Religion Pell Guilty!

[FredLeDeux]

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?

Why not, re-trials happen all the time.

 

[Richard Pryor]

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?

If you believe the show Pointless there's ten or so people in Aus who can't identify Obama from a photo so there's always hope!

 

[FredLeDeux]

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

He barracks for Hawthorn.

 

[Strange Cat]

He barracks for Hawthorn.

We all have our flaws

 

[Freo Big Fella]

A rare bit of self-reflection from within the legal industry bubble.

It's perfectly possible to argue mitigation without belittling or diminishing victims of crime - amazing how many defence lawyers seem unwilling to do it.

 

[Richard Pryor]

A rare bit of self-reflection from within the legal industry bubble.

It's perfectly possible to argue mitigation without belittling or diminishing victims of crime - amazing how many defence lawyers seem unwilling to do it.

Credit to him for that. Can't condone what he said, but definitely understand how he came up with it as it seems they did not consider a guilty verdict as a possibility, so it's likely the result a hastily put together strategy, where he evidently he didn't have time/presence of mind to translate it from a rough outline (minimise the offence) to something fit for public broadcast.

Although on the other hand, it's like overtired surgeon accidentally butchering someone in surgery. Understandable, not really acceptable.

 

[Crankyhawk]

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.

I think that is the point; those who believe that there is "doubt" do not believe that the jury acted appropriately and therefore are pretty close to saying that the jury acted this way for "shits and giggles"
Unfortunately no amount of reasoning that the jury heard the evidence etc is ever going to convince them.

 

[twotooto]

“This does not bode well for Vatican acceptance of mandatory reporting duties for church officials, or for meaningful cultural change to protect young people in the care of Catholic schools, churches, and welfare organisations from sexual assault.”
If anyone here is on the payroll of a Catholic School and two Catholic Churches, you’d realise this statement is horse shit. The training I had to go through and the policies in place go above and beyond what is required by law. There is no question that Catholic institutions failed the vulnerable in the past. It isn’t like that anymore.

I just don't understand why you are defending Pell. Not only is he, as of now, a convicted paedophile, throughout the years in his capacity as the most senior Catholic in Australia(at one point I believe he was actually in the frame to replace the incumbent Pope Francis) he has actively sought to deny and quash the claims of countless victims of sexual abuse carried out by members of the clergy - a clergy which he effectively presided over.

See, it's not just about the historical offences that he has been charged, and convicted, with/of. Over the years he has actively defended known perpetrators under his charge, on multiple occasions, in spite of incredibly damning evidence. He has repeatedly denied victims of sexual abuse any sort of redress in court, any sort of acknowledgement of offences committed and most importantly, by refusing to accept any culpability on behalf of the Catholic church, he has denied the victims of any sort of closure. He has knowingly and wilfully prolonged the pain of countless victims. He has forced them to relive, over and over, horrific events in their lives that no one should ever have to experience.

He had the power, in his capacity as Australia's most senior Catholic and the 3rd most senior on the globe after Pope Francis, to at least attempt to in some way give victims some closure but he did not because he knew the whole house of cards would come crashing down. But, thankfully, it is going to come crashing down any way(at least for him), despite his pathetic attempts to preserve the Catholic church's, and his own, shitful sanctity.

He is a complete and utter campaigner. He is responsible, at least in part, for irrevocably damaging and impacting countless lives and he needs to rot in hell.

 

[Craven Morehead]

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.

Chances come to fruition every day Bruce.
The ones that don't are rightly called impossibilities.
I'll let you work out the difference.

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.

Public sympathy you say.
By whom exactly?
Apart from blind sycophants you'd be able to count them on one hand nationwide.

A rare bit of self-reflection from within the legal industry bubble.

It's perfectly possible to argue mitigation without belittling or diminishing victims of crime - amazing how many defence lawyers seem unwilling to do it.

Well there's that, thankfully.
Credit to him on his self-reflection and public apology.
Perhaps defence lawyers do have a soul afterall?

 

[Lebbo73]

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

It’s quite simple. If you don’t want to engage with people in a forum, don’t post!

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

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.

