Religion Pell Guilty!

[Len Nicodemo]

That's true but he is the best criminal defence barristers around. He is known to take on the most unpopular vases such as Julian Knight.

Someone has to do it, yes he is good.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Ironic you'd use that term given how many women were tortured to death by your bizarre Jewish death cult turned Roman imperial administrative tool in a previous bout of mass sexual violence on vulnerable members of the community.

Well that's because you make the presumption that because I think Pell is not guilty, I must be on the side of the Catholic Church more broadly.

Try asking me about Bishop Mulkearns, Archbishop Frank Little, even Pope Francis. Amongst many, many others.

 

[Halloween Jack]

Look, Bolt is entitled to his opinion, just like the rest of us. But some opinions should be kept to yourself. Imagine the hurt this is doing to the victims of Pell and their families. Also the countless victims of church abuse, many of whom were told they were lying and there was no way the local priest could have done this.

In short, shut the **** up Bolt.

 

[Craven Morehead]

Well that's because you make the presumption that because I think Pell is not guilty, I must be on the side of the Catholic Church more broadly.

Try asking me about Bishop Mulkearns, Archbishop Frank Little, even Pope Francis. Amongst many, many others.

By saying that Pell is not guilty you clearly imply that the key witness is lying.
I'd like to know how you came to that conclusion.
Did the witness have a vision which showed him the inner sanctum of the cathedral, down to where the wine was kept?
What would motivate such a person to go through such a traumatic process?
Why would he perjure himself in such a way and leave himself open to ridicule, embarrassment and possible charges?
Do normal, logical people stand up in court and recall by lying how someone jammed a **** down their throat as a child?

Your turn Bruce.

 

[Del191229]

It's just disgusting.
That poor bastard has gone through hell and still people question if what he testified is credible and truthful.
I mean really?

Yep, given the other victim - I don't think it is stretching to too far to say - self-medicated himself to death because of the trauma inflicted on him.

Such a range of humanity in the three people in that room:

Victim A - poor kid was subjected to enormous trauma and simply couldn't cope, not many can, and how many more like him were and are there? Should have been prescribed the painkillers he needed to obtain on the black market to manage his trauma.

Victim B - such bravery, true bravery. I word that gets thrown around a lot in footy when physical courage is mistaken for true bravery. Also I can't help but think of a footy figure who some a lot of time in court a few years ago who was hailed as "brave" for what he did. But to take on the Church and all its money and power, to know the Andrew Bolts of the world will be gunning for you, to subject yourself to cross examination by someone like Robert Richter, that is true bravery is the course of justice.

Pell - A monster. More accurately, and to use the terminology of his creed, a demon. A power obsessed emotionless thing in human form who did not care, couldn't care, about the amount of suffering he inflicted on others in the pursuit of his own personal gain. Sitting in his multi million dollar apartment in Rome, lecturing others about their personal lives, gadding about in gold inlaid robes, what a demon, a true horror movie creature come to life, the worst of humanity.

 

[Del191229]

The uncomfortable reality for many today is that Pell was a giant of conservative politics in this country whose opinion was taken very seriously by those at the pointy end of the Liberal Party.

Yep, he was the "spiritual advisor" of the angry old white blokes (and Bronny) party.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

How can you confidently turn around and say he didn’t do this? It’s obvious that some people will go in and defend, alter boys or not, but it’s not like he has sexually abused every choir boy or alter boy going around. The evidence is pretty substantial and the CC has a sick and sordid history of abuse and corruption.

1. I know that he is always ALWAYS accompanied by his assistant.

2. I know that the door to the sacristy at St Pats is always ALWAYS locked.

3. I know that the Archbishop almost always talks to churchgoers for a good half hour after Mass.

4. If he doesn't, it's because he has some pressing engagement.

5. I know that the Archbishop can't get out of all his gear without assistance. So if he did have a pressing engagement, then his assistant would have been with him to help him get his garb off. Which also goes to whether he could have whipped out his johnson and demanded a blow job. He couldn't have.

6. I know that there are people milling around everywhere after Mass, and for Pell to have acted as described, even if he could have and for the reasons spelled out above, I don't believe he could have, he would have had to have been so brazenly stupid to have committed the abuse in the manner described. And whatever you think of Pell, he's not brazenly stupid.

7. The evidence wasn't substantial. It was one boy's description of events, denied by the other boy who was allegedly present.

 

[Del191229]

sure, but the majority involve multiple acts with multiple children - who are groomed for the purpose.
i have relatives and neighbours who's boys/girls have been victims of pedos and that's how it usually works.

You do know Pell has been accused multiple times of sexual assault? The vast majority of those accusations have not been sustained to conviction - quite rightly - but in the instance where enough evidence was obtained, a conviction was recorded.

It isn't like the matters he's been found guilty of are a single lone instance of him being accused of such behaviour.

 

[Del191229]

Don't disagree with that but if you don't think he has his influence all over Xavier Bill, the union movement and many of the factions in the alp you would be mistaken.

