Religion Pell Guilty!

[Admiral Byng]

As soon as Pell opens his mouth people dislike him, he may be a considerate humane individual as Howard tell us he is, but you here him give evidence at RC and tv interviews and he does himself no favours

It is not a big guess to say sociiopathic bully-boy addicted to his own authority and importance was very probably quite charming, friendly and polite to the "right"people like long-serving influential conservative politicians. Also that while their view of him might seem natural and genuine it was no doubt a carefully calculated and maintained image.

 

[Hit The Boundary Saints]

It is not a big guess to say sociiopathic bully-boy addicted to his own authority and importance was very probably quite charming, friendly and polite to the "right"people like long-serving influential conservative politicians. Also that while their view of him might seem natural and genuine it was no doubt a carefully calculated and maintained image.

My wife was a Catholic school teacher for 25 years, she had been in staff rooms where Pell has come in. He would not give the teaching staff, especially the female staff the time of day. An arrogant, pompous, officious prick, nothing charming or friendly about him at all.

 

[Sainteric]

It is not a big guess to say sociiopathic bully-boy addicted to his own authority and importance was very probably quite charming, friendly and polite to the "right"people like long-serving influential conservative politicians. Also that while their view of him might seem natural and genuine it was no doubt a carefully calculated and maintained image.

Your right I don't know never met him he could be badly misunderstood or just an arse hole. Either way he comes across as one of the most arrogant unlikeable people I have seen, putting him on the stand would be a huge risk, who knows they may have gone as far as coaching him, but it's hard to argue they should have done it.

As a comparison I met Peter Hollingworth on a number of occasions when he was with the brotherhood and I was a nobody, a nicer more genial cleric you could not meet had time to talk to everyone and seemed generally concerned about everyone's wellbeing from the clients up. Was a bit pompous wearing the full regalia of a bishop in dealing with the poor, but you certainly saw none of that when he was governor general.

 

[Admiral Byng]

My wife was a Catholic school teacher for 25 years, she had been in staff rooms where Pell has come in. He would not give the teaching staff, especially the female staff the time of day. An arrogant, pompous, officious prick, nothing charming or friendly about him at all.

Exactly, The sort of people who divide others they meet into two camps - one being people useful to them who it is worth investing time and energy into winning over, and the rest who are worthless to them and therefore treated like shit.

 

[Plugger35]

As a juror it's not just about judging the evidence presented in court, it's about judging the speech, body language and character of the people involved.

You don't get that from reading court reports or transcripts, you have to be there to witness it in person, that plays a big part in your decision.

In the case I was on the accused took the stand and confidently denied the allegations while looking jurors in the eye, that sways you to not guilty.

If an accused like Pell doesn't take the stand to defend himself or looks shifty and evasive like he did at the Royal Commission, that sways you to guilty.

 

[Lebbo73]

Yeah, Rupe.

Told ya the taxpayers are paying for it.

That rules you out then

 

[Pie eyed]

My wife was a Catholic school teacher for 25 years, she had been in staff rooms where Pell has come in. He would not give the teaching staff, especially the female staff the time of day. An arrogant, pompous, officious prick, nothing charming or friendly about him at all.

Exactly the type Tony Abbott would lionise.

 

[FredLeDeux]

That rules you out then

Quite right, but I give you my word.
As soon as Pell is slotted for good, I'll start paying taxes again.

 

[AM]

As a juror it's not just about judging the evidence presented in court, it's about judging the speech, body language and character of the people involved.

You don't get that from reading court reports or transcripts, you have to be there to witness it in person, that plays a big part in your decision.

In the case I was on the accused took the stand and confidently denied the allegations while looking jurors in the eye, that sways you to not guilty.

If an accused like Pell doesn't take the stand to defend himself or looks shifty and evasive like he did at the Royal Commission, that sways you to guilty.

It's primarily about the evidence though. Let me quote you the summation of a judge to a jury on a criminal matter.

The other thing I will tell you is it is not an investigation. It is not an inquiry. It is a consideration of you, by you of the evidence that you heard and the arguments that have been put and the decision as to whether that evidence satisfies you beyond reasonable doubt. That is the task you have

 

[Pie eyed]

People have the right to cast doubt on facts of a case as we all did with Chamberlains and other famous cases.

I, like many, believe Pell was indirectly responsible for scores of children being abused by his inaction in particular against Ridsdale but no doubt many other priests. He then tried to limit the cost to the church and hurt a lot of families doing so.

