Remove this Banner Ad

Religion Pell Guilty!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Colonial
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Isn’t 10-2 as a not guilty verdict by default not guilty? Hung jury only if the guilty verdict was close but one or two dissenters.

Not a law talking guy, so I don’t know. But that’s how I have always understood it.
 
I think our judicial system in this country is pretty ****** up as a whole , that back packer rapist gets 7 years only but yet a bloke that gets caught insider trading gets a longer sentence ! Then we have the ATO whistleblower looking at 4 life sentences , longer sentence probable than Ivan Milat , FMD


What about the guy who got 5 years for crashing his bus, while others get parole.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

I still find it hard to believe he actually did what has been described, in the cathedral after Sunday Mass when any number of people could have seen him. But the Catholic Church will likely have to suck it up (no pun intended) and work on getting its own house in order. It seems no institution is safe from corruption these days.
 
John Howard is and always will be an embarrassment for this nation. From his decision in imposing the NT intervention on indigenous communities to such things as calling himself a "cricket lover, " and then coming out and bowling this crap for everyone to see. As a PM, he was a massive failure and he continues to show his true colours by showing his support of Pell.
View attachment 626714


...Yet he lasted longer as PM than the five PMs who preceded him.
 
Isn’t 10-2 as a not guilty verdict by default not guilty? Hung jury only if the guilty verdict was close but one or two dissenters.

Not a law talking guy, so I don’t know. But that’s how I have always understood it.
My understanding is that criminal trials in Victoria can have a majority verdict if only one member disagrees with the others. If two members disagree with the rest, it is a hung jury.
 
Witness BB? Didn't he not support witness AA's testimony? Because he was dead? Can someone please clear this up.

I think the guy that is still alive became a witness in the case for the guy whom was deceased ? Anyways I’m prbly wrong , I also don’t get how that all works , a guy who is deceased actually said he wasn’t abused but this other guy saying he was . And now the parents of the deceased now saying they are suing for damages when he wasn’t even at the trial etc .
 
I still find it hard to believe he actually did what has been described, in the cathedral after Sunday Mass when any number of people could have seen him. But the Catholic Church will likely have to suck it up (no pun intended) and work on getting its own house in order. It seems no institution is safe from corruption these days.

Couldnt agree more...the victim was on a scholarship to a private Catholic school, where it's probably more likely it happened than in plain view across from the park Hyatt.

I am not saying he wasn't abused...just questioning where and by whom. Seems a bit odd to me.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

'None of these matters alter my opinion of the Cardinal' from Johnny Howard in the character reference after he learns of Pell's actions?

Wow, have to say that shocked me, even for Howard.
 
I've been on a jury and I was surprised how many other people on the jury didn't understand the concept of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Some of them wanted to hand down a guilty verdict just because they thought a crime might have happened or could have happened, took a long time to convince them that there wasn't enough evidence to prove guilt, ie. no witnesses, no CCTV/forensic evidence and just one person's word against another person's word.

Not saying the jury in this case got it wrong but I could see how it could happen if you had enough clueless or easily swayed jurors, they aren't infallible.
Should force juries to watch 12 Angry Men to start their session.
 
Chief please award everyone who's stood up for George Pell in this thread the following badge



Untitled-2.jpg
Caption: Convicted Pedophile Defender
 
Chief please award everyone who's stood up for George Pell in this thread the following badge



View attachment 626825
Caption: Convicted Pedophile Defender
Bit unfair I think; he’s only expressing his opinion of what he saw based off the closing statements. Like everyone else he doesn’t know how convincing the evidence was.
He certainly isn’t going full bolt (crying stitch up everywhere and I think that bolt is more in contempt of court than the person who booed the defence lawyer during the break)
 
'None of these matters alter my opinion of the Cardinal' from Johnny Howard in the character reference after he learns of Pell's actions?

Wow, have to say that shocked me, even for Howard.
Arch ring wing cultural warrior defends same regardless of circumstances. I was shocked at first but then I thought about his political career and now I'm not even surprised, nor should you be.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Arch ring wing cultural warrior defends same regardless of circumstances. I was shocked at first but then I thought about his political career and now I'm not even surprised, nor should you be.

Any time you write a character reference for a convicted person you are obliged to address the "fact" of the offending. "I am aware that he has been found guilty of such and such and my reaction to that is......"

If Howard is one of the many who have misgivings about the verdict, then his reference is entirely reasonable.
 
One of my better informed and legally trained and experienced mates reckons Court of Appeal will knock it over as unsafe and it will go to retrial.
 
I still find it hard to believe he actually did what has been described, in the cathedral after Sunday Mass when any number of people could have seen him. But the Catholic Church will likely have to suck it up (no pun intended) and work on getting its own house in order. It seems no institution is safe from corruption these days.
Yes I find it not overly compelling then again we didn’t hear the evidence. The other thing, as I understand it, is that the accuser was cross examined by one of the sharpest in the business and still in the eyes of the jury had a credible case.
 
Wonder if Pell now has to take one for the team so to speak, even if he knows he is innocent.

The weight of public opinion is against him so much now that an acquittal in the eyes of many will tarnish further the Church. There is a balance here between personal justice and what is best for the future of the Catholic Church in Australia.
 
George Pell's defence lawyer, Robert Richter QC says that - although the cardinal maintains he is innocent - the crimes he has been found guilty of were short, not pre-meditated and no more than any other "plain vanilla case" of sexual penetration against a child.

This whole episode has taken quite a toll on my mental well-being but that literally made me physically ill.
To see something as revoltingly juvenile and offensive come from one of our leading legal minds is truly beyond the pale.
I hope he reflects on this and regrets it deeply.

Both vanishingly unlikely, unless there has been some (so far undisclosed) devastatingly major defect in the proceedings and/or the victim declines to put himself through it again.
One of my better informed and legally trained and experienced mates reckons Court of Appeal will knock it over as unsafe and it will go to retrial.

This, to my untrained laymans eye, is quite obviously the tactic.
The key witness, (who is a survivor, not a f***ing victim PLEASE), will not be immune to the media shitstorm the likes of Bolt, Devine, Craven et al have created.
It will be having an immense impact on him and I very much doubt that he will be willing to go through this again IF it goes to re-trial. And I don't blame him one bit!
And Pell will walk and these pieces of shit will revel in his 'innocence".

I'm further astounded that over the course of yesterday even more people have jumped to the conclusion that Pell 'couldn't have done it'.
Because...mob (in)justice.
F***ing spare me this bullshit please.
 
Wonder if Pell now has to take one for the team so to speak, even if he knows he is innocent.

The weight of public opinion is against him so much now that an acquittal in the eyes of many will tarnish further the Church. There is a balance here between personal justice and what is best for the future of the Catholic Church in Australia.

I've thought long and hard about this since December. And I think it is "No". It's not just about the church, and it's not just about Pell.

If there has been a miscarriage of justice here it is at least in part due to an overwhelming media "Campaign" (campaign is not the right word but every journo and his or her dog have expressed opinions about Pell and about the Catholic Church, most of them negative). You can't just sit back and allow justice to be determined in this way. It already drives politics. It already drives even footy. The Justice system must absolutely resist.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom