hand had to disappear to the carpark for a f** often!)
Click to expand...
Your final line there just epitomises the dishonesty. He had a dart in the car park waiting for Pell to arrive.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

BruceFromBalnarring said:
Your final line there just epitomises the dishonesty. He had a dart in the car park waiting for Pell to arrive.
Click to expand...

You've once again ignored everything that doesn't agree with your theory and clung for dear life to the one vaguely possible semantic argument.
 
BruceFromBalnarring said:
But there was no evidence. Not even from the complainant. His evidence was as I said. For Pell to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt there must at the very least be evidence. There was none. Just a supposition from the prosecutor.
Click to expand...


Again!

Even Weinberg spells out clearly the change in (and current) Victorian LAW!

The appeal was based on several claims, the main one being the impossibility issue. It did not succeed.

Maybe you are not a competent lawyer?
 
BruceFromBalnarring said:
Your final line there just epitomises the dishonesty. He had a dart in the car park waiting for Pell to arrive.
Click to expand...

LoL! You are correct that is all that is in the judgement.
I guess you are fortunate not to have ever smoked cigs? You asked where were they? YOU DO NOT KNOW , neither did they themselves, nor were any of the Supreme Court Judges convinced( nor previously any of the jury, obviously).

He (Potter) gives specific examples however when he would be separated and unaware of Pell's activity (albeit short time)
Portelli as well.

The judgement clearly was not a "mob" or mere retribution .
The judges make clear they kept in mind that scapegoating was not the issue and caution ought be taken to eliminate such from any consideration.. It was a strict application of the legal process to assess an appeal of a prior conviction.
 
BruceFromBalnarring said:
It wasn’t that he didn’t recall the specific date.

It was that the specifics he did recall were wrong.
Click to expand...
I admire the fact that you’ve come in here after the appeal was dismissed and still argued your position - I am confused that you cannot see the logic in the verdict and the reasoning given.

There were plenty of amateur Perry Masons who popped in to troll and generally cause trouble. I’d like to see them pop back now to cop their right whack.

In any case - George is going to be inside for a long time. Ararat is about 2 hours down the Western Highway, visiting hours are 10-4 on Weekends and every 2nd Friday - enjoy!
 
western royboy said:
I admire the fact that you’ve come in here after the appeal was dismissed and still argued your position - I am confused that you cannot see the logic in the verdict and the reasoning given.

There were plenty of amateur Perry Masons who popped in to troll and generally cause trouble. I’d like to see them pop back now to cop their right whack.

In any case - George is going to be inside for a long time. Ararat is about 2 hours down the Western Highway, visiting hours are 10-4 on Weekends and every 2nd Friday - enjoy!
Click to expand...
I can’t see the logic for precisely the same reasons Weinberg can’t.

As you’re aware, his judgement reads much the same as my arguments on this subject. So at least one very senior and experienced judge shares my view. I’m aware of a couple of others and at least 2 QCs.

It’s not that illogical.

Right down to that point I made months ago now that it’s not a case of one or two unlikely events having to have occurred simultaneously but over a dozen. And Pell would have had to have known all of those unlikely events were actually occurring.

But at least Michael Clarke isn’t Captain of Australia any longer.
 
BruceFromBalnarring said:
I can’t see the logic for precisely the same reasons Weinberg can’t.

As you’re aware, his judgement reads much the same as my arguments on this subject. So at least one very senior and experienced judge shares my view. I’m aware of a couple of others and at least 2 QCs.

It’s not that illogical.

Right down to that point I made months ago now that it’s not a case of one or two unlikely events having to have occurred simultaneously but over a dozen. And Pell would have had to have known all of those unlikely events were actually occurring.

But at least Michael Clarke isn’t Captain of Australia any longer.
Click to expand...
My dad has a saying opinions are like arseholes - everyone’s got one - in this case the only opinions that matter are the Jurors and 2 of the 3 Judges - personally I think QC’s are overrated - I sacked one a few months back - D Denuto could run my case & yes it is good that M Clarke has moved on
 
BruceFromBalnarring said:
I can’t see the logic for precisely the same reasons Weinberg can’t.

As you’re aware, his judgement reads much the same as my arguments on this subject. So at least one very senior and experienced judge shares my view. I’m aware of a couple of others and at least 2 QCs.

It’s not that illogical.

Right down to that point I made months ago now that it’s not a case of one or two unlikely events having to have occurred simultaneously but over a dozen. And Pell would have had to have known all of those unlikely events were actually occurring.

But at least Michael Clarke isn’t Captain of Australia any longer.
Click to expand...
Why would Pell have to know they were occurring?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Sad such a nasty piece of work as Pell still has support.
He is a vile individual as I have shown here in this thread , this went unchallenged as Pells arrogance and cruelness is common knowledge. He is not a man of good faith. He is a wicked creep .
Treats everyone horrendously. Sees life as a big business and he can behave anyway he likes as he does it in the name of the sky fairy.

I hope this creature is tormented by his wicked behaviour and the thought that he has to meet his maker.
He treated victims and their families with utter and cruel contempt while they were in need of support.