He had decades to do the right thing and he never did. It’s my belief that he didn’t tell the full truth at the Royal Commission. To me the inaction itself should be worthy of jail. Should have thrown the book at him and many other in the Church.

Anyone can understand why so many people would have felt anger and revulsion to Pell as he was the figurehead of the organisation. Even more so to all the poor people who have been abused or had friends/relatives abused and would have been incensed at the lack of action, the opportunities to stop this by men in power who should have known better.

But I’m just surprised though that there hasn’t been more accusers come out if he was such a rampant, impulsive, opportunistic offender as this case seems to imply.

I mean just months after being appointed archbishop and just months after starting the Melbourne ‘limit the damage’ Response, he does this act that could not get any more impulsive or opportunistic. This is on a level that he had no control whatsoever.

Possibly you could google the several other cases against Pell which had been abandoned, many years ago, one in particular where even though the Judge himself found the complainant to be a completely truthful witness and put it in writing, considered that the effect of a conviction on Pell would be so great he dismissed the case....
It has been linked to many times on threads relating to Pell and Catholic child abuse.
Give it a month and you will be able to find the facts on Google...every search now simply relates to the current conviction.

 

[AM]

Quite right, but I give you my word.
As soon as Pell is slotted for good, I'll start paying taxes again.

The Cayman Islands not the tax haven it once was, Fred?

 

[FredLeDeux]

The Cayman Islands not the tax haven it once was, Fred?

 

[Sainteric]

Possibly you could google the several other cases against Pell which had been abandoned, many years ago, one in particular where even though the Judge himself found the complainant to be a completely truthful witness and put it in writing, considered that the effect of a conviction on Pell would be so great he dismissed the case....
It has been linked to many times on threads relating to Pell and Catholic child abuse.
Give it a month and you will be able to find the facts on Google...every search now simply relates to the current conviction.

In Victoria vicpol/dpp has completely changed how they have bought abuse of children cases to court in the last 2 odd years, they bring any half reasonable case to court, previously they only went with cases they were pretty sure they would win. Chances are Pell would have faced many more cases.

 

[A Cut Above]

Pell did it in the Sacristy because he was deluded that he was invincible. The opportunity arose and just like some of his freaks of mates, he couldn't control his evil urges. I got molested on a chair in front of the classroom, like many of my other class mates. There were people walking past the room all the time, anyone could have walked in. Why oh why, would you take the risk of doing it there for? Simple, because the prick had gotten away with it for so long that he thought he was invincible.

The added danger of being caught might also conceivably heighten the sensation for these sick individuals. Flaunting the risks would also feed their own sense of power, and power over their victims. From a purely academic perspective I expect pedophiles would be extremely interesting psychologically, as there's probably a seething mass of repressed thoughts & feelings swirling around inside them yet they somehow maintain the veneer of outward normality.

Very sorry to hear about your experience but on the other hand its great that you're able to talk about it.

 

[The Passenger]

Remarkably he end up a figure of public sympathy if he was wrongly convicted.

No he won't. Maybe he'll got some from the small band of - admittedly powerful - supporters he has left.

But it won't come from most of the general public. He was a huge part of the cover up in Victoria, and in particular at St Patricks and St Alipinius, where it was put forward in the RC about a third of one class committed suicide (I'm not sure if that was ever verified but I never saw anyone disputing the figure).

https://www.smh.com.au/national/christian-brothers-hunted-boys-victim-20110803-1ib9f.html

This pretty much sums it up

"The entire hierarchy of the church in Ballarat at that time has to be held accountable," he said.
"It isn't possible that they didn't know when every boy in the school knew.
"The previous bishop of Ballarat, Bishop Mulkearns, knew about it."

As for the current case, if someone is making a story up, I would reckon the best defence barrister in the country would be able to find an inconsistency in his story.

 

[Plugger35]

It's primarily about the evidence though. Let me quote you the summation of a judge to a jury on a criminal matter.

I agree it's primarily about the evidence, we got the beyond reasonable doubt thing drummed into us repeatedly but you can still make your own observations in the courtroom.

Body language plays a big part in your considerations.

In the Pell case, the evidence may have been roughly 50/50 but if the plaintiff confidently states his case while Pell sits there with his head bowed and doesn't defend himself.

What verdict are you more likely to give as a juror?

Guilty your honour.

