Religion Pell Guilty!

[Gough]

I'm always reminded of the lyrics of The Pogues song about Irish emigration:

Thousands are sailing
Across the western ocean
Where the land of opportunity
Draws tickets in a lottery
Wherever we go we celebrate
The land that makes us refugees
From fear of priests with empty plates
From guilt and weeping effigies
And we dance

Shane MacGowan's birthday and the fact he keeps reaching another is the proper christmas miracle.

 

[The Warlord]

The judge should of ripped s**t out of pell.

Instead showed empathy for him.

It is what it is.

He did rip s**t out of him when the verdict was delivered.

 

[The Warlord]

I'll take the opinion of a prominent defence QC who has lead many appeals through the years over your clearly biased mutterings, if you don't mind.

But what about Sharnelle Vella?

 

[The Warlord]

Shane MacGowan's birthday and the fact he keeps reaching another is the proper christmas miracle.

Yep, I remember my parents coming to visit me in Dublin in the early 2000s and us going to see The Pogues play one of their famous Christmas shows there on the grounds that it might be our last chance to see him.

LOL.

 

[sideswipe]

I'm not sure if that has been edited but that line of presumption of innocence is misleading.

The CoA will look at the case through the eyes of the jury, and decide whether the jury could have reasonably concluded beyond reasonable doubt that Pell was guilty. So in that sense the presumption of innocence is still alive.

The other appeal grounds are different and it will be up to the Defence to make their case(s).

Slightly nitpicky, but the language is important here. It isn't whether the jury could have reasonable concluded, but rather - the Court of Appeal needs to be satisfied that the verdict of the jury is unreasonable or unable to be supported having regard to the evidence.

It isn't "what decision would you have come to based on the evidence", but rather whether the jury verdict was unreasonable. As that article above states, it aint easy.

 

[Craven Morehead]

But what about Sharnelle Vella?

The only truly reliable source on this, obviously.
And overheard in a lift to boot!

 

[The Warlord]

I didn't realise Pell was a member of The Melbourne Club!

https://www.theage.com.au/national/...ng-at-the-melbourne-club-20190313-p513ve.html

Truly, it is what Jesus would have done.

(I reckon if Jesus came to 2019 Melbourne, he'd probablt be working as a volunteer at the safe injecting centre, trying to help people there after they walk out of the joint)

 

[Sainteric]

I didn't realise Pell was a member of The Melbourne Club!

https://www.theage.com.au/national/...ng-at-the-melbourne-club-20190313-p513ve.html

Truly, it is what Jesus would have done.

(I reckon if Jesus came to 2019 Melbourne, he'd probablt be working as a volunteer at the safe injecting centre, trying to help people there after they walk out of the joint)

It would have been a free membership because he was archbishop. Same crap happens with Flemington MCG etc

 

[The Warlord]

It would have been a free membership because he was archbishop. Same crap happens with Flemington MCG etc

So, he could have, and should have, rejected it.

Since when di The Melbourne Club accept taigs anyway?

 

[skilts]

That campaigner should be in a cell with pell.

I feel a song coming on.

 

[skilts]

Let's just say that Pell's appeal is successful, what will that mean to him in regards to his arrest, trial and conviction?

Business as usual resumes. He will continue to upbraid heathens about their lack of morals, especially on matters sexual.

 

[Sainteric]

So, he could have, and should have, rejected it.

Since when di The Melbourne Club accept taigs anyway?

Since the 70s or whenever that traitor Mannix died. Pell likes as has been mentioned mixing with powerful people. He lives in a men only club being a member of another one wouldn't faze him.

 

[The Warlord]

Since the 70s or whenever that traitor Mannix died. Pell likes as has been mentioned mixing with powerful people. He lives in a men only club being a member of another one wouldn't faze him.

The traitor Mannix - lemme guess, you were all for compelling men from the deep Southern Hemisphere to go and drown in mud in the far northern hemipshere because empire?

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Slightly nitpicky, but the language is important here. It isn't whether the jury could have reasonable concluded, but rather - the Court of Appeal needs to be satisfied that the verdict of the jury is unreasonable or unable to be supported having regard to the evidence.

