Religion Pell Guilty!

[Craven Morehead]

would've been interesting if it were a judge only trial...wonder what his verdict would've been?!

It wasn't and you need to get over that fact.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Who needs facts when you have been reading political forums for 15 years

It’s a conspiracy

So the complainant knows the layout of the sacristy.

Therefore Pell is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Could never have been in there another time? On one of the other 12,775 days of his life?

Right.

The point I made with my list at the start of this was that for this to have occurred as alleged, you needed about half a dozen very unlikely occurrences to have occurred simultaneously. And for Pell to have mastered some technique of whipping out his old fella whilst dressed in his garb, all the while not giving a shit apparently about all the foot traffic just metres away from the wide open door?.

The jury bought it. I get that. I don't. And I doubt an Appeal Court will.

Not beyond a reasonable doubt.

It's one thing to declare a thing "possible" which is what I watched the prosecutor do in his closing. It was all about how it was possible. It's quite another to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it did.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Do your own bloody research in future. I went to the trouble of giving you another link. Read your alerts!

Don't bother me any more, I am not interested in your bush lawyering.

Your links give selective quotes from the Judge's address. You said you had read the address. And I wouldn't be going on quotes selected by Lucie Morris Marr.

 

[Richard Pryor]

So the complainant knows the layout of the sacristy.

Therefore Pell is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Could never have been in there another time? On one of the other 12,775 days of his life?

Right.

The point I made with my list at the start of this was that for this to have occurred as alleged, you needed about half a dozen very unlikely occurrences to have occurred simultaneously. And for Pell to have mastered some technique of whipping out his old fella whilst dressed in his garb, all the while not giving a shit apparently about all the foot traffic just metres away from the wide open door?.

The jury bought it. I get that. I don't. And I doubt an Appeal Court will.

Not beyond a reasonable doubt.

It's one thing to declare a thing "possible" which is what I watched the prosecutor do in his closing. It was all about how it was possible. It's quite another to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it did.

This layout of the sacristy was not the sole piece of evidence presented by the prosecution, and acting like it is is a misrepresentation of the facts, it was combined with cross examination, interviews with other witnesses, and contemporary diary entries regarding details of mass and dates. Likewise regarding the logistics of manipulating the garb to facilitate the abuse, the jury inspected a set of the robes, so I do not see how that holds up as a defence, or at least a defence overlooked by the jury.

Also I think one can't discount the effect of the defence placing the emphasis on the act being impossible had on the jury. If your sole defence is that an act is impossible and this is proven to be false, and your legal defence has nothing to fall back on in that event, does that not constitute beyond reasonable doubt?

I am however willing to consider the possibility that the legal strategy of the defence had a significant effect on the verdict, and that adopting a different strategy may result in a different result in the appeal, although I also find it hard to believe that there is a more effective strategy that wasn't used here.

 

[Maggie5]

Your links give selective quotes from the Judge's address. You said you had read the address. And I wouldn't be going on quotes selected by Lucie Morris Marr.

Because of our previous exchanges in the RC thread I have avoided engaging with you and would prefer to keep it that way.

 

[Del191229]

If it gets knocked over on appeal, after the hysterical screeching by Bolt and co, the Howard reference, the high paid lawyer, most folks will say "Typical, system protects it own, a jury of normal people put him away but the powerful always get away".

 

[Craven Morehead]

So the complainant knows the layout of the sacristy.

Therefore Pell is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Could never have been in there another time? On one of the other 12,775 days of his life?

Right.

The point I made with my list at the start of this was that for this to have occurred as alleged, you needed about half a dozen very unlikely occurrences to have occurred simultaneously. And for Pell to have mastered some technique of whipping out his old fella whilst dressed in his garb, all the while not giving a shit apparently about all the foot traffic just metres away from the wide open door?.

The jury bought it. I get that. I don't. And I doubt an Appeal Court will.

Not beyond a reasonable doubt.

It's one thing to declare a thing "possible" which is what I watched the prosecutor do in his closing. It was all about how it was possible. It's quite another to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it did.

Oh cut the crap Bruce.
You are backing up the bus here in an exceptionally offensive manner.
That entire issue is what Richter has been screaming about, DESPITE OVER A DAY OF HIM EXAMINING THE WITNESS, yet we are still here with a guilty verdict.
Your initial point was that the sacristy was always locked.
You have since withdrawn from that.
Pell's "PA" has also testified that that the kids gaining entry was also possible.
I have tried my very hardest to be respectful, but you are getting very close to crossing the line of decency with this absurd line of defence,

 

[Richard Pryor]

To expand on the point that the prosecution dismissed the "impossibility" defence and as such supported the accusers claims as "he said, nothing" instead of "he said, she said", here is one example from this abc article: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-26/george-pell-guilty-child-sexual-abuse-court-trial/10837564

The defence argues the event was impossible due to it being impossible for the boys to be separate from the choir, this is somewhat supported by witnesses, but disproved as concrete proof of the impossibility of the event as no roll was kept and the choirmaster admits that their absence may have gone unnoticed.

