Religion Pell Guilty!

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Donakebab

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
May 18, 2009
Posts
27,214
Likes
32,432
Location
Canberra
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Detroit Red Wings
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.
What's actually frightening is that you are so vehemently defending a convicted paedophile. It's people like you and your ridiculous blind faith that have excused the likes of Pell and Risdale over decades that has left these monsters free to abuse more children.
 
Joined
Jan 13, 2007
Posts
5,282
Likes
6,500
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Sydney
What's actually frightening is that you are so vehemently defending a convicted paedophile. It's people like you and your ridiculous blind faith that have excused the likes of Pell and Risdale over decades that has left these monsters free to abuse more children.
I've never excused Ridsdale. Ever.

I am so vehemently defending him because I don't believe he is guilty. And someone has to stand up against the mob.
 
Joined
Sep 26, 2017
Posts
8,977
Likes
13,770
AFL Club
Geelong
I've never excused Ridsdale. Ever.

I am so vehemently defending him because I don't believe he is guilty. And someone has to stand up against the mob.
So you have a messiah complex along with your victim mentality

Quite a combination
 
Joined
Aug 13, 2017
Posts
2,648
Likes
4,421
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
I don't have the actual stats to hand either, but Victoria's appeal courts definitely overturn juries' decisions in sexual assault cases at a significantly higher rate than in other cases, and at a higher rate than appeal courts elsewhere in Australia.
Most of the time though it has been overturned when the defendant has given testimony at the trial. If the defendant was silent at the trial, most appeals failed.
 

Gavin Excell

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Posts
24,633
Likes
24,442
Location
Bentleigh
AFL Club
Geelong
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.
Bruce
Do you have faith in the appeal system?
 

FredLeDeux

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 2, 2012
Posts
22,752
Likes
32,277
AFL Club
Geelong
Most of the time though it has been overturned when the defendant has given testimony at the trial. If the defendant was silent at the trial, most appeals failed.
I don't doubt that you're correct; but the number of he said/she said cases where the defendant did not give evidence would, I imagine, be a very, very small proportion of cases.
 

Crankyhawk

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Posts
12,872
Likes
8,120
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
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.
Hard for us to say how given we have neither the evidence nor the props..
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

skipper kelly

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 29, 2003
Posts
28,716
Likes
3,855
Location
far queue
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
NSW Blues
It is not impossible for Pell to have raped these children. If that was the argument used by the defence in court then it is highly flawed.

Again, the use of probability to determine if past events occured is highly misleading. If anyone is interested then the prosecutors fallacy is a good starting point to research.
 
Joined
Jun 10, 2014
Posts
1,475
Likes
1,806
AFL Club
Collingwood
Most of the time though it has been overturned when the defendant has given testimony at the trial. If the defendant was silent at the trial, most appeals failed.
Yep, agree - and no doubt since the verdict there would have been some massive second-guessing of Richter’s call not to put Pell on the stand. It is being widely discussed that the sitting judge was in disbelief when the jury delivered its verdict - evidenced by his call for an immediate recess which was more than a little odd.

More to play out from here.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
 

skilts

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Feb 14, 2002
Posts
17,531
Likes
6,034
Location
South-West Gippsland
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Lexton, Northcote Park
I am so vehemently defending him because I don't believe he is guilty. And someone has to stand up against the mob.
The jury heard and came to a conclusion based on factual evidence during the trial. No matter how much you contest that with your beliefs, those beliefs can't possibly carry the weight of the evidence heard by the jury. If they did, you would have been invited to present your case to the jury. You were not invited because your beliefs are worthless. Why should anyone take any notice of something built on the shifting sands of mere belief?
 
Last edited:

chelseacarlton

BLUE it's the Magic Number
Joined
Apr 13, 2008
Posts
17,066
Likes
20,855
Location
So Frang
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
The Anti-Theists
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.

