Religion Pell Guilty!

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Demosthenes

Premiership Player
Joined
Jun 9, 2015
Posts
3,347
Likes
3,022
AFL Club
Melbourne
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 be fair, the jury verdict came as a bit of a surprise to a lot of experts. A number of well-respected legal minds (such as Jeremy Gans) have come out and said that they think an appeal on the grounds of unreasonableness stands a decent chance of success. I can understand people harbouring reservations about it.

Equally, believing that Pell should not have been convicted doesn't necessarily equate to believing that the victim's lying and the guy didn't do it. It's more a commentary on the inherent difficulties of proof in sexual assault cases.

I do wonder, should the Court of Appeal uphold the verdict, whether you'll keep trotting out this sophistry.
Let's be real - whatever the result of the appeal, a substantial number of people will think it's wrong. That's just the nature of he said/he said cases. Personally I am okay with that. Judges and juries strive for fairness and truth, but they shouldn't ever be treated as the sole arbiters of it.
 

Number37

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 5, 2013
Posts
13,665
Likes
13,405
AFL Club
Sydney
To be fair, the jury verdict came as a bit of a surprise to a lot of experts. A number of well-respected legal minds (such as Jeremy Gans) have come out and said that they think an appeal on the grounds of unreasonableness stands a decent chance of success. I can understand people harbouring reservations about it.

Equally, believing that Pell should not have been convicted doesn't necessarily equate to believing that the victim's lying and the guy didn't do it. It's more a commentary on the inherent difficulties of proof in sexual assault cases.


Let's be real - whatever the result of the appeal, a substantial number of people will think it's wrong. That's just the nature of he said/he said cases. Personally I am okay with that. Judges and juries strive for fairness and truth, but they shouldn't ever be treated as the sole arbiters of it.
A few experts (Gans being one) have pointed out that unreasonableness is the 'go-to' grounds of appeal. If they don't have anything else one could conclude that they are merely clutching at straws.

The verdict can only be unreasonable if the jury MUST have entertained a reasonable doubt, not MIGHT have.
 
Joined
Jun 30, 2017
Posts
3,530
Likes
2,814
AFL Club
GWS
Ultra-Conservative-Voltron - “We have all the power, connections, legal-and-bureaucratic-know-how, and munny to reveal an evil conspiracy in a “democratic” “non-corrupt” and “fair” country... utilising the mechanisms in place to keep this evil at bay... and prevent our best buddy, good bloke, and mentor from going to jail... but we’re not going to utilise this”

o_O:eek::rolleyes::drunk::think::poo::greenalien::sick::(:'(;):thumbsdown:
 

Number37

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 5, 2013
Posts
13,665
Likes
13,405
AFL Club
Sydney
Ultra-Conservative-Voltron - “We have all the power, connections, legal-and-bureaucratic-know-how, and munny to reveal an evil conspiracy in a “democratic” “non-corrupt” and “fair” country... utilising the mechanisms in place to keep this evil at bay... but we’re not going to do it”

o_O:eek::rolleyes::drunk::think::poo::greenalien::sick::(:'(;):thumbsdown:
Bolt, Devine & co are playing the game that sees Pell getting acquitted and never having to answer because the "media" have made it impossible for him to get a fair trial.
 
Joined
Jun 30, 2017
Posts
3,530
Likes
2,814
AFL Club
GWS
Bolt, Devine & co are playing the game that sees Pell getting acquitted and never having to answer because the "media" have made it impossible for him to get a fair trial.
It gets a bit weird when a newspaper which usually writes articles such as;

“EXPOSED - black people” on their front page, apparently have the story of the millennia - an evil force permeating our society - but they keep this to their editorial arm of their news media... I would have thought they would have made this more substantial... it’s like they don’t even believe it...
 
Joined
Aug 5, 2016
Posts
1,771
Likes
893
AFL Club
St Kilda
I've never excused Ridsdale. Ever.

And someone has to stand up against the mob.
You are not standing up against a mob you are not a victim.

You are standing up for the church against the tens of thousands of victims which like the entire church heirachy you believe they are liars and no priest is guilty, even though we all know that is far from true.
 

Demosthenes

Premiership Player
Joined
Jun 9, 2015
Posts
3,347
Likes
3,022
AFL Club
Melbourne
A few experts (Gans being one) have pointed out that unreasonableness is the 'go-to' grounds of appeal. If they don't have anything else one could conclude that they are merely clutching at straws.
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...inning-appeal-against-convictions-expert-says
Experts spoken to by Guardian Australia agreed that while the latter two appeared flimsy, an appeal on the basis of unreasonableness may have a high chance of success.
 

