Religion Pell Guilty!

[Seeds]

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.

Pell has multiple accusers. Its not a one off. The accuser in this particular case also has no incentive. He aint asking for compensation and if he was caught out in an obvious lie there would be charges laid against him. He also by all reports is a fairly credible person.

 

[Bumpswithagrin]

I found interesting the discussion ITT about Pell's body language during the police interview which I thought indicted he was not guilty (others thought the opposite). This excerpt from a recent Joe Rogan interview with Dr. Phil relating to Jesse Smollett talks about what to look for when an accused is lying. I found it interesting. To me it further reinforces my belief that the behavior of Pell when talking to police indicates he was not lying but others may think differently.

I'll take it as read that some of you will think Joe Rogan is an idiot, Dr Phil is an idiot, this is hokey pseudo science and proves nothing etc. For the rest, here is the clip.

Edit: There are also some interesting comments towards the end about why some people make false accusations.

 

[Boston tiger]

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

Unfortunately there is now an appeal in process so official anything will have to wait.

 

[Colonial]

Unfortunately there is now an appeal in process so official anything will have to wait.

Why?
Surely the Catholic church should be made to condemn pedophilia.


Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

Pell has multiple accusers. Its not a one off. The accuser in this particular case also has no incentive. He aint asking for compensation and if he was caught out in an obvious lie there would be charges laid against him. He also by all reports is a fairly credible person.

All unsubstantiated and would never have been admissible. Jury never would have (shouldn’t have) considered it.

As for motive, for vendettas (just continuing from by previous example, not saying it was case here) there could be a few.

 

[Boston tiger]

Why?
Surely the Catholic church should be made to condemn pedophilia.


Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

They would have condemned it a million times by now.

Don’t go all stupid. It would be the same as the education department not deregistering a teacher until all the legal who ha is over.

 

[Colonial]

They would have condemned it a million times by now.

Don’t go all stupid. It would be the same as the education department not deregistering a teacher until all the legal who ha is over.

Would they now?

Lol stupid? Please [emoji849]
Just wanting all cults to be treated the same.

The Muslim cult gets told to condemn incidents even before they've gone to court.
A Catholic cult leader gets convicted and everyone says wait until he appeals [emoji849]

Pathetic by them.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

 

[Boston tiger]

Would they now?

Lol stupid? Please [emoji849]
Just wanting all cults to be treated the same.

The Muslim cult gets told to condemn incidents even before they've gone to court.
A Catholic cult leader gets convicted and everyone says wait until he appeals [emoji849]

Pathetic by them.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

Take that up with the Muslim accusers but I’m sure the actual body of who ever you are talking about would wait until everything is clear before they started to condemning him/her.

 

[Colonial]

Take that up with the Muslim accusers but I’m sure the actual body of who ever you are talking about would wait until everything is clear before they started to condemning him/her.

I am. The general outcry from Christian cults is what I'm calling on.

But I see the double standards are there for all to see.

Considering he admitted to knowing about pedo priests since the 70s tells me he should be condemned already.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

 

[Boston tiger]

I am. The general outcry from Christian cults is what I'm calling on.

But I see the double standards are there for all to see.

Considering he admitted to knowing about pedo priests since the 70s tells me he should be condemned already.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

I think most Catholics have condemned him but if your wondering why other Christian groups haven’t officially condemned him I’d say it would be a case of don’t throw stones and the process isn’t over.

As for sending pedo priests of to the far flung corners of Victoria and allowing them to continue their evil.. I have no idea why he hasn’t been charged over that

 

[romeohwho]

We don't.



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.

Yep, fair enough. I heard this through a ‘legal’ source- he testified in person at the second trial for 2 days. ( is what I was told, for what it’s worth I s’pose). Thought I had read it somewhere too though.

 

[Frank Bunn]

In most cases a special hearing is held and recorded prior to the trial. The jury would not be aware that it has previously been played in another trial. They are only aware of the recording and its contents. In the case of a special hearing during a trail, where the jury must be present, a 2nd jury (re trial) would still not be aware that there was a 1st trial. They would only hear the recording.

That's more applicable if a child has to give evidence.

We don't know for sure but I think in the first trial the key witness would have been cross examined in front of the jury. Then in the second trial a video of that would be replayed - so as to spare him going through it all again.

 

[skipper kelly]

That's more applicable if a child has to give evidence.

We don't know for sure but I think in the first trial the key witness would have been cross examined in front of the jury. Then in the second trial a video of that would be replayed - so as to spare him going through it all again.

It also applies if the complainant was a child at the time. With special hearings they don't have to be cross examined in front of the jury, but they are cross examined and the recording is played to the jury. If they elect to have the special hearing while the trial is on then it is done in front of the jury. Special hearings can be done before the trial has started or during the trial. Or the complainant can give evidence in court without the use of a special hearing.