It isn't "what decision would you have come to based on the evidence", but rather whether the jury verdict was unreasonable. As that article above states, it aint easy.

Fair enough. My point was that the line I referred to might lead people to conclude that at appeal, Pell had to prove his innocence. And of course my (perhaps not very good) attempt at explanation got met with the usual snark.

 

[The Warlord]

Fair enough. My point was that the line I referred to might lead people to conclude that at appeal, Pell had to prove his innocence. And of course my (perhaps not very good) attempt at explanation got met with the usual snark.

Jesus Mary and Joseph, your victim act is wearing really thin.

 

[FredLeDeux]

Since the 70s or whenever that traitor Mannix died. Pell likes as has been mentioned mixing with powerful people. He lives in a men only club being a member of another one wouldn't faze him.

No catholic clergyman ever has knocked back a chance to hobnob with the big end of town.

 

[Strange Cat]

Jesus Mary and Joseph, your victim act is wearing really thin.

He has it so rough compared to some of us

 

[Craven Morehead]

Fair enough. My point was that the line I referred to might lead people to conclude that at appeal, Pell had to prove his innocence. And of course my (perhaps not very good) attempt at explanation got met with the usual snark.

And you will continue to be met with the usual snark because:
a). Tom Percy QC has actually lead many high profile appeal cases, and you haven't. Yet still you feel the need to contradict.
b). You have openly claimed that Witness "J" is a liar, despite having absolutely no evidence whatsoever to back up that slur, just your 'feels".
c.) You continue to claim that Pell COULDN'T have done it. In fact you have declared it IMPOSSIBLE. Despite Richter being unable to convince a jury otherwise, you still know better.
d). You claim to KNOW what Witness "J" said under oath in evidence, despite his testimony being sealed and not for public disclosure.

And you wonder why you get snarked at?
Really?

 

[Strange Cat]

And you will continue to be met with the usual snark because:
a). Tom Percy QC has actually lead many high profile appeal cases, and you haven't. Yet still you feel the need to contradict.
b). You have openly claimed that Witness "J" is a liar, despite having absolutely no evidence whatsoever to back up that slur, just your 'feels".
c.) You continue to claim that Pell COULDN'T have done it. In fact you have declared it IMPOSSIBLE. Despite Richter being unable to convince a jury otherwise, you still know better.
d). You claim to KNOW what Witness "J" said under oath in evidence, despite his testimony being sealed and not for public disclosure.

And you wonder why you get snarked at?
Really?

Shhhhh he’s a victim

despite accusing And attacking others that detailed their childhood abuse...he feels persecuted (LOL)

Oh how tough he has it to be not be taken seriously and have his posts corrected with facts...the horror!!!

 

[FredLeDeux]

I'm not sure if that has been edited but that line of presumption of innocence is misleading.

The CoA will look at the case through the eyes of the jury, and decide whether the jury could have reasonably concluded beyond reasonable doubt that Pell was guilty. So in that sense the presumption of innocence is still alive.

The other appeal grounds are different and it will be up to the Defence to make their case(s).

No, the legislation says that the burden is on the appellant to satisfy the court that the verdict of the jury is unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence, ie that the jury could not have reasonably concluded beyond reasonable doubt that Pell was guilty.

 

[Contra Mundum]

Beat him to it

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2019/02/the-pell-affair-australia-is-now-on-trial

The whole vast left wing conspiracy take on show - it’s worse than anything that Bolt has published


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

And you will continue to be met with the usual snark because:
a). Tom Percy QC has actually lead many high profile appeal cases, and you haven't. Yet still you feel the need to contradict.
b). You have openly claimed that Witness "J" is a liar, despite having absolutely no evidence whatsoever to back up that slur, just your 'feels".
c.) You continue to claim that Pell COULDN'T have done it. In fact you have declared it IMPOSSIBLE. Despite Richter being unable to convince a jury otherwise, you still know better.
d). You claim to KNOW what Witness "J" said under oath in evidence, despite his testimony being sealed and not for public disclosure.

