Religion Pell Guilty!

[M Malice]

Is there a valid reason as to why people have negative views of the Catholic Church?

Institutionalized religion is an abomination and a sad indictment on humanity as a whole and demonstrates its gullibility.

 

[Gough]

There seems to have been a bit of a Damascene coversion by the usual suspects regarding prison being soft now.

 

[Del191229]

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.

Oh frogshit, just frogshit.

The most vocal and best read columnist in the best selling paper in the country, he gets the most clicks, he has his on TV and radio shows, is vociferously pro Pell. Andrew Bolt. The Tele in Sydney has Devine The Australian - small readership, big influence - is relentlessly pro Pell and the Church via Henderson and Kelly and many more.

Pell himself had a weekly op ed in the Hun he used to push his views.

REPORTING the facts around the serial child rape by Catholic clergy, and accompanying institutional cover up, is not some campaign of bias. Reporting court case after case of serial child rape by Catholic Church. Journos digging into the institutional cover ups - doing their job - when Pell loftily dismissed such stuff as not of his concern.

The Catholic Church has a martyrdom complex at its heart, like Shia Islam.

This is how you see the situation with Pell and the clergy:



And this is how the other 99 per cent see Pell and paedo priests:

 

[FredLeDeux]

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.

Supporters of the Church and Pell have, over the last few years, given as good as they've got in the press; in fact, far more than they've got.
Before the trial, I didn't see journos saying Pell was guilty; but many "journos" and "commentators" (especially from the Murdoch snake pit) were virulent in stating unequivocally that he was innocent, as if it was a fact, and not just their wishful thinking.
We even had them repeatedly abusing the police for so much as daring to investigate the allegations, and screaming about witch-hunts a la Trump.
The facts of the investigation, trial and verdict just go to show that we should be thankful that we still have institutions capable of standing up to and overcoming the antediluvian and feudalistic would-be mob rulers.

 

[The Passenger]

Inappropriate satirical interlude?

The best satirical website on the internet.

 

[Del191229]

There seems to have been a bit of a Damascene coversion by the usual suspects regarding prison being soft now.

Funny that.

I wonder how long before Pell works out the Muslims get way better meals with halal and converts?

 

[FredLeDeux]

Funny that.

I wonder how long before Pell works out the Muslims get way better meals with halal and converts?

Conversion is a monte as soon as they tell him about the 72 virgins.

 

[Del191229]

I'm pretty sure the survivor didn't give evidence in the second trial, and I doubt he would in a third. His evidence was just replayed from the first trial.

Really? Do you have a source that's not Sharnelle Vella for this?

 

[Benny78]

I wonder how Bolt will feel about his mate getting 10+ years and a jihadi terrorist/sudanese gang getting 12 months with early parole.

It would be great if Pell confessed. Then Bolts faith in the justice system AND catholic church could be shattered simultaneously

 

[A Cut Above]

Conversion is a monte as soon as they tell him about the 72 virgins.

Virgin boys you mean. This is George Pell we’re talking about.

 

[Del191229]

Cheers mate, but I'm all good after having a break yesterday.
I cannot express enough my thanks for the support I have received in this thread and via PM's. Thanks to you all.
I hope your mate is right, if only to validate the incredible courage the survivor has shown throughout this ordeal.

I hate the "ERMAGOD THERE WAS A BOMB IN TURKEY I WAS THERE IN 2012!" shit, and the impact abuse has on people, but just knowing I was at the same Christian Brothers school as serial offenders, ecven though nothing ever happened to me, sends chills down my spine - were friends attacked, was I being manipulated by these beasts to leave my mates vulnerable?

As I said, you have the unqualified support of the general public, people have nothing but scorn for the conspiracy theories espoused by BruceFromBuggeryapology and his kind.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

I hate the "ERMAGOD THERE WAS A BOMB IN TURKEY I WAS THERE IN 2012!" shit, and the impact abuse has on people, but just knowing I was at the same Christian Brothers school as serial offenders, ecven though nothing ever happened to me, sends chills down my spine - were friends attacked, was I being manipulated by these beasts to leave my mates vulnerable?

As I said, you have the unqualified support of the general public, people have nothing but scorn for the conspiracy theories espoused by BruceFromBuggeryapology and his kind.

As far as I can tell, I have formed the same view as your learned friend, with a small amount of personal perspective thrown in.

Where's the conspiracy?