No. I was on a number of occasions, prior to Pell's time, an altar boy. At St Pats. I was like the Michael Tuck of my local parish. Mum wouldn't let me give it away which turned out not to be a bad thing as I made a fair bit of cash at weddings etc. I know how it worked. The area they are saying this occurred was just so busy it couldn't have occurred. They're saying 10 minutes. The priest's sacristy (which wasn't the Archbishop's but that's where they're saying it happened, had people going in and out after mass the whole time. The collection plate blokes would go in and deal with the cash. The assistant priests would be in and out bringing all the communion plates and wine chalices in and cleaning them. Little old ladies were all fussing about doing god knows what. There was simply too much traffic. If it was a suburban church, say half an hour after Mass, this might be possible. But not at the Cathedral on a Sunday morning Mass. And even if there, by chance, was a gap of 10 minutes, and believe me there wasn't, Pell could not have known that. He could not have foreseen that he had a 10 minute window to force a blow job out of a couple of kids. It just doesn't add up.

 

[Maggie5]

It’s quite simple. If you don’t want to engage with people in a forum, don’t post!

Another valuable contribution from Lebbo who is an expert in forum posting given his vast experience.

 

[Richard Pryor]

No. I was on a number of occasions, prior to Pell's time, an altar boy. At St Pats. I was like the Michael Tuck of my local parish. Mum wouldn't let me give it away which turned out not to be a bad thing as I made a fair bit of cash at weddings etc. I know how it worked. The area they are saying this occurred was just so busy it couldn't have occurred. They're saying 10 minutes. The priest's sacristy (which wasn't the Archbishop's but that's where they're saying it happened, had people going in and out after mass the whole time. The collection plate blokes would go in and deal with the cash. The assistant priests would be in and out bringing all the communion plates and wine chalices in and cleaning them. Little old ladies were all fussing about doing god knows what. There was simply too much traffic. If it was a suburban church, say half an hour after Mass, this might be possible. But not at the Cathedral on a Sunday morning Mass. And even if there, by chance, was a gap of 10 minutes, and believe me there wasn't, Pell could not have known that. He could not have foreseen that he had a 10 minute window to force a blow job out of a couple of kids. It just doesn't add up.

Anecdotal evidence like this, which the defense had ample witnesses provide, failed to move the jury. Agree to disagree though as any debate is now looping back on itself.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

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".

They were barristers. Some quite senior.

And no, I can't ignore the accuser's testimony. But I didn't see or hear it. I only saw the prosecutor's characterization of it. It must have been a shitload better than the prosecutor presented.

 

[Jack Gun Cyril Stun]

A rare bit of self-reflection from within the legal industry bubble.

It's perfectly possible to argue mitigation without belittling or diminishing victims of crime - amazing how many defence lawyers seem unwilling to do it.

And how much time did he have to prepare before delivering that abhorrent line?

 

[Admiral Byng]

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.

Your own incredulity at the verdict does not confirm that the jury acted out of hatred towards the Church.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Anecdotal evidence like this, which the defense had ample witnesses provide, failed to move the jury. Agree to disagree though as any debate is now looping back on itself.

I know. And the witnesses they produced had far better insight than me. Which is why I'm gobsmacked. I've asked. Did the jury hear just how busy that joint is? Answer. Yes they did. Did they hear that the MC is always with Pell. Answer. Yes. Did they hear that it's impossible to get 10 minutes alone in that area for this to occur? Yes they did.

So the jury has disregarded all of the evidence that points to the unlikelihood of this occurring and gone with the one single bloke who said it did.

Now that might be a wonderful thing for those who want to get Pell. And I get that there are plenty. But it's disturbing for criminal justice in this country.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Your own incredulity at the verdict does not confirm that the jury acted out of hatred towards the Church.

I don't know that I said that. I think I said I didn't know what motivated the jury.

 

[Lebbo73]

They were invincible, they had complete control and they revelled in the power of it all.
People think that this is akin to the accepted paedophile profile where they carefully groom kids on the internet with the intent of not getting caught.
It's not.
This was about power, authority and the ultimate degradation of people below them. Children.
The sexual side of it was secondary.



I have asked you some VERY specific questions in this thread not long ago.
Don't keep posting here like they didn't exist.
Answer them or f*** right off.

What will answering the questions do? Nothing.
It is waste of yours and my time to do so.

 

[Richard Pryor]

They were barristers. Some quite senior.

And no, I can't ignore the accuser's testimony. But I didn't see or hear it. I only saw the prosecutor's characterization of it. It must have been a shitload better than the prosecutor presented.

