Religion Pell Guilty!

[sideswipe]

Sorry, but the truly disgraceful and disrespectful posts come from those who openly claim a survivor has deliberately lied and put himself through this hell.
Yeah. gagf.

"A wise man once said that you should never believe a thing simply because you want to believe it." Tyrion Lannister

 

[Forward Press]

The victim is anonymous and had to be subjected to two days of cross examination in front of his abuser so the suggestion (admittedly only by some, not all who questioned the verdict) that he made it all up to become famous for smearing the Catholic church is incredibly offensive to anyone who respects the rule of law and those who speak out against child abuse.

 

[Craven Morehead]

I just can't see how the jury touring St Pats in the vast and empty spaces of a day when when Mass not being heard does nothing but prejudice the defense in this case.

Yeah, thanks for the retraction.
Oh, that's right.
IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.
Pathetic.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

Oh for goodness sake. No doubt the sacristy was locked when not in use. When in use, people would come and go all the time so not possible for sexual assaults to take place.

Some really disgraceful posts posts in this thread. I know, I know, it's BigFooty, but given the seriousness of the topic I would have thought a little more respect for differing views would have been in order.

So you think we should respect jury convicted child rapists and respect those who support child rapists?

Nah....think I'll pass

 

[Craven Morehead]

The victim is anonymous and had to be subjected to two days of cross examination in front of his abuser so the suggestion (admittedly only by some, not all who questioned the verdict) that he made it all up to become famous for smearing the Catholic church is incredibly offensive to anyone who respects the rule of law and those who speak out against child abuse.

And yet all he wants to do is hide and protect his family.
One hell of a way to become famous.

 

[Balls In]

The Guardian reporting that Pell's appeal is a good chance of succeeding due to "unreasonableness". Basically that the jury decision was at odds to the evidence presented. Also the judge not allowing an animation of the church and relative location of the alleged offence and crowds of other people.

 

[Maggie5]

I rest my case.

Now for the jury to decide, right?

 

[Admiral Byng]

I’m not sure how that would work , but what I did find interesting Is the jury were taken to church and shown around when there was no mass on etc , I guess that to could be considered leading the jurors to as this could leave them to believe it wasn’t at all busy ? To get an actual better idea of what it may have really been like maybe they should have been taken down after a Sunday mass .

It could easily have been arranged to make the place more busy than usual just for that visit. Thus achieving nothing.

 

[Balls In]

The victim is anonymous and had to be subjected to two days of cross examination in front of his abuser so the suggestion (admittedly only by some, not all who questioned the verdict) that he made it all up to become famous for smearing the Catholic church is incredibly offensive to anyone who respects the rule of law and those who speak out against child abuse.

I think the accuser has indeed come across as credible and this was the whole basis of the conviction. But how will we ever know? I think the facts presented by the defence must cast doubt, enough so that you dont risk putting away an innocent man. Tough one though given the flipside of that is the risk of freeing a scumbag rockspider.

 

[Tiges1229]

From my limited understanding of jury duty isn’t one of the requirements of jury duty is to avoid contact from outside source?

So going on a tour of a “busy” church would compromise that? Let alone if they kept them isolated and cleared out the areas it would defeat the purpose?

Better yet how would it be an accurate situation for the jury to to determine how “busy” the church was decades ago at the time of the incident? The defence couldnt possibly provide a stimulation of that event without knowing specifically how many people were around both inside and outside the church.

That’s my take on it I could be very wrong

I don't know much about Jury stuff but if as you say is correct and they want people to avoid outside contact then they IMO shouldn't have been let go when it was totally empty , because you may have some jurors think its not busy at all . Or if they were allowed to go down when it was empty then the defence maybe should have sent someone down on a Sunday after mass and filmed it etc so that way it would have not affected jurors been in contact with outside people etc. That way the jurors have seen the place when empty and when busy.

 

[Del191229]

I rest my case.

You addressed the original comment to me.

I;m asking - do you want me to show respect for people (like you) dismissing the fact that Pell has been found guilty in a lawful and fair process of child rape?

 

[Del191229]

The victim is anonymous and had to be subjected to two days of cross examination in front of his abuser so the suggestion (admittedly only by some, not all who questioned the verdict) that he made it all up to become famous for smearing the Catholic church is incredibly offensive to anyone who respects the rule of law and those who speak out against child abuse.

BruceFromBalnarring doesn't know why he made it up, just knows he did.

 

[Maggie5]

I don't know much about Jury stuff but if as you say is correct and they want people to avoid outside contact then they IMO shouldn't have been let go when it was totally empty , because you may have some jurors think its not busy at all . Or if they were allowed to go down when it was empty then the defence maybe should have sent someone down on a Sunday after mass and filmed it etc so that way it would have not affected jurors been in contact with outside people etc. That way the jurors have seen the place when empty and when busy.

Things we don't know as the key witness statement is not public.

However I can see why the jury would have been taken there: to see if what access there was to the area, where the wine was kept, area/dimensions for example. Impossible to replicate and filming and video animation would be misleading and I agree with the Judge, could be misinterpreted as fact.

 

[Bumpswithagrin]

"A wise man once said that you should never believe a thing simply because you want to believe it." Tyrion Lannister

And aren't we seeing a lot of that in this thread!

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

People have the right to cast doubt on facts of a case as we all did with Chamberlains and other famous cases.