Meh, it isn't 1955 anymore. The last time church related stuff had a genuine impact on ALP policy was the Shoppies holding Gillard's feet to the fire over gay marriage, and even they couldn't stop the Royal Commission. The Shoppy power is majorly on the wane.

The real Catholic influence was in this Coalition government with the likes of Abbott, Turnbull, Joybe, Cormann et al. Who were basically the DLP in many ways.

Morrison the happy clapper Prod has pivoted away from that cultural milieu though toward his own outer suburban evangelical type worldview.

 

[Len Nicodemo]

I posted in another thread I created that it would be a matter of time before the right wing conservatives piped up, surprise surprise, Andrew Bolt was the first RW commentator I saw write his article.

God this sickens me, the protection afforded to this sick paedophile to uphold the conservative Catholic fundamentals just takes society further and further back in time. A tax free and wealthy institution in the CC has been plundering and pillaging not only the finances of its followers but has been in bed with the conservative parties forever and a day.

In the real world the victims of these crimes deal with it day by day, some end up killing themselves, their lives are ruined by the selfish acts of these insidious dogs.

The CC should compensate every single victim at the hands of these pigs. The fact they can avoid tax is a sickening display of hoarding riches.

The day this sick culture is removed from the CC the better, it starts with convicting this dog.

 

[FredLeDeux]

1. I know that he is always ALWAYS accompanied by his assistant.

2. I know that the door to the sacristy at St Pats is always ALWAYS locked.

3. I know that the Archbishop almost always talks to churchgoers for a good half hour after Mass.

4. If he doesn't, it's because he has some pressing engagement.

5. I know that the Archbishop can't get out of all his gear without assistance. So if he did have a pressing engagement, then his assistant would have been with him to help him get his garb off. Which also goes to whether he could have whipped out his johnson and demanded a blow job. He couldn't have.

6. I know that there are people milling around everywhere after Mass, and for Pell to have acted as described, even if he could have and for the reasons spelled out above, I don't believe he could have, he would have had to have been so brazenly stupid to have committed the abuse in the manner described. And whatever you think of Pell, he's not brazenly stupid.

7. The evidence wasn't substantial. It was one boy's description of events, denied by the other boy who was allegedly present.

Richter must be effing useless if he couldn't get him off, given all those "facts".

 

[its free real estate]

Interesting to hear Pell’s powerbase is conservative Catholics in the US. How did he cultivate that?

 

[Len Nicodemo]

1. I know that he is always ALWAYS accompanied by his assistant.

2. I know that the door to the sacristy at St Pats is always ALWAYS locked.

3. I know that the Archbishop almost always talks to churchgoers for a good half hour after Mass.

4. If he doesn't, it's because he has some pressing engagement.

5. I know that the Archbishop can't get out of all his gear without assistance. So if he did have a pressing engagement, then his assistant would have been with him to help him get his garb off. Which also goes to whether he could have whipped out his johnson and demanded a blow job. He couldn't have.

6. I know that there are people milling around everywhere after Mass, and for Pell to have acted as described, even if he could have and for the reasons spelled out above, I don't believe he could have, he would have had to have been so brazenly stupid to have committed the abuse in the manner described. And whatever you think of Pell, he's not brazenly stupid.

7. The evidence wasn't substantial. It was one boy's description of events, denied by the other boy who was allegedly present.

Sounds like you also know you’re pretty ignorant. That’s a lot to ‘know’.

 

[Len Nicodemo]

Interesting to hear Pell’s powerbase is conservative Catholics in the US. How did he cultivate that?

Haven’t you heard? Americans have always loved Aussie accents

 

[FredLeDeux]

Meh, it isn't 1955 anymore. The last time church related stuff had a genuine impact on ALP policy was the Shoppies holding Gillard's feet to the fire over gay marriage, and even they couldn't stop the Royal Commission. The Shoppy power is majorly on the wane.

.

Shorten, Catholic Schools, Batman.

 

[Forward Press]

Richter must be effing useless if he couldn't get him off, given all those "facts".

The 'facts' are all wrong, anyway, as the jury listened to them and did not believe it.

The last point is also the ultimate in victim blaming through a blatant lie because the other boy did not give evidence at this trial - he committed suicide in 2014. I don't know why people are still engaging with an apologist like Bruce.

 

[Chief]

Andrew Bolt scum of the scum supporting a convicted child molester!

I wonder how much money Bolt put into the paedo sympathiser fund to pay Pell’s lawyers?

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

By saying that Pell is not guilty you clearly imply that the key witness is lying.
I'd like to know how you came to that conclusion.
Did the witness have a vision which showed him the inner sanctum of the cathedral, down to where the wine was kept?
What would motivate such a person to go through such a traumatic process?
Why would he perjure himself in such a way and leave himself open to ridicule, embarrassment and possible charges?
Do normal, logical people stand up in court and recall by lying how someone jammed a **** down their throat as a child?

Your turn Bruce.

I have answered most of this in the post above.

As to motivations.......

I have just sat through a 5 week trial on a similar matter. 11 alleged victims.