If you concede this point I don't understand how you can be so adamant Pell is innocent. The fact the jury was moved suggests it was compelling to me, doesn't matter how senior a barrister is not being impressed by a prosecutors second hand presentation seems orders of magnitude less convincing to me than the verdict.

Of course your point of view, and Pell, deserve their (second) day in court in the appeal, and there's not much more that can be said considering the testimony was private.

 

[Lebbo73]

Haven't read Bolt but knows Bolts thoughts & his study of the RC.?

I haven’t read or heard a thing that Bolt has said about the Pell verdict since the Royal Commission into Child Abuse.

 

[Richard Pryor]

I know. And the witnesses they produced had far better insight than me. Which is why I'm gobsmacked. I've asked. Did the jury hear just how busy that joint is? Answer. Yes they did. Did they hear that the MC is always with Pell. Answer. Yes. Did they hear that it's impossible to get 10 minutes alone in that area for this to occur? Yes they did.

So the jury has disregarded all of the evidence that points to the unlikelihood of this occurring and gone with the one single bloke who said it did.

Now that might be a wonderful thing for those who want to get Pell. And I get that there are plenty. But it's disturbing for criminal justice in this country.

Alternatively the defenses cross examination of those witnesses which showed that the the choir master admitted he may have lost track of the boys, that Pell may have opted to not greet parishioners, etc. prior to going to the sacristy moved them to ignore the anecdotal stories from people who arguably have a vested interest in protecting Pell's reputation.

Now I will admit that by itself the defenses rebuttals to the witnesses defence of Pell absolutely does not prove beyond reasonable doubt the offence occurred, however the fact that they trash the defences argument that it was completely impossible for the offence to take place is significant, and additional information from the accusers testimony may combine to form a case beyond reasonable doubt.

Although despite responding I do have to refer back to my point re; it all being up in the air without knowing the details of the one witnesses testimony to a certain extent until the appeal.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

If you concede this point I don't understand how you can be so adamant Pell is innocent. The fact the jury was moved suggests it was compelling to me, doesn't matter how senior a barrister is not being impressed by a prosecutors second hand presentation seems orders of magnitude less convincing to me than the verdict.

Of course your point of view, and Pell, deserve their (second) day in court in the appeal, and there's not much more that can be said considering the testimony was private.

Because as impeccable as the accuser's evidence might have been, it can't change the fact of the event being just so unlikely in the circumstances. There are 50 odd people involved in the process of Mass at St Pats. It has to follow a process. Being a cathedral, that process doesn't change.

I don't know how to explain it. Do/did you play football? It's like trying to say that the senior coach rooted one of the water boys in the umpire's change rooms immediately after a match. Why can't that happen?

1. Everyone wants the coach's attention.
2. People are going in and out of the umpires change room all the time putting away water bottles and goal post pads, not to mention the umpires are changing.
3. And there are hangers on milling about everywhere.

 

[Richard Pryor]

Because as impeccable as the accuser's evidence might have been, it can't change the fact of the event being just so unlikely in the circumstances. There are 50 odd people involved in the process of Mass at St Pats. It has to follow a process. Being a cathedral, that process doesn't change.

I don't know how to explain it. Do/did you play football? It's like trying to say that the senior coach rooted one of the water boys in the umpire's change rooms immediately after a match. Why can't that happen?

1. Everyone wants the coach's attention.
2. People are going in and out of the umpires change room all the time putting away water bottles and goal post pads, not to mention the umpires are changing.
3. And there are hangers on milling about everywhere.

This is just talking in circles, I can bleat on about the accusers testimony, and you can bellow about your anecdotal experience until we're both blue in the face. At the end of the day either the jury system is broken, Pell's defence team is incompetent, or Pell is guilty and whichever one it is will, God willing, be proven in the appeal.

Although I will say I think Sandusky leaves the football analogy unconvincing to me.

 

[AM]

It all makes sense now

The tenor of the piece I linked earlier that effectively tore holes in Father Brennan's attempt to exonerate Pell illustrated the advantages a jury has of seeing and hearing the witnesses.

Daniel Reeders wrote:

The advantages enjoyed by the jury are seeing and hearing the witness. The High Court is saying that even an appeal court judge reading the evidence is at a disadvantage compared to the jury.

If my recollection is right the jury verdict was unanimous.

Yet these Pell supporters who weren't in court, haven't seen a full transcript are saying they know what transpired. In one respect risible. In another troubling that people so indoctrinated exist.