Religion Pell Guilty!

[RupieDupie]

He sacked some of the monasteries in Ireland and converted the Irish aristocracy into English with a few baubles, then when he was on Tower Hill declared himself Catholic again.

Jesus... what an arseh*le

 

[Del191229]

He was a genocidal maniac - almost half the population of Ireland


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Thomas,not Oliver.

Read Wolf Hall.

 

[Del191229]

He sacked some of the monasteries in Ireland and converted the Irish aristocracy into English with a few baubles, then when he was on Tower Hill declared himself Catholic again.

History's greatest monster.

 

[FredLeDeux]

Thomas,not Oliver.

Read Wolf Hall.

A rattling good yarn.
But it ain't history.

 

[AM]

The best piece I've read on the Cardy matter.

BAD BLOOD

 

[AM]

 

[FredLeDeux]

The best piece I've read on the Cardy matter.

BAD BLOOD

Very good, I knew Brennan's piece was crap as soon as I read it, but didn't have the time or inclination to sit down and work out why.
This bloke does an excellent job of dismantling it.

 

[Frank Bunn]

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.

That argument is persuasive.

However a different jury provided with the same evidence did not find enough to convict.

I also wonder whether it was possible to find a jury who had no biasing opinions on the case before the trial. If you were selected to be on the jury do you really think you could judge the evidence objectively?

 

[Richard Pryor]

That argument is persuasive.

However a different jury provided with the same evidence did not find enough to convict.

I also wonder whether it was possible to find a jury who had no biasing opinions on the case before the trial. If you were selected to be on the jury do you really think you could judge the evidence objectively?

I can't recall where I read it, so take it with a grain of salt, but I recall reading that Pell's defence had the right to veto up to 3 jurors but didn't use it, which I assume would damage a case for a bias(biased?) jury.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Hey, shouldn't Work Choices be another ball chained around one of Little Johnny's ankles?

 

[Craven Morehead]

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 challenge you to quote were I have ever said that on any thread ever..
Just once will suffice.
Just once!
And when you can't, because it never happened, I challenge you to withdraw that accusation unreservedly.
Your ego definitely overrides your 'apparent' intelligence.

Thanks. doesn't say much, but. Only one sentence.

i've been hoping someone would publish detailed accounts of witness evidence so if you come across one please post up?.

Just how sick in the mind are you?
You need detailed accounts of a survivors evidence to clear your conscience?
Are you really that creepy?
12 jurors will now be traumatised enough after hearing it for 2 days, and they found him guilty. But Jane needs to hear it herself to come to a different conclusion?
Go and get f***ed.

assuming Pell is guilty, it demonstrates there this stuff went on relatively in the open, the organization saw no need to police itself until it had to.
I don't see that from other organizations in the enquiry, or not so much, an under cover thing.

Have another look at the Royal Commission findings. Plenty of other organisations/denominations are guilty of exactly the same conduct.

 

[Richard Pryor]

Not sure if already posted, but a fairly comprehensive writeup of the first six days of the trial here: https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2019/02/27/pell-diaries-part-one/

 

[FredLeDeux]

I can't recall where I read it, so take it with a grain of salt, but I recall reading that Pell's defence had the right to veto up to 3 jurors but didn't use it, which I assume would damage a case for a bias(biased?) jury.

The defence has the right to 3 peremptory challenges, ie challenges without giving any reason, but didn't use them.
Which is not all that surprising, since there is usually nothing whatever to show whether a potential juror is or will be biassed.

 

[Richard Pryor]

Quotes from writeup regarding the jury selection, nothing particularly illuminating but still:

Through video screens we sat and watched the initial phase of the jury selection unfolding. Judge Peter Kidd was in the jury room downstairs speaking to the gathered group of 224 members of the public who had been called for jury duty.

‏He carefully informed them of the news that he was selecting for the Pell case. After a series of questions about any conflict of interests and ability to commit five weeks to the case, the large group was reduced by half.

‏As each number was read out their occupation was also read to the court: An associate professor, two women who did “home duties”, and a registered nurse were among those who were chosen.

Court rules dictate that each juror has to walk from the seat and do a loop of the courtroom, past Pell in the dock, to grant him his legal right to approve of the jurors and ensure he did not know them.

‏Eventually 14 jurors took their seats. On significant cases judges like to have spare jury members. Nobody enjoys a retrial.

‏The five charges were read out for Pell to enter his plea, while the large group of potential jurors was seen via video link in a special holding room in the court.

‏One lady juror later asked to be excused, saying the length of the trial would be too “emotionally distressing” on her daughter, bringing the final number of jurors to 13.

https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2019/02/27/pell-diaries-part-one/

Also, haven't seen Richter's opening statement anywhere else, to a laymen like me it seems to be pretty terribly put and comes across as almost flippant in the same way as his 'vanilla' comment:

‏Speaking at length about the impossibility of the offences ever occurring, Mr Richter said: “It’s possible, ladies and gentlemen, that a meteor will come out of space and strike this court while we are sitting here … it’s possible … but do you plan your life around it? No.”

