Religion Pell Guilty!

[sherb]

I never admitted that I don't know what the evidence was. I have seen both the police (video footage) and the prosecutor (live) characterise what the evidence was. I therefore have a pretty good understanding what the evidence was.

So the accuser's testimony doesn't count as evidence?

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.

 

[skipper kelly]

It's not childish at all. It's accurate paraphrasing of what you have said throughout this thread.

Again, did the witness have some sort of 'vision' to be able to describe the Sacristy so accurately?
The same Sacristy that you have so strenuously denied was accessible to choir boys.

To me, it doesn't matter what other posters have said, it matters what was said in court. And what you said sounds like an accurate paraphrasing of what has been reported to have been argued in court. It sends the BS meter into overdrive if the defence is arguing that is was impossible because the door is always locked but then argue that there are people coming and going all the time and only a madman would do it there. The place can't be locked and private in one argument and open and public in the other. Also if it was argued that is was impossible for 13 yo boys to sneak off then that also sends the BS meter into overdrive. 13 yo's sneaking off to get hold of some holy wine sounds very plausible and sounds exactly like what some 13 yo's would do without thinking about the consequences. It sounds like a normal day in the office for many 13 yo boys, well back when I was 13 anyway.

To me, it seems on what has been reported, that the impossible argument doesn't hold up and doesn't pass the BS test.

Hard to get away with? Maybe. Impossible? No way.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

So, the sacristant is in there getting the wine and wafers and blah blah ready before the service. He then locks it once all that is sorted.

Then he goes back after Mass or at "any other time" to unlock it.

Can you elaborate on what these "any other times" might be?

Also, surely it needs to be unlocked by the time Mass ends, so that the plates and stuff (as you said) can be deposited back there?

Is it possible that the sacristant DID lock it once all the stuff came out, then unlocked it again before Mass ended?

Yes. It's even possible that he accidentally left it unlocked throughout Mass.

Each of the matters alleged are "possible" in their own right. The odds of them all occurring simultaneously however are so remote as to be ridiculous.

And the idea that there was a 10 minute period immediately after Mass where someone didn't enter or leave the sacristy (other than the 3 allegedly there) is ridiculous.

 

[Strange Cat]

OK, so why are they lying, now, and in this circumstance?

"I don't know" is not a suitable response.

Don’t bother I have asked multiple times along with others

It’s the vibe....

 

[Del191229]

I never admitted that I don't know what the evidence was. I have seen both the police (video footage) and the prosecutor (live) characterise what the evidence was. I therefore have a pretty good understanding what the evidence was.

You literally cannot know what the evidence was given you were not in court for the victim's evidence.

 

[FredLeDeux]

Y
And the idea that there was a 10 minute period immediately after Mass where someone didn't enter or leave the sacristy (other than the 3 allegedly there) is ridiculous.

Who knows that there wasn't?
I mean, just asking.
After all, the church and its clerical/lay adherents have terrific form if we're talking conspiracies.

 

[Strange Cat]

Thanks for your self limiting question.

I don't know why he is lying. I don't know why the jury found Pell guilty in the face of all of the contradictory evidence.

Do you have access to all the evidence to make that claim?

Better yet , do you have any new evidence to counter the evidence shown in court?

Do you realise how stupid you sound with baseless claims like this?

 

[Baltimore Jack]

Yes. It's even possible that he accidentally left it unlocked throughout Mass.

Each of the matters alleged are "possible" in their own right. The odds of them all occurring simultaneously however are so remote as to be ridiculous.

And the idea that there was a 10 minute period immediately after Mass where someone didn't enter or leave the sacristy (other than the 3 allegedly there) is ridiculous.

You have reached a new level of stupidity....but here's the thing, I doubt you have reached the bottom yet

 

[Del191229]

To me, it doesn't matter what other posters have said, it matters what was said in court. And what you said sounds like an accurate paraphrasing of what has been reported to have been argued in court. It sends the BS meter into overdrive if the defence is arguing that is was impossible because the door is always locked but then argue that there are people coming and going all the time and only a madman would do it there. The place can't be locked and private in one argument and open and public in the other. Also if it was argued that is was impossible for 13 yo boys to sneak off then that also sends the BS meter into overdrive. 13 yo's sneaking off to get hold of some holy wine sounds very plausible and sounds exactly like what some 13 yo's would do without thinking about the consequences. It sounds like a normal day in the office for many 13 yo boys, well back when I was 13 anyway.

To me, it seems on what has been reported, that the impossible argument doesn't hold up and doesn't pass the BS test.

Hard to get away with? Maybe. Impossible? No way.

Richter stuffed up going the impossible argument.

he should have just said it was highly unlikely, continually thrown doubt on everything, mixed stuff up, said yes it was unlocked and not it was locked.

By operating in such rigid binary terms he forced the jury to make a choice and they believed the victim. He shouldn't have been going for a PELL VINDICATED strategy, but a reasonable doubt strategy that saw Pell found not guilty.

