Religion Pell Guilty!

[madmug]

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

It would be a plain 'Vanilla' penetration if it were a QC or a Judge or some 'ordinary' person.

This was the Roman Catholic Church number 3 man. He proved his financial worth to the RCC with his Melbourne Response. Aimed at protecting Church finances, FK the victims.

Pell & his ilk are scum. He well knew why he sent some of those priests with huge questions over them off to other places to take the heat off the Church. Again FK the victims & reward the priests with 'fresh meat'.

 

[Del191229]

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.

OK, so who unlocks it and when?

 

[FredLeDeux]

I think the accuser is lying.

I don't think aPell is lying, coz he didn't have the guts to stand up and state his case.

 

[FredLeDeux]

I think the accuser is lying.

Of course, now you have to name the other people in the conspiracy.
You know, the ones who supported his lies by prepping him with all the necessary info about the scacristy, etc.

 

[Del191229]

I think the accuser is lying.

OK, so why are they lying, now, and in this circumstance?

"I don't know" is not a suitable response.

 

[GuruJane]

To expand on the point that the prosecution dismissed the "impossibility" defence and as such supported the accusers claims as "he said, nothing" instead of "he said, she said", here is one example from this abc article: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-26/george-pell-guilty-child-sexual-abuse-court-trial/10837564

The defence argues the event was impossible due to it being impossible for the boys to be separate from the choir, this is somewhat supported by witnesses, but disproved as concrete proof of the impossibility of the event as no roll was kept and the choirmaster admits that their absence may have gone unnoticed.

The choir marshal also damages his subjective testimony (that it was unlikely) by shaking Pell's hand, which leaves the jury with the objective testimony; it was conceivably possible that two boys could be unaccounted for:

Of course one is correct in saying that this is not, in and of itself, proof beyond reasonable doubt. But it is also not something that was taken by itself out of context by the jury when reaching a verdict, just as the accusers knowledge of the sacristy, the diary entries, and the accusers testimony were not considered by themselves.

I think one can't discount the fact the jury had access to more evidence, e.g.: the testimony of the accuser, the robes in question etc., and had three whole days to deliberate when evaluating their decision. The fact you (Bruce that is) reached a different conclusion based on less evidence, and while I may be wrong, in what I assume is less time with less consultation, I do not think it is a particularly compelling argument.

Thank you Richard Pryor. That ABC coverage of the evidence is fantastic and provides illumination at last on how the jury came to its verdict

 

[Craven Morehead]

Thank you Richard Pryor. That ABC coverage of the evidence is fantastic and provides illumination at last on how the jury came to its verdict

I note you slunk away from your accusation towards me like an alley cat.
Gutless.

 

[Craven Morehead]

Strap yourself in for a another ride down the 'conspiracy to get the catholic church and Pell" rabbit hole.

 

[Maggie5]

The first link you provided was wrong, that's all. Why was it wrong, btw2?

a) You asked nicely for a link for jury deliberations, and
b) I provided the second link when the first wasn't enough
c) I am not interested in engaging further with posters that are incapable of withdrawing an incorrect accusation, comment or one that reverts to calling posters liars.

 

[Lebbo73]

It would be a plain 'Vanilla' penetration if it were a QC or a Judge or some 'ordinary' person.

This was the Roman Catholic Church number 3 man. He proved his financial worth to the RCC with his Melbourne Response. Aimed at protecting Church finances, FK the victims.

Pell & his ilk are scum. He well knew why he sent some of those priests with huge questions over them off to other places to take the heat off the Church. Again FK the victims & reward the priests with 'fresh meat'.

Who did Pell shift around?

 

[sherb]

Hit them where it hurts. It's the only way to force them to change.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/vic...B6Z_KSZ1YNmtWaBO4-pgUvd4AU#Echobox=1551387928

 

[Richard Pryor]

Who did Pell shift around?

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/l...s/news-story/961ddb25d53cc036c3d5fe212eec5114

SECRET church documents tendered to a royal commission reveal that Cardinal George Pell helped move Australia’s worst paedophile priest between parishes.
The revelation at the inquiry into child sexual abuse has sparked calls for the former Archbishop of Melbourne to return from The Vatican — where he now oversees the Catholic Church’s finances — to explain his involvement in the handling of vile pervert Gerald Francis Ridsdale.

