Religion Pell Guilty!

[Freo Big Fella]

I know. And the witnesses they produced had far better insight than me. Which is why I'm gobsmacked. I've asked. Did the jury hear just how busy that joint is? Answer. Yes they did. Did they hear that the MC is always with Pell. Answer. Yes. Did they hear that it's impossible to get 10 minutes alone in that area for this to occur? Yes they did.

A couple issues with your cheerleading.

- Sexual assaults occur in crowded/busy situations all the time. Festival crowds, trains, family homes with people sitting metres away in other rooms. That there were people around far from rules any offending out.
- High-ranking echelons of the Catholic Church in Victoria (and lay Catholics out in society) were seemingly more than happy to look the other way when it came to their high flyers' willingness to molest kids. Unlike you, I don't claim any insight into the jury, but perhaps they didn't find a handpicked list of Pell's underlings and supporters particularly credible?

But it's disturbing for criminal justice in this country.

As others have pointed out, your unhappiness at the result doesn't equate to an anti-Catholic/Media conspiracy in one of the most stringently protected legal proceedings in Australian history. Most sex offence trials are structured and suppressed to protect the victims; this is the first I've seen where the system bent over backwards to protect the eventual guilty party.

 

[FredLeDeux]

AMost sex offence trials are structured and suppressed to protect the victims; this is the first I've seen where the system bent over backwards to protect the eventual guilty party.

To be fair, it may (did) have that incidental effect; but the reason the prosecution applied for and was granted a suppression order wasn't to protect Pell; it was to ensure that he could not avoid the 2nd swimming pool trial by claiming that the publicity of the cathedral trial had incurably tainted the chances of a fair trial on the swimming pool charges.

 

[Richard Pryor]

Found this pro-Pell article from the Australian fairly bemusing, raises a lot of the same points as Barry so I can believe that legal circles have been discussing them at the least. Does name Pell's friends as sources for a lot of the speculation a lot though.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/ne...t/news-story/28119a929c7218ed3c2e7cc740e64325

It is extremely unfortunate, some of Pell’s friends believe, that the two juries hearing the case were taken around the cathedral on a quiet weekday when it is usually all but deserted, rather than having the chance to see its hustle and bustle on Sunday mornings.

Also attacks the victims credibility in a pretty ordinary and unbecoming fashion:

Throughout the ordeal, not a single witness backed the accuser, a man now in his mid-30s who also, sources close to the cardinal claim, reported another Melbourne priest for abuse. One senior legal figure, with no connections to the case, told Pell he had never heard of such a trial proceeding without a single witness.

But the reason I'm posting it is this post-script disclaimer regarding the author of the article:

Tess Livingstone’s biography of George Pell was published in 2002. She was asked for and provided a character reference for his trial that was not tendered.

Not sure why any news source would want to publish such an obviously biased piece, even if they were trying to push a narrative.

As an aside the cover of her biography of Pell is very unfortunate in light of the case wherever one lands on it:

 

[AM]

 

[Strange Cat]

Do you?
You only have what we all have, and the case is currently before the Court of Appeal.

Key difference in accepting the verdict of a jury which was presented with evidence.

versus the ramblings of someone who is unable to accept that Pell is a convicted pedo and basing his “arguments “ on his own thoughts of the matter.

And I have already mentioned that Pell will have his chance with the appeal.

As it stands he’s a convicted pedophile

 

[Present Not Past]

I thought it was argued that the sacristy door was locked?

Did the sacristy have a door?

 

[Present Not Past]

Key difference in accepting the verdict of a jury which was presented with evidence , versus the ramblings of someone who is unable to accept that Pell is a convicted pedo and based his argurments on his own thoughts.

And I have already mentioned that Pell will have his chance with the appeal.

As it stands he’s a convicted pedophile

Yes he is, but you don't know anymore about the trial than he does. And yes, the verdict is before the Court of Appeal.

 

[Strange Cat]

Yes he is, but you don't know anymore about the trial than he does. And yes, the verdict is before the Court of Appeal.

I’m not claiming I do , I don’t know where you are getting that idea from

I’m backing the verdict of a jury that was presented with the evidence...that’s all I have done in here

And if you have read Bruce ramblings he is claiming he knows more than the juries... as well as claiming that the survivor is a liar

so it’s an odd statement to make towards me in light of Bruce’s previous statements

 

[skipper kelly]

Did the sacristy have a door?

Got no idea mate. Just thought I read that one of the arguments put forward was 'the door was always locked so the boys could not have possibly been in there'. It seemed a strange argument to make and then put forward that there would be people everywhere. I will have to re read one of the 1000 articles I have read about this vileness.