And you wonder why you get snarked at?
Really?

A. Name one. You wouldn't have a clue. And by the way, I didn't say he was wrong. I said it may have been edited and it was a touch misleading. And I explained in the post you quoted why.

B. Believing Pell couldn't have committed the offense has the consequence of believing he who claimed he did is a liar. I make no apology for that. It is not a reflection on you or anyone else in this thread, but there are many people who make false claims of sexual abuse. That is a fact. As it happens, my theory is that the story is actually partly true, but altered (by time and perpetrator) to get "the big guy" instead of some other no name pedo who might be dead, already in gaol, or otherwise of no consequence.

C. It is impossible for Pell to have done it. I am not the only one to hold that opinion. And I don't think the jury were convinced. Despite the conviction.

D. I made no such claim. Ever. I said I watched the representation of his evidence delivered by the prosecutor in his closing.

It is possible, or at least it should be, to have reasonable discussions around the side issues without getting smashed by angry dickheads on a footy forum for making a contribution.

And might I add, my opinion is not particularly controversial. Others have said on this forum and elsewhere that this is an unsafe jury verdict. The reason it is unsafe is because 20 odd witnesses lined up in court and said this offense could not have been committed. That is why the verdict is considered by many, and not just Catholics by the way, to be unsafe.

Now listen, I have expressed my condolences to you personally and I do it again. But if you don't want to read stuff that causes you this sort of grief then can I suggest that you don't go on this forum. Or others. Or do as you said you were going to do and block me. This is a discussion board. I refuse to be guilted out of holding an expressing a view on a controversial issue because it adds to your grief.

Child sexual abuse is an awful thing. But it's not the only awful thing. And it continues to happen, probably everywhere but the Catholic Church in Australia. The worst thing, though, for society as a whole, would be a situation where allegations could be made and accepted without being tested. And wrongful convictions didn't have the opportunity of review. And where wrongful convictions did happen, those who think those convictions are wrongful don't get an opportunity to explain why.

Holding these views doesn't make me a victim. I'm not. I'm just pointing out the tactic of shutting down debate in a very debatable topic.

 

[FredLeDeux]

C. It is impossible for Pell to have done it. I am not the only one to hold that opinion. And I don't think the jury were convinced. Despite the conviction.

What can you effing say?!? Sandy Roberts

Deadset effing unbelievable!! Bobby Davis

Stone the flaming crows!! Alf

FMD! Me

 

[Craven Morehead]

A. Name one. You wouldn't have a clue.

Daryl Beamish.
John Button.
and OMG
Schapelle Corby.

There's 3, smart guy.

And by the way, I didn't say he was wrong. I said it may have been edited and it was a touch misleading. And I explained in the post you quoted why.

It was just another case of you trying to portray yourself as some sort of expert, which clearly you are not.

B. Believing Pell couldn't have committed the offense has the consequence of believing he who claimed he did is a liar. I make no apology for that. It is not a reflection on you or anyone else in this thread, but there are many people who make false claims of sexual abuse. That is a fact. As it happens, my theory is that the story is actually partly true, but altered (by time and perpetrator) to get "the big guy" instead of some other no name pedo who might be dead, already in gaol, or otherwise of no consequence.

Theory.
A theory on which you insist on being factual.

C. It is impossible for Pell to have done it. I am not the only one to hold that opinion. And I don't think the jury were convinced. Despite the conviction.

There are simply no words for this utter stupidity.
The Jury weren't convinced yet still found him guilty unanimously.
What planet are you on?

D. I made no such claim. Ever. I said I watched the representation of his evidence delivered by the prosecutor in his closing.

You watched the representation, overheard a few things from some silly TV reporter and then jumped to a theory, which transformed into an unassailable conclusion in your closed mind.
My god.

It is possible, or at least it should be, to have reasonable discussions around the side issues without getting smashed by angry dickheads on a footy forum for making a contribution.

No-one is being unreasonable at all. We're just sick of your victimisation claims and ridiculous theories which you constantly claim as facts.