The choir marshal also damages his subjective testimony (that it was unlikely) by shaking Pell's hand, which leaves the jury with the objective testimony; it was conceivably possible that two boys could be unaccounted for:

None had a clear memory of seeing archbishop Pell robed and alone. None had ever noticed two choirboys peeling away from the main group as they made their way back to the rehearsal room, walking two by two.

But, as former choirboy David Mayes put it, “we were still schoolkids and any chance for disorder we would grab it … chaos kept trying to seep through”.

The adults in the choir had a slightly different recollection, telling the court that strict discipline would be maintained until the boys returned to the choir room to disrobe.

Rodney Dearing, who had a son in the choir, said he would have noticed two boys in their “distinctive” choir robes running off from the procession.

His evidence was supported by choir marshal Peter Finnigan, who had been in charge of supervising the choristers.

But Mr Finnigan told the court that if two choirboys had managed to slip away after mass unnoticed, he would not have known they were missing as they did not take a roll.

After giving his evidence, Mr Finnigan approached the dock and shook Pell’s hand.

It prompted the judge to order the lead investigator to ferry the witnesses behind the bar table on their way to the witness box, to give the dock a wide berth.

Of course one is correct in saying that this is not, in and of itself, proof beyond reasonable doubt. But it is also not something that was taken by itself out of context by the jury when reaching a verdict, just as the accusers knowledge of the sacristy, the diary entries, and the accusers testimony were not considered by themselves.

I think one can't discount the fact the jury had access to more evidence, e.g.: the testimony of the accuser, the robes in question etc., and had three whole days to deliberate when evaluating their decision. The fact you (Bruce that is) reached a different conclusion based on less evidence, and while I may be wrong, in what I assume is less time with less consultation, I do not think it is a particularly compelling argument.

 

[Del191229]

Your links give selective quotes from the Judge's address. You said you had read the address. And I wouldn't be going on quotes selected by Lucie Morris Marr.

You mean the Lucie Morris Marr who broke the story and has been vindicated with this verdict.

 

[Present Not Past]

That’s a bit of a worry some wanting a verdict quickly so they could get back to work

I know. And they didn't care what the verdict was, so long as they could get out of there.
Turned out that our jury was dismissed after 4 days as we couldn't reach an unanimous verdict (this was 20 years ago) as one of the juror's over-identified with the victim and wouldn't budge even though we reminded him of guilty beyond reasonable doubt. It was tied up 11 not guilty, 1 guilty in a manslaughter case.

 

[Del191229]

You know, the victim may well have said stuff like "Pell started to break off the attack when he heard people coming but then when nobody actually came in he continued".

We just don't know, all we know is Richter spent a day cross examining him, presumably every detail back and forth, and his story stayed solid.

 

[Strange Cat]

So the complainant knows the layout of the sacristy.

Therefore Pell is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Could never have been in there another time? On one of the other 12,775 days of his life?

Right.

The point I made with my list at the start of this was that for this to have occurred as alleged, you needed about half a dozen very unlikely occurrences to have occurred simultaneously. And for Pell to have mastered some technique of whipping out his old fella whilst dressed in his garb, all the while not giving a shit apparently about all the foot traffic just metres away from the wide open door?.

The jury bought it. I get that. I don't. And I doubt an Appeal Court will.

Not beyond a reasonable doubt.

It's one thing to declare a thing "possible" which is what I watched the prosecutor do in his closing. It was all about how it was possible. It's quite another to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it did.

Carry on with your insane ramblings it only makes you look more pathetic

Cross examined by the best defence lawyer, if there were holes in the survivor story it would had been torn apart

You only have tidbits of the evidence and information at hand, the jurors would have far more evidence and time to deliberate over the facts than you did

Seriously you’re beyond saving

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Oh cut the crap Bruce.
You are backing up the bus here in an exceptionally offensive manner.
That entire issue is what Richter has been screaming about, DESPITE OVER A DAY OF HIM EXAMINING THE WITNESS, yet we are still here with a guilty verdict.
Your initial point was that the sacristy was always locked.
You have since withdrawn from that.
Pell's "PA" has also testified that that the kids gaining entry was also possible.
I have tried my very hardest to be respectful, but you are getting very close to crossing the line of decency with this absurd line of defence,

No. I haven't. It was always locked. So we are talking about the extreme situation where someone forgot to lock it. Ok.

