Religion Pell Guilty!

[sherb]

I couldn't make a judgement on that without having seen him give evidence. Or at least read the transcript.

And yet without doing either of those things, you know that Pell didn't do it.

Amazing.

 

[Del191229]

I was aware of one poster who had revealed that. I wasn't aware if the one I was responding to had. If that's the case, I am unreservedly sorry.

That you are sorry and I see no reason to doubt your integrity here, perhaps that should give time for reflection on how you're treating the victim in this Pell case.

If they were on this thread would you be as dismissive of them?

 

[Craven Morehead]

Thanks for answering. It was a genuine question and I am sorry if it caused pain. I didn't intend it to.

This whole thing is more than f***ing painful, but it needs addressing.
I ask again.
How did the principal witness in Pell's case have an intimate understanding of the sacristy within the cathedral, when you say it was locked at all times?
That's my genuine question.

 

[BigTacoBandit]

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

Maybe Bolt and Milo can go on a speaking tour defending pedophilia just to "trigger the lefties" for the lulz.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

This whole thing is more than f***ing painful, but it needs addressing.
I ask again.
How did the principal witness in Pell's case have an intimate understanding of the sacristy within the cathedral, when you say it was locked at all times?
That's my genuine question.

I don't know. When I said "locked at all times" I should have perhaps written "locked at all relevant times". He may, for instance, have been an altar boy at some point and accompanied an assistant priest in there. But I simply don't know.

 

[Sentinel]

Melbourne Archbishop Peter Comensoli (the same bloke who endorsed Pell ahead of the 2015 Royal Comission and fought to stop the deportation of Irish pedo Priest Finian Egan) now says he'll be visiting his good mate prisoner Pell in the slammer.

https://www.theage.com.au/national/...logises-to-abuse-victims-20190227-p510hu.html

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

That you are sorry and I see no reason to doubt your integrity here, perhaps that should give time for reflection on how you're treating the victim in this Pell case.

If they were on this thread would you be as dismissive of them?

Well I don't share the view that he is a victim of George Pell. And I don't share the view that some espouse that all "victims" should be believed.

I do think that all accusers should have their allegations treated seriously and investigated thoroughly. I further believe that case files should not be opened into certain people in the absence of complaints then have complaints invited by police, which is what occurred in this case.

 

[Craven Morehead]

I don't know. When I said "locked at all times" I should have perhaps written "locked at all relevant times". He may, for instance, have been an altar boy at some point and accompanied an assistant priest in there. But I simply don't know.

Well, it's a pretty relevant point which the prosecution hung their hat on and Richter couldn't dispute.
He even described it down to where the wine was stored, which is when Pell walked in and 'punished' them for having swig.
Funnily enough, I actually admire your staunch defence, but it has more holes than a colander.

I never had the guts to make a statement, let alone give evidence, as I have seen my schoolmates lives torn apart in doing so. So many are now dead, or in deep addiction, for no good reason other than being pawns in people's power trips and ugly fantasies.
I urge you to look more closely at the actual evidence in Pell's case before speculating further.

 

[Del191229]

I don't know. When I said "locked at all times" I should have perhaps written "locked at all relevant times". He may, for instance, have been an altar boy at some point and accompanied an assistant priest in there. But I simply don't know.

Well, maybe he knows because he was in there, when Pell r*ped him?

 

[GuruJane]

Pell isn't a paedo, he's a child rapist. You're focusing one specific paedo strand. There's actually quite a few, and in reality, Pell fits very comfortably within the Catholic clergy child rape MO.

Yes, child rape is what I am referring to. Examples please? From the RC preferably.

 

[Del191229]

Well I don't share the view that he is a victim of George Pell. And I don't share the view that some espouse that all "victims" should be believed.

I do think that all accusers should have their allegations treated seriously and investigated thoroughly. I further believe that case files should not be opened into certain people in the absence of complaints then have complaints invited by police, which is what occurred in this case.

This post contradicts itself. From the first sentence to the next.

As I said before, lots of accusations have been made against Pell and tested by VicPol and the legal system.

Many were not found to be substantial enough to warrant further action. Some were and a conviction resulted.

