Religion Pell Guilty!

[Gavin Excell]

The victim is supposed to have spent two days in the witness box being cross examined by one of the best in the game and the jury still found his evidence enough to convict.

I think this is critical in understanding and accepting the juries decision

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

The next move should be to start slowly stripping funding from the Catholic school system. There's no argument that they have miserably failed in their duty of care and deserve to be duly punished for it.

 

[Forward Press]

The judges instructions are in an article from The Guardian. I thought that it was very objective and also think he was very deliberate in his instructions which is why I am not sure there is anything there for Pell.

Same for point 3 of the Appeal - jury pool of 250, final pool of 14 (12+2 extra) and Richter had to opportunity to challenge 3 but didn't challenge any.

Thanks, wasn't aware the judge's direction to the jury was available.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think the selection of the jury itself can be a valid grounds for appeal.

 

[Maggie5]

Thanks, wasn't aware the judge's direction to the jury was available.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think the selection of the jury itself can be a valid grounds for appeal.

That is what puzzles me, if jury selection was in order and judges instructions were okay (IMO) can't really see what point 3 is about.

I have only ever been on one jury (workers compensation against employer) and the judge's instructions are pretty clear - evidence, evidence, ignore media etc.

Also not sure Richter has much in that the judge disallowed the animation, I wonder how different it was to the power point he did allow?

The next move should be to start slowly stripping funding from the Catholic school system. There's no argument that they have miserably failed in their duty of care and deserve to be duly punished for it.

I think that the tax exempt status of all religious institutions should be revisited.

 

[FredLeDeux]

and I very much doubt that Richter treated him with kid gloves.

There's a story I heard from the first trial (from an impeccable source, but I'm not going to say who it was).

Richter was cross-examining a prosecution witness (I wasn't told whether it was the complainant or not) and started to get a bit carried away.
Judge: Mr Richter.....
Richter: Yes, yes, Your Honour, I know, I'm sorry. But I just hate liars.

 

[Craven Morehead]

There's a story I heard from the first trial (from an impeccable source, but I'm not going to say who it was).

Richter was cross-examining a prosecution witness (I wasn't told whether it was the complainant or not) and started to get a bit carried away.
Judge: Mr Richter.....
Richter: Yes, yes, Your Honour, I know, I'm sorry. But I just hate liars.

He doesn't hate them enough to not represent them for the coin though.

 

[Del191229]

and I very much doubt that Richter treated him with kid gloves.

"Would you characterise what happened as just a plain vanilla rape"

 

[Forward Press]

"Would you characterise what happened as just a plain vanilla rape"

I'd like to imagine this was Justice Kidd's reaction at the sentencing hearing when he heard that line.

 

[GuruJane]

The victim is supposed to have spent two days in the witness box being cross examined by one of the best in the game and the jury still found his evidence enough to convict.

Exactly. And then Pell did not enter the box to defend himself. In this day and age fatal, imo. Pell too well known to public - it would have looked so arrogant after watching the complainant's testimony.

Does not alter the Reasonable Doubt doubt, though.

 

[Craven Morehead]

Exactly. And then Pell did not enter the box to defend himself. In this day and age fatal, imo. Pell too well known to public - it would have looked so arrogant after watching the complainant's testimony.

Does not alter the Reasonable Doubt doubt, though.

First you say that Pell doesn't fit your idea of a 'normal' paedophile profile.
Now your saying that Pell would have looked arrogant in taking the stand.

Any other garbage you want to make up in your attempt at Pell's innocence?

 

[A Cut Above]

You believe Pell is innocent and the victim of a miscarriage of justice spawned because a massive media campaign (GUIDED BY WHOM???????) of bias against Roman Catholicism swayed a judge and jury.

That's conspiracy theory 101.

THE JUDGE WAS IN ON IT TOO!!!!!1!111!

 

[Sainteric]

I don’t know. I was meaning that the victims may have signed onto Melbourne response and not be fully aware of their rights or what they have signed away (because impenetrable legalese)

To confirm it's only civil cases criminal cases can still be brought, obviously the vast majority of the offenders are dead.

In NSW and Qld the law has been changed so even if you accept the church pittance of 20 to 50k you can ask a court to set a new amount because the original is insignificant. Average payments are $250k plus costs. I think the also overturned the Ellis defence. Vic Labor is reluctant to do it because Victoria is the centre of the Catholic ALP influence, but Andrews to his credit is talking about doing it.