There there big fella!
george pell is now a convicted child rapist, regardless of the appeal, this is how he will be forever known.
To be honest, I don’t feel anything but sombre in the knowledge that at least one of his living victims has closure of sorts!
There ya’ have it!
 

FredLeDeux

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 2, 2012
Posts
22,752
Likes
32,277
AFL Club
Geelong
Yep, agree - and no doubt since the verdict there would have been some massive second-guessing of Richter’s call not to put Pell on the stand. It is being widely discussed that the sitting judge was in disbelief when the jury delivered its verdict - evidenced by his call for an immediate recess which was more than a little odd.

More to play out from here.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
Didn't happen; a Pell-apologist rumour on a par with the (bs) 10-2 count in the first trial.

It was actually Richter who was shocked, not the judge;
Richter’s confident demeanour evaporated. His voice barely rose above a whisper as he discussed bail requirements and a sentencing date with the judge.
 
Joined
Jun 10, 2014
Posts
1,475
Likes
1,806
AFL Club
Collingwood
Didn't happen; a Pell-apologist rumour on a par with the (bs) 10-2 count in the first trial.

It was actually Richter who was shocked, not the judge;
Richter’s confident demeanour evaporated. His voice barely rose above a whisper as he discussed bail requirements and a sentencing date with the judge.
10-2 for acquittal in first trial true.
Judge called recess after verdict true.
My source good.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
 

AM

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Posts
20,714
Likes
16,698
Location
Here there and everywhere
AFL Club
Geelong
I've never excused Ridsdale. Ever.

I am so vehemently defending him because I don't believe he is guilty. And someone has to stand up against the mob.
You "don't believe he's guilty". That's a softening from you know he's not guilty.

The jury sat through the whole trial, heard and saw all the witnesses cross examined, including witness "J", who was cross examined for 4 days, and whose testimony is only known to those present at the time. On the other hand Pell did not take the opportunity to take the stand.

I heard the occupations of some of the jurors in one of the media reports and it would be hard to get a more diverse group of people. And Pell's silks challenged none of them.

So you claim that despite not having this primary evidence you know better than the 12 people who did and who unanimously found him guilty on each of the five counts.

To suggest you, as someone who has none of that primary evidence, know better is risible.

I might add that Melissa Davey, who is head of the Melbourne bureau of the Guardian, also sat through the whole trial - excluding witness "J" which was a closed session - and she came to the same conclusion as the jury.

And taking a line through the judges comments he appears of the same view as the jury.

The Catholic Church spared no expense in this matter. Two top silks and a bevy of lawyers assisting not to mention the rooms full of helpers who sifted through every piece of information that might be admissible in order to cast some doubt in the minds of the jury. They failed to find anything of that sort.

I note that people of the same resolute belief as you are still pushing the lie that the jury in the aborted trial was in Pell's favour.

I do wonder, should the Court of Appeal uphold the verdict, whether you'll keep trotting out this sophistry.
 
Joined
Sep 26, 2017
Posts
8,977
Likes
13,770
AFL Club
Geelong
You "don't believe he's guilty". That's a softening from you know he's not guilty.

The jury sat through the whole trial, heard and saw all the witnesses cross examined, including witness "J", who was cross examined for 4 days, and whose testimony is only known to those present at the time. On the other hand Pell did not take the opportunity to take the stand.

I heard the occupations of some of the jurors in one of the media reports and it would be hard to get a more diverse group of people. And Pell's silks challenged none of them.

So you claim that despite not having this primary evidence you know better than the 12 people who did and who unanimously found him guilty on each of the five counts.

To suggest you, as someone who has none of that primary evidence, know better is risible.

I might add that Melissa Davey, who is head of the Melbourne bureau of the Guardian, also sat through the whole trial - excluding witness "J" which was a closed session - and she came to the same conclusion as the jury.

And taking a line through the judges comments he appears of the same view as the jury.