 

[Lebbo73]

You speak about logic but you defend a child rapist

Amusing if it wasn’t so sickening

I don’t even like Pell and I don’t go to Church because of these sick perverts. It doesn’t change the fact that Pell has been stitched up for something he didn’t do.
I’ve been on different political forums for about 15 years and most people have wanted to see Pell go down for something, anything. Quite a few sources have told me that the guilty verdict was wrong and won’t hold up on appeal. Only time will tell.

 

[Bombermania]

That argument is persuasive.

However a different jury provided with the same evidence did not find enough to convict.

I also wonder whether it was possible to find a jury who had no biasing opinions on the case before the trial. If you were selected to be on the jury do you really think you could judge the evidence objectively?

I read somewhere that the hung jury was due to other matters being raised that were excluded from this case.

 

[Sainteric]

That argument is persuasive.

However a different jury provided with the same evidence did not find enough to convict.

I also wonder whether it was possible to find a jury who had no biasing opinions on the case before the trial. If you were selected to be on the jury do you really think you could judge the evidence objectively?

To be fair any child rape case is going to be difficult

 

[Bombermania]

I can't recall where I read it, so take it with a grain of salt, but I recall reading that Pell's defence had the right to veto up to 3 jurors but didn't use it, which I assume would damage a case for a bias(biased?) jury.

I read that as well.

 

[Strange Cat]

Thanks. doesn't say much, but. Only one sentence.

i've been hoping someone would publish detailed accounts of witness evidence so if you come across one please post up?.

Serious question why do you want to know about the witness evidence?

What sort of derange mind want to put themselves through that misery and exposed themselves to the graphical details when they don’t have to?

So you can make your mind up? So you can determine if you are better than the jurors?

Seriously you are either a sick individual that gets off on this sort of shit or you don’t believe the findings are correct and want to find holes in the case.

Sickening

 

[FredLeDeux]

The best piece I've read on the Cardy matter.

BAD BLOOD

This is the most disgusting part of that article:

The piece has been circulated to every family with a child enrolled at a Catholic school, indicating that it represents the views of the archdiocese (the source says they actually had the bad taste to send a copy to St. Kevin's as well).

Reminds me of the story of Calwell and his wife walking out of their lifelong parish church one morning when the priest read out an archdiocese letter instructing parishioners to vote DLP.

 

[FredLeDeux]

I don’t even like Pell and I don’t go to Church because of these sick perverts. It doesn’t change the fact that Pell has been stitched up for something he didn’t do.
I’ve been on different political forums for about 15 years and most people have wanted to see Pell go down for something, anything. Quite a few sources have told me that the guilty verdict was wrong and won’t hold up on appeal. Only time will tell.

Thread is infested with bloody psychics who "just know" without actually knowing one damn thing about the evidence.

 

[Strange Cat]

I don’t even like Pell and I don’t go to Church because of these sick perverts. It doesn’t change the fact that Pell has been stitched up for something he didn’t do.
I’ve been on different political forums for about 15 years and most people have wanted to see Pell go down for something, anything. Quite a few sources have told me that the guilty verdict was wrong and won’t hold up on appeal. Only time will tell.

An absolute statement with nothing to back it up other than your feelings and thoughts

Meanwhile, the jurors had facts and evidence to find Pell guilty

What a sad individual you are.

 

[gordo2016]

Wonder if Pell now has to take one for the team so to speak, even if he knows he is innocent.

The weight of public opinion is against him so much now that an acquittal in the eyes of many will tarnish further the Church. There is a balance here between personal justice and what is best for the future of the Catholic Church in Australia.

To "take one for the team," you need to have courage. Pedophiles are cowards. Pell has the guts of an Easter Egg and he will not be "taking one" for anybody.

 

[Richard Pryor]

I'm betting if the appeal holds up the same people who are now arguing there was pressure to convict won't acknowledge that they themselves are putting tremendous pressure on the appeal to find Pell not guilty. I don't recall seeing any talking heads saying "PELL IS GUILTY" prior to the trial in the same way as we're seeing the "PELL IS INNOCENT" line being pushed. Certainly there was pressure to have him in court, but I just don't recall it being put as bluntly as Bolt and his ilk are now pushing their narrative.

 

[Forward Press]

I don’t even like Pell and I don’t go to Church because of these sick perverts. It doesn’t change the fact that Pell has been stitched up for something he didn’t do.
I’ve been on different political forums for about 15 years and most people have wanted to see Pell go down for something, anything. Quite a few sources have told me that the guilty verdict was wrong and won’t hold up on appeal. Only time will tell.

You are seriously twisted in the head.