Religion Pell Guilty!

[Strange Cat]

Actually, as best as I or anyone else can understand, all they used was anecdotal. But yes, it is a tough thing to get my head around.

It isn’t anecdotal if it’s proven in court to be fact, hence the cross examination and the conviction.

So now you are calling the survivor a liar?

On what basis?

Unless you were involved in the event you can’t possibly provide any proof other than you own anecdotal information which is irrevelent to the event.

Your ramblings “points” are not insights into why the survivor is a liar, do you honestly think that’s ritcher would not have covered these issues ?

Nearly two days of questions to prove that the story was false to the jurors and he couldn’t do that.

So again I ask you what makes the survivor a liar?

 

[Lebbo73]

Dunno if "childish" is the kind of term you should deploy when backing up a kiddie fiddler.

You keep making these assertions "legal people in bars" and journos in lifts, as if it means something, then you squeal when called out on it.

I'm very glad I escaped the Christian Brothers unharmed and into a good school and better life.

Otherwise I was on track to become that most tiresome of Melbourne figures - the pompous submarine Catholic lawyer who puffs up in Jesuitical wordplay but is actually so malformed by his education and weekly indoctrination he can't evolve into a grown adult who understands feelings of cultural loyalty don't justify defending child molesters.

This post is just embellishment and creating your own fantasy land.

 

[Crankyhawk]

I think that the rest of us should consider easing up on the Pell defenders in this thread. It’s similar to when WADA came over the top and suspended Essendon; Essendon supporters (as in those who believed nothing wrong was done) were also impossible to convince; that they were incapable of releasing long held positions due to emotional investment.

 

[Thornton Melon]

I think it's reasonable to assume that Richter would have gone very hard on the same assumption you are making but still couldn't break down the witnesses testimony after 2 days in the box because it is pivotal to the entire case.
But he couldn't.
That point seems to continuously slip your mind.

Maybe Richter isn't as smart as Bruce.

 

[Lebbo73]

Around and around and around we go.
But then we get back to the point where the witness described, in I believe GREAT DETAIL, the inside of the Sacristy, (including where the wine was stored), despite this being utterly IMPOSSIBLE from your anecdotes.
See how that kinda screws your unending, and may I say unedifying, defence of Pell?

You claim that this whole thing is just impossible?
I'll tell you what is impossible Bruce.
An already broken young man taking on the might of the Catholic Church, the inquisition of one of the best legal minds in the country and the constant pressure of the media and Catholic apologists and STILL being able to convince 12 of his peers that what he said was truthful, BY LYING!
That's f***ing fantasmagorically impossible!



It's certainly not a waste of time from my perspective. However I do understand how answering a few very pointed questions on this may harm your never-ending defence of a convicted paedophile.




Thank you Perry Mason, but I think we have enough armchair lawyers speculating on shit they have little knowledge of in this thread already.

The very fact that the victim couldn’t remember if the alleged second offence happened in December 96 or January 97 should have been enough for a Not Guilty verdict.

 

[Craven Morehead]

I think that the rest of us should consider easing up on the Pell defenders in this thread. It’s similar to when WADA came over the top and suspended Essendon; Essendon supporters (as in those who believed nothing wrong was done) were also impossible to convince; that they were incapable of releasing long held positions due to emotional investment.

I have a pretty large emotional investment when it comes to people blindly defending convicted paedophiles.

 

[Craven Morehead]

The very fact that the victim couldn’t remember if the alleged second offence happened in December 96 or January 97 should have been enough for a Not Guilty verdict.

That's not even worth responding to.
Another f***ing Perry Mason in our midst.

 

[Crankyhawk]

I have a pretty large emotional investment when it comes to people blindly defending convicted paedophiles.

And fair enough; I’m just saying if you hope to change his mind it isn’t going to happen. That’s all.

 

[Del191229]

This post is just embellishment and creating your own fantasy land.

LOL, "fantasy land' coming from the bloke who says "the facts" have Pell as innocent, where the actual facts are that he's currently sitting in the Melbourne Assessment Prison as a convicted child rapist.

