Religion Pell Guilty!

[Forward Press]

Not sure this has been covered but the animation was a mixture of film and animation where all the main individuals were over the time of the end of the mass on that day onwards obviously it concluded Pell and the two boys could not be where the prosecution said they were.

Anyway it's 1 reason of 3 for the appeal.

Didn't one of the priests leading the choir boys conceded that two boys could slip off without him knowing, and that no roll was taken?

If so, that means it is simply a prosection timeline vs a defence timeline where either side's version of events could be plausible, it certainly does not mean reasonable doubt. I am sure the jury convicted in conjunction with other evidence.

 

[sherb]

Five minutes is 50 per cent shorter, and five minutes goes very very quickly.

It would have felt like an eternity at the time for the poor kids.

 

[Lebbo73]

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

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

Bishop Mulkearns was responsible for shifting Ridsdale around.
What does the O’Donnell quotes you posted prove?

 

[Lebbo73]

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

Bishop Mulkearms shifted Ridsdale around. Pell was not long in the priesthood at this stage.

 

[Lebbo73]

His old mate Ridsdale for one.

Do your own research, get informed, then comment.

No he didn’t. Get your facts straight.

 

[FredLeDeux]

He had another witness that wasn't used.

Couldn't possibly risk putting him on the stand.

 

[Richard Pryor]

Bishop Mulkearns was responsible for shifting Ridsdale around.

You're clearly being extremely disingenuous, but from the linked article:

Minutes of a September 1982 meeting of the Diocesan Consultors Committee — tendered to the commission sitting in Ballarat yesterday — reveal the then Fr Pell was one of seven church leaders who discussed relocating Ridsdale from a Ballarat parish.

There's no need to go down the "How does that prove anything?" and "Why aren't you attacking the other six?" road.

What does the O’Donnell quotes you posted prove?

That "he did try and protect O'Donnell from justice" as I clearly wrote. I in no way attempted to paint it as anything else.

 

[its free real estate]

This is what religion can do to some people. Utterly brainwash them.

It’s politics that is brainwashing Bruce, not religion.

 

[Sainteric]

Wouldn’t that be leading the jurors?

On what ground if it’s known why the judge refused to show the clip to the jurors?

I’ll leave it for the more legal minded people in here to help out if they can?

So in the end it was disallowed because the judge said people movements were fluid and not as specific as the PowerPoint displayed also the Jury could be mislead that it was not a depiction but an accurate reconstruction. The Jury should make a decision on the facts presented in the trial not on the PowerPoint.

The main reason for the appeal is that the Jury reached an unreasonable verdict.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Exactly this, and also why BruceFromBalnarring keeps saying "10 minutes".

Ten minutes is well know shorthand for a longer period of time - "Oh I'll be there in ten minutes" we all know means anywhere from ten minutes to half an hour.

Five minutes is 50 per cent shorter, and five minutes goes very very quickly.

10 minutes is the period of time alleged by the police to Pell and described by the prosecutor.

 

[Del191229]

I agree on with everything in this post. Even the sold called best legal mind in Australia can make poor arguments.

It seems very hard to win one on one cases in Australia. So it comes down to believe the witness or the defence. Defence says it was impossible, jury says it wasn't. That's the system we have.

Liz Lukin's strategy with Essendon in the doping stuff - just continually cloud the waters, admit to some stuff, deny, call everything into question etc.

 

[skipper kelly]

Couldn't possibly risk putting him on the stand.

All he had to do was deny, deny, deny.

 

[FredLeDeux]

All he had to do was deny, deny, deny.

There was absolutely no way Richter was going to risk a repeat of Pell's disastrous RC appearance; if he'd come up again with the same unconvincing, shifty, evasive, unreliable performance, the jury probably wouldn't have been hung at the first trial.

Rocks in the head is something Richter don't have.

He could certainly have just denied, denied, denied, but he faced at least 2 problems
- like all the other defence witnesses, he would have been forced to concede that events were not impossible, merely improbable, or even possible;
- inevitably he would have been forced repeatedly to say "I don't recall", never a good look when you have a victim giving unshaken, adamant evidence about what happened.

