Religion Pell Guilty!

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
FredLeDeux said:
What can you effing say?!? Sandy Roberts

Deadset effing unbelievable!! Bobby Davis

Stone the flaming crows!! Alf

FMD! Me
Click to expand...

I'll spell it out in small words for you.

I don't think the jury, having heard the evidence, think that Pell committed the offense.

I think they saw an opportunity to put a bloke they hated and held responsible for all of the ill of the Catholic Church away. And so they did.

And if you think that's ridiculous, just look at this thread. Or look at the (and this still has me shaking my head at its apparent acceptance) decision of the cops to open an investigation against a bloke who had no allegations against him. And look at the onslaught of entirely unrelated media reporting of even the most ridiculous allegations against Pell as though they were true.
 
BruceFromBalnarring said:
I'll spell it out in small words for you.

I don't think the jury, having heard the evidence, think that Pell committed the offense.

I think they saw an opportunity to put a bloke they hated and held responsible for all of the ill of the Catholic Church away. And so they did.

And if you think that's ridiculous, just look at this thread. Or look at the (and this still has me shaking my head at its apparent acceptance) decision of the cops to open an investigation against a bloke who had no allegations against him. And look at the onslaught of entirely unrelated media reporting of even the most ridiculous allegations against Pell as though they were true.
Click to expand...


12 jurors secretively conspired, in the biggest criminal case in the country, to deliberately put away a guy, in the full face of the law and under the jurisdiction and guidance of Judge Kidd?

You seriously need to put down the ice BBQ Bruce.
 
BruceFromBalnarring said:
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.
Click to expand...
That’s what exactly has happen with Pell..the allegations were tested and found correct
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Contra Mundum said:
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
Click to expand...

Looks straight out of an Umberto Eco novel.

3226222684750987669
 
BruceFromBalnarring said:
I'll spell it out in small words for you.

I don't think the jury, having heard the evidence, think that Pell committed the offense.

I think they saw an opportunity to put a bloke they hated and held responsible for all of the ill of the Catholic Church away. And so they did.

And if you think that's ridiculous, just look at this thread. Or look at the (and this still has me shaking my head at its apparent acceptance) decision of the cops to open an investigation against a bloke who had no allegations against him. And look at the onslaught of entirely unrelated media reporting of even the most ridiculous allegations against Pell as though they were true.
Click to expand...
I will spell it out in small words for you.

You have jumped the shark.

It is time for you either to put away your shovel, or else to turn around and start digging back upwards.
 
FredLeDeux said:
I will spell it out in small words for you.

You have jumped the shark.

It is time for you either to put away your shovel, or else to turn around and start digging back upwards.
Click to expand...

Hate to say it mate......but I'm not going to be intimidated or shamed by some online mob into thinking, saying, or writing that which I don't believe.

If you don't like it, shove it.
 
BruceFromBalnarring said:
I'll spell it out in small words for you.

I don't think the jury, having heard the evidence, think that Pell committed the offense.

I think they saw an opportunity to put a bloke they hated and held responsible for all of the ill of the Catholic Church away. And so they did.

And if you think that's ridiculous, just look at this thread. Or look at the (and this still has me shaking my head at its apparent acceptance) decision of the cops to open an investigation against a bloke who had no allegations against him. And look at the onslaught of entirely unrelated media reporting of even the most ridiculous allegations against Pell as though they were true.
Click to expand...

They should make a Royal Commission out of this. This seems to be a massive abuse of power whether either side of the verdict is correct (two former PMs and a media conglomerate). Pell also isn’t small fry, and the same thing could happen to any big-name Australian conservative... a Royal Commission into the abuse of power would be in the best interests of trying to bring back some dignity, respect, trust and the truth to this country.

Royal Commission!
Royal Commission!
 
BruceFromBalnarring said:
Hate to say it mate......but I'm not going to be intimidated or shamed by some online mob into thinking, saying, or writing that which I don't believe.

If you don't like it, shove it.
Click to expand...

No one is trying to shame you, since it's apparent long ago that you have no shame
 
BruceFromBalnarring said:
Have a read of a few of the posts above, then look at yourself in the mirror and realise that your contribution was no more than just another smart arse comment.
Click to expand...

Which would still be more valuable than your contribution, defender of a convicted systematic pedo
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

BruceFromBalnarring said:
Have a read of a few of the posts above, then look at yourself in the mirror and realise that your contribution was no more than just another smart arse comment.
Click to expand...

Oh FFS, stop crying.
You are now stating that the jury colluded in secret to "GET" Pell because of past Catholic Church ahem 'indiscretions".

And you want to be taken seriously and cry when you aren't?
F***ing LOL at you pal. Just LOL!
 
BruceFromBalnarring said:
I'll spell it out in small words for you.

I don't think the jury, having heard the evidence, think that Pell committed the offense.

I think they saw an opportunity to put a bloke they hated and held responsible for all of the ill of the Catholic Church away. And so they did.

And if you think that's ridiculous, just look at this thread. Or look at the (and this still has me shaking my head at its apparent acceptance) decision of the cops to open an investigation against a bloke who had no allegations against him. And look at the onslaught of entirely unrelated media reporting of even the most ridiculous allegations against Pell as though they were true.
Click to expand...