I, like many, believe Pell was indirectly responsible for scores of children being abused by his inaction in particular against Ridsdale but no doubt many other priests. He then tried to limit the cost to the church and hurt a lot of families doing so.

He had decades to do the right thing and he never did. It’s my belief that he didn’t tell the full truth at the Royal Commission. To me the inaction itself should be worthy of jail. Should have thrown the book at him and many other in the Church.

Anyone can understand why so many people would have felt anger and revulsion to Pell as he was the figurehead of the organisation. Even more so to all the poor people who have been abused or had friends/relatives abused and would have been incensed at the lack of action, the opportunities to stop this by men in power who should have known better.

But I’m just surprised though that there hasn’t been more accusers come out if he was such a rampant, impulsive, opportunistic offender as this case seems to imply.

I mean just months after being appointed archbishop and just months after starting the Melbourne ‘limit the damage’ Response, he does this act that could not get any more impulsive or opportunistic. This is on a level that he had no control whatsoever.

 

[Bumpswithagrin]

You addressed the original comment to me.

I;m asking - do you want me to show respect for people (like you) dismissing the fact that Pell has been found guilty in a lawful and fair process of child rape?

No one is dismissing the fact, some (and I would guess only about half a dozen) think either he couldn't have done it, or he shouldn't be convicted on the evidence presented. I think you should respect that viewpoint but if you want to resort to name calling etc. it reflects worse on you than it does on Bruce and others.

 

[Del191229]

And aren't we seeing a lot of that in this thread!

So, to be clear, you do not accept the jury's verdict.

Why not? Which elements in the case do you believe exonerate Pell, and why?

 

[GuruJane]

From my limited understanding of jury duty isn’t one of the requirements of jury duty is to avoid contact from outside source?

So going on a tour of a “busy” church would compromise that? Let alone if they kept them isolated and cleared out the areas it would defeat the purpose?

Better yet how would it be an accurate situation for the jury to to determine how “busy” the church was decades ago at the time of the incident? The defence couldnt possibly provide a stimulation of that event without knowing specifically how many people were around both inside and outside the church.

That’s my take on it I could be very wrong

I agree. It's very difficult. But the defence case was dependent on a buttress of the location, timing , backstage crowds etc of a Cathedral Sunday Mass with a new Archibishop who normally would be meeting congregation on the steps -- but how can defense depict that?

 

[Tiges1229]

Things we don't know as witness statements are not public.

However I can see why the jury would have been taken there: to see if what access there was to the area, where the wine was kept, area/dimensions for example. Impossible to replicate and filming or video animation would be misleading and I agree with the Judge, could be misinterpreted as fact.

i think bringing them down when empty is to misleading, but thats just my opinion.

 

[Bumpswithagrin]

Now for the jury to decide, right?

This jury? They will throw me in jail and throw away the key for sure.

 

[Forward Press]

i think bringing them down when empty is to misleading, but thats just my opinion.

A jury is smart enough to figure out that the cathedral wasn't empty at the time of the alleged offence. I am sure the prosecution and defence spent plenty of time describing the crime scene and giving timelines of events to the jury - you don't need videos or simulations for that.

 

[NSWCROW]

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...rs-just-displays-their-power?CMP=share_btn_fb

The inconsistencies of George Pell's defenders just display their power

That evening, the pages of our largest media organisation were being used to attack the courts, the jury system, and the rest of the press on his behalf.

Pinch yourself – that really is the same media organisation that harried a woman into exile after an insensitive Facebook post. The same prime ministers who thought the appropriate response to (false) Aboriginal child abuse claims, not convictions, was sending in the army.

 

[Admiral Byng]

i think bringing them down when empty is to misleading, but thats just my opinion.

It is common practice to bring a jury down to see a crime scene. So they can see the actual place, not be relying upon a built up a mental picture of it like you would get from reading a novel or hearing a description of it second hand.

I think this line of argument is clutching at straws.

 

[Sainteric]

People have the right to cast doubt on facts of a case as we all did with Chamberlains and other famous cases.

I, like many, believe Pell was indirectly responsible for scores of children being abused by his inaction in particular against Ridsdale but no doubt many other priests. He then tried to limit the cost to the church and hurt a lot of families doing so.

He had decades to do the right thing and he never did. It’s my belief that he didn’t tell the full truth at the Royal Commission. To me the inaction itself should be worthy of jail. Should have thrown the book at him and many other in the Church.

Anyone can understand why so many people would have felt anger and revulsion to Pell as he was the figurehead of the organisation. Even more so to all the poor people who have been abused or had friends/relatives abused and would have been incensed at the lack of action, the opportunities to stop this by men in power who should have known better.

But I’m just surprised though that there hasn’t been more accusers come out if he was such a rampant, impulsive, opportunistic offender as this case seems to imply.

I mean just months after being appointed archbishop and just months after starting the Melbourne ‘limit the damage’ Response, he does this act that could not get any more impulsive or opportunistic. This is on a level that he had no control whatsoever.

There has been numerous and consistent accusations against Pell, none have reached this far.

 

[Maggie5]

i think bringing them down when empty is to misleading, but thats just my opinion.

Not if it was for the things I mentioned, photos wouldn't do it justice.

This jury? They will throw me in jail and throw away the key for sure.

More concerning would be if you were ever on a jury.