And Pell decided not to meet parishioners, and escaped from his minder. Hell he must have known the kids were in the unusually unlocked sacristy. Or he needed a piss. Desperately. But hang on......piss......blow job.....so it wasn't a piss. But he must have been in a hurry because he wasn't meeting churchgoers. But if he was in a hurry, he needed his minder to help him get out of his gear. So why did he ditch him.

My point is.......and I'm sorry if this is so offensive to you, it doesn't add up. To create the circumstances where he could offend, he had to have known in advance of the two escapees in the unlocked sacristy. The "chance" is simply too remote.

And I can't understand, other than an extreme level of hate, why these kinds of doubts generate such anger and ridicule.

 

[Strange Cat]

No. I haven't. It was always locked. So we are talking about the extreme situation where someone forgot to lock it. Ok.

And Pell decided not to meet parishioners, and escaped from his minder. Hell he must have known the kids were in the unusually unlocked sacristy. Or he needed a piss. Desperately. But hang on......piss......blow job.....so it wasn't a piss. But he must have been in a hurry because he wasn't meeting churchgoers. But if he was in a hurry, he needed his minder to help him get out of his gear. So why did he ditch him.

My point is.......and I'm sorry if this is so offensive to you, it doesn't add up. To create the circumstances where he could offend, he had to have known in advance of the two escapees in the unlocked sacristy. The "chance" is simply too remote.

And I can't understand, other than an extreme level of hate, why these kinds of doubts generate such anger and ridicule.

Because you are making assumptions with zero facts to back them up and are dismissing the wealth of evidence that would have been shown in court for the jurors to come to a guilty version.

They didn’t come to a guilty verdict for shit and giggles

And as for why there is anger...it’s becaue you lack any sense of emotional intelligence and you are victim shaming by stating that the edvidence is made up.

 

[Forward Press]

And I can't understand, other than an extreme level of hate, why these kinds of doubts generate such anger and ridicule.

It is purely victim shaming - 'oh, he made that shit up to smear the good name of the Catholic church, never mind what the jury thought because they are also in on the scapegoating'. You are simply unable to comprehend that what was alleged could actually be true.

Not only does it demonstrate you are willing to take a shit on your own justice system for your own selfish purposes, it also demonstrates that sexual abuse of children is not the overriding priority for you. Church first, f*** the kids - literally.

 

[Tiger08]

When the Age is reporting comments from multiple criminal lawyers saying a conviction was 'astonishing' in the circumstances, there must be something the public doesn't know which the jury knows.

I'll wait for the appeal and the expert lawyers who can decide based on all the evidence. This can't go to retrial.. he's either confirmed and in prison for good or acquitted altogether. Remarkably he end up a figure of public sympathy if he was wrongly convicted.

 

[Forward Press]

When the Age is reporting comments from multiple criminal lawyers saying a conviction was 'astonishing' in the circumstances, there must be something the public doesn't know which the jury knows.

I'll wait for the appeal and the expert lawyers who can decide based on all the evidence. This can't go to retrial.. he's either confirmed and in prison for good or acquitted altogether. Remarkably he end up a figure of public sympathy if he was wrongly convicted.

Why would any criminal lawyer worth his or her salt not involved with the case comment on the soundness of a verdict? I am willing to bet the Age made up all these anonymous legal sources to generate headlines.

Also, why are you so confident he will be acquitted if an appeal is successful? They were happy to have a retrial after a hung jury the first time, any appeal decision would simply quash the guilty verdict and not substitute it with their own. It is then up to the DPP to decide whether to try again.

 

[Admiral Byng]

No. I haven't. It was always locked. So we are talking about the extreme situation where someone forgot to lock it. Ok.

And Pell decided not to meet parishioners, and escaped from his minder. Hell he must have known the kids were in the unusually unlocked sacristy. Or he needed a piss. Desperately. But hang on......piss......blow job.....so it wasn't a piss. But he must have been in a hurry because he wasn't meeting churchgoers. But if he was in a hurry, he needed his minder to help him get out of his gear. So why did he ditch him.

My point is.......and I'm sorry if this is so offensive to you, it doesn't add up. To create the circumstances where he could offend, he had to have known in advance of the two escapees in the unlocked sacristy. The "chance" is simply too remote.

And I can't understand, other than an extreme level of hate, why these kinds of doubts generate such anger and ridicule.

All of these points were made very forcefully to the jury by the defence, but they still decided on a guilty verdict in spite of it. Some of us think it was because the victim testimony was more compelling than what we've read so far, you think it is because of the 250 peole called up for jury duty Pell lucked out and got the 12 that just happened to be the most brainwashed by Fairfax and the ABC into hating on Catholics.