 

[gordo2016]

The added danger of being caught might also conceivably heighten the sensation for these sick individuals. Flaunting the risks would also feed their own sense of power, and power over their victims. From a purely academic perspective I expect pedophiles would be extremely interesting psychologically, as there's probably a seething mass of repressed thoughts & feelings swirling around inside them yet they somehow maintain the veneer of outward normality.

Very sorry to hear about your experience but on the other hand its great that you're able to talk about it.

Thanks mate, I am finding it healing in some ways sharing my experiences.

 

[Cooldude]

My wife was a Catholic school teacher for 25 years, she had been in staff rooms where Pell has come in. He would not give the teaching staff, especially the female staff the time of day. An arrogant, pompous, officious prick, nothing charming or friendly about him at all.

Most Christian leaders of any denomination act like that, bunch of two faced con artists

 

[Maggie5]

Possibly you could google the several other cases against Pell which had been abandoned, many years ago, one in particular where even though the Judge himself found the complainant to be a completely truthful witness and put it in writing, considered that the effect of a conviction on Pell would be so great he dismissed the case....
It has been linked to many times on threads relating to Pell and Catholic child abuse.
Give it a month and you will be able to find the facts on Google...every search now simply relates to the current conviction.

Is the Judge Southwell case you are referring to?

https://www.smh.com.au/national/exonerated-not-forgotten-20021015-gdfq57.html

 

[GuruJane]

https://www.theage.com.au/national/...view-with-police-in-rome-20190228-p510ue.html

To see Pell for his Defence go to 42 minute version.

 

[Pie eyed]

In Victoria vicpol/dpp has completely changed how they have bought abuse of children cases to court in the last 2 odd years, they bring any half reasonable case to court, previously they only went with cases they were pretty sure they would win. Chances are Pell would have faced many more cases.

Agree.

 

[Pie eyed]

Is the Judge Southwell case you are referring to?

https://www.smh.com.au/national/exonerated-not-forgotten-20021015-gdfq57.html

Good get Maggie.
I have a link to the actual trial transcripts somewhere.
Which I may try to find if I have the need.
Needless to say the finding was one of convenience to the court and Pell.
Personally I found the ruling lazy and out of pace with community expectation.

The fact is Pell's entire career has been dogged with such accusations and close personal affiliations with many others who have been proven guilty and accused.

 

[AM]

I agree it's primarily about the evidence, we got the beyond reasonable doubt thing drummed into us repeatedly but you can still make your own observations in the courtroom.

Body language plays a big part in your considerations.

In the Pell case, the evidence may have been roughly 50/50 but if the plaintiff confidently states his case while Pell sits there with his head bowed and doesn't defend himself.

What verdict are you more likely to give as a juror?

Guilty your honour.

Body language shouldn't play a "big part" in my view. Are you an expert in body language? If your concentration is on those matters it can only detract from what is being said and the manner in which it is said so you can give those matters appropriate weight. In other words, judge the facts.

That said, it is extremely difficult to listen to issues without involving emotions, personal views and standards and beliefs. Though that's what juries are asked to do.

A mate of mine ended up on a jury awhile back. He was a busy businessman at the time and didn't want to be empanelled. Asked me beforehand if there were any tips that would make it less likely. Said it depended of the case but gave him a couple of suggestions. He ended-up empanelled. And foreman too cos no-one else wanted the task.

It was a defamation case and his dislike for one of the silks was palpable and was a major factor in the person claiming to have been defamed winning the day. It was in the days when juries awarded damages. The amount the jury came up with was extraordinary. Made the tissues the next day. Of course it was overturned on appeal. Pays to focus on the evidence.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

BruceFromBalnarring doesn't know why he made it up, just knows he did.

I think I said I didn’t know why he made it up but anyhow....

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

Good get Maggie.
I have a link to the actual trial transcripts somewhere.
Which I may try to find if I have the need.
Needless to say the finding was one of convenience to the court and Pell.
Personally I found the ruling lazy and out of pace with community expectation.

The fact is Pell's entire career has been dogged with such accusations and close personal affiliations with many others who have been proven guilty and accused.

Apart from this case and three involved with touching in the water, one of which accuser admitted may have been accidental. Case above they found holes under cross examination.

Regardless I was talking about for someone who must have had extremely impulsive violent uncontrollable urges such as Pell is accused in ‘96 case.

I would have thought there would have been far more similarly violent accusations, or having displayed such risk, surprised he hasn’t been caught in the act.