Religion Pell Guilty!

[RupieDupie]

Protestant churches are rife with sexual abuse problems as well, the entire attitude Christianity has towards sex and sexual relationships should come into question

Hey, I've got a good idea, let's put some sexually immature degenerates in charge of an "advanced" civilisation to tell us what constitutes a "good" sexual relationship, and what constitutes "good" family values. That we should look to these people to find the answers to questions on truth and morality. Jesus...

 

[RupieDupie]

Hey, I've got a good idea, let's put some sexually immature degenerates in charge of an "advanced" civilisation to tell us what constitutes a "good" sexual relationship, and what constitutes "good" family values. That we should look to these people to find the answers to questions on truth and morality. Jesus...

I'm starting to believe they just made up the whole thing... this is like when you go 'round to a person's place, and without any foreplay they invite you to play Dungeons and Dragons. And then you find out a whole heap of their psyche through their role as the Dungeon Master. That all your little characters are trapped in a Dystopian fantasy of a bed-wetter.

"Ha hah hah, because you did not roll '4' you have to reveal all your sins behind these curtains with me... a weird creepy fat guy, who has "never" had sex..."

 

[skilts]

Hey, I've got a good idea, let's put some sexually immature degenerates in charge of an "advanced" civilisation to tell us what constitutes a "good" sexual relationship, and what constitutes "good" family values. That we should look to these people to find the answers to questions on truth and morality. Jesus...

That these mothers deem it appropriate to lecture people on how to live a moral life is the greatest joke told since the Marx Brothers died.

 

[skilts]

Pell didn't need to be on ice. He had infallability coursing through his veins.

I tend to think his veins contain ice of a different type.

 

[Feerits Elf]

you’d have to have been on Ice to do it

That's pretty offensive to meth heads TBH

 

[Colonial]

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

 

[Richard Pryor]

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

The head of the defense abandoning ship can't be a good sign.

He also said it was not unusual for him to step away from a case before it went to an appeal.
"I very frequently do not appear in appeals of decisions in which I've done the trials or the pleas, because I think they usually require a clearer and more independent head to evaluate," he said.

Would be interesting to hear the stats on the success rates of appeals he works on vs appeals he abandons.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

That reporting was accepted as false 24 hours ago......but anyway.

 

[Colonial]

And another




Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

 

[Underarm]

And another




Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

The shocking part of this tweet is that Derryn Hinch adhered to a supression order...

 

[Colonial]

The shocking part of this tweet is that Derryn Hinch adhered to a supression order...

Sad but true.

What a sad world we live in that the shocking part isn't the pedo priest. [emoji20]

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

 

[Richard Pryor]

Lawyerese. Richter hasn't 'quit' he has just 'stepped aside' to let someone 'more objective' lead and will be acting in a nebulous 'supporting role'.:
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/l...1f322babddd8f6ec857bb2e2a3d?memtype=anonymous

Top barrister Robert Richter QC will no longer be part of George Pell’s legal team ahead of the convicted Cardinal’s appeal, but has refuted reports he has abandoned the legal fight.

Mr Richter said he had not quit Pell’s appeal, instead saying “objective judgment” was needed for the case.

It is normal practice for appeals to be argued by different counsel.

“It is false to say I quit the legal team, I don’t quit,” Mr Richter told the Herald Sun.

https://www.9news.com.au/2019/03/05...rt-richter-qc-quits-legal-team--victoria-news

"In these particular circumstances, Richter questions whether he has sufficient objectivity at this stage to take the appeal forward himself," Mr Galbally said in a statement.

"As Cardinal Pell is well aware, Richter is still very much part of the legal team and will be involved right through to the end."

 

[Sainteric]

Interesting you raise that. It was shortly after Graeme Ashton testified to the Vic Parliamentary Inquiry into sex abuse that the Catholic Church hadn’t referred any offenders to VicPol and Pell produced a file of something like 70 referrals.

But that’s probably coincidence.

Or BS

 

[Sainteric]

Lawyerese. Richter hasn't 'quit' he has just 'stepped aside' to let someone 'more objective' lead and will be acting in a nebulous 'supporting role'.:
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/l...1f322babddd8f6ec857bb2e2a3d?memtype=anonymous

https://www.9news.com.au/2019/03/05...rt-richter-qc-quits-legal-team--victoria-news

He doesn't usually appeal the cases he loses apparently. He called this one perverse.

Appeal in June when he will get out unfortunately.

 

[A Cut Above]

The interesting thing if Pell loses on appeal what Commensoli says.

Silence or denial, pick your poison.

The idea of sexual abstinence and purity in 2019 is just so backwards and stupid, any religious organisations that still pretend they stand for those values should be ignored immediately

More backward and stupid than the idea of an invisible man in the sky knowing everything about everything?

Of course autocrats like Abbott & Bolt love religion, its a form of cultural brainwashing of the kind necessary for their backwards-looking views to hold weight in the community. The minute you begin thinking for yourself you realize what a sham religion is, and likewise how fossilized most conservatives are.

