Religion Pell Guilty!

[Admiral Byng]

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.

In what way will he be called to account? He will still get the big clients and the big cases. It's not like there will be a consumer boycott for his services because he said this.

 

[skipper kelly]

In what way will he be called to account? He will still get the big clients and the big cases. It's not like there will be a consumer boycott for his services because he said this.

I've got no idea mate.

 

[darklake]

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.

He has probably said similar things many times. It's just that due to this being such a high-profile case the comments have been reported.

 

[skipper kelly]

He has probably said similar things many times. It's just that due to this being such a high-profile case the comments have been reported.

That's what I am saying.

 

[medusala]

I'll wait for the appeal and the expert lawyers who can decide based on all the evidence. This can't go to retrial.. he's either confirmed and in prison for good or acquitted altogether. Remarkably he end up a figure of public sympathy if he was wrongly convicted.

I think a fair few people would be of the belief that even if that occurred he probably had some (or alot) of involvment in covering up the sins of others.

 

[skipper kelly]

In what way will he be called to account? He will still get the big clients and the big cases. It's not like there will be a consumer boycott for his services because he said this.

Just to clarify. I said called to account, but it should read held to account. Held to account in the context of "To require a person to explain or to accept responsibility for his or her actions;" https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hold_to_account

In the past, I am talking about prior to social media, Barristers could basically say what they wanted in sentencing hearings without public recourse. Now, that information is basically available immediately, saying stuff like he did (in the sentencing hearing) will be commented on and attacked. As such he issued a public apology.

The question for me is was it an apology for what was said or was it because it was reported on and could cause reputational damage and/or slur his character. The cynic in me says it was a PR exercise.

 

[skilts]

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

You must mean: the body of the baby, which was never found: or maybe you are referring to the fact that no motive was ever established; then again, it's possible you were convinced by the lack of opportunity to commit the crime; that no murder weapon was ever found must have been the piece in the jigsaw which convinced you there was overwhelming evidence of guilt; or perhaps it was the lack of witnesses to the alleged crime which swayed you to think thus.

As opposed to an eye wittrness whose story has remained staunch in the face of Richter and apologists like you. You are a disgrace.

 

[its free real estate]

It’s about ethics in Catholic Church journalism

 

[sherb]

They were barristers. Some quite senior.

And no, I can't ignore the accuser's testimony. But I didn't see or hear it. I only saw the prosecutor's characterization of it. It must have been a shitload better than the prosecutor presented.

And there you have it.

 

[Del191229]

No. Like every legal person drinking in every bar in Melbourne that week. I'm just gobsmacked. Everyone knows what the guts of the evidence is. There was heaps of speculation about relative weaknesses in the defence case. But no one could think of how it came to a guilty verdict. And that included plenty of Pell haters as you can imagine in the legal fraternity. One witness's "compelling" evidence simply doesn't outweigh 20 odd witnesses who all testify to various levels of unlikelihood to the point of beyond reasonable doubt.

Now it is EVERY LEGAL PERSON in EVERY BAR.

 

[Craven Morehead]

No. I was on a number of occasions, prior to Pell's time, an altar boy. At St Pats. I was like the Michael Tuck of my local parish. Mum wouldn't let me give it away which turned out not to be a bad thing as I made a fair bit of cash at weddings etc. I know how it worked. The area they are saying this occurred was just so busy it couldn't have occurred. They're saying 10 minutes. The priest's sacristy (which wasn't the Archbishop's but that's where they're saying it happened, had people going in and out after mass the whole time. The collection plate blokes would go in and deal with the cash. The assistant priests would be in and out bringing all the communion plates and wine chalices in and cleaning them. Little old ladies were all fussing about doing god knows what. There was simply too much traffic. If it was a suburban church, say half an hour after Mass, this might be possible. But not at the Cathedral on a Sunday morning Mass. And even if there, by chance, was a gap of 10 minutes, and believe me there wasn't, Pell could not have known that. He could not have foreseen that he had a 10 minute window to force a blow job out of a couple of kids. It just doesn't add up.

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.

So the jury has disregarded all of the evidence that points to the unlikelihood of this occurring and gone with the one single bloke who said it did.

Now that might be a wonderful thing for those who want to get Pell. And I get that there are plenty. But it's disturbing for criminal justice in this country.

Around and around and around we go.
But then we get back to the point where the witness described, in I believe GREAT DETAIL, the inside of the Sacristy, (including where the wine was stored), despite this being utterly IMPOSSIBLE from your anecdotes.
See how that kinda screws your unending, and may I say unedifying, defence of Pell?

You claim that this whole thing is just impossible?
I'll tell you what is impossible Bruce.
An already broken young man taking on the might of the Catholic Church, the inquisition of one of the best legal minds in the country and the constant pressure of the media and Catholic apologists and STILL being able to convince 12 of his peers that what he said was truthful, BY LYING!
That's f***ing fantasmagorically impossible!

What will answering the questions do? Nothing.
It is waste of yours and my time to do so.

It's certainly not a waste of time from my perspective. However I do understand how answering a few very pointed questions on this may harm your never-ending defence of a convicted paedophile.