 

[Del191229]

Exactly. And then Pell did not enter the box to defend himself. In this day and age fatal, imo. Pell too well known to public - it would have looked so arrogant after watching the complainant's testimony.

Does not alter the Reasonable Doubt doubt, though.

We don't require corroboration to secure a conviction for a reason though. Reasonable doubt isn't THAT extensive.

 

[FredLeDeux]

To confirm it's only civil cases criminal cases can still be brought, obviously the vast majority of the offenders are dead.

In NSW and Qld the law has been changed so even if you accept the church pittance of 20 to 50k you can ask a court to set a new amount because the original is insignificant. Average payments are $250k plus costs. I think the also overturned the Ellis defence. Vic Labor is reluctant to do it because Victoria is the centre of the Catholic ALP influence, but Andrews to his credit is talking about doing it.

Victoria has legislated to scrap the Ellis Defence.

 

[FredLeDeux]

We don't require corroboration to secure a conviction for a reason though. Reasonable doubt isn't THAT extensive.

Particularly in recent years there have been any number of historic sex offence "he said, she said" cases where defendants have been convicted without any corroborating evidence.
The nature of the offences makes its absence more likely than not.
There has been a sea change in the attitudes of victims, police, prosecutors, judges and juries when dealing with these cases.

 

[Gough]

Exactly. And then Pell did not enter the box to defend himself. In this day and age fatal, imo. Pell too well known to public - it would have looked so arrogant after watching the complainant's testimony.

Does not alter the Reasonable Doubt doubt, though.

You have not one single clue about what was said but you know there's reasonable doubt. Never change.

 

[GuruJane]

We don't require corroboration to secure a conviction for a reason though. Reasonable doubt isn't THAT extensive.

The main ground of appeal would need to be Reasonable Doubt, otherwise no point in appealing.

 

[Del191229]

Particularly in recent years there have been any number of historic sex offence "he said, she said" cases where defendants have been convicted without any corroborating evidence.
The nature of the offences makes its absence more likely than not.
There has been a sea change in the attitudes of victims, police, prosecutors, judges and juries when dealing with these cases.

Yep, Victoria is a - the - world leader in prosecuting this stuff. Also, requiring corroboration is an archaic legal concept now. They still had it in Scots law when I was covering justice, campaign was long and hard to remove it, not entirely successfully.

 

[Del191229]

The main ground of appeal would need to be Reasonable Doubt, otherwise no point in appealing.

Yeah, he's going to appeal regardless.

 

[sherb]

Cheers mate, but I'm all good after having a break yesterday.
I cannot express enough my thanks for the support I have received in this thread and via PM's. Thanks to you all.
I hope your mate is right, if only to validate the incredible courage the survivor has shown throughout this ordeal.

I may not have expressed my support before now, but please know you have it without reservation. As do all victims and survivors of these appalling crimes.

 

[FredLeDeux]

The main ground of appeal would need to be Reasonable Doubt, otherwise no point in appealing.

Always a point in appealing.
I once sat in on an absolutely hopeless appeal, and asked the judge afterwards whether this happened often, to which he said
'If you were facing 10 years in the slammer, wouldn't you do everything possible to avoid it?"
Added to which, our Court of Appeal has a habit of overturning criminal convictions and sending them back for re-trial at a pretty high rate.

 

[GuruJane]

First you say that Pell doesn't fit your idea of a 'normal' paedophile profile.
Now your saying that Pell would have looked arrogant in taking the stand.

Any other garbage you want to make up in your attempt at Pell's innocence?

I do not believe Pell is " innocent".
But you seem to believe he should not be entitled to appeal.
Like the Chamberlains, I believe the accused are entitled to fair trials and due process.
Not lynch mobs.

 

[GuruJane]

The judges instructions are in an article from The Guardian. I thought that it was very objective and also think he was very deliberate in his instructions which is why I am not sure there is anything there for Pell

Have you got a link -please? I can't find the juries instructions in the Guardian.

 

[FredLeDeux]

I do not believe Pell is " innocent".
But you seem to believe he should not be entitled to appeal.
Like the Chamberlains, I believe the accused are entitled to fair trials and due process.
Not lynch mobs.

I know who the lynch mob was in the Chamberlain Travesty, but who do you think the "lynch mob" is in this case?

 

[Gough]

He's been afforded due process, he's had a fair trial, has spent the GDP of a small African country on his defence and as it stands he's guilty which may change on appeal. How anyone can question this is beyond me.