The Catholic Church spared no expense in this matter. Two top silks and a bevy of lawyers assisting not to mention the rooms full of helpers who sifted through every piece of information that might be admissible in order to cast some doubt in the minds of the jury. They failed to find anything of that sort.

I note that people of the same resolute belief as you are still pushing the lie that the jury in the aborted trial was in Pell's favour.

I do wonder, should the Court of Appeal uphold the verdict, whether you'll keep trotting out this sophistry.
1414D0B9-C2B7-474C-9833-F8ED4EC3A07C.gif
 

FredLeDeux

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 2, 2012
Posts
22,752
Likes
32,277
AFL Club
Geelong
10-2 for acquittal in first trial true.
Judge called recess after verdict true.
My source good.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
The 10-2 count is complete bs, made up out of the whole cloth by a US Catholic website on the day of the conviction, by someone who almost certainly wasn't even at the trial, with no source or substantiation, and with no earthly way of knowing what went on in the jury room and thereafter it became an internet meme. Even the judge and the lawyers normally have no way of knowing the count; the judge always tells the jury not to tell him or anyone else if the count is anything but 12-0 or 11-1.

In the usual procedure, the judge called a short recess after the jury gave its verdict; and after he thanked them, gave them the usual confidentiality warnings and discharged them.

The recess is called so he can gather his thoughts on bail, and check his calendar for a sentencing hearing, and so the defence/prosecution can also consider and talk about bail.

The suggestion that such an experienced criminal trial lawyer and judge as Peter Kidd would be so "shocked" by the verdict in a criminal trial that he would have to leave the courtroom to recover is simply laughable.
 
Joined
Sep 26, 2017
Posts
8,977
Likes
13,770
AFL Club
Geelong
The 10-2 count is complete bs, made up out of the whole cloth by a US Catholic website on the day of the conviction, by someone who almost certainly wasn't even at the trial, with no source or substantiation, and with no earthly way of knowing what went on in the jury room and thereafter it became an internet meme. Even the judge and the lawyers normally have no way of knowing the count; the judge always tells the jury not to tell him or anyone else if the count is anything but 12-0 or 11-1.

In the usual procedure, the judge called a short recess after the jury gave its verdict; and after he thanked them, gave them the usual confidentiality warnings and discharged them.

The recess is called so he can gather his thoughts on bail, and check his calendar for a sentencing hearing, and so the defence/prosecution can also consider and talk about bail.

The suggestion that such an experienced criminal trial lawyer and judge as Peter Kidd would be so "shocked" by the verdict in a criminal trial that he would have to leave the courtroom to recover is simply laughable.
But ....but ....BruceFromBalnarring told us the channel 7 cameramen in the lift were shocked by the Judge reaction...and this was good evidence as a sign that Judge Kidd didn’t agree with the verdict!!!
 
Joined
Jun 10, 2014
Posts
1,475
Likes
1,806
AFL Club
Collingwood
The 10-2 count is complete bs, made up out of the whole cloth by a US Catholic website on the day of the conviction, by someone who almost certainly wasn't even at the trial, with no source or substantiation, and with no earthly way of knowing what went on in the jury room and thereafter it became an internet meme. Even the judge and the lawyers normally have no way of knowing the count; the judge always tells the jury not to tell him or anyone else if the count is anything but 12-0 or 11-1.

In the usual procedure, the judge called a short recess after the jury gave its verdict; and after he thanked them, gave them the usual confidentiality warnings and discharged them.

The recess is called so he can gather his thoughts on bail, and check his calendar for a sentencing hearing, and so the defence/prosecution can also consider and talk about bail.

The suggestion that such an experienced criminal trial lawyer and judge as Peter Kidd would be so "shocked" by the verdict in a criminal trial that he would have to leave the courtroom to recover is simply laughable.
Guessing you aren’t a lawyer Freddie. I am. Regardless, the lawyers who told me their version of events know far more than me or you.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
Top Bottom