 

[sherb]

This is what religion can do to some people. Utterly brainwash them.

 

[Richard Pryor]

Yes. It's even possible that he accidentally left it unlocked throughout Mass.

Each of the matters alleged are "possible" in their own right. The odds of them all occurring simultaneously however are so remote as to be ridiculous.

And the idea that there was a 10 minute period immediately after Mass where someone didn't enter or leave the sacristy (other than the 3 allegedly there) is ridiculous.

I think the main thing that you have to consider is that the arguments raised for the impossibility of the event were all countered by the prosecution, leaving Pell without a defence in the eyes of the jury. As JLG says a "highly unlikely" argument would have served better, but in any case I think Pell not taking the stand seems to be the most detrimental mistake from the defence (of course assuming Pell is innocent, if he's guilty insulating him from examination in court is a solid tactic).

 

[FredLeDeux]

Richter stuffed up going the impossible argument.

he should have just said it was highly unlikely, continually thrown doubt on everything, mixed stuff up, said yes it was unlocked and not it was locked.

By operating in such rigid binary terms he forced the jury to make a choice and they believed the victim. He shouldn't have been going for a PELL VINDICATED strategy, but a reasonable doubt strategy that saw Pell found not guilty.

Exactly.
As one after another of the 25 odd witnesses were forced to concede that in fact it wasn't "impossible" but merely "improbable" or even "possible", the whole defence case slowly, incrementally shredded its credibility.
As the prosecutor was at pains to draw to the jury's attention.
The result was that the victim's evidence was effectively unchallenged.

 

[Chief]

Yes. It's even possible that he accidentally left it unlocked throughout Mass.

Each of the matters alleged are "possible" in their own right. The odds of them all occurring simultaneously however are so remote as to be ridiculous.

And the idea that there was a 10 minute period immediately after Mass where someone didn't enter or leave the sacristy (other than the 3 allegedly there) is ridiculous.

And yet it happened.

The number of times a catastrophic event happens simply due to a short series of what seem like highly improbable and unconnected system failures would astonish you. In fact, that is usually what leads to a catastrophic event.

From my old IT support days, we had a computer crashing at a specific time of day around payroll time. Went on for weeks. Turned out it was because somebody was turning on a faulty printing calculator just when the payrun was being processed. If the support person had died while travelling to the site, we would be marvelling at how one person switching on a calculator killed a man.

So, an argument from incredulity isn't valid.

In this instance, if there was ever a time when that room was unoccupied long enough for a couple of kids to sneak in and take a swig of communion wine the whole "it never happens that way" argument is out the window.

 

[Sainteric]

remarkably he end up a figure of public sympathy if he was wrongly convicted.

Regardless of what happens the guy harassed denied and made life hell for 1000s of victims and then put a system in place that made it difficult to get help and a pittance in compensation.

He won't get pity except from those welded to the church.

 

[Del191229]

Yes. It's even possible that he accidentally left it unlocked throughout Mass.

Each of the matters alleged are "possible" in their own right. The odds of them all occurring simultaneously however are so remote as to be ridiculous.

And the idea that there was a 10 minute period immediately after Mass where someone didn't enter or leave the sacristy (other than the 3 allegedly there) is ridiculous.

I also asked whether it is possible that he did lock it once all the stuff has been taken out for the Mass, then unlock it again before Mass ended, so it was ready.

Or as you say, it could have been unlocked all Mass.

Either way, we've established the "always locked" line is simply untrue. Factually incorrect.

On the 10 minute period, please stop saying this. Richter himself said "it lasted less than six minutes". Thus by default in the five minute (or less) region. Five minutes is half of ten minutes, and five minutes is long enough time to commit a rape but also short enough to easily get away with it.

So, going back to the locking and unlocking of the sacristy.

Presuming, as you say, it is "always locked", and on this occasion it was locked, at what point would the sacristant have come to unlock it?

How long after Mass ended before it was unlocked?

 

[Richard Pryor]

And yet it happened.

The number of times a catastrophic event happens simply due to a short series of what seem like highly improbable and unconnected system failures would astonish you. In fact, that is usually what leads to a catastrophic event.

From my old IT support days, we had a computer crashing at a specific time of day around payroll time. Went on for weeks. Turned out it was because somebody was turning on a faulty printing calculator just when the payrun was being processed. If the support person had died while travelling to the site, we would be marvelling at how one person switching on a calculator killed a man.

So, an argument from incredulity isn't valid.

In this instance, if there was ever a time when that room was unoccupied long enough for a couple of kids to sneak in and take a swig of communion wine the whole "it never happens that way" argument is out the window.

On the 'system failures' it's also very relevant that the Catholic Church notoriously has had the most dysfunctional system, if any system at all, for preventing child abuse for decades, so failures in the system are much more believable than in, say, the school system where there are stringent guidelines governing adult-child interactions. Pell's own system regarding the issue placed him above investigation to anyone but the Pope.

