Religion Pell Guilty!

[NSWCROW]

Yes I just read that. What would the Murdoch filth be without blaming the ABC for Pell's conviction.

The legal academic and vice chancellor of the Australian Catholic University, Greg Craven, blamed the police and the media, in particular the ABC journalist Louise Milligan, who wrote a Walkley-award winning book on Pell.

“This is where the Pell case has gone terribly wrong,” Craven wrote. “Impartial judge and jury [excepted], parts of the media – notably the ABC and former Fairfax journalists – have spent years attempting to ensure Pell is the most odious figure in Australia.

“They seemed to want him in the dock as an ogre, not a defendant.

“So what we have witnessed is a combined effort by much of the media, including the public broadcaster, and elements of Victoria’s law enforcement agency, to blacken the name of someone before he went to trial.”

Craven was one of 10 people to give character references for Pell before sentencing.

Appropriate surname

 

[Bont2Bruce]

Yep, possible that he genuinely thought he was innocent. Richter does have a habit of defending the indefensible though, so innocence may not be needed for him!
It's an interesting question for defence lawyers though, what is their motivation for defending these people, and do they need to believe that their client is innocent?

Criminal defence lawyers are going to be representing guilty people at least as often as not and they are well aware of that when they take their job. Their motivation is usually to provide the best representation possible for their client. And cold hard cash of course.

 

[Sainteric]

The "plain Vanilla" comment is so unlike Richter - he is struggling I reckon

How many sex offence cases has he done? Seem like he is using language like he was defending some gangland thug belting another gangland thug to the degree or violence used.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Criminal defence lawyers are going to be representing guilty people at least as often as not and they are well aware of that when they take their job. Their motivation is usually to provide the best representation possible for their client. And cold hard cash of course.

Give us a break. Most of the time it's Legal Aid rates!

 

[yeah_nah_yeah]

Criminal defence lawyers are going to be representing guilty people at least as often as not and they are well aware of that when they take their job. Their motivation is usually to provide the best representation possible for their client. And cold hard cash of course.

It's gotta be a tough job then, and what you defend must surely affect you at some stage? The money can't be enough to deal with it all, can it?

 

[Bont2Bruce]

Give us a break. Most of the time it's Legal Aid rates!

Indeed, but Robert Richter isn't getting paid on those rates so $$$$ is also a motivator at least some of the time.

Another motivator I understand is getting court time experience particularly early in a legal career, but I can't confirm or deny from personal experience.

 

[Strange Cat]

It's gotta be a tough job then, and what you defend must surely affect you at some stage? The money can't be enough to deal with it all, can it?

I wouldn’t think so at the end of the day it’s a vital part of the legal system , you can’t have defence lawyers picking and choosing who is innocent enough to represent.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Indeed, but Robert Richter isn't getting paid on those rates so $$$$ is also a motivator at least some of the time.

Another motivator I understand is getting court time experience particularly early in a legal career, but I can't confirm or deny from personal experience.

Richter is one of only 2 at that level in Victoria. Trust me, he doesn't need the cash. People operating at that level intrigue me. I think they just really love the law and the contest.

Your second part is quite right.

 

[Colonial]

No. Richter must proceed at a sentencing plea hearing as though Pell IS guilty of what he has been convicted of. I've dealt with this earlier.

He is not allowed to make any suggestion in that court that the court got it wrong.

He is basically obliged to deal is if it were a big hypothetical.

There are other ways to do that.
The way that was put across was disgusting and degrading to any victims.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

 

[Strange Cat]

There are other ways to do that.
The way that was put across was disgusting and degrading to any victims.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

No remorse

I’m shocked to be sitting here

 

[Bombermania]

The "plain Vanilla" comment is so unlike Richter - he is struggling I reckon

It is clearly a sick comment but Richter seems to be saying well okay the client did it so now I have to get the smallest possible sentence so he has used that term to try and make it look like a minor offense.

A defense lawyer has to be seen to be making an attempt to defend the offender even when he or she is clearly guilty of the crime.

 

[Colonial]

No remorse

I’m shocked to be sitting here

Absolutely stunned.

And those ****ers like Devine and Bolt are still carrying on trying to protect him.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

 

[Contra Mundum]

It is clearly a sick comment but Richter seems to be saying well okay the client did it so now I have to get the smallest possible sentence so he has used that term to try and make it look like a minor offense.

A defense lawyer has to be seen to be making an attempt to defend the offender even when he or she is clearly guilty of the crime.

I agree but there are ways of saying things - and he is a master


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[RupieDupie]

Richter is one of only 2 at that level in Victoria. Trust me, he doesn't need the cash. People operating at that level intrigue me. I think they just really love the law and the contest.

Your second part is quite right.

