Religion Pell Guilty!

[romeohwho]

I was responding to a question directed at me. The question came from someone who harbours similar, though perhaps not as extreme doubts as I. In responding I anticipated what his next question might be so I covered it.

Go down to Albert St East Melbourne on Sunday morning. It’s a long weekend so it will be relatively quiet. Watch the comings and goings immediately after Mass. you might then get some idea.

Remember the overwhelming mob hate directed at Adam Goodes a year or so ago? I think then we were on the same side. Fighting the mob. Now you’re part of the mob.

If the SCA throws this out on appeal will you stand down? Because they’re going to. It’s a horrible verdict. On the evidence before the jury and on the circumstances as I know them.

Or will you cry about the jury not being respected?

How do you know précisely what the evidence before the jury was? The key witness spent two whole days on the stand with a lawyer as capable as Richter interrogating him-and the jury believed him, not Pell.
Strikes me ( 4 corners and other whispering), that its likely more victims will emerge now and who knows where it will go.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Does it?
The ABC had a reporter at the church when the verdict was announced. Reporter interviewed members of the congregation.
More than 1 said the verdict was wrong because <insert Bruce from Balnarring excuse>.

Like I said, it wasn't at all surprising given what we know the Church has done over the years to cover it up or excuse it.

That kind of thing would not be unique to the Catholic Church, there is lots of research about witnesses failing to come forward because of the accused's standing within that organisation.

Maybe they, like Bruce, know the act wasn’t capable of being committed?

But no.... better to label a plurality of Cathlicks as rape enablers. Better suits the narrative.

What will you say when the SCA throws the verdict out?

 

[GuruJane]

The answer to settle this issue appears to be straightforward now.

All members of the Appeals Court (3) should be required to put on the Archbishop's regalia and judge for themselves if the sex acts in question could have taken place in the manner alleged.

That would be definitive.

 

[Big_Luch]

The answer to settle this issue appears to be straightforward now.

All members of the Appeals Court (3) should be required to put on the Archbishop's regalia and judge for themselves if the sex acts in question could have taken place in the manner alleged.

That would be definitive.

Surely someone in the court demonstrated this to the jury during the trial - or have I been watching too many American shows?

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

My narrative has nothing to do with Pell’s character. It’s entirely to do with what was possible and what was not.

Good on you for “believing the victim”. I don’t. I suspect what he alleges is possibly half true, but he’s changed the time of day and the perpetrator. The rest of your crap is just the mob narrative.

And if you hold the view, as many do, that there is no difference between abortion and infanticide, then it follows that abortion is a far more serious problem than child abuse. If you don’t hold that view, then clearly it is not.

 

[Craven Morehead]

My narrative has nothing to do with Pell’s character. It’s entirely to do with what was possible and what was not.

Good on you for “believing the victim”. I don’t. I suspect what he alleges is possibly half true, but he’s changed the time of day and the perpetrator. The rest of your crap is just the mob narrative.

And if you hold the view, as many do, that there is no difference between abortion and infanticide, then it follows that abortion is a far more serious problem than child abuse. If you don’t hold that view, then clearly it is not.

Just when you think this thread had reached the very bottom of the gutter you get this...

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

My narrative has nothing to do with Pell’s character. It’s entirely to do with what was possible and what was not.

Good on you for “believing the victim”. I don’t. I suspect what he alleges is possibly half true, but he’s changed the time of day and the perpetrator. The rest of your crap is just the mob narrative.

And if you hold the view, as many do, that there is no difference between abortion and infanticide, then it follows that abortion is a far more serious problem than child abuse. If you don’t hold that view, then clearly it is not.

Half true?

 

[sideswipe]

Better to label the victim a liar.
And all the other victims are liars too.
Your narrative is that it's a great big conspiracy against a man who could never commit such acts because of his impeccable character...you know this for a fact. That is amazeballs.