 

[Del191229]

Exactly.
As one after another of the 25 odd witnesses were forced to concede that in fact it wasn't "impossible" but merely "improbable" or even "possible", the whole defence case slowly, incrementally shredded its credibility.
As the prosecutor was at pains to draw to the jury's attention.
The result was that the victim's evidence was effectively unchallenged.

Also, do not discount the optics of a witness going to shake Pell's hand after getting out of the dock.

The jury would quite rightly have seen that as firm proof that church witnesses were utterly biased, to the point where their evidence could be construed as actively seeking to get Pell off.

 

[Richard Pryor]

I also asked whether it is possible that he did lock it once all the stuff has been taken out for the Mass, then unlock it again before Mass ended, so it was ready.

Or as you say, it could have been unlocked all Mass.

Either way, we've established the "always locked" line is simply untrue. Factually incorrect.

On the 10 minute period, please stop saying this. Richter himself said "it lasted less than six minutes". Thus by default in the five minute (or less) region. Five minutes is half of ten minutes, and five minutes is long enough time to commit a rape but also short enough to easily get away with it.

So, going back to the locking and unlocking of the sacristy.

Presuming, as you say, it is "always locked", and on this occasion it was locked, at what point would the sacristant have come to unlock it?

How long after Mass ended before it was unlocked?

Also, as sickening as it is, Richter's argument for minimization that there was "no ejaculation" is also relevant. The amount of time to perform a sexual assault is different to the amount of time it takes to perform a sex act, and when considering the scenario one should think more along the lines of someone punching someone in the face more than having sex when considering logistics. This event is characterized as Pell performing a horrific act for the purposes of inflicting trauma on others, not something for his own gratification.

 

[skipper kelly]

Richter stuffed up going the impossible argument.

he should have just said it was highly unlikely, continually thrown doubt on everything, mixed stuff up, said yes it was unlocked and not it was locked.

By operating in such rigid binary terms he forced the jury to make a choice and they believed the victim. He shouldn't have been going for a PELL VINDICATED strategy, but a reasonable doubt strategy that saw Pell found not guilty.

I agree on with everything in this post. Even the sold called best legal mind in Australia can make poor arguments.

It seems very hard to win one on one cases in Australia. So it comes down to believe the witness or the defence. Defence says it was impossible, jury says it wasn't. That's the system we have.

 

[FredLeDeux]

I agree on with everything in this post. Even the sold called best legal mind in Australia can make poor arguments.

It seems very hard to win one on one cases in Australia. So it comes down to believe the witness or the defence. Defence says it was impossible, jury says it wasn't. That's the system we have.

I don't know that he actually had any choice, he just had to hope that his witnesses held firm - and they didn't.

 

[skipper kelly]

I don't know that he actually had any choice, he just had to hope that his witnesses held firm - and they didn't.

He had another witness that wasn't used.

 

[Sainteric]

What was the animation of? Was it about the complexity of the robes making it difficult to orally penetrate someone in six minutes?

If so, the jury listened to it and didn't think it would have made the alleged crime impossible anyway, so having an animation about that not allowed is certainly not a solid ground to appeal.

Not sure this has been covered but the animation was a mixture of film and animation where all the main individuals were over the time of the end of the mass on that day onwards obviously it concluded Pell and the two boys could not be where the prosecution said they were.

Anyway it's 1 reason of 3 for the appeal.

 

[Strange Cat]

Not sure this has been covered but the animation was a mixture of film and animation where all the main individuals were over the time of the end of the mass on that day onwards obviously it concluded Pell and the two boys could not be where the prosecution said they were.

Anyway it's 1 reason of 3 for the appeal.

Wouldn’t that be leading the jurors?

On what ground if it’s known why the judge refused to show the clip to the jurors?

I’ll leave it for the more legal minded people in here to help out if they can?

 

[Richard Pryor]

Not sure this has been covered but the animation was a mixture of film and animation where all the main individuals were over the time of the end of the mass on that day onwards obviously it concluded Pell and the two boys could not be where the prosecution said they were.

Anyway it's 1 reason of 3 for the appeal.

The jury toured the Cathedral, which I can imagine could be seen to serve the same purpose. Not sure if the defence/prosecution had set up timelines of movements for the jury to consider during/prior to the tour though, so possible grounds for the appeal.

 

[Del191229]

Also, as sickening as it is, Richter's argument for minimization that there was "no ejaculation" is also relevant. The amount of time to perform a sexual assault is different to the amount of time it takes to perform a sex act, and when considering the scenario one should think more along the lines of someone punching someone in the face more than having sex when considering logistics. This event is characterized as Pell performing a horrific act for the purposes of inflicting trauma on others, not something for his own gratification.

Exactly this, and also why BruceFromBalnarring keeps saying "10 minutes".

Ten minutes is well know shorthand for a longer period of time - "Oh I'll be there in ten minutes" we all know means anywhere from ten minutes to half an hour.

Five minutes is 50 per cent shorter, and five minutes goes very very quickly.