And while not actively shifting, he did try and protect O'Donnell from justice:
https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/ju...-abuse-within-the-church-20170511-gw29zq.html

Brady says Pell made a startling comment. "He said to me, 'You've been speaking out about sexual abuse at Dandenong and you should not be doing that.' He then said either, 'You are too close to the scene' or 'You might be too close to the scene.' " Brady can't remember which of the two versions it was, but he believes that is immaterial.

"I said, 'George, you cannot be more wrong, more so in Dandenong than anywhere'." Brady meant Pell could not be more wrong in his assessment that he, Brady, should not be speaking about this scourge and it was particularly vital to speak out about it in Dandenong. Brady wanted his parishioners to know they were believed and that if they had a complaint he could be trusted to help them manage it. Brady believes Pell's warning connoted first that Pell was trying to shut down discussion by him of child sexual abuse, and second that he knew there were issues with O'Donnell, who was on the "scene" in Dandenong.

Back in 1994, Brady ignored Pell's warning not to speak out at Dandenong about sexual abuse. He thought it crucially important that he did. And as it happens, two months after the conversation he recounts with Pell, on September 7, 1994, Victoria Police charged O'Donnell with 32 incidents of indecent assault at four parishes.

There are other evidentiary alarm bells that suggest Pell knew about O'Donnell long before Pell became archbishop in 1996. These lie first in the minutes of the Melbourne Curia – the diocesan governing body – from the early 1990s. In among the discussions about whether kissing the crucifix during what's known as the Veneration of the Cross could spread HIV, and talks about a PR strategy for "special issues" (that's the euphemism they used for sexual abuse of kids) and undertakings to keep written discussions of special issues to a minimum (lest they be discovered in legal proceedings), are a number of references to Pell's work.

They show Auxiliary Bishop Pell was a committed and detail-focused local bishop who was regularly involved in priest and parish matters in his region. In the minutes from April 1991, there are two relatively oblique references to O'Donnell. The first is headed "Oakleigh Parish": "Bishop Pell said that Father Kevin O'Donnell is happy to stay alone in the parish, provided adequate supplies can be arranged." During the next April meeting, that sentence is amended. "[The reference] should read: 'Bishop Pell said that Father Kevin O'Donnell is prepared to stay alone in the parish, provided adequate supplies can be arranged'."

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

OK, so who unlocks it and when?

The "sacristant" when he goes there after Mass or any other time. He stays there. Then he locks it when he leaves.

 

[Bombfire]

Who did Pell shift around?

Ridsdale- Pell pretended he got shifted due to a promotion.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

OK, so why are they lying, now, and in this circumstance?

"I don't know" is not a suitable response.

Thanks for your self limiting question.

I don't know why he is lying. I don't know why the jury found Pell guilty in the face of all of the contradictory evidence.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

Who did Pell shift around?

His flat mate Ridsdale

 

[Del191229]

Who did Pell shift around?

His old mate Ridsdale for one.

Do your own research, get informed, then comment.

 

[FredLeDeux]

Thanks for your self limiting question.

I don't know why he is lying. I don't know why the jury found Pell guilty in the face of all of the contradictory evidence.

Logically impossible to say that evidence has been contradicted when you admit that you don't know what the evidence was.

 

[LFTWNG11]

Well that's been obvious from the start.
However, what you won't broach is WHY he lied?
What benefit was there to him to put himself through this?
Or are you saying he's lying about the entire sexual assault and put himself through this ideal for the shits and giggles?

It's the Catholic/Christian persecution complex. It's like when someone accuses you of something because they are projecting their own issues - Catholics/Christians have spent their entire existence persecuting indigenous tribes, people of colour, homosexuals, women seeking health services etc etc that when one of their cult is finally picked out like this, they cry foul.

Here's a photo of Pell standing by another persecuted Catholic:

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Logically impossible to say that evidence has been contradicted when you admit that you don't know what the evidence was.

