Religion Pell Guilty!

[BruceFromBalnarring]

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

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

The charges relating to them were disproven.

 

[A Cut Above]

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.

What other reason could there be for someone going into bat for a pedophile, who spent decades covering up for other pedophiles?


We're all ears.

 

[sherb]

Or that Pell did it but the evidence available did not meet standard of proof so should get off

That's possible of course, but it's separate to the point I was countering.

The poster I quoted clearly said that Pell didn't do this and couldn't have. So he must think the accuser is wrong (be it deliberately or otherwise).

 

[Sainteric]

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?

Can't speak for all but the question is was it enough not be overturned. On the plus side Pell didn't testify, it's usually harder to gets higher court to overturn something when the defendant didn't take the stand, on the minus side there are gaping holes in this poor guys story that the QC highlighted.

 

[Craven Morehead]

The charges relating to them were disproven.

How does that make them liars?

 

[Del191229]

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

But not always always. YOU thinking this, "knowing" this, doesn't mean you're a liar, but you weren't always always with him were you?

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

See above, no it isn't.

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

'Almost always" - so sometimes he doesn't.

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

So now we've established that he doesn't "always" talk out the front, we find out that even when he "always" did, he sometimes skipped off from "always" doing it for a "pressing engagement" even though you said it was "almost always" anyway.

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.

This point was demolished in court when his robes were produced. You're deluding yourself here.

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.

Stupid is not the operative word here, brazen is. Pell had seen for decades how other child rapists had got away with abuse, he'd lived with the, he'd actively covered up for them, and at the time he'd just established his vile little Jesuitical scheme to pay off victims. He would have thought himself above suspicion and he would have thought he could get away with it, just like all those he'd seen first hand get away with it.

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

"Not substantial". We will skate past your stomach churning lack of empathy and compassion for a person r*ped as a child. But this person was subjected to extensive cross-examination by one of Australia's finest legal minds for over a day. His evidence was tested to breaking point and it did not break.

I will note that Pell himself, he who is so smart, did not take the stand and explain himself why these accusations were false. That is his right, but to say the "evidence was not substantial" is simply wrong.

I get that you are deeply emotionally invested in Pell and this matter - I've seen it first hand in family members.

But you're now defending a convicted child rapist, and stooping to some pretty vile places in order to do so.

In the brief period when the Catholic Church was attempting to indoctrinate me, one of the few concepts of theirs I liked, and am still attracted to, is the notion of a "time of reflection".

I'd suggest a time of reflection for you on this one.

 

[Contra Mundum]

I’m pretty sure that Bruce won’t be losing any sleep over this. Like most people on this thread you’re letting you’re emotions control you.

Surely Lebbo you don't support the stance that Devine and Bolt have taken - isn't defense of the rule of law a right wing shibboleth. The sober thing to do is to say the jury has spoken and we see what happens on the appeal.

 

[Del191229]

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

Exactly. Exactly this.

 

[Len Nicodemo]

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.

You seem to know a hell of a lot dont you? I want you to now provide us all with the substantial proof that the 4 victims were ‘making it up’? And I also want you to use your same powers of judgement to argue your case the same way you’re convinced that the 3 victims were not subjected to it.

I’d be incredibly careful of being in such denial and the potential impact that might have on victims of sexual abuse, a few of which have bravely come forward in this thread.

So far, all you’ve reiterated is speculative assumption and what you consider to be ‘facts’ when you can’t even be 50% sure unless you were a parrot sitting in Pell’s shoulder.

 

[Len Nicodemo]

Surely Lebbo you don't support the stance that Devine and Bolt have taken - isn't defense of the rule of law a right wing shibboleth. The sober thing to do is to say the jury has spoken and we see what happens on the appeal.

Lebbo73 is a conservative. It doesn’t surprise me.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

How does that make them liars?

If you say someone did something to you. And the evidence shows without doubt that that person did not do that something to you. Then that means you have lied.

 

[Del191229]

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

By being the anti-sex hardcore conservative at a time when the US church was liberalising fast.

 

[Contra Mundum]

Lebbo73 is a conservative. It doesn’t surprise me.

Yeh but the rule of law is central to Conservative belief. On Pell and Devine - can you imagine of an Iman was convicted of pedophilia and Kaiser Trad came out in defense of the Imam - Devine would have got the lynch mob going

 

[Len Nicodemo]

If you say someone did something to you. And the evidence shows without doubt that that person did not do that something to you. Then that means you have lied.

The evidence has proven otherwise. The key witness died 5 years ago.

