Religion Pell Guilty!

[Plugger35]

12 Angry Men. Great movie.

I was an angry man when it took over 4 hours to finally reach a verdict, should have been wrapped up in less than an hour.

 

[gordo2016]

The 2nd para of the letter from John Howard is one of the more remarkable things Ive seen written by a former.politician.

John Howard is and always will be an embarrassment for this nation. From his decision in imposing the NT intervention on indigenous communities to such things as calling himself a "cricket lover, " and then coming out and bowling this crap for everyone to see. As a PM, he was a massive failure and he continues to show his true colours by showing his support of Pell.

 

[2Knights]

Two trials with presumably the same set of evidence presented.
Jury 1 deadlocked 10-2 in favor of Pell.
Jury 2 unanimous 0-12 against Pell.
Not a great look for trial by jury.

 

[Tiger08]

Two trials with presumably the same set of evidence presented.
Jury 1 deadlocked 10-2 in favor of Pell.
Jury 2 unanimous 0-12 against Pell.
Not a great look for trial by jury.

I think it would be wise for everyone to wait for the result of the appeal before they get on their high horse one way or the other.

No issue with Richmond, his school, the Vatican dismissing him or removing titles.. he was convicted.. but like Sylvester's article suggests something may not be quite right with all this.

I don't know about trial by jury especially given how divisive a figure Pell is (among Catholics let alone the broader public). But I think our justice system will get this right in the end, one way or another.

Odd this is creating such drama now when the verdict came out 2 months ago.

 

[Dixie Normous]

I hope this 'vanilla rapist' gets a regular serve of chocolate rape every night in the joint.

 

[Admiral Byng]

I was an angry man when it took over 4 hours to finally reach a verdict, should have been wrapped up in less than an hour.

we need more umpires like you, Plug

 

[skilts]

1. I know that he is always ALWAYS accompanied by his assistant.

2. I know that the door to the sacristy at St Pats is always ALWAYS locked.

3. I know that the Archbishop almost always talks to churchgoers for a good half hour after Mass.

4. If he doesn't, it's because he has some pressing engagement.

5. I know that the Archbishop can't get out of all his gear without assistance. So if he did have a pressing engagement, then his assistant would have been with him to help him get his garb off. Which also goes to whether he could have whipped out his johnson and demanded a blow job. He couldn't have.

6. I know that there are people milling around everywhere after Mass, and for Pell to have acted as described, even if he could have and for the reasons spelled out above, I don't believe he could have, he would have had to have been so brazenly stupid to have committed the abuse in the manner described. And whatever you think of Pell, he's not brazenly stupid.

7. The evidence wasn't substantial. It was one boy's description of events, denied by the other boy who was allegedly present.

Your unsubstantiated beliefs are worthless.

The reason Pell was convicted was because of the devastating evidence given by his victim. It so impressed the jury that all of the bullshit you are peddling, when put forward by Richter, was found to be baseless, and as evidence, useless. A woman interviewed yesterday, who wrote a book about Pell and this monstrous event, who interviewed the victim for her book said, "So compelling was this man's evidence it would have been impossible for a jury not to convict Pell."

You have admitted that, seeing his evidence was given in a closed court, you have no idea whatsoever of what his evidence was. You have no idea of what must have been his impressive response to Richter's persistent and forensic cross-examination. Fact is, you know five-eigths of **** all about this case. You weren't a witness to the events, and you have an extremely limited understanding of the subsequent court proceedings.

The only thing upon which you can hang your hat is an abiding devotion to Pell. You detest other paedophiles, yet have a distinctly unhealthy love affair with this hideous piece of shit. Your oninion on this matter is worthless. Your protestations that the crime could never have happened because you spent time in that repository of rapists that is St Pat's Cathedral is risible.

You must tell me of your knowledge of the doings of Monsignor Penn Jones who caused a former school mate of mine, Gavan Boyle, to slowly commit suicide at the age of 53, through a combination of alcholism and starvation. Penn (or Penis, as he was known at my school, in the 1960s) spent nearly all of his career working and raping in the Cathedral, as an administrator. It was Pell who denied Boyle the justice he so craved and deserved.

Pell chose not to contest the victim's evidence. Could this be because such an educated, sophisticated man, so used to public performance, was afraid of being cross-examined? Would he have appeared as guilty, arrogant, uncaring and deceptive as he did before the Royal Commission? Richter was never going to allow him into the box, because his evidence has the taint of a guilty man, who thought the process in which he was forced to be involved was beneath his dignity.

Even if you are right, and Pell is acquitted on appeal, it will be forever known that twelve men and women empannelled as jury, in one of the fairest justice systems in the world, were convinced he was the arseh*le who committed this crime. It would apppear that only you and Bolt think otherwise. We know what Bolt's excuse is. What's yours?

 

[AM]

No surprise that the Vice Chancellor of ACU will stand by his man. Their universities are full of buildings called "the Pell Centre," the Pell theatre" "the Pell block." Should immediately rename them and take the signs down, but that is too much trouble for now. So the Vice Chancellor came out with the old "failed justice" line in the hope that Pell will win the appeal.

Agree. Echo chamber was my point.

 

[Admiral Byng]

Two trials with presumably the same set of evidence presented.
Jury 1 deadlocked 10-2 in favor of Pell.
Jury 2 unanimous 0-12 against Pell.
Not a great look for trial by jury.

I thought it was the other way around, the first trial was 10-2 guilty against Pell but it needed to be 12-0 or 11-1 to count.

 

[AM]

Two trials with presumably the same set of evidence presented.
Jury 1 deadlocked 10-2 in favor of Pell.
Jury 2 unanimous 0-12 against Pell.
Not a great look for trial by jury.

As a matter of interest where did you get the 10-2 figure in favor of Pell in the hung jury trial?

