Religion Pell Guilty!

[Sainteric]

He's withdrawn his bail application, he'll be banged up tonight.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

The bail application was before the other court about now I assume they have run out of time?

 

[Pessimistic]

"
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.

Sounds like the strategy was to muddy the waters as much as possible

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

"
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.

It's exciting reading, but it doesn't say a lot.

Kidd has been impeccable in his role here. It is not for him to cast any doubt on the jury verdict, and the jury having found Pell guilty, Kidd must assume in sentencing, that Pell is guilty of everything he has been found guilty of.

 

[its free real estate]

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.

My old man went to the Christian Brothers school and said they were some of the best men he ever met (in terms of intelligence, dedication to cause etc). It is sad in some respects that an organisation which did provide value to a lot of young men will disappear, but if you can't or won't stop predators in your midst, you don't deserve to exist.

 

[Craven Morehead]

It's exciting reading, but it doesn't say a lot.

Kidd has been impeccable in his role here. It is not for him to cast any doubt on the jury verdict, and the jury having found Pell guilty, Kidd must assume in sentencing, that Pell is guilty of everything he has been found guilty of.

What it DOES say however, is that Richter admits that boys were actually in the room.
That kinda blows your theory out the window.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

The bail application was before the other court about now I assume they have run out of time?

No it was withdrawn earlier. I suspect because if it had been successful (and I doubt it would have been) there would have been accusations of special treatment. Additionally, I think they're going for an urgent appeal hearing and if Pell wasn't locked up, their argument for that would be undermined.

I think the play is to get the appeal heard as quickly as possible, hopefully get an acquittal, and get Pell the hell out of the joint.

 

[Sainteric]

"
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.

He was trying to lessen potential sentence not question the courts verdict

 

[its free real estate]

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

It's probably way worse in the entertainment industry (how many child actors end up dead or deeply troubled). But they don't have the institutional reach the church does.

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

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.

Why part of the quoted parts is bs?

He also states ....

With the police's history of covering up for the church here was a chance to present a case, weak or strong, in the open before a jury.

 

[FredLeDeux]

What it DOES say however, is that Richter admits that boys were actually in the room.
That kinda blows your theory out the window.

No, it doesn't mean that.
All parties now have to proceed as if the facts as found by the jury are true.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

What it DOES say however, is that Richter admits that boys were actually in the room.
That kinda blows your theory out the window.

Richter is not allowed in a plea hearing to suggest otherwise. This is about sentencing, not about guilt or otherwise. It is accepted for the purposes of a sentencing hearing that the accused is guilty.

 

[BigTacoBandit]

 

[Strange Cat]

Why would a person who has publicly told us they were a victim of a child rapist want to give the time of day to you, who on this thread is openly scoffing at the "believability" of someone who was in exactly that same position with Pell.

Jesus and his mother. You and Pell share a very specific emotional blindness.

Hence why he is on my ignore list

He is insufferable

 

[Craven Morehead]

Why part of the quoted parts is bs?

He also states ....

His claim of grooming etc.
Whilst that may be true in the world outside of church institutions, it most certainly is not the case within them.
There is no need to pick a target, gain, trust etc, etc.
The potential victims are plentiful, the hierarchy of the priest is unquestionable and the opportunity for random acts are numerous.
He's full of shit.

 

[RupieDupie]

Here's some interesting statements that stick out - and perhaps if I read more on this they will make sense in some kind of context, but they are quite strange things to say

"Only a madman would attempt to rape two boys in the priests’ sacristy immediately after Sunday solemn mass" - Richter

"...but so intelligent and cautious that he (Pell) would never risk his brilliant career and good name on such a mad assault in such a public place" - Bolt

What are they trying to say?

1) That it is not mad to do it in another place and on another occasion?
2) That he would have risked doing the same thing under other circumstances? Why is he so cautious?

 

[Strange Cat]

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.

If you don’t know then stop the ****ing assumptions that the victims are liars

You clearly don’t have the facts at hand and yet you make blanket statements that Pell is innocent when you have already stated that you are unsure of the facts surrounding the case

 

[Craven Morehead]

Richter is not allowed in a plea hearing to suggest otherwise. This is about sentencing, not about guilt or otherwise. It is accepted for the purposes of a sentencing hearing that the accused is guilty.

No, it doesn't mean that.
All parties now have to proceed as if the facts as found by the jury are true.

Fair enough, I withdraw from that statement.

 

[its free real estate]

At some point you gotta take a deep breath and ask yourself: why am I defending a convicted child molester, who was mates with other child molesters, used his power to cover up child molestation, and made life hell for victims of child molestation?

 

[Bont2Bruce]

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

You already know the answer to that.

John Howard's character reference for Pell will forever be a stain that many will not forget.

 

[Tiges1229]

At some point you gotta take a deep breath and ask yourself: why am I defending a convicted child molester, who was mates with other child molesters, used his power to cover up child molestation, and made life hell for victims of child molestation?

$$$$$$$

 

[yeah_nah_yeah]

$$$$$$$

Most likely.
It's a corny question but how does he sleep at night? Is he that disassociated from it all that he can sleep sound?

 

[Strange Cat]

$$$$$$$

It would take a very crude and twisted person to Abandon common reasoning and whatever moral guideline they have to defend monster like Pell for money or other motives

I truly hope Karma greets the likes of Bruce and Bolt in whatever form the universe sees fit for defending these type of monsters.

 

[Admiral Byng]

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.

It doesn't need to fit the stereotypical profile of the paedo carefully grooming his victims. This seems to be a different profile, one of a man so consumed with his own authority, and with such a dysfunctional view of that sex that he would decide forced sexual interaction is an appropriate method of punishment.

 

[FredLeDeux]

You already know the answer to that.

John Howard's character reference for Pell will forever be a stain that many will not forget.

Reminiscent of Pell's support for Ridsdale.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

It would take a very crude and twisted person to Abandon common reasoning and whatever moral guideline they have to defend monster like Pell for money or other motives

I truly hope Karma greets the likes of Bruce and Bolt in whatever form the universe sees fit for defending these type of monsters.

I have said to you privately and I now say publicly, I am sorry that whatever it was that happened to you happened. I truly am.

This is now the second time at least that you have expressed a personal desire to see harm come to me in some way and I'm going to ask you to stop or ask someone to stop you.

This is an open thread and I have a genuinely held opinion on the subject. In case you hadn't noticed, I'm copping an overwhelming hammering for holding and expressing that opinion. That's fine. I don't think it's fine to wish personal harm on someone.