I don't think the argument "Trust me, he doesn't need the cash" means a person does not want the cash. If he did his job for free than I would believe you.

The fact of the matter is there are people who have more munny than it is possible for a sane person to utilise or expend in an average 100+ lifetimes, but still want more, and will go to lengths that regular folk believe to be psychopathic, parasitic, deplorable, degenerate, vulgar, vile, foul, and otherwise disgraceful to get more. Just look at thugs like Pablo Escobar, and the Big Four Banks.

 

[Chief]

I wonder what those who are adamant Pell is innocent think of his new legal strategy:


I deadset thought it was a satirical article at first. Former PM John Howard giving a character reference for a man whose lawyers defence is that he only committed “no more than plain, vanilla, sexual acts with a child who is not consenting”. Staggering stuff. Sexual acts with an adult who is not consenting are pretty horrendous let alone with a child.

"No breach of trust in the traditional sense"

What the ****?

 

[Bombermania]

There are other ways to do that.
The way that was put across was disgusting and degrading to any victims.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

On one level it is disgusting and degrading to the victims but this case is between Pell and the state as inhumane as that sounds.

 

[FredLeDeux]

"No breach of trust in the traditional sense"

What the ****?

Judge shot that one down pretty quick, and added some bells to it as well.

 

[Chief]

At least he will be deprived of his comfortable lifestystle and the fear of being in prison will haunt him for his days

I hope he reflects long and hard during his first night

He'll have some sort of redemption for leading his fellow inmates to the light of our Lord and Saviour Jesus H. Christ.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

There are other ways to do that.
The way that was put across was disgusting and degrading to any victims.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

I appreciate that, but at the same time, in the context of sexual offending, it's not unreasonable.

The upper end of offending, which is the offending that is supposed to draw the maximum sentence, might involve imprisoning a victim for a period of days, and bashing them and anally raping them over and over. That is the context Richter is arguing in.

So what he's saying is "Ok, he's been found guilty, now we have to argue where it sits on the scale of seriousness of sexual offending. I say it sits at the lower end. Quick blow job, no aggravating circumstances"*

The Judge rightly replied as described.

From what I observed, I don't think Judge Kidd expected a guilty verdict. He's doing an admirable job of presenting as though the conviction is sound.

*Illustrative purposes only.......these are not my thoughts.

 

[FredLeDeux]

He'll have some sort of redemption for leading his fellow inmates to the light of our Lord and Saviour Jesus H. Christ.

I'll believe he's seen the light when he renounces "the Church" and becomes a born-again atheist.

 

[Strange Cat]

He'll have some sort of redemption for leading his fellow inmates to the light of our Lord and Saviour Jesus H. Christ.

I’d would legitimately spew if there’s any puff pieces written like this during his hopeful incarnation

 

[Del191229]

He'll have some sort of redemption for leading his fellow inmates to the light of our Lord and Saviour Jesus H. Christ.

I wonder hwo many of his fellow inmates were abused as kids (very high) and/or by the Church?

 

[Bombermania]

I agree but there are ways of saying things - and he is a master


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

There are differently other ways, if Pell was smart he would be confessing to the crime and making every effort to demonstrate remorse but it seems that isn't how he has instructed Richer. Richer would know that the best way to lesson a sentence is to admit quilt and show remorse.

 

[FredLeDeux]

I appreciate that, but at the same time, in the context of sexual offending, it's not unreasonable.

The upper end of offending, which is the offending that is supposed to draw the maximum sentence, might involve imprisoning a victim for a period of days, and bashing them and anally raping them over and over. That is the context Richter is arguing in.

So what he's saying is "Ok, he's been found guilty, now we have to argue where it sits on the scale of seriousness of sexual offending. I say it sits at the lower end. Quick blow job, no aggravating circumstances"*

The Judge rightly replied as described.

From what I observed, I don't think Judge Kidd expected a guilty verdict. He's doing an admirable job of presenting as though the conviction is sound.

Kidd is a natural-born prosecutor, he always expects a guilty verdict.

 

[Chief]

I appreciate that, but at the same time, in the context of sexual offending, it's not unreasonable.

The upper end of offending, which is the offending that is supposed to draw the maximum sentence, might involve imprisoning a victim for a period of days, and bashing them and anally raping them over and over. That is the context Richter is arguing in.

So what he's saying is "Ok, he's been found guilty, now we have to argue where it sits on the scale of seriousness of sexual offending. I say it sits at the lower end. Quick blow job, no aggravating circumstances"*

The Judge rightly replied as described.

From what I observed, I don't think Judge Kidd expected a guilty verdict. He's doing an admirable job of presenting as though the conviction is sound.

*Illustrative purposes only.......these are not my thoughts.

Luckily Paedo George apologists aren't up and about trying to influence public perception in advance of the appeal.