Next

 

[Len Nicodemo]

Yeh but the rule of law is central to Conservative belief. On Pell and Devine - can you imagine of an Iman was convicted of pedophilia and Kaiser Trad came out in defense of the Imam - Devine would have got the lynch mob going

Not quite the same thing, the evidence against Pell is pretty significant. It’s not like this is the first time the CC has been accused of it.

The rule of law being central to conservative belief is rather ironic considering the conservatives contravene law so frequently with the commonly used excuses in the name of the church and free speech.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

You seem to know a hell of a lot dont you? I want you to now provide us all with the substantial proof that the 4 victims were ‘making it up’? And I also want you to use your same powers of judgement to argue your case the same way you’re convinced that the 3 victims were not subjected to it.

I’d be incredibly careful of being in such denial and the potential impact that might have on victims of sexual abuse, a few of which have bravely come forward in this thread.

So far, all you’ve reiterated is speculative assumption and what you consider to be ‘facts’ when you can’t even be 50% sure unless you were a parrot sitting in Pell’s shoulder.

Get stuffed with your guilt shit. You want to be part of a mob that believes every accusation made against any person go right ahead. I am enormously sympathetic towards any victim of any kind of violence, sexual or otherwise, and particularly so towards children. I am also a realist. I know that a good number of such accusations are false. Not all. Not even most. But enough to have seen lives ruined and sometimes ended as a consequence of such false accusations.

 

[Gough]

Get stuffed with your guilt shit. You want to be part of a mob that believes every accusation made against any person go right ahead. I am enormously sympathetic towards any victim of any kind of violence, sexual or otherwise, and particularly so towards children. I am also a realist. I know that a good number of such accusations are false. Not all. Not even most. But enough to have seen lives ruined and sometimes ended as a consequence of such false accusations.

Even if he's not guilty, I'm cool with seeing Pell's life destroyed. He's reaping what he sowed for a career full of hate.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

The evidence has proven otherwise. The key witness died 5 years ago.

Next

You appear to have jumped from one case to another.

 

[its free real estate]

By being the anti-sex hardcore conservative at a time when the US church was liberalising fast.

Don’t they have their own over there?

 

[Colonial]

The charges relating to them were disproven.

How?
Via what evidence in Pells favour?

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

 

[Forward Press]

Get stuffed with your guilt shit. You want to be part of a mob that believes every accusation made against any person go right ahead. I am enormously sympathetic towards any victim of any kind of violence, sexual or otherwise, and particularly so towards children. I am also a realist. I know that a good number of such accusations are false. Not all. Not even most. But enough to have seen lives ruined and sometimes ended as a consequence of such false accusations.

The jury was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accusations were true and that Pell was guilty of what was alleged by the prosecution. That is an indisputable fact. You are definitely victim shaming now if this is the route you're going down.

 

[Contra Mundum]

Get stuffed with your guilt shit. You want to be part of a mob that believes every accusation made against any person go right ahead. I am enormously sympathetic towards any victim of any kind of violence, sexual or otherwise, and particularly so towards children. I am also a realist. I know that a good number of such accusations are false. Not all. Not even most. But enough to have seen lives ruined and sometimes ended as a consequence of such false accusations.

Come on Bruce - lets wait and see what the Court of Appeal says. The fact is a jury found him guilty in circumstances where he was represented by the best solicitor/barrister defence team in Australia. As someone that was raised in the Culture I understand the reflexive denial.

 

[Len Nicodemo]

Get stuffed with your guilt shit. You want to be part of a mob that believes every accusation made against any person go right ahead. I am enormously sympathetic towards any victim of any kind of violence, sexual or otherwise, and particularly so towards children. I am also a realist. I know that a good number of such accusations are false. Not all. Not even most. But enough to have seen lives ruined and sometimes ended as a consequence of such false accusations.

That’s a great way to avoid the question. You actually have no idea from the case you described whether what you’re talking about is either true nor false. You’re passing judgement because you ‘think’ it might be the case.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

How?
Via what evidence in Pells favour?

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

We're at cross purposes. The case I was referring to wasn't about Pell. I was trying to explain to whoever I was responding to that not all accusers are truthful.

 

[Len Nicodemo]

You appear to have jumped from one case to another.

Nice attempt at diversion, stay on topic.

1. You think Pell isn’t guilty through pure speculation and what you ‘know’ happens.
2. You brought up a case claiming 4 victims were clearly lying when you have zero ability to deduce that even though they were found by a court to be telling the truth.

What next, you got an enlightening conspiracy for us on whether the earth is round?