 

[Del191229]

The very fact that the victim couldn’t remember if the alleged second offence happened in December 96 or January 97 should have been enough for a Not Guilty verdict.

You're applying this same forensic and ruthless logic to your mate Trump in the other thread right?

 

[Gough]

You're applying this same forensic and ruthless logic to your mate Trump in the other thread right?

Climate change is bollocks and Pell is innocent. Welcome to the world of the Australian arch conservative.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

The very fact that the victim couldn’t remember if the alleged second offence happened in December 96 or January 97 should have been enough for a Not Guilty verdict.

No.

 

[Lebbo73]

You're applying this same forensic and ruthless logic to your mate Trump in the other thread right?

Trump isn’t my mate. I don’t post much in there because of the pathetic behaviour of you and others who don’t accept the 2016 election result. You cop everything you deserve in there.

Climate change is bollocks and Pell is innocent. Welcome to the world of the Australian arch conservative.

That's not even worth responding to.
Another f***ing Perry Mason in our midst.

Arguing that Pell should have been found not guilty doesn’t mean that he’s innocent or the victim is lying idiots.

 

[GuruJane]

And?

You have zero details on what that evidence was. So you are guessing, or more accurately projecting.

thankfully our legal system does actually rely on more than that.

It"s been widely reported there were around 25 defence witnesses - choirboys, acolytes, other church functionaries etc - giving evidence for the defense. Contra Mundum also confirmed this.

 

[GuruJane]

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

This is another lie from you Gough.

 

[GuruJane]

Why do you keep mentioning mob mentality and lynchings and then get all passive-aggressive about "where did I say that?".

Where did I say it was catholics?

 

[Del191229]

Trump isn’t my mate. I don’t post much in there because of the pathetic behaviour of you and others who don’t accept the 2016 election result. You cop everything you deserve in there.

??? - Trump won that election, no arguing there. And I've repeatedly said I could never have voted for Hilary and think she would have been an awful President.

Keep maing it up as go along.

 

[GuruJane]

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.

The first link you provided was wrong, that's all. Why was it wrong, btw2?

 

[sherb]

That's not even worth responding to.
Another f***ing Perry Mason in our midst.

Just ignore him. He will wind you up for the fun of it otherwise.

 

[QuietB]

It"s been widely reported there were around 25 defence witnesses - choirboys, acolytes, other church functionaries etc - giving evidence for the defense. Contra Mundum also confirmed this.

So? You still have not heard the evidence. What if Pell has a crucifix tattooed on his member and the victim described it in perfect detail?

You are projecting

 

[sherb]

Arguing that Pell should have been found not guilty doesn’t mean that he’s innocent or the victim is lying idiots.

That may or may not be your point of view, but it is definitely Bruce's. Which would probably explain the broader "Perry Mason" reference.

He has categorically said that Pell didn't do it and couldn't have done it. I remember the post, I replied to it.

Ergo, to Bruce, the accused is either deliberately lying or is (wondrously) somehow completely mistaken about it all.

 

[FredLeDeux]

The very fact that the victim couldn’t remember if the alleged second offence happened in December 96 or January 97 should have been enough for a Not Guilty verdict.

Not peak stupid, nadir stupid.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

That may or may not be your point of view, but it is definitely Bruce's. Which would probably explain the broader "Perry Mason" reference.

He has categorically said that Pell didn't do it and couldn't have done it. I remember the post, I replied to it.

Ergo, to Bruce, the accused is either deliberately lying or is (wondrously) somehow completely mistaken about it all.

I think the accuser is lying.

 

[sherb]

I think the accuser is lying.

That's what blind faith and devotion does to you.

 

[Craven Morehead]

I think the accuser is lying.

Well that's been obvious from the start.
However, what you won't broach is WHY he lied?
What benefit was there to him to put himself through this?
Or are you saying he's lying about the entire sexual assault and put himself through this ideal for the shits and giggles?