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.

Thank you Perry Mason, but I think we have enough armchair lawyers speculating on shit they have little knowledge of in this thread already.

 

[sherb]

Other survivors react.

https://www.theage.com.au/national/...tes-laud-pell-conviction-20190226-p510ar.html

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Now it is EVERY LEGAL PERSON in EVERY BAR.

Shall I go back through the thread and pick up and ridicule every time you've used imprecise language to make a point?

You're being really childish.

 

[sherb]

It's certainly not a waste of time from my perspective. However I do understand how answering a few very pointed questions on this may harm your never-ending defence of a convicted paedophile.

Forget about Lebbo. He just takes pleasure in posting objectionable shit (either because he believes it or to stir people up).

I learnt what he was like a long time ago with a particular post of his.

You won't get any appropriate response from him here, that's for sure.

Ignoring him and his posts is the best idea.

 

[Del191229]

The door was always locked! So the kjds couldn't have got in there! But also, that area was always super busy, little old ladies milling around, at the same time it was always locked.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

The door was always locked! So the kjds couldn't have got in there! But also, that area was always super busy, little old ladies milling around, at the same time it was always locked.

Wilful misunderstanding. And childish. Seriously. Grow up.

 

[Del191229]

Shall I go back through the thread and pick up and ridicule every time you've used imprecise language to make a point?

You're being really childish.

Dunno if "childish" is the kind of term you should deploy when backing up a kiddie fiddler.

You keep making these assertions "legal people in bars" and journos in lifts, as if it means something, then you squeal when called out on it.

I'm very glad I escaped the Christian Brothers unharmed and into a good school and better life.

Otherwise I was on track to become that most tiresome of Melbourne figures - the pompous submarine Catholic lawyer who puffs up in Jesuitical wordplay but is actually so malformed by his education and weekly indoctrination he can't evolve into a grown adult who understands feelings of cultural loyalty don't justify defending child molesters.

 

[Craven Morehead]

Wilful misunderstanding. And childish. Seriously. Grow up.

It's not childish at all. It's accurate paraphrasing of what you have said throughout this thread.

Again, did the witness have some sort of 'vision' to be able to describe the Sacristy so accurately?
The same Sacristy that you have so strenuously denied was accessible to choir boys.

 

[Del191229]

Wilful misunderstanding. And childish. Seriously. Grow up.

Bullshit. And stop with your "grow up" act, you may have fallen for the false paternalism of the Catholic Church, but I called bullshit on that at 13.

Your reasoning as to why he "couldn't have done it" is full of holes, and not even Richter could patch over them.

If Pell gets off at appeal, we know the system has closed to protect its own.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

It's not childish at all. It's accurate paraphrasing of what you have said throughout this thread.

Again, did the witness have some sort of 'vision' to be able to describe the Sacristy so accurately?
The same Sacristy that you have so strenuously denied was accessible to choir boys.

You have asked this a number of times as though it proves the case. There have been another 12,775 days in his life where he could have been in there. I've been in there. But it's either locked or it's occupied. You can't sneak in and steal wine.

 

[Craven Morehead]

You have asked this a number of times as though it proves the case. There have been another 12,775 days in his life where he could have been in there. I've been in there. But it's either locked or it's occupied. You can't sneak in and steal wine.

I think it's reasonable to assume that Richter would have gone very hard on the same assumption you are making but still couldn't break down the witnesses testimony after 2 days in the box because it is pivotal to the entire case.
But he couldn't.
That point seems to continuously slip your mind.

 

[Strange Cat]

You have asked this a number of times as though it proves the case. There have been another 12,775 days in his life where he could have been in there. I've been in there. But it's either locked or it's occupied. You can't sneak in and steal wine.

Obviously not as it was proven in court

Tough thing to get your head around isn’t it? That a court would use evidence and facts rather than anecdotal information from someone not involved in the event.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

I think it's reasonable to assume that Richter would have gone very hard on the same assumption you are making but still couldn't break down the witnesses testimony after 2 days in the box because it is pivotal to the entire case.
But he couldn't.
That point seems to continuously slip your mind.

I think I have acknowledged this about 5 times in this thread. I don't understand the verdict. I am gobsmacked by the verdict.

And I'm yet to hear any commentator come up with anything else other than "compelling witness" to explain how the highly improbable was suddenly proved beyond reasonable doubt. Compelling witness isn't enough.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Obviously not as it was proven in court

Tough thing to get your head around isn’t it? That a court would use evidence and facts rather than anecdotal information from someone not involved in the event.

Actually, as best as I or anyone else can understand, all they used was anecdotal. But yes, it is a tough thing to get my head around.

 

[Craven Morehead]

I think I have acknowledged this about 5 times in this thread. I don't understand the verdict. I am gobsmacked by the verdict.

And I'm yet to hear any commentator come up with anything else other than "compelling witness" to explain how the highly improbable was suddenly proved beyond reasonable doubt. Compelling witness isn't enough.

You're gobsmacked at the verdict, so your only comeback is that the key witness is lying.
Again I ask, why would an already broken young man willingly put himself through such trauma and lie?