He can lie to the courts , the public , the Vatican but while he rots in his little cell he will be tormented by his own demons.
He will be asking himself.
Why did i start touching kids balls on the 60s ?
Why did I use my position of power for my own self indulgence??
Why did I not seek help?
Why was such a nasty cruel person throughout my life??
The court got the decision right and well done to them, the evidence against Pell was overwhelming.
He should have gone down previously if not for QCs saving his backside by bullying victims in court.

So glad to see this serial sex offender finally get what he deserves.
 
Last edited:
BruceFromBalnarring said:
It wasn’t that he didn’t recall the specific date.

It was that the specifics he did recall were wrong.
Click to expand...

And...according to you that = reasonable doubt.

But....12 jurors and 2 appeal court judges said it didn't.

Your reasonable doubt isn't the same as anyone else's.
It isn't supposed to be.
 
www.theguardian.com

Cardinal George Pell’s failed appeal and why his chances in the high court are slim

Two out of three judges decided Pell’s defence team’s ‘13 solid obstacles in the path of a conviction’ fell short
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Hey Bruce, educate yourself and listen to David Marr and Melissa Davey podcast in the attached article explain how Pell lost his appeal.

This week, two out of three appellant judges decided that those 13 reasons fell “well short” of such a conclusion. It was not the role of those judges – chief justice Anne Ferguson, court of appeal president justice Chris Maxwell and justice Mark Weinberg – to decide Pell’s guilt. Rather, the question they needed to consider was whether the 12 jurors who found Pell guilty in December must have held a reasonable doubt as to his guilt based on the evidence before them; not that they could have, or should have. This was vital to Pell’s appeal on the key ground that the jury made an unreasonable decision.

Lucky our legal system works on majority system hey Bruce???? Compelling!!!!!

Ferguson and Maxwell found the complainant’s evidence against Pell was “rightly characterised” by prosecutors “as compelling, both because of the clarity and cogency of what [he] said and because of the complete absence of any indication of contrivance in the emotion which [he] conveyed when giving his answers”.


I know Bruce rants about no witnesses, funny that rock spiders do there best work privately.

Jurors are entrusted with reaching a verdict based not on gut instinct or emotion, but an analytical view of the evidence, combined with clear and strong directions from the judge and their own life experiences and reflections. It can be acceptable for jurors to believe the word of the complainant above all others, even in the absence of other witnesses. If this were not the case, rapists and abusers would never get convicted since these crimes rarely have an audience.

It was no kangaroo court Bruce, the jurors made an excellent decision based on out legal system.

The jurors listened to Kidd intently. He repeatedly directed them not to make Pell a scapegoat for the Catholic church. He told them it was not enough to simply believe the complainant. In order to convict, they had to believe the complainant beyond reasonable doubt. These comprehensive, clear and, at times, stern directions included warnings not to research Pell on the internet, warnings that Pell was at a significant forensic disadvantage given the passage of time since the offending, and reminders that it was up to the prosecution to prove the case, not Pell to prove his innocence

The jurors were diverse, and included a church pastor, a mathematician and a tram driver. Over four days of deliberating, they reached the same conclusion: that in 1996 Pell sexually assaulted two 13 year-old boys after Sunday solemn mass at St Patrick’s Cathedral in the priest’s sacristy. Pell orally raped one of the boys during this incident and indecently assaulted both of them. Pell offended a second time against one of the boys a month later, when he grabbed the boy’s genitals in a church corridor, once more after Sunday solemn mass. He was convicted on four counts of an indecent act with a child under the age of 16 and one count of sexual penetration with a child under the age of 16.


The jury system is a fundamental pillar of Australia’s legal system. To suggest there is something fallible about the jury system in Pell’s case in the absence of any procedural unfairness is to suggest the entire criminal legal system is fundamentally flawed. It would be to suggest that every jury trial might have been better or differently decided by a judge alone.

Hey Bruce, is our legal system fundamentally flawed??? :rolleyes:
 
Just for s*** and giggles, what do we reckon the reaction would have been if not one but two former Labor PMs had provided character references for a convicted child rapist? Should we be querying the judgements of character of these two men, can we reasonably ask what they might have known? These are not questions I'm expecting to be asked.
 
BruceFromBalnarring said:
Cute answer. And not dissimilar in seriousness to the various “theories” proffered by the prosecutor. But there was no evidence, except from them saying that like always they went straight to the sacristy.

Unrebutted.

Reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...
Jurors & majority of appeals judges thought otherwise & that's all that counts, rather than your biased opinion.
 
Gough said:
Just for s*** and giggles, what do we reckon the reaction would have been if not one but two former Labor PMs had provided character references for a convicted child rapist? Should we be querying the judgements of character of these two men, can we reasonably ask what they might have known? These are not questions I'm expecting to be asked.
Click to expand...
As much as I disliked Abbott in particular, I have my doubts either of them knew Pell was a paedophile.
 
Number37 said:
BS.
Click to expand...
What is BS? If you’re talking about Bruce’s claims that the Sacristy is the complete opposite of a ghost town, you are mistaken. I’m not going to say that Pell is innocent because too much mud has been thrown at him over the last several years. Eventually it sticks. However, if the courts have dismissed the busy sacristy defence, as it appears, they have treaded into dangerous grounds. Our judicial system was designed to protect the innocent from wrongful imprisonment. Not to convict people based on opinions or public sentiment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top