The man who said abortion was worse than pedo priests couldn't have committed such acts. That man?
The man that knew a slew of peddos were abusing kids in the care of the Church in which he held a senior position and did F all about it. That man?
The man who didn't even take the stand but instead chose to sling mud at the victims. That man?
The man who made a generous donation to the Church in Poland and not long after got promoted? That man?

Blind loyalty is not loyalty at all Bruce.
I know for a fact he did it because I believe the victim.

What will you say when the SCA dismisses his appeal?

Regardless of anything else it is irrefutable that Pell established the world’s first compensation system for sexual abuse survivors. The vast majority of applicants (97% at last count?) received compensation and whilst “happy” is an inappropriate term, the vast majority were satisfied with the process. That fact is separate from this court action but it does get lost when viewing all events with 2019 eyes.

FWIW my guess is the appeal succeeds.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Boston tiger]

On the appeal process are you now guilty and need to prove your innocence or does it start all over again with prosecutors having to prove guilt?

 

[GuruJane]

Surely someone in the court demonstrated this to the jury during the trial - or have I been watching too many American shows?

Demonstrating is not definitive.
The jury was not required to actually put on the robes/regalia and experience for themselves whether the acts could have taken place as alleged.

 

[Gough]

Demonstrating is not definitive.
The jury was not required to actually put on the robes/regalia and experience for themselves whether the acts could have taken place as alleged.

Having pulled your penis out of ecclesiastical regalia multiple times I'm sure you are an expert at how long it would take.

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

Regardless of anything else it is irrefutable that Pell established the world’s first compensation system for sexual abuse survivors. The vast majority of applicants (97% at last count?) received compensation and whilst “happy” is an inappropriate term, the vast majority were satisfied with the process. That fact is separate from this court action but it does get lost when viewing all events with 2019 eyes.

FWIW my guess is the appeal succeeds.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

So setting up a compensation system after his failure to turn a bling eye causing many to be abused makes up for it? You’ve go to be kidding.

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

Like many my interest in this case is not Pell himself. He deserves jail for his previous inactions.

My interest is in this is its one man’s word against another. We have to assume there was sufficient evidence judged by the verdict, but it’s quite logical to be curious of the evidence.

What is a babysitter you hired comes out 20 years later and accuses you of sexual assault during one of her night of babysitting.

They can describe your bedroom, there’s no other witness. You have no priors, no physical evidence.

What’s the key that will make the case against you? Hence why people are curious of what was the key against Pell?

Of course for most sex assaults it would be one word against another but if reported at the time they can gather physical evidence against.

Unfortunately for many children subject to abuse by those in authority they stay silent for many years.

Multiple accusers against one then helps build and support a case.

But for single accusers against its much harder to prove. But there had to be significant proof to reach a decision beyond reasonable doubt. People also need to be protected against false accusations due to vendettas etc.

All the facts from this case can not be released as it involved a minor but people have a right to question without being insulted.

 

[GuruJane]

Like many my interest in this case is not Pell himself. He deserves jail for his previous inactions.

My interest is in this is its one man’s word against another. We have to assume there was sufficient evidence judged by the verdict, but it’s quite logical to be curious of the evidence.

What is a babysitter you hired comes out 20 years later and accuses you of sexual assault during one of her night of babysitting.

They can describe your bedroom, there’s no other witness. You have no priors, no physical evidence.

What’s the key that will make the case against you? Hence why people are curious of what was the key against Pell?

Of course for most sex assaults it would be one word against another but if reported at the time they can gather physical evidence against.

Unfortunately for many children subject to abuse by those in authority they stay silent for many years.

Multiple accusers against one then helps build and support a case.

But for single accusers against its much harder to prove. But there had to be significant proof to reach a decision beyond reasonable doubt. People also need to be protected against false accusations due to vendettas etc.

All the facts from this case can not be released as it involved a minor but people have a right to question without being insulted.

Very well summarised.

