Religion Pell Guilty!

[Del191229]

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.

To go back to my footy metaphor, I think that the system whereby both teams get 6 points for their goals is the most appropriate method for deciding the outcome of games.

But I hate Essendon, so I think when North play them, their goals should only be with three points.

You're making this shit up as you go along, all well and good when talking footy, or say politics, but we are discussing the rape of children here, and you're arguing the rules should be changed to suit your personal belief in one person's innocence.

Jeezo.

 

[A Cut Above]

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

Comensoli's words do nothing to dispense the perception pedophilia is so common among Catholic priests they are happy to overlook peers molesting children if they are "good blokes".

Perhaps without even realizing it Comensoli makes a strong case for entire organization being rotten beyond repair.

 

[Pessimistic]

I can assure you that so called Ministers of the Cloth at religious boarding schools did no such grooming etc. There was no rulebook.
They had the power, the privacy and the privilege and took opportunities, with whoever, as they arose.
Pell's case, where he held the ultimate power, within the inner sanctum of a cathedral is no different.

Its an idictment on the utter contempt we should hold the whole orgnization with, that they didn't feel the need to do it clandestinely. just out in the open and to hell with the legal, moral or spiritual collateral damage.
But as someone pointed out, jimmy saville, rolf Harris, the dad from hey dad

but FMD how high did he get promoted in the vatican? it absolutely stinks

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

To go back to my footy metaphor, I think that the system whereby both teams get 6 points for their goals is the most appropriate method for deciding the outcome of games.

But I hate Essendon, so I think when North play them, their goals should only be with three points.

You're making this shit up as you go along, all well and good when talking footy, or say politics, but we are discussing the rape of children here, and you're arguing the rules should be changed to suit your personal belief in one person's innocence.

Jeezo.

FMD......I responded to your mostly incoherent post about the system......as precisely as I could.

You said I believe in the system and don't believe in it at the same time. I simply responded by saying that a mostly sound system can have flaws. And I gave an example pertinent to this case. That's not making it up as I go along. That is explaining my position and giving examples.

 

[Craven Morehead]

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.
.

Most survivors deny it for years/decades. Many carry it to their graves. I personally know guys who were abused with me and just go blank if it's mentioned and even get violent in their denial if the point is pushed. They simply don't want to face it, which is fair enough. It's their coping mechanism.
However that doesn't mean it didn't happen.
The lads father is preparing a civil case against the Church, so I'm pretty sure he believes it to be true.

 

[Pessimistic]

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

Of all topics, this one should stay on target. Gillard was on a wafer thin minority goverenment

 

[Del191229]

I was involved in a case a few years back where our counsel were sure the Court of Appeal would rule one way, I sat through meeting after meeting where these fine legal minds told me in detail why the Court of Appeal would rule one way.

I was in there about twenty minutes to hear the Court of Appeal rule the other way, in exceptionally solid fashion.

I reckon the Court of Appeal will be reluctant to overturn this one without there being a clear legal process issue.

 

[Gough]

He's withdrawn his bail application, he'll be banged up tonight. Keeping an eye on this via Twitter it sounds like this sentencing hearing couldn't have gone worse for him

 

[Del191229]

FMD......I responded to your mostly incoherent post about the system......as precisely as I could.

You said I believe in the system and don't believe in it at the same time. I simply responded by saying that a mostly sound system can have flaws. And I gave an example pertinent to this case. That's not making it up as I go along. That is explaining my position and giving examples.

So your position is that when people lied about Pell and the system didn't investigate, that was good, but when people also "lied" but the system did investigate and he was convicted, then that's bad, so the system should be changed?

And you "know" they lied this time because you were in court and there's various things that "couldn't" have happened because "you know" but when asked for detail, this firm knowledge becomes "almost always" or "apart from when ...".

Do I have it right?

 

[its free real estate]

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)

Dan Brown’s next novel!

 

[Craven Morehead]

He's withdrawn his bail application, he'll be banged up tonight. Keeping an eye on this via Twitter it sounds like this sentencing hearing couldn't have gone worse for him

And John Howard provided a character reference.
Have these people no shame?

 

[Maggie5]

Having read a number of articles where the reporter was present throughout the hearing, I find it difficult to see how the appeal will be successful based on what they appealing, especially No.3 based on the report, No.1 seems shaky as well and whether the digital animation would have made much difference is the unknown.

1 - The verdict of the jury was unreasonable, in contrary to the evidence before them
2 - It was not right that defence were not allowed to present jurors with a digital animation they intended to screen during their closing address
3 - The way the jury was constituted was unfair

As with the first trial, journalists watched via videolink from a courtroom on the third floor as 250 would-be jurors crowded into a room on the lower level of the county court.

The unusually large group was called because there were fears that so many people would have biases towards or against the Catholic church that finding non-prejudiced jurors would be difficult.

While only 12 jurors can decide a verdict, 14 were chosen in case any dropped out owing to illness or for other reasons, with two to be balloted off come the deliberations.

Pell had the right to challenge up to three jurors as their numbers were pulled out of a ballot box and their occupations read out. He challenged none. Nine men and five women were sworn in, among them a church pastor, a mathematician, a chef and a schoolteacher.

 

[Gough]

And John Howard provided a character reference.
Have these people no shame?

No better summation could be had of John Howard's judge of character.

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

Good reasoned article from Sly of the Underworld, some good points....

Which means Pell was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt on the uncorroborated evidence of one witness, without forensic evidence, a pattern of behaviour or a confession.
It is a matter of public record that it is rare to run a case on the word of one witness let alone gain a conviction.