And might I add, my opinion is not particularly controversial. Others have said on this forum and elsewhere that this is an unsafe jury verdict. The reason it is unsafe is because 20 odd witnesses lined up in court and said this offense could not have been committed. That is why the verdict is considered by many, and not just Catholics by the way, to be unsafe.

Protect the holy father at all costs. Even shake his hand as you depart the stand.
Perhaps the jury found these 20 odd witnesses testimony unsafe?
If you look at the verdict I think they did!

Now listen, I have expressed my condolences to you personally and I do it again. But if you don't want to read stuff that causes you this sort of grief then can I suggest that you don't go on this forum. Or others. Or do as you said you were going to do and block me. This is a discussion board. I refuse to be guilted out of holding an expressing a view on a controversial issue because it adds to your grief.

I don't need your pity. You're throwing enough on yourself.

Child sexual abuse is an awful thing. But it's not the only awful thing. And it continues to happen, probably everywhere but the Catholic Church in Australia. The worst thing, though, for society as a whole, would be a situation where allegations could be made and accepted without being tested. And wrongful convictions didn't have the opportunity of review. And where wrongful convictions did happen, those who think those convictions are wrongful don't get an opportunity to explain why.

Oh, so the Catholic Church has now rid itself entirely of paedophilia and is the only organisation in the country to have done so?
LOL!
What other magical mystery tour bullshit would you like to serve up today?
LOL!

Pell got, and still receives, the full due process of the law.
You just didn't like the first helping and continue to cry about it and make up stories.
jesus wept.

Holding these views doesn't make me a victim. I'm not. I'm just pointing out the tactic of shutting down debate in a very debatable topic.

Who is shutting you down Bruce?
Where you at the sentencing yesterday and got your head on the telly? Because there was one gent interviewed who was word perfect in your defence of Pell.
Or is this the tactic that the church has put around for its parishioners to spread about?

 

[Sainteric]

A. Name one. You wouldn't have a clue. And by the way, I didn't say he was wrong. I said it may have been edited and it was a touch misleading. And I explained in the post you quoted why.

B. Believing Pell couldn't have committed the offense has the consequence of believing he who claimed he did is a liar. I make no apology for that. It is not a reflection on you or anyone else in this thread, but there are many people who make false claims of sexual abuse. That is a fact. As it happens, my theory is that the story is actually partly true, but altered (by time and perpetrator) to get "the big guy" instead of some other no name pedo who might be dead, already in gaol, or otherwise of no consequence.

C. It is impossible for Pell to have done it. I am not the only one to hold that opinion. And I don't think the jury were convinced. Despite the conviction.

D. I made no such claim. Ever. I said I watched the representation of his evidence delivered by the prosecutor in his closing.

It is possible, or at least it should be, to have reasonable discussions around the side issues without getting smashed by angry dickheads on a footy forum for making a contribution.

And might I add, my opinion is not particularly controversial. Others have said on this forum and elsewhere that this is an unsafe jury verdict. The reason it is unsafe is because 20 odd witnesses lined up in court and said this offense could not have been committed. That is why the verdict is considered by many, and not just Catholics by the way, to be unsafe.

Now listen, I have expressed my condolences to you personally and I do it again. But if you don't want to read stuff that causes you this sort of grief then can I suggest that you don't go on this forum. Or others. Or do as you said you were going to do and block me. This is a discussion board. I refuse to be guilted out of holding an expressing a view on a controversial issue because it adds to your grief.

Child sexual abuse is an awful thing. But it's not the only awful thing. And it continues to happen, probably everywhere but the Catholic Church in Australia. The worst thing, though, for society as a whole, would be a situation where allegations could be made and accepted without being tested. And wrongful convictions didn't have the opportunity of review. And where wrongful convictions did happen, those who think those convictions are wrongful don't get an opportunity to explain why.

Holding these views doesn't make me a victim. I'm not. I'm just pointing out the tactic of shutting down debate in a very debatable topic.

Impossible for Pell to do it, that's faith not logic.