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Your unsubstantiated beliefs are worthless.

The reason Pell was convicted was because of the devastating evidence given by his victim. It so impressed the jury that all of the bullshit you are peddling, when put forward by Richter, was found to be baseless, and as evidence, useless. A woman interviewed yesterday, who wrote a book about Pell and this monstrous event, who interviewed the victim for her book said, So compelling was this man's evidence it would have been impossible for a jury not to convict Pell."

You have admitted that, seeing his evidence was given in a closed court, you have no idea whatsoever of what his evidence was. You have no idea of what must have been his impressive response to Richter's persistent and forensic cross-examination. Fact is, you know five-eigths of **** all about this case. You weren't a witness to the events, and you have an extremely limited understanding of the subsequent court proceedings.

The only thing upon which you can hang your hat is an abiding devotion to Pell. You detest other paedophiles, yet have a distinctly unhealthy love affair with this hideous piece of shit. Your oninion on this matter is worthless. Your protestations that the crime could never have happened because you spent time in that repository of rapists that is St Pat's Cathedral is risible.

You must tell me of your knowledge of the doings of Monsignor Penn Jones who caused a former school mate of mine, Gavan Boyle, to slowly commit suicide at the age of 53, through a combination of alcholism and starvation. Penn (or Penis, as he was known at my school, in the 1960s) spent nearly all of his career working and raping in the Cathedral, as an administrator. It was Pell who denied Boyle the justice he so craved and deserved.

Pell chose not to contest the victim's evidence. Could this be because such an educated, sophisticated man, so used to public performance, was afraid of being cross-examined? Would he have appeared as guilty, arrogant, uncaring and deceptive as he did before the Royal Commission? Richter was never going to allow him into the box, because his evidence has the taint of a guilty man, who thouight the process in which he was forced to be involved was beneath his dignity.

Even if you are right, and Pell is acquitted on appeal, it will be forever known that twelve men and women empannelled as jury, in one of the fairest justice systems in the world, were convinced he was the arseh*le who committed this crime. It would apppear that only you and Bolt think otherwise. We know what Bolt's excuse is. What's yours?

See bolded.

Bullshit.

 

[FredLeDeux]

As a mael.tter of interest where did you get the 10-2 figure in favor of Pell in the hung jury trial?

Immediately after the guilty verdict in the re-trial, it was stated by a seppo Catholic site, without any supporting evidence.
Since then it has been repeatedly regurgitated as if it were (so to speak) gospel.

 

[nylexbandit]

As a matter of interest where did you get the 10-2 figure in favor of Pell in the hung jury trial?

I tried to find support for any insight on the first trial and the only ones stating that it was 10-2 in favour of acquittal seemed to be catholic mouthpieces. That being said I didn’t see any saying it was the other way

 

[AM]

Immediately after the guilty verdict in the re-trial, it was stated by a seppo Catholic site, without any supporting evidence.
Since then it has been repeatedly regurgitated as if it were (so to speak) gospel.

I tried to find support for any insight on the first trial and the only ones stating that it was 10-2 in favour of acquittal seemed to be catholic mouthpieces. That being said I didn’t see any saying it was the other way

Thought it would be something along those lines as in those circumstances the judge tells the jurors to STFU.

 

[Jack Gun Cyril Stun]

I call it "Stage 1 - DENIAL".

I call it “stage 1 clickbait”
If the fools paying for it still can’t see through him they never will.

 

[gordo2016]

See bolded.

Bullshit.

It was also Pell who denied an old school mate of mine, David Ridsdale, the justice he craved with the words " what it will it take to keep you quiet. "
You make me sick.

 

[Strange Cat]

See bolded.

Bullshit.

Clueless and lacking humanity

 

[Maggie5]

Hinch, like him or not has been very consistent.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Clueless and lacking humanity

Pell had been in Sydney for 4 years when Boyle made his complaint.

 

[Nikita Blue]

The 2nd para of the letter from John Howard is one of the more remarkable things Ive seen written by a former.politician.

Absolutely disgusting. Obviously conservative tribalism trumps human decency.

 

[BRWB]

See bolded.

Bullshit.

I see you didn't respond to the valid point that you have not heard the victims evidence but seem to know better than the jury, who did.

There is a queue of people accusing Pell of raping and covering up rape. Yet when given the opportunity to defend himself in front of, and be judged by his peers, Pell took the coward's way out like any Pedo. Or perhaps Richter saw what a piece of shit he had on his hands and noted the incredulity with which respected folk on the Royal Commission treated Pell and advised against him testifying.

Your ongoing selective defence of the indefensible is actually sickening.

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

I would rather a jury than have the ultimate decision left to the discretion of a judge - especially in Victoria. Judges often assert their on opinion as fact, when in reality its often just speculation. Just because someone is legally trained, it doesn't make them impartial.

The alternative is scarier though. People expected to make decisions on points of law that’s way above their heads. Plus jurors are influenced by other jurors and many times coerced.

Plus there are alternatives to sole judges. Oscar Pistorius case had judge and two court officials.

 

[Pessimistic]

howard Abbott scomo. Would they be ‘waiting for the appeal’ if the guilty person was a target of theirs?

Slipper perhaps?

 

[Tiges1229]

Hinch, like him or not has been very consistent.

Don't care much for war monger Howard or dumbo big ears Tony, both ****wits . But Hinch has some ****ing nerve though , this from a bloke who announced to the world about how a young woman was r*ped via a twitter comment when the victims parents weren't even aware , also over the years putting victims at risk and court cases at risk on naming peados back in the day . Cant stand the bloke just another headline hunting piece of shit .

 

[Lebbo73]

Martyrdom now awaits you

You brave brave victim

I thought you had him on ignore?