4 victims proven. He's gone inside.
3 victims not proven. Might have done it, might not have. Not guilty.
4 victims clearly making it up and along for the ride.

You tell me what motivated those last 4. I can only speculate.

To bring this back to Pell, he has been accused of a lot of things over the years, some not proven, others actually disproven (the accusers lied).

You tell me what motivated those last lot of accusers who lied. I don't know.

There is no shortage of cases around where people have lied about crimes committed against them. Only last week that bloke in America from that show Empire lied about a race based attack against him. What motivated that? I don't know.

 

[Colonial]

1. I know that he is always ALWAYS accompanied by his assistant.

2. I know that the door to the sacristy at St Pats is always ALWAYS locked.

3. I know that the Archbishop almost always talks to churchgoers for a good half hour after Mass.

4. If he doesn't, it's because he has some pressing engagement.

5. I know that the Archbishop can't get out of all his gear without assistance. So if he did have a pressing engagement, then his assistant would have been with him to help him get his garb off. Which also goes to whether he could have whipped out his johnson and demanded a blow job. He couldn't have.

6. I know that there are people milling around everywhere after Mass, and for Pell to have acted as described, even if he could have and for the reasons spelled out above, I don't believe he could have, he would have had to have been so brazenly stupid to have committed the abuse in the manner described. And whatever you think of Pell, he's not brazenly stupid.

7. The evidence wasn't substantial. It was one boy's description of events, denied by the other boy who was allegedly present.

So if this is all true how on the hell did he not get off with 1 of the best defense lawyers in the country?

I could of gotten him the not guilty verdict with that much facts.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

 

[Craven Morehead]

1. I know that he is always ALWAYS accompanied by his assistant.

2. I know that the door to the sacristy at St Pats is always ALWAYS locked.

3. I know that the Archbishop almost always talks to churchgoers for a good half hour after Mass.

4. If he doesn't, it's because he has some pressing engagement.

5. I know that the Archbishop can't get out of all his gear without assistance. So if he did have a pressing engagement, then his assistant would have been with him to help him get his garb off. Which also goes to whether he could have whipped out his johnson and demanded a blow job. He couldn't have.

6. I know that there are people milling around everywhere after Mass, and for Pell to have acted as described, even if he could have and for the reasons spelled out above, I don't believe he could have, he would have had to have been so brazenly stupid to have committed the abuse in the manner described. And whatever you think of Pell, he's not brazenly stupid.

7. The evidence wasn't substantial. It was one boy's description of events, denied by the other boy who was allegedly present.

Since you won't answer my post, I suggest you read a bit more into the actual case and what was accepted as evidence by the Jury.
In short, you don't know a f***ing thing.
You're wrong, and being f***ing offensive in doing so.

 

[Colonial]

I have answered most of this in the post above.

As to motivations.......

I have just sat through a 5 week trial on a similar matter. 11 alleged victims.

4 victims proven. He's gone inside.
3 victims not proven. Might have done it, might not have. Not guilty.
4 victims clearly making it up and along for the ride.

You tell me what motivated those last 4. I can only speculate.

To bring this back to Pell, he has been accused of a lot of things over the years, some not proven, others actually disproven (the accusers lied).

You tell me what motivated those last lot of accusers who lied. I don't know.

There is no shortage of cases around where people have lied about crimes committed against them. Only last week that bloke in America from that show Empire lied about a race based attack against him. What motivated that? I don't know.

So you are accusing 4 of the victims as being liars?
On what grounds?

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

 

[its free real estate]

Maybe Richter was in on it. The Jews strike back against the heretical Christ sect!

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

So if this is all true how on the hell did he no get off with 1 of the best defense lawyers in the country?

I could of gotten him the not guilty verdict with that much facts.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

I think we'll find out when the matter is heard in the Supreme Court.

 

[RupieDupie]

Look, Bolt is entitled to his opinion, just like the rest of us. But some opinions should be kept to yourself. Imagine the hurt this is doing to the victims of Pell and their families. Also the countless victims of church abuse, many of whom were told they were lying and there was no way the local priest could have done this.

In short, shut the **** up Bolt.

Or keep going Bolt...

It appears that Pell has just arrived at his hearing, and we can hear what some people are really thinking.

 

[Craven Morehead]

I have answered most of this in the post above.

As to motivations.......

I have just sat through a 5 week trial on a similar matter. 11 alleged victims.

4 victims proven. He's gone inside.
3 victims not proven. Might have done it, might not have. Not guilty.
4 victims clearly making it up and along for the ride.

You tell me what motivated those last 4. I can only speculate.

To bring this back to Pell, he has been accused of a lot of things over the years, some not proven, others actually disproven (the accusers lied).

You tell me what motivated those last lot of accusers who lied. I don't know.

There is no shortage of cases around where people have lied about crimes committed against them. Only last week that bloke in America from that show Empire lied about a race based attack against him. What motivated that? I don't know.

and how many of these people took on the might of the Catholic Church?
How many knew they were going to come under intense media and public pressure and scrutiny?
How many got dragged over the coals by Richter.
Compare apples with apples you disingenuous bastard.