As I said earlier, if the jury was comprised of some of the people posting in this thread Pell might not have received a fair outcome. People set against him because of his politics, or because they are victims of abuse, or because they hate the Catholic Church. But it's unlikely the jury was made up of Pell/Catholic haters.

I also posed the question of how Pell might adequately have conducted a defence against a historic allegation based on one man's testimony, without corroborating evidence. I wonder if the #metoo phenomenon has shifted the balance towards a view that people accused of sexual offences are required to prove their innocence.

But given that we were not party to the details of the evidence this is just speculation. For now we have to assume the jury got the verdict right. We will find out more when the appeal takes place.
 
BruceFromBalnarring said:
I'll spell it out in small words for you.

I don't think the jury, having heard the evidence, think that Pell committed the offense.

I think they saw an opportunity to put a bloke they hated and held responsible for all of the ill of the Catholic Church away. And so they did.
Click to expand...

That is ludicrous. Based on not even a miniscule piece of corroborative evidence.

It's pure propoganda, if you believe that, I am truely sorry for you.
 
BruceFromBalnarring said:
Hate to say it mate......but I'm not going to be intimidated or shamed by some online mob into thinking, saying, or writing that which I don't believe.

If you don't like it, shove it.
Click to expand...
Nobody has tried to intimidate or shame you into thinking, saying or writing anything.

But as your posts on this issue have simply got more and more preposterous, you can't reasonably expect people not to comment on the fact.

And especially when you fall back on the old, old ridiculous canard that being out-argued is being "shouted down".
 
FredLeDeux said:
Nobody has tried to intimidate or shame you into thinking, saying or writing anything.

But as your posts on this issue have simply got more and more preposterous, you can't reasonably expect people not to comment on the fact.

And especially when you fall back on the old, old ridiculous canard that being out-argued is being "shouted down".
Click to expand...

I have explained, more than once, just why I think it was impossible for Pell to have committed the offense.

Not one person has explained how it was possible. Just lots of triumphant "THE JURY SAID SO"'s.

Well juries have got things wrong before. Police have stitched up accused people before.

This is just another one of those occasions. But please don't say I've been outargued. No one has presented a skerrick of an argument.
 
BruceFromBalnarring said:
I have explained, more than once, just why I think it was impossible for Pell to have committed the offense.

Not one person has explained how it was possible. Just lots of triumphant "THE JURY SAID SO"'s.

Well juries have got things wrong before. Police have stitched up accused people before.

This is just another one of those occasions. But please don't say I've been outargued. No one has presented a skerrick of an argument.
Click to expand...
Your unsubstantiated statements of personal belief masquerading as fact have been demolished, both logically and evidentially, time and time again on here, as they were in the reports of the case.

Your posts have now become so fundamentally illogical and counterfactual that you really need to pull up and take a good hard look inside your head.
 
Craven Morehead said:
I thought that Justice Kidd was quite outstanding in such a high profile and difficult case.
"J" is quite simply a National Hero.
What he has taken on, and will continue to take on through to the appeal, is just outstanding. Unbelievable in fact.
I cannot even begin to imagine what he is dealing with right now, but he has my never-ending respect and admiration.
For people to quite openly call him a liar on here is beyond my comprehension.
Click to expand...

Must have been a really tough time for you C.M. Hope you're okay.

The strength of "J" and his dignity are shown in the following statement:

8kB3xJO.jpg


Of all the words in Judge Kidd's sentencing - which has been overwhelmingly lauded - those that resonated most with me were:

".....as Archbishop, you occupied the most senior leadership, official and religious position at St Patrick's Cathedral on those days in question"..............

" The choir boys were the least powerful and the most subordinate individuals at the Cathedral..............The power imbalance between the victims and all the senior church leaders or officials, yourself included, was stark"

This was the most blatant abuse and misuse of power imaginable.

A podcast worth hearing. Ripped Blot to pieces towards the end.

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...s-and-what-happens-next-the-reckoning-podcast
 
FredLeDeux said:
Your unsubstantiated statements of personal belief masquerading as fact have been demolished, both logically and evidentially, time and time again on here, as they were in the reports of the case.

Your posts have now become so fundamentally illogical and counterfactual that you really need to pull up and take a good hard look inside your head.
Click to expand...
Closed mind, Fred.
 
So far we've had:
1.) a police stitch up.
2.) a jury in complete collusion against Pell
3.) Witness "J" is just a liar.
4.) It's a stitch up by the 'left' against the Catholic Church.

All these conspiracies for just one trial.:drunk::drunk::drunk::drunk:
 
FredLeDeux said:
Your unsubstantiated statements of personal belief masquerading as fact have been demolished, both logically and evidentially, time and time again on here, as they were in the reports of the case.

Your posts have now become so fundamentally illogical and counterfactual that you really need to pull up and take a good hard look inside your head.
Click to expand...

That's twice you've said that. Demolished by who precisely? Using what argument? The only argument put up against mine is that "the jury found him guilty." Nothing more.

Thank god for convicted innocents everywhere that the majority of this board isn't responsible for them.

A complete lynch mob. "Throw away the key!" It's actually frightening.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top