 

[Pessimistic]

There’s a reason a lot of the proceedings aren’t public

For us keyboard warriors to pronounce our own verdict is pretty reflective on us


We jut can’t actually know. We need to trust the ststem

 

[Strange Cat]

There’s a reason a lot of the proceedings aren’t public

For us keyboard warriors to pronounce our own verdict is pretty reflective on us


We jut can’t actually know. We need to trust the ststem

Unless of course if you over hear channel 7 reporters/cameramen in the lift or if you have been reading political forums for 15 years

It’s scary that these people both believe in defending Pell so much and believe that they know more than the 12 jurors who were presented with all the facts and evidence

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

All of these points were made very forcefully to the jury by the defence, but they still decided on a guilty verdict in spite of it. Some of us think it was because the victim testimony was more compelling than what we've read so far, you think it is because of the 250 peole called up for jury duty Pell lucked out and got the 12 that just happened to be the most brainwashed by Fairfax and the ABC into hating on Catholics.

No. Like every legal person drinking in every bar in Melbourne that week. I'm just gobsmacked. Everyone knows what the guts of the evidence is. There was heaps of speculation about relative weaknesses in the defence case. But no one could think of how it came to a guilty verdict. And that included plenty of Pell haters as you can imagine in the legal fraternity. One witness's "compelling" evidence simply doesn't outweigh 20 odd witnesses who all testify to various levels of unlikelihood to the point of beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Unless of course if you over hear channel 7 reporters/cameramen in the lift or if you have been reading political forums for 15 years

It’s scary that these people both believe in defending Pell so much and believe that they know more than the 12 jurors who were presented with all the facts and evidence

Is that your fourth crack at that? Unbelievable for someone who has me on ignore!

 

[Tiger08]

Why would any criminal lawyer worth his or her salt not involved with the case comment on the soundness of a verdict? I am willing to bet the Age made up all these anonymous legal sources to generate headlines.

Also, why are you so confident he will be acquitted if an appeal is successful? They were happy to have a retrial after a hung jury the first time, any appeal decision would simply quash the guilty verdict and not substitute it with their own. It is then up to the DPP to decide whether to try again.

Who knows on the lawyers but John Sylvester is no fool.

How could you hold a trial with a jury now with this out in the public? Unless there's another option?

 

[QuietB]

No. I haven't. It was always locked. So we are talking about the extreme situation where someone forgot to lock it. Ok.

And Pell decided not to meet parishioners, and escaped from his minder. Hell he must have known the kids were in the unusually unlocked sacristy. Or he needed a piss. Desperately. But hang on......piss......blow job.....so it wasn't a piss. But he must have been in a hurry because he wasn't meeting churchgoers. But if he was in a hurry, he needed his minder to help him get out of his gear. So why did he ditch him.

My point is.......and I'm sorry if this is so offensive to you, it doesn't add up. To create the circumstances where he could offend, he had to have known in advance of the two escapees in the unlocked sacristy. The "chance" is simply too remote.

And I can't understand, other than an extreme level of hate, why these kinds of doubts generate such anger and ridicule.

The only version of events you have considered is the closing arguments of the defence lawyer.

And those arguments are designed to create doubt.

The truth simply is we cannot know as we have not heard all the evidence.

Any comment by anyone who was not in the room when the evidence was cross examined is nothing but a guess.

 

[Richard Pryor]

No. Like every legal person drinking in every bar in Melbourne that week. I'm just gobsmacked. Everyone knows what the guts of the evidence is. There was heaps of speculation about relative weaknesses in the defence case. But no one could think of how it came to a guilty verdict. And that included plenty of Pell haters as you can imagine in the legal fraternity. One witness's "compelling" evidence simply doesn't outweigh 20 odd witnesses who all testify to various levels of unlikelihood to the point of beyond reasonable doubt.

One of the witnesses went out of his way to shake Pell's hand after testifying, so it's not suprising they may not have been taken as impartial by the jury when saying they subjectively did not think it happened.

The fact that Pell's defence argued that the offence was impossible, failed to provide compelling evidence that it was impossible, and failing that opted for character references and witnesses who couldn't maintain decorum long enough to look impartial without the judges intervention (see; choir master going out of his way to shake Pell's hand after testifying) points towards two things in my mind, neither of which are the jury being consumed with a hatred of the Catholic Church. They are A: Pell's defence is incompetent, or B: Pell's defence could not offer a better defence as Pell is guilty.

Also I believe you simply can not ignore the accuser's private testimony and act like there is no way it could have any impact on the case, no matter how many drunk paralegals weigh in on the "guts of the evidence".