 

[Frank Bunn]

No one gave the answer sorted was after, but that doesn’t mean that some posters didn’t answer the question.

But let’s suppose if 8 out of 32 posts since this afternoon answered sorted question. Yet we only consider the question answered if it were answered, based on these odds, on 10 separate occasions, as a result of 10 independent events of sorted asking the same question... and the question answered in the first post afterwards on each occasion... why then it will be over a one in a million chance... that the question has been answered... which means it could not have been answered... due to probability

No need to tag me in future. You will have further opportunity to reply to your own posts now I've added you to my ignore list.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Or BS

No. It’s not bullshit. The transcripts are still up.

 

[Frank Bunn]

Okay, I'll try once more. You picked up a comment I made about speculation a person was likely to take civil action in the Supreme Court that or the next day on a Pell related matter.I made no reference to anything other than that prospect - ie the person was about to take civil action. It turned out to be accurate. You then went on to conflate it with the Shorten allegation. If you want to go down the whataboutism path then start a Shorten thread and we can toss around that allegation and any views I might have on it and time delays.

What a bunch of unadulterated, evasive twaddle! Either you think that we should have misgivings about someone who waits 28 years before taking action over an alleged rape or you don't.

Am I the only one who has misgivings about someone who waits 28 years before taking action over an alleged rape?

The Shorten thread where you made those comments is still open if you wish to explain yourself there.

 

[Crankyhawk]

No. I'm asking - given the circumstances about what we know in this case and hypothetically if he was innocent, what possible defence could Pell have mounted that would have been successful?

What if you were accused of such an offence from 30 years ago?

Take the stand and attempt to convince jury of your version of events

 

[Frank Bunn]

What we know is next to nothing. We have not heard the evidence or the cross examination.

Hypotheticals are a waste of time

We have not heard the evidence or the cross examination but we can still speculate on hypotheticals to discuss the case based on likely scenarios. And general points of law and procedure as it might relate to other cases.

Unless I've missed it I'm still waiting for a decent answer.

Given the circumstances about what we know in this case and hypothetically if he was innocent, what possible defence could Pell have mounted that would have been successful?​

 

[Richard Pryor]

We have not heard the evidence or the cross examination but we can still speculate on hypotheticals to discuss the case based on likely scenarios. And general points of law and procedure as it might relate to other cases.

Unless I've missed it I'm still waiting for a decent answer.

Given the circumstances about what we know in this case and hypothetically if he was innocent, what possible defence could Pell have mounted that would have been successful?​

His defence was based around eyewitnesses who were arguing the event was impossible, upon cross-examination their arguments for impossibility were debunked (i.e. choir master admitted no role meant it was possible the boys could have been lost) and the impartiality was also thrown into question (choir master shaking Pell's hand, resulting in judge intervening).

If Pell's defence not argued impossibility as the defence, the prosecutions cross examination their witnesses would not have been as damaging to Pell's defence.

Just my two cents off the top of my head, so not putting it out there as an ironclad argument, just putting it out there.

 

[Frank Bunn]

Take the stand and attempt to convince jury of your version of events

We're talking events that happened 30 years ago on unspecified dates. So if you didn't commit the crime and have no recollection of the events on the unspecified dates how do you convince a jury of your version of events apart from saying 'I didn't do it'.

I reckon I would have have trouble working out what country I was in on some dates in the last 30 years. With Pell's position in the church his whereabouts on specified days can be ascertained to some degree. But the same problem applies. Given the historic nature of the accusation what possible defence could Pell have mounted that would have been successful?

 

[QuietB]

We have not heard the evidence or the cross examination but we can still speculate on hypotheticals to discuss the case based on likely scenarios. And general points of law and procedure as it might relate to other cases.

Unless I've missed it I'm still waiting for a decent answer.

Given the circumstances about what we know in this case and hypothetically if he was innocent, what possible defence could Pell have mounted that would have been successful?​

He could have taken the stand and actually defended himself.

Instead he chose to focus on discrediting the victim. As usual.

I guess he has had 30-40 years success with that strategy.

 

[Frank Bunn]

His defence was based around eyewitnesses who were arguing the event was impossible, upon cross-examination their arguments for impossibility were debunked (i.e. choir master admitted no role meant it was possible the boys could have been lost) and the impartiality was also thrown into question (choir master shaking Pell's hand, resulting in judge intervening).

If Pell's defence not argued impossibility as the defence, the prosecutions cross examination their witnesses would not have been as damaging to Pell's defence.

Just my two cents off the top of my head, so not putting it out there as an ironclad argument, just putting it out there.

That's my understanding also. But I still don't understand how the case went from failure of the prosecution to prove the event was impossible to the defence disproving there was reasonable doubt that that the alleged crime occured.

 

[Gavin Excell]

That's my understanding also. But I still don't understand how the case went from failure of the prosecution to prove the event was impossible to the defence disproving there was reasonable doubt that that the alleged crime occured.

Yes that reverses onus of proof which is on the prosecution