 

[GuruJane]

Having pulled your penis out of ecclesiastical regalia multiple times I'm sure you are an expert at how long it would take.

Yet another so mature classy post from moderator Gough. Fine addition to discussion.

 

[Colonial]

And to think some Catholics will actually take part.

And they wonder why they get hammered. FFS.



Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

 

[Gough]

Yet another so mature classy post from moderator Gough. Fine addition to discussion.

So how long does it take? Since you're the one suggesting this would help prove his innocence I'm assuming you would know that sort of thing.

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

So how long does it take? Since you're the one suggesting this would help prove his innocence I'm assuming you would know that sort of thing.

See this is where Richter stuffed up. Arguing this point so hard and then possibly being proven it didn’t actually take a long time adds to the perception of guilt. His focus should have been ‘no I am totally innocent, it doesn’t matter if I walked in with shorts on. To help this Pell should have taken the stand.

 

[Frank Bunn]

How do you know précisely what the evidence before the jury was?

We don't.

The key witness spent two whole days on the stand with a lawyer as capable as Richter interrogating him-and the jury believed him, not Pell.

How do you know this happened? It seems we don't even know if the key witness gave evidence in the 2nd trial or video from the 1st trial was replayed.

 

[Frank Bunn]

I doubt that a lot turned on it. If anything, that kind of thing should influence towards doubt rather than guilt.

I think Pell just copped a Jury desperate to find him guilty. This thread is instructive as to how that happened.

My point is more that it has been reported that the jury in the 2nd trial were unaware that the 1st trial resulted in a mistrial. That would seem unlikely if the evidence of the key witness was given by replaying the video from the 1st trial. And the jury in the 2nd trial might have felt under pressure not to return another hung jury.

 

[Boston tiger]

And they wonder why they get hammered. FFS.



Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

Maybe they are praying that he goes to hell .

 

[Colonial]

Maybe they are praying that he goes to hell .

Considering we haven't heard them condem Pell yet, like we expect/force Muslim leaders to, I doubt it.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

 

[Maggie5]

Surely someone in the court demonstrated this to the jury during the trial - or have I been watching too many American shows?

I read somewhere that the jury had the robes in the jury room unless we were there we don't know if someone did in fact try them on to see what was possible.

 

[DrEvil_]

My narrative has nothing to do with Pell’s character. It’s entirely to do with what was possible and what was not.

Good on you for “believing the victim”. I don’t. I suspect what he alleges is possibly half true, but he’s changed the time of day and the perpetrator. The rest of your crap is just the mob narrative.

And if you hold the view, as many do, that there is no difference between abortion and infanticide, then it follows that abortion is a far more serious problem than child abuse. If you don’t hold that view, then clearly it is not.

Good that who or what you believe means jack shit then. It only matters that 12 men/women unanimously believed beyond reasonable doubt that Pell was guilty.

 

[GuruJane]

So how long does it take? Since you're the one suggesting this would help prove his innocence I'm assuming you would know that sort of thing.

Can't help you there Moderator Gough. But clearly the Appeals judges should be finding out for themselves. And it would be definitive, as you seem to realise.

A detailed description of the regalia was given by Frank Brennan:

Witnesses familiar with liturgical vestments had been called who gave compelling evidence that it was impossible to produce an erect penis through a seamless alb. An alb is a long robe, worn under a heavier chasuble. It is secured and set in place by a cincture which is like a tightly drawn belt. An alb cannot be unbuttoned or unzipped, the only openings being small slits on the side to allow access to trouser pockets underneath.

The complainant’s initial claim to police was that Pell had parted his vestments, but an alb cannot be parted; it is like a seamless dress. Later the complainant said that Pell moved the vestments to the side. An alb secured with a cincture cannot be moved to the side.
The police never inspected the vestments during their investigations, nor did the prosecution show that the vestments could be parted or moved to the side as the complainant had alleged.

https://www.catholicweekly.com.au/fr-frank-brennan-sj-the-pell-verdict/