If you don't think the system that saw the accusations that resulted in the conviction is sound, then by definition you don't think the system that found the allegations that weren't taken further (the lies) is sound either.

You can't have it both ways.

From where I sit here, you're #TeamPell

That's OK in footy, I genuinely believe North are a deadset chance to win the flag this year, others will disagree, but I'm #TeamNorth so I don't care.

This is real life mate, lives have been ruined, a man will go to jail a convicted child sex offender with all that entails, another man died of a drug overdose almost certainly linked to his abuse.

You yourself admit your only basis for believing Pell innocent is that you "know" things, that you then subsequently admit you couldn't "know".

If you want to be #TeamIFerventlyWishMyHeroWasntAChildRapist that's OK.

But he is a child rapist, whether you like it or not, just like North will probably not win the flag this year, whether I like it or not.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Well, it's a pretty relevant point which the prosecution hung their hat on and Richter couldn't dispute.
He even described it down to where the wine was stored, which is when Pell walked in and 'punished' them for having swig.
Funnily enough, I actually admire your staunch defence, but it has more holes than a colander.

I never had the guts to make a statement, let alone give evidence, as I have seen my schoolmates lives torn apart in doing so. So many are now dead, or in deep addiction, for no good reason other than being pawns in people's power trips and ugly fantasies.
I urge you to look more closely at the actual evidence in Pell's case before speculating further.

I'll admit it was a point that raised my eyebrows as I listened to the prosecutor's closing. But I heard the whole closing, and to me it was an exercise in making the highly improbable seem possible. Which should not be nearly enough to convict a man beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[Del191229]

Yes, child rape is what I am referring to. Examples please? From the RC preferably.

Go and do your own research, it is all there on the record, I don't have to "prove" systemic child rape by Catholic clergy.

 

[Craven Morehead]

Yes, child rape is what I am referring to. Examples please? From the RC preferably.

Well, I directly quoted your post with a personal perspective from the protestant side, but you chose to ignore it.
So, I'll tell you again. There was NO grooming, no rule book, nothing of the sort.
It was purely opportunistic, so you never, ever as a kid went alone anywhere.
But they still got you.
The same goes within the inner sanctum of a Cathedral.

 

[Len Nicodemo]

I don't know. When I said "locked at all times" I should have perhaps written "locked at all relevant times". He may, for instance, have been an altar boy at some point and accompanied an assistant priest in there. But I simply don't know.

Your last 5 words sum up your entire argument

 

[Craven Morehead]

I'll admit it was a point that raised my eyebrows as I listened to the prosecutor's closing. But I heard the whole closing, and to me it was an exercise in making the highly improbable seem possible. Which should not be nearly enough to convict a man beyond reasonable doubt.

And yet, here we are with a conviction from a unanimous jury and despite one of the leading criminal defense lawyers in this land leading the charge.
I hate repeating myself, but Richter tore that witness to pieces for over a day in the hope that his evidence would fall over.
It didn't.

 

[Len Nicodemo]

Yes, child rape is what I am referring to. Examples please? From the RC preferably.

George Pell - convicted of sexual abuse on the 26/2/19. There’s an example.

 

[Sainteric]

I think you’ll find his answer interesting.

Of all institutions religious or otherwise 62% of the abuse took place in the Catholic church of all the religious orders the Christian Brothers have paid the most, it is estimated that at least 1 in 4 brothers was a pedo. This went on for generations and probably still does, there is no possible way over that period of time the whole order and every one in the church heirachy didn't know about it. The brothers after the royal commission decided to not take on any new members and will cease to exist in the next 10/20 years. In one way this is a good thing in another way it's a cowards way out.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

This post contradicts itself. From the first sentence to the next.

As I said before, lots of accusations have been made against Pell and tested by VicPol and the legal system.

Many were not found to be substantial enough to warrant further action. Some were and a conviction resulted.

If you don't think the system that saw the accusations that resulted in the conviction is sound, then by definition you don't think the system that found the allegations that weren't taken further (the lies) is sound either.

You can't have it both ways.