I never admitted that I don't know what the evidence was. I have seen both the police (video footage) and the prosecutor (live) characterise what the evidence was. I therefore have a pretty good understanding what the evidence was.

 

[Del191229]

The "sacristant" when he goes there after Mass or any other time. He stays there. Then he locks it when he leaves.

So, the sacristant is in there getting the wine and wafers and blah blah ready before the service. He then locks it once all that is sorted.

Then he goes back after Mass or at "any other time" to unlock it.

Can you elaborate on what these "any other times" might be?

Also, surely it needs to be unlocked by the time Mass ends, so that the plates and stuff (as you said) can be deposited back there?

Is it possible that the sacristant DID lock it once all the stuff came out, then unlocked it again before Mass ended?

 

[FredLeDeux]

View attachment 627439

Is that John Howard in the shades?

 

[FredLeDeux]

I never admitted that I don't know what the evidence was. I have seen both the police (video footage) and the prosecutor (live) characterise what the evidence was. I therefore have a pretty good understanding what the evidence was.

You just did.
Again.

 

[Del191229]

Thanks for your self limiting question.

I don't know why he is lying. I don't know why the jury found Pell guilty in the face of all of the contradictory evidence.

So to be clear you THINK this person is lying. You admit you don't know why they would lie. And you don't know why the jury found Pell guilty?

I put it to you Sir, that the only thing sustaining your belief in Pell's innocence is the same thing that at point (potentially still does) sustained your belief that wine and wafer had been turned into the literal body and blood of a 2000 year old Jewish man?

As in, faith only?

 

[Richard Pryor]

Some interesting quotes from some NSW legal text on trial instructions, which I would hazard a guess would be similar to the judges instructions in this case:
https://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/publications/benchbks/criminal/onus_and_standard_of_proof.html

[If the defence has called evidence:
The fact that the accused has given/called evidence before you does not alter the burden of proof. The accused does not have to prove that his/her version is true. The Crown has to satisfy you that the account given by the accused [and defence witnesses] should not be accepted as a version of events that could reasonably be true.]

[Where the accused has given or called evidence the following might be added:
The accused has given [and/or called] evidence in answer to the case led by the Crown to the following effect … [summarise the evidence for the accused].

If, having considered that evidence, and the submissions of both counsel in relation to it, you accept it, then of course you must acquit the accused and bring in a verdict of “not guilty”, because it would follow that the Crown has not established beyond reasonable doubt its case in relation to an essential matter that it must prove.

However, as I have told you, there is no obligation on the accused to persuade you to accept that evidence. The Crown must satisfy you beyond reasonable doubt that you should reject it as a reasonably possible version of the facts. If that evidence leaves you with a reasonable doubt as to whether the Crown has made out its case in respect of any element of the offence or any essential fact that it must prove, then you are bound, in law, to bring in a verdict of “not guilty”. In other words, you do not have to believe that the accused [and/or his/her witnesses is/are] telling you the truth before [he/she] is entitled to be acquitted. If at the end of your deliberations you find that the Crown has failed to eliminate a reasonable possibility that the version presented by the defence is true then the Crown has failed in its obligation to persuade you of the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.]

I think the quote "The Crown has to satisfy you that the account given by the accused [and defence witnesses] should not be accepted as a version of events that could reasonably be true." can be seen to be satisfied as none of the evidence the defence gave arguing that the event was 'impossible' seems to have been left unconsidered by the jury.

The "someone would have noticed" was countered, as the choir master admitted he may have lost track, the "robes were too unwieldy" was countered by the jury inspecting them, the "the Cathedral was too crowded" was countered by the jury visiting the Cathedral to inspect the premises (although the point has been raised that they did not visit during peak traffic at the premises, but then the point has to be considered that traffic in 2019 may not represent traffic in 1996).

Of course the defence witnesses testimony is called into question by the inherent conflict of interest of sharing a Faith in which Pell has considerable seniority (illustrated to the jury by the choir master going out of his way to shake Pell's hand, and presumably the judges intervention being the only thing stopping similar displays occurring with other witnesses).