Pell has become a lightning rod in the worldwide storm of anger at a systemic cover-up of priestly abuses. But that doesn't make him a child molester.
If Pell did molest those two teenagers in the busy cathedral it certainly does not fit the usual pattern of paedophile priests.
Those in power identify vulnerable potential victims, groom and then isolate them, committing offences in private then pressuring the abuser into silence. Most of the successful historical prosecutions come when police find multiple individual victims who testify of similar facts.

In the Pell case, although he had access to hundreds of boys over his career he did not groom the vulnerable. Instead he attacked two he did not know in broad daylight in a near public area.
He could not have known if one of them was not the son of the Chief Commissioner, the Premier or the Chief Justice who were waiting outside to collect them.
He could not have known if one of them would walk straight out and blow the whistle on him and with two kids in the room he would have been sunk. This is not the actions of a cunning paedophile but that of a random opportunistic criminal who usually turns out to be a serial offender.
Yet no-one has alleged Pell had a history of this type of crime.

https://www.theage.com.au/national/...-without-fear-and-favour-20190227-p510j0.html

 

[A Cut Above]

The lads father is preparing a civil case against the Church, so I'm pretty sure he believes it to be true.

I will cheer as hard for it to succeed as if it were my team a goal up in the dying minutes of a GF. Would make the perfect ending for an autobiographical movie of Pell's involvement in child abuse - Kevin Spacey to play the role of Pell.

 

[BigTacoBandit]

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.

It Sounds like you only heard the closing arguments which is pretty much a summary of both arguments.

The jury heard the victim give evidence AND be cross examined by one of the best defence lawyers in the country. Nobody outside the courts heard the victims evidence but the jury ultimately found them credible and convicted Pell.

None of us should be commenting on the credibility of the victim because we never saw it. The jury did and were satisfied with it.

 

[AM]

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

Amazing.

 

[Del191229]

Good reasoned article from Sly of the Underworld, some good points....







https://www.theage.com.au/national/...-without-fear-and-favour-20190227-p510j0.html

I'm amazed he could find time to discuss this in between defending VicPols right to stitch up anyone and use their lawyer as an informant because they felt like it.

 

[Sainteric]

Of all topics, this one should stay on target. Gillard was on a wafer thin minority goverenment

One of your fellow lefties bought this up

There is no doubt Pell had influence over the conservative libs. John Howard has apparently given the court today a letter of support for Pell.

But to deny that the Catholic church doesn't have significant influence ovet the union movement and the Krudd/Gillard govt and continuing over shorten opposition
is rubbish.

Fact Gillard caved to the Catholics over marriage equality.

 

[its free real estate]

it doesn't fit the pedo profile - the grooming, the nurturing, the winning of confidence of the child, the grooming of their parents the subtle manipulation of the family
the pedos follow this rulebook because they figure to act intemperantly in public as Pell did is just too risky.
Safer and easier to nurture a relationship.
That's what makes them so insidious.

so little evidence of the other past allegations they got thrown out at committal.
However now that Pell has been convicted it is unlikely to have been a oncer - more allegations of your monster Pell's coercive rapes of minors should surface in near future.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

I was involved in a case a few years back where our counsel were sure the Court of Appeal would rule one way, I sat through meeting after meeting where these fine legal minds told me in detail why the Court of Appeal would rule one way.

I was in there about twenty minutes to hear the Court of Appeal rule the other way, in exceptionally solid fashion.

I reckon the Court of Appeal will be reluctant to overturn this one without there being a clear legal process issue.

Got a reference?

 

[Craven Morehead]

Good reasoned article from Sly of the Underworld, some good points....







https://www.theage.com.au/national/...-without-fear-and-favour-20190227-p510j0.html

Utter bullshit.
I'm guessing that is Sylvester?
He'd be best to go back and defending his copper mates, because he has nfi about this.

 

[yeah_nah_yeah]

"
Defence lawyer Robert Richter has told the court he disagreed with prosecution submissions that Pell's crimes were a breach of trust, because it was not the situation that the then Archbishop groomed the boys or had an existing relationship with them.
But Judge Kidd said the crimes took place after the boys' parents had entrusted their sons to the care of the church that day.
"The person who stood at the top of that was your client," he told Mr Richter.
The defence lawyer then submitted the only reason the boys were in the sacristy was because they were being naughty.
But Judge Kidd replied: "I am not attracted to that submission."
Several people in the court murmured in approval of the judge's response.

"

Bloody hell. they were being naughty. So lets sexually abuse them.. WTF.

 

[Pessimistic]

One of your fellow lefties bought this up

There is no doubt Pell had influence over the conservative libs. John Howard has apparently given the court today a letter of support for Pell.

But to deny that the Catholic church doesn't have significant influence ovet the union movement and the Krudd/Gillard govt and continuing over shorten opposition
is rubbish.

Fact Gillard caved to the Catholics over marriage equality.

Not a fact. Your opinion. irrelevant that Gillard was the one who withstood the obvious pressure otherwise and established the enquiry. As it was decades overdue (my opinion btw) leaders from all sides conveniently didnt think about it at least.

Nowhere was I denying any religious influence, I just said it took Gillard to establish the overdue enquiry.

Fact PM Gillard established the Institutional child abuse enquiry

 

[BigTacoBandit]

Having read a number of articles where the reporter was present throughout the hearing, I find it difficult to see how the appeal will be successful based on what they appealing, especially No, 3 based on the report, No.1 seems shaky as well and whether the digital animation would have made much difference is the unknown.

1 - The verdict of the jury was unreasonable, in contrary to the evidence before them
2 - It was not right that defence were not allowed to present jurors with a digital animation they intended to screen during their closing address
3 - The way the jury was constituted was unfair

That article also mentions that one of the jurors was a church pastor. Doesnt mention if they were involved in deliberations or not, but pretty daming if they were.