From where I sit here, you're #TeamPell

That's OK in footy, I genuinely believe North are a deadset chance to win the flag this year, others will disagree, but I'm #TeamNorth so I don't care.

This is real life mate, lives have been ruined, a man will go to jail a convicted child sex offender with all that entails, another man died of a drug overdose almost certainly linked to his abuse.

You yourself admit your only basis for believing Pell innocent is that you "know" things, that you then subsequently admit you couldn't "know".

If you want to be #TeamIFerventlyWishMyHeroWasntAChildRapist that's OK.

But he is a child rapist, whether you like it or not, just like North will probably not win the flag this year, whether I like it or not.

Sorry, but most of this is utter nonsense. You continue to overlook the allegations that were not just "not substantiated", but actually proven false. It's a neat trick.

As to confidence in the system, of course I have confidence in it. But that confidence is not absolute. And it would take a fair dose of ignorance to be absolutely confident or indeed, have no confidence whatsoever.

The Lawyer X revelations show that.

The bloke that died of a drug overdose denied ever having been sexually abused. You're not alone in concluding that he "almost certainly" got into drugs and consequently died because Pell r*ped him but my view is that that is an irresponsible claim to make, perhaps not on BigFooty so much, but by serious journalists/commentators in the media. There is no evidence, none, that he overdosed as a consequence of being r*ped. The only direct evidence, and it is hearsay from the now deceased, is that he was not abused by Pell.

Back to the system. I think it has a flaw. I think that trial by jury, whilst it is the most appropriate method in most instances, in certain circumstances is not. I think this is one of those circumstances. And I think the Court of Appeal will find the conviction unsound.

 

[Pessimistic]

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.

We know the enquiry was probably done decades later than it should have been.. Thanks Julia

 

[Del191229]

I'll admit it was a point that raised my eyebrows as I listened to the prosecutor's closing. But I heard the whole closing, and to me it was an exercise in making the highly improbable seem possible. Which should not be nearly enough to convict a man beyond reasonable doubt.

"To me".

Seems like to 12 other people it wasn't "highly improbable" though. It was fact.

 

[Len Nicodemo]

I don't know. When I said "locked at all times" I should have perhaps written "locked at all relevant times". He may, for instance, have been an altar boy at some point and accompanied an assistant priest in there. But I simply don't know.

You’re simply back tracking because you’ve been found out. What’s it even matter what room was locked and what wasn’t? Your whole premise for your argument is ‘he may’ or ‘for instance’. It’s not how courts work, people don’t accept speculation for acquitting an accused felon, they take into consideration significant evidence against that person and make a judgement of guilt or no guilt.

What next from you? Martin Bryant was a patsy in a scheme concoted by the left to repress gun ownership?

 

[Pessimistic]

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

One conspiracy theory going round is Pell was uncovering too much corruption in the Vatican and they somehow got an australian jury to return a guilty verdict

(I know)

 

[Len Nicodemo]

Sorry, but most of this is utter nonsense. You continue to overlook the allegations that were not just "not substantiated", but actually proven false. It's a neat trick.

As to confidence in the system, of course I have confidence in it. But that confidence is not absolute. And it would take a fair dose of ignorance to be absolutely confident or indeed, have no confidence whatsoever.

The Lawyer X revelations show that.

The bloke that died of a drug overdose denied ever having been sexually abused. You're not alone in concluding that he "almost certainly" got into drugs and consequently died because Pell r*ped him but my view is that that is an irresponsible claim to make, perhaps not on BigFooty so much, but by serious journalists/commentators in the media. There is no evidence, none, that he overdosed as a consequence of being r*ped. The only direct evidence, and it is hearsay from the now deceased, is that he was not abused by Pell.

Back to the system. I think it has a flaw. I think that trial by jury, whilst it is the most appropriate method in most instances, in certain circumstances is not. I think this is one of those circumstances. And I think the Court of Appeal will find the conviction unsound.

Enlighten us with what was not substantial.

 

[Sainteric]

We know the enquiry was probably done decades later than it should have been.. Thanks Julia

Julia who wouldn't back marriage equality because of Catholic influence in the alp and the union's?