 

[ep2018]

I reckon he has a fair chance of getting off on appeal. Two points. It was one persons testimony of several decades ago that did him in. And secondly, any competent lawyer would point out that his first trial resulted in a hung vote.

 

[Richard Pryor]

Got no idea mate. Just thought I read that one of the arguments put forward was the door was always locked so the boys could not have possibly been in there. It seemed a strange argument to make and then put forward that there would be people everywhere. I will have to re read one of the 1000 articles I have read about this vileness.

This article details the sacristy and includes several pictures (apologies for dailymail link, for some reason they felt the need to include "Where Pell molested two boys" in every single caption): https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...dinal-George-Pell-molested-two-choirboys.html

Corridor with external door to sacistry:

And interior, with altar wine cabinet in the lower image:

 

[Strange Cat]

I reckon he has a fair chance of getting off on appeal. Two points. It was one persons testimony of several decades ago that did him in. And secondly, any competent lawyer would point out that his first trial resulted in a hung vote.

The witness/survivor was cross examined for over a day over that very point to find holes in his stories and to examine his testimony .

The jury were obviously comfortable with what evidence was put to them

On your second note past trials cannot be used in current trails , and it wouldn’t make any difference.

 

[skipper kelly]

A rare bit of self-reflection from within the legal industry bubble.

It's perfectly possible to argue mitigation without belittling or diminishing victims of crime - amazing how many defence lawyers seem unwilling to do it.

I don't buy it for a second. Pure PR after a public backlash at his revolting comments.

 

[Present Not Past]

I don't think he is claiming he knows more than the jury.
I think for a start you need to read why this case is before the Court of Appeal.

 

[ep2018]

The witness/survivor was cross examined for over a day over that very point to find holes in his stories and to examine his testimony .

The jury were obviously comfortable with what evidence was put to them

On your second note past trials cannot be used in current trails , and it wouldn’t make any difference.

I think Pell not taking the stand to testify will do him in, in the end. Guilty or not.

 

[Strange Cat]

I don't think he is claiming he knows more than the jury.
I think for a start you need to read why this case is before the Court of Appeal.

It’s almost like you haven’t even read any of my posts ...strange to be commenting on me if you aren’t aware of what I have said regarding the appeal

If you go back a few pages you’ll see what I have posted on the matter

 

[skipper kelly]

This article details the sacristy and includes several pictures (apologies for dailymail link, for some reason they felt the need to include "Where Pell molested two boys" in every single caption): https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...dinal-George-Pell-molested-two-choirboys.html

Corridor with external door to sacistry:

And interior:

Cheers. Has an eerie feel about it.

 

[Present Not Past]

This article details the sacristy and includes several pictures (apologies for dailymail link, for some reason they felt the need to include "Where Pell molested two boys" in every single caption): https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...dinal-George-Pell-molested-two-choirboys.html

Corridor with external door to sacistry:

And interior, with altar wine cabinet in the lower image:

Is there a door?

 

[darklake]

Did the sacristy have a door?

This is the sacristy. Yes it has a door.

 

[Richard Pryor]

Is there a door?

Doors are on the left of the image of the corridor I would assume, although article captions are slightly vague about the corridor.

In any case this shot of it shows a door leading to the corridor on the left:

 

[Admiral Byng]

I don't buy it for a second. Pure PR after a public backlash at his revolting comments.

a plain vanilla apology?

 

[skipper kelly]

a plain vanilla apology?

Very. The world has changed for people like Richter where they will now be held to account for what they say.

 

[Admiral Byng]

Very. The world has changed for people like Richter where they will now be held to account for what they say.

Nah, I don't think so. He will still get big clients and big cases. We should not extend blame to the lawyers for their client's sins.

 

[rank and file]

That argument is persuasive.

However a different jury provided with the same evidence did not find enough to convict.

I also wonder whether it was possible to find a jury who had no biasing opinions on the case before the trial. If you were selected to be on the jury do you really think you could judge the evidence objectively?

Of course,it's not that hard to be objective.

 

[skipper kelly]

Nah, I don't think so. He will still get big clients and big cases. We should not extend blame to the lawyers for their client's sins.

Not saying that AB. Am implying that with social media the landscape has changed, and people of his ilk who have had licence to say whatever they like may now be called to account by the public.

Not for one moment am I laying blame at his feet for representing anyone. I believe he knew full well what he was saying, but maybe didn't understand the public backlash that now comes with it.