 

[Del191229]

As far as I can tell, I have formed the same view as your learned friend, with a small amount of personal perspective thrown in.

Where's the conspiracy?

One of my learned friends did not say he thinks Pell is innocent, he said he thought it would get knocked over.

You believe Pell is innocent and the victim of a miscarriage of justice spawned because a massive media campaign (GUIDED BY WHOM???????) of bias against Roman Catholicism swayed a judge and jury.

That's conspiracy theory 101.

 

[GuruJane]

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.

The Beyond Reasonable Doubt test? I keep thinking about the Chamberlain conviction - the Crown had far more evidence than this case.

 

[RupieDupie]

It would be great if Pell confessed.

Especially if the shit sticks on the organisations that they (people like Bolt, Abbot and Howard) represent. When these organisations have a crisis of morality i.e. they can potentially lose many many munny - they may be better off divesting* themselves of certain members of their flock?

Apparently there were no commercial advertisements during Bolt's "Leave Britney alone" moment on national TV. Not even The Commonwealth Bank wants to be associated with that shit.

The Catholic Church has already removed the "innocent" Pell from one position...

*Word of the day

 

[QuietB]

The Beyond Reasonable Doubt test? I keep thinking about the Chamberlain conviction - the Crown had far more evidence than this case.

How do you know that?

 

[GuruJane]

How do you know that?

Prosecution led no evidence apart from complainant according to Contra Mundum.

 

[Forward Press]

One of my learned friends did not say he thinks Pell is innocent, he said he thought it would get knocked over.

The Beyond Reasonable Doubt test? I keep thinking about the Chamberlain conviction - the Crown had far more evidence than this case.

How do you know that?

We don't.

No offence intended to the various posters discussing this but none of us are privy to the evidence presented at the trial and as to how the judge instructed the jury. We do know however that depending on the state there are steps to overcome for a successful appeal (I am not familiar with Victorian criminal law), but for all of them the mere fact you think you're innocent isn't enough.

 

[Forward Press]

Prosecution led no evidence apart from complainant according to Contra Mundum.

According to the Reddit thread (again, like I said before, cannot verify its authenticity, but we don't have much else to go on at the moment), the diary of Pell's right hand man confirmed Pell was present at the Mass that day which contradicted a defence argument that he was rarely at the cathedral in December.

 

[QuietB]

Prosecution led no evidence apart from complainant according to Contra Mundum.

And?

You have zero details on what that evidence was. So you are guessing, or more accurately projecting.

thankfully our legal system does actually rely on more than that.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

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.

You used to be able to say 'avoid the media' back in the days when news was just physical newspaper, visual television and audible radio. You could conceivably shut those things out. But now, peoples' everyday lives are in their smartphones, their laptops, their tablets. Social media and instant opinion are everywhere. 24 hours a day.

You'd have to physicaly isolate a jury pool for a good long while to instill a required impartiality. I mean, you can instruct them to disregard everything they've ever read and heard about a particular case but how much social media, how much instant opinion has already sunk in to a person and coloured their own views?

 

[Gough]

The victim is supposed to have spent two days in the witness box being cross examined by one of the best in the game and the jury still found his evidence enough to convict.

 

[FredLeDeux]

The Beyond Reasonable Doubt test? I keep thinking about the Chamberlain conviction - the Crown had far more evidence than this case.

A completely different type of case, much weaker, with the (huge) difference of no relevant eye-witness, or complainant.
She was still found guilty, lost her appeal, and lost a further appeal to the High Court made on "unsafe" grounds.

 

[Maggie5]

We don't.

No offence intended to the various posters discussing this but none of us are privy to the evidence presented at the trial and as to how the judge instructed the jury. We do know however that depending on the state there are steps to overcome for a successful appeal (I am not familiar with Victorian criminal law), but for all of them the mere fact you think you're innocent isn't enough.

The judges instructions are in an article from The Guardian. I thought that it was very objective and also think he was very deliberate in his instructions which is why I am not sure there is anything there for Pell.

Same for point 3 of the Appeal - jury pool of 250, final pool of 14 (12+2 extra) and Richter had to opportunity to challenge 3 but didn't challenge any.

 

[Craven Morehead]

The victim is supposed to have spent two days in the witness box being cross examined by one of the best in the game and the jury still found his evidence enough to convict.

and I very much doubt that Richter treated him with kid gloves.