I know nothing about what happened in this case, only that the jury would not be made aware through viewing a special hearing or giving evidence in court that this was a re trial. They might know through other means but not because of the complainants testimony.

Obviously I could be wrong, but this is my interpretation of the Criminal Procedures Act.

 

[Benny78]

I laugh at the guy and think he's an utter moron. To be put behind bars by one witness makes the whole thing even more terrific.

 

[Bombermania]

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?

Maybe it was asked but I don't think anyone has actually said how long after mass the first offense is reported to have happened, we seem to be forgetting that the guy was cross examined by one of Melbourne's best QC so if Richer wasn't able to drive a truck through the guy as well as the other witnesses that were called to give evidence. From the way the two boys behaved something seems to have happened to change them.

 

[Bombermania]

True, but it would mean that the witness could not be cross examined again in the 2nd trial. That could potentially put the defence at at disadvantage.

And it's relevant to my 2nd point. If the jury in the 2nd trial was just shown videos of the victim giving evidence from the 1st trial then they would probably be aware that it was a retrial. Knowledge that it was a retrial may have led to the 2nd jury feeling pressure not to return another mistrial.

Edit - BruceFromBalnarring JeanLucGoddard - do you have any knowledge re the above?

I seriously doubt that would have added pressure to the second jury, mistrials are fairly common and I've never heard anyone say it impacts on the second jury keeping in mind this case wasn't being reported upon daily which may have created an impression on the second jury.

 

[Bombermania]

Paedos don't normally rape children who they haven't groomed and their families they check out first.

They aren't known to rape them in full archbishops regalia just after saying Sunday mass to hundreds when he doesn't know their circumstances andwhether they might let it out to their mothers.

Not much of an excuse, Pell has been found quilty of five counts of sexual assault of a child, It doesn't matter if he had been grooming the kids or not, the case is based on the facts and at this stage he is sitting in a small cell.

I wrote earlier that Pell probably wasn't a fully blown pedo but was more of an opportunistic that lashed out this way when aroused or upset over something as to bully the victim. The evidence presented on 4 corners of Pell being in the nude flashing himself at three young child presents a picture of a man that either doesn't understand sexual boundaries or has issues.

 

[Frank Bunn]

I seriously doubt that would have added pressure to the second jury, mistrials are fairly common and I've never heard anyone say it impacts on the second jury keeping in mind this case wasn't being reported upon daily which may have created an impression on the second jury.

Mistrials are not common.

I don't understand your 2nd point.

 

[Bombermania]

Mistrials are not common.

I don't understand your 2nd point.

Since the case received no media coverage due to the suppression order then the second jury wouldn't have been influenced by that.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Maybe it was asked but I don't think anyone has actually said how long after mass the first offense is reported to have happened, we seem to be forgetting that the guy was cross examined by one of Melbourne's best QC so if Richer wasn't able to drive a truck through the guy as well as the other witnesses that were called to give evidence. From the way the two boys behaved something seems to have happened to change them.

Inside 10 minutes.

 

[Bomberboyokay]

As a juror it's not just about judging the evidence presented in court, it's about judging the speech, body language and character of the people involved.

You don't get that from reading court reports or transcripts, you have to be there to witness it in person, that plays a big part in your decision.

In the case I was on the accused took the stand and confidently denied the allegations while looking jurors in the eye, that sways you to not guilty.

If an accused like Pell doesn't take the stand to defend himself or looks shifty and evasive like he did at the Royal Commission, that sways you to guilty.

I agree it's primarily about the evidence, we got the beyond reasonable doubt thing drummed into us repeatedly but you can still make your own observations in the courtroom.

Body language plays a big part in your considerations.

In the Pell case, the evidence may have been roughly 50/50 but if the plaintiff confidently states his case while Pell sits there with his head bowed and doesn't defend himself.

What verdict are you more likely to give as a juror?

Guilty your honour.

This why you thought Stephen Milne was innocent and got angry when he was charged? Good body language?

 

[Kummerspeck]

Inside 10 minutes.

A traumatic incident needs to have a minimum time to affect someone?

 

[Bombermania]

A traumatic incident needs to have a minimum time to affect someone?

I think Bruce is answering my question of how long after mass did the first offense happen.

 

[Kummerspeck]

I think Bruce is answering my question of how long after mass did the first offense happen.

Ah, fair. Incredulity withdrawn.

 

[Leeda]

cynic in me says that not all is done.. appeal is going to be fiery.. can't reconcile that the evidence was the truth and nor can i
say that the truth is the god's all spoken truth..

seems like that there were things unsaid or else that people had too much to say.