 

[Lebbo73]

You're clearly being extremely disingenuous, but from the linked article:

There's no need to go down the "How does that prove anything?" and "Why aren't you attacking the other six?" road.

That "he did try and protect O'Donnell from justice" as I clearly wrote. I in no way attempted to paint it as anything else.

If all this was true, how come Pell hasn’t been charged with any offences claiming that he protected/covered up for pedo priests?

 

[skipper kelly]

Liz Lukin's strategy with Essendon in the doping stuff - just continually cloud the waters, admit to some stuff, deny, call everything into question etc.

Obviously the whole process is more complex than what we are posting, but I just find it hard to believe that the impossible argument would be the basis of this defence.

 

[FredLeDeux]

If all this was true, how come Pell hasn’t been charged with any offences claiming that he protected/covered up for pedo priests?

You mean "Yet".

 

[skipper kelly]

There was absolutely no way Richter was going to risk a repeat of Pell's disastrous RC appearance; if he'd come up again with the same unconvincing, shifty, evasive, unreliable performance, the jury probably wouldn't have been hung at the first trial.

Rocks in the head is something Richter don't have.

He could certainly have just denied, denied, denied, but he faced at least 2 problems
- like all the other defence witnesses, he would have been forced to concede that events were not impossible, merely improbable, or even possible;
- inevitably he would have been forced repeatedly to say "I don't recall", never a good look when you have a victim giving unshaken, adamant evidence about what happened.

Agree mate, so they obviously thought they had it won.

 

[Benny78]

The worst thing about this is he basically did it in gods name being in a cathedral after mass.

 

[Gough]

If all this was true, how come Pell hasn’t been charged with any offences claiming that he protected/covered up for pedo priests?

Phillip Wilson was the first guy to be charged with that and it was overturned on appeal. It's still being tested in law.

 

[Del191229]

10 minutes is the period of time alleged by the police to Pell and described by the prosecutor.

No, not in court.

Earlier, Mr Richter tried to persuade the judge that Pell’s sex attack on two children was at the lower end of offending because it “lasted less than six minutes”.

He said Australia’s most senior Catholic was “not a repeat wrongdoer” despite his child sex convictions.

“It lasted less than six minutes,” he said about the rape of one choirboy and molestation of another in Melbourne’s St Patrick’s Cathedral in 1996

https://www.news.com.au/national/vi...m/news-story/831cd5e77aca7e71b1817eefe4f535ec

Mr Gibson pulled the threads of evidence together to argue the abuse occurred during a five to six-minute hiatus in activity in the sacristies after mass. A few minutes when no-one would have ventured into the priest’s sacristy.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-26/george-pell-guilty-child-sexual-abuse-court-trial/10837564

No, the prosecutor and defence both agree it was five to six minutes.

Again, you're proven flat wrong.

You're being rather immature here.

 

[Lebbo73]

You mean "Yet".

Ok mate

 

[Richard Pryor]

If all this was true, how come Pell hasn’t been charged with any offences claiming that he protected/covered up for pedo priests?

If I'm not mistaken the facts about the coverups began to come out in 2013, Pell was appointed to government in the Vatican in Feb 2014 which gave him Diplomatic immunity. When pushing the issue of extradition I imagine historic sex abuse was a higher priority for Australia's police, with greater likelihood of succeeding than covering up sex abuse (since the optics of harbouring an abuser are far worse for the Pope than harbouring someone whose crimes can be spun as negligence in administration), although I must admit I have no knowledge of the details.

 

[Lebbo73]

Agree mate, so they obviously thought they had it won.

No, knowing Pell’s arrogance, he probably believed that the allegations were preposterous. Pell would have most likely argued with Richter about conceding there was any chance he did the crimes he was found guilty of.

 

[Crankyhawk]

I think the accuser is lying.

And a lot of people out there are going to think you are wrong.
The court says you are wrong (at the moment)
Are you saying you know better than the court and those who have heard all the evidence
That is arrogance

 

[its free real estate]

Great article by Richard Cooke on the politics of the matter

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...rge-pells-defenders-just-displays-their-power