GuruJane

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Feb 18, 2003
Posts
15,431
Likes
1,531
Location
home of the mighty sa
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Hawthorn, Tottenham
To be fair, the jury verdict came as a bit of a surprise to a lot of experts. A number of well-respected legal minds (such as Jeremy Gans) have come out and said that they think an appeal on the grounds of unreasonableness stands a decent chance of success. I can understand people harbouring reservations about it.
Equally, believing that Pell should not have been convicted doesn't necessarily equate to believing that the victim's lying and the guy didn't do it. It's more a commentary on the inherent difficulties of proof in sexual assault cases.
Let's be real - whatever the result of the appeal, a substantial number of people will think it's wrong. That's just the nature of he said/he said cases. Personally I am okay with that. Judges and juries strive for fairness and truth, but they shouldn't ever be treated as the sole arbiters of it.
You are not allowed to be far too sensible on this thread.
The mob will now turn on you.
 
Joined
Jan 13, 2007
Posts
5,269
Likes
6,496
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Sydney
You are not standing up against a mob you are not a victim.

You are standing up for the church against the tens of thousands of victims which like the entire church heirachy you believe they are liars and no priest is guilty, even though we all know that is far from true.
If you could perhaps direct me to one single other priest or brother I have declared innocent I’d be grateful.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Posts
40,345
Likes
65,664
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Moderator #2,437
You are not allowed to be far too sensible on this thread.
The mob will now turn on you.
Replace Cardinal with Imam and your veneer of respect for judicial process would vanish in an instant. The Curtis Chen killers are still entitled to appeal their case, do they deserve the same sort of support given that it hasn't yet run it's full course?
 

GuruJane

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Feb 18, 2003
Posts
15,431
Likes
1,531
Location
home of the mighty sa
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Hawthorn, Tottenham
You are not standing up against a mob you are not a victim.

You are standing up for the church against the tens of thousands of victims which like the entire church heirachy you believe they are liars and no priest is guilty, even though we all know that is far from true.
please quote the post in which bb makes this argument.
 

GuruJane

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Feb 18, 2003
Posts
15,431
Likes
1,531
Location
home of the mighty sa
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Hawthorn, Tottenham
Replace Cardinal with Imam and your veneer of respect for judicial process would vanish in an instant. The Curtis Chen killers are still entitled to appeal their case, do they deserve the same sort of support given that it hasn't yet run it's full course?
Ah - Gough the moderator. Is this the lie for the day in service of the baying Mob?

For the record - the Curtis Chen killers are entitled to the same due process as anybody else.

Also FTR - there were direct eyewitnesses to the Chen killing.

In contrast, there no supporting eye witnesses to the alleged Pell abuse. Not one.

That's why reasonable doubt has emerged as the key issue.
Very similar to the Chamberlain case - and you know how that ended.
 

Demosthenes

Premiership Player
Joined
Jun 9, 2015
Posts
3,347
Likes
3,022
AFL Club
Melbourne
"May" is a word lawyers use that sounds definitive but really isn't.
Look, it's a disclaimer, but if you talk with the legal eagles most of them will admit to being pretty surprised that the jury convicted on the basis of what was presented to them. All I'm saying is that nobody should be shocked if his appeal is upheld.
 

GuruJane

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Feb 18, 2003
Posts
15,431
Likes
1,531
Location
home of the mighty sa
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Hawthorn, Tottenham

Number37

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 5, 2013
Posts
13,665
Likes
13,405
AFL Club
Sydney
Look, it's a disclaimer, but if you talk with the legal eagles most of them will admit to being pretty surprised that the jury convicted on the basis of what was presented to them. All I'm saying is that nobody should be shocked if his appeal is upheld.
The judges that sit on the appeal cannot supplant their judgment for the judgment of the jury, that is not how appeals work. That is specifically not how appeals on the grounds of unreasonableness work.

The outrage should Pell's appeal fail will be far greater than if it succeeds. Far too many people have convinced themselves that the jury couldn't have reached the verdict they did, even though they did.
 
Joined
Jan 2, 2019
Posts
1,594
Likes
2,134
AFL Club
Gold Coast
With respect, Ms Last might alternatively be characterized as a disgruntled former employee with a history of raising dubious claims, eg. at the Vic Inquiry into child sexual abuse, she claimed a barrister, Tim Seccull, had settled 300 survivor claims with the Church. The correct number was 1.

Regarding the article from which you have quoted, the reporting of that particular claim by the Age as another allegation against Pell is patently unfair. The article itself describes "Joe" as "not a strong witness", a very soft way of saying, "he was clearly a bullsh-t artist" (note, I am not suggesting anything about other witnesses, other allegations, just "Joe"). The supposed photos were apparently very amateurish photoshop attempts at putting priests faces onto bodies in sex scenes. Leaving aside everything else, this re-hashing of a clearly bogus claim to add on as a further suspicion around Pell was pretty ordinary IMO.
Were these dubious claims before or after she was in the employ of the catholic church?
The article also raised far more claims against Pell than the 'Joe" issue. Joe was clearly after a quid and needs an uppercut, but what about the rest of them?
I fully understand that Pell, to this day, is not guilty of any of the accusations, however his obstinate defence and support of priests who were quite clearly paedophiles, and well known throughout the church, paints him in a very, very poor light indeed.
One could say that he was doing more than just protecting his own, he was protecting himself!
 
Top Bottom