Post BF Upgrade Feedback - Click Here

Remove this Banner Ad

Religion Pell Guilty!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Colonial
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Status
Not open for further replies.
sorted said:
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.
Click to expand...

Maybe Pell concentrated his defence on “it was not possible” because his god insists “thou shalt not lie” and therefore saying he didn’t do it was not an option available to Pell :think:
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

sorted said:
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?​
Click to expand...

Well... time to answer the question... oh wait a minute...
 
sorted said:
See my reply to Crankyhawk
Click to expand...

Have you watched Pell’s 40 min police interview in Rome?

Not once does he state he didn’t do it.

He says it is rubbish. He he says he is not guilty as charged - notwithstanding he hadn’t been charged yet. He says it is abhorrent and against all the teachings of the church.

But not once does he say he did not do it.
 
QuietB said:
Have you watched Pell’s 40 min police interview in Rome?

Not once does he state he didn’t do it.

He says it is rubbish. He he says he is not guilty as charged - notwithstanding he hadn’t been charged yet. He says it is abhorrent and against all the teachings of the church.

But not once does he say he did not do it.
Click to expand...
He pretty much scalds the interviewer for putting the allegations to him.
 
sorted said:
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?
Click to expand...
So you start by saying in your recollection you did what you did, look t
sorted said:
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?
Click to expand...
I think that taking the stand could have made all the difference.
He could describe the usual routine of the day
And deny accusations under cross examination
This would give jury a chance to read emotional content and facial cues.
I think he disadvantaged himself by using a video interview; the screen may have made his seem less relatable or believable. Also the defence witnesses may have given the impression of making up a story to protect Pell given Pell did not directly speak for himself.
I’m really talking about how one influences a jury (which is how a jury case is run rather than on straight legal argument) btw I am no lawyer
 
sorted said:
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.



The Shorten thread where you made those comments is still open if you wish to explain yourself there.
Click to expand...
Having demonstrated you have a penchant for seeing things in just in black and white, whataboutism, and sequential thinking not being your strong point let me allow you to sleep at night.

I believe repressed memory to be real but that people handle matters of trauma in different ways. I am confident that had I been the subject of child sexual abuse I would have made it known at the time. I say that because I recall as an ankle biter a stranger claiming to be a person interested in photography asking my parents if he could take a photograph of me. They gave the okay. I thought he was creepy and said so to my parents at the time and felt that even more so when he turned up at our house with the photo and repeated how I felt.

Having listened to and read the heartrending stories of so many of the abused; having read the Report for the Royal Commission into The Impact of Delayed Reporting on the Prosecution and Outcomes of Child Sexual Abuse Cases - you should read it; the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse - you should read it; and the response to Blot's cretinism by Clare Kathleen which I posted earlier - you should read it, I have a much better understanding of repressed memory and how it can adversely affect many people and agree - to quote - "There is overwhelming evidence that many victims do not speak about their abuse until decades after"

Now let's return to the topic which is "Pell Guilty!"
 
AM said:
Having demonstrated you have a penchant for seeing things in just in black and white, whataboutism, and sequential thinking not being your strong point let me allow you to sleep at night.

I believe repressed memory to be real but that people handle matters of trauma in different ways. I am confident that had I been the subject of child sexual abuse I would have made it known at the time. I say that because I recall as an ankle biter a stranger claiming to be a person interested in photography asking my parents if he could take a photograph of me. They gave the okay. I thought he was creepy and said so to my parents at the time and felt that even more so when he turned up at our house with the photo and repeated how I felt.

Having listened to and read the heartrending stories of so many of the abused; having read the Report for the Royal Commission into The Impact of Delayed Reporting on the Prosecution and Outcomes of Child Sexual Abuse Cases - you should read it; the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse - you should read it; and the response to Blot's cretinism by Clare Kathleen which I posted earlier - you should read it, I have a much better understanding of repressed memory and how it can adversely affect many people and agree - to quote - "There is overwhelming evidence that many victims do not speak about their abuse until decades after"

Now let's return to the topic which is "Pell Guilty!"
Click to expand...
Repressed memory my giddy Aunt.
Survivors don't come forward because the memory lives with them every day.
Just because they don't blurt it out means absolutely nothing.
They don't come forward because they live with the the fear, shame and embarrassment everyday day of their lives.
Enough about your photographer who never touched you and your 'in depth' analysis.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Craven Morehead said:
Repressed memory my giddy Aunt.
Survivors don't come forward because the memory lives with them every day.
Just because they don't blurt it out means absolutely nothing.
They don't come forward because they live with the the fear, shame and embarrassment everyday day of their lives.
Enough about your photographer who never touched you and your 'in depth' analysis.
Click to expand...

I agree with this.

Repressed memory syndrome is largely discredited and not being widely practiced thankfully. It destroyed many families.
 
Craven Morehead said:
Repressed memory my giddy Aunt.
Survivors don't come forward because the memory lives with them every day.
Just because they don't blurt it out means absolutely nothing.
They don't come forward because they live with the the fear, shame and embarrassment everyday day of their lives.
Enough about your photographer who never touched you and your 'in depth' analysis.
Click to expand...

First. Read and take in the whole response.

Second. As for your pseudo psychology. Pfft!
 
Craven Morehead said:
First: I did.

Second: I refer you to Page 2 of this thread.

Pseudo hey?
Click to expand...
I'm deeply sorry for your experiences.

If you actually got the tenor of my post and many others, while - fortunately - not having primary knowledge, I have genuine empathy for you and others who suffered and are still suffering.

That said, firsthand knowledge in this matter does not qualify you to make broader comments on psychological matters.
 
AM said:
I'm deeply sorry for your experiences.

If you actually got the tenor of my post and many others, while - fortunately - not having primary knowledge, I have genuine empathy for you and others who suffered and are still suffering.

That said, firsthand knowledge in this matter does not qualify you to make broader comments on psychological matters.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. But over a year in isolated, highly intensive cognitive behavioural rehab with over 40 fellow survivors might.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Craven Morehead said:
Repressed memory my giddy Aunt.
Survivors don't come forward because the memory lives with them every day.
Just because they don't blurt it out means absolutely nothing.
They don't come forward because they live with the the fear, shame and embarrassment everyday day of their lives.
Enough about your photographer who never touched you and your 'in depth' analysis.
Click to expand...
BruceFromBalnarring said:
I agree with this.

Repressed memory syndrome is largely discredited and not being widely practiced thankfully. It destroyed many families.
Click to expand...
Lol at AM believing in completely discredited psychology from the 90s.
 
CM86 said:
It's interesting looking at the cross section of posters here, and in the Sudanese thread.

Pell is innocent, it's just the media looking for a scandal.

Meanwhile, the Sudanese are guilty, and the media do nothing but report facts.
Click to expand...

Yep, and interestingly the same propaganda is reported from a certain, massively conglomerated, section of the “free” press. The wolf criers and charlatans who only seem to exist to hoodwink Australians.

When this section of the propaganda machine start harping on about what they insist on Australians believing, it convinces me otherwise.
 
Number37 said:
they, BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, concluded that Pell was guilty.
Click to expand...
*re:reasonable doubt: the 12 individuals aggregated, their individual definition/interpretation of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Subject to influence/convincing by 11 other jurists.

I am content with my position and refraining from issuing opinion. I would not wanted to be one of the 13 jurists.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom