Religion Pell Guilty!

[sideswipe]

It at least equals reasonable doubt. And that’s just the circumstances creating the opportunity. And I’ve been very generous.

Nah, you are being foolish. Once you admit there is a possibility that it happened, however remote, then you cannot “know” it didn’t happen.

I am a rusted on mick who was “barracking” for Pell’s innocence but I accept a jury verdict as well as the potential success of an appeal. I know lawyers far closer to the action than Balnarring who hold a similar view. None of them are able to profess certainty. Yet you seem to be.

Your constant harping about “knowing” is embarrassing. And worse, clearly insulting to many. So please give it a rest.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

It’s not like this is a once off allegation about Pell. There have been allegations made in the past, as long ago as 2002, pertaining to crimes committed in 1961. Further accusations about crimes in the 70s and 90s. Finally a conviction.

Is it all just one big conspiracy, BruceFromBalnarring?

No that’s right. Pell has the unusual honour of being the subject of quite a few disproven claims. Both about what he knew about abuse and also about him abusing kids himself. All of those, as I pointed out, that could be objectively tested have been proven false. Does that not make you wonder?

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Nah, you are being foolish. Once you admit there is a possibility that it happened, however remote, then you cannot “know” it didn’t happen.

I am a rusted on mick who was “barracking” for Pell’s innocence but I accept a jury verdict as well as the potential success of an appeal. I know lawyers far closer to the action than Balnarring who hold a similar view. None of them are able to profess certainty. Yet you seem to be.

Your constant harping about “knowing” is embarrassing. And worse, clearly insulting to many. So please give it a rest.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

No.

 

[yodellinhank]

We’ll see. I’ve just tried to explain, for about the fifth time, just why I think it’s impossible. I shouldn’t say impossible. So improbable as to be considered, for the purposes of criminal justice, impossible.

But I’m the arseh*le. Because the anonymous complainant was “compelling”. And complainants/victims/survivors never lie. Well it so happens that they do. In family law and criminal law. They do. Not most of them, but some of them. Their claims should be treated seriously, far more seriously than they have in the past, but they should not simply be believed.

And police should not be opening investigations into potential abusers in the absence of complaints of abuse.

Improbable for the purposes of criminal justice isn't impossible. Reasonable doubt must be reasonable.

No that’s right. Pell has the unusual honour of being the subject of quite a few disproven claims. Both about what he knew about abuse and also about him abusing kids himself. All of those, as I pointed out, that could be objectively tested have been proven false. Does that not make you wonder?

Unable to be proven does not equal disproven.

 

[its free real estate]

No that’s right. Pell has the unusual honour of being the subject of quite a few disproven claims. Both about what he knew about abuse and also about him abusing kids himself. All of those, as I pointed out, that could be objectively tested have been proven false. Does that not make you wonder?

Yes, all these dark forces working against Pell and Pell alone.

 

[gordo2016]

I’ll try to explain mathematically.

The odds of Pell not greeting the parishioners after Mass are something like one in fifty. Let’s call it 1 in 20. 5%.

The odds of his minder not staying by his side are close to nil. But let’s say he had a bad case of gastro. 1 in 100. But let’s say 1 in 20.

The odds of the sacristy door being left open without the sacristan present. Almost nil but let’s again say 1 in 20.

Those three very unlikely circumstances had to occur together to create the circumstances for the allegation in the first place.

That on its own, being very generous with the odds is 1 in 10,000.

The traffic through the sacristy immediately after Mass is constant. Altar servers are nearby. Assistant priests are going in and out with chalices and plates, the collectors are going in and out and counting cash.

Now imagine you’ve had half a dozen cans and you’re told there is a booze bus on your way home. Even the most reckless doesn’t drive knowing there’s a 1 in 3 chance they’ll be tested.

In this case the chances of someone walking in are 100%. But let’s be generous and say it’s only 75%.

What sort of dumb reckless idiot would play those odds? Let’s accept Pell is a pedo (some dickhead will quote that line with a smartarse comment). He’s not dumb. If he were a pedo he’d be a sneaky calculating one, not a dumb reckless one.

And that is why the crime as alleged is impossible. Or at least so improbable as to be effectively impossible.

And I didn’t touch on the physical difficulty of managing the robes with one hand whilst performing various other forms of abuse with the other.

Wow, if only the defense had you, instead of Richter. Quick, text him those stats now. I particularly like the one about if Pell was a pedo, he would be a sneaky, calculating one. That closes the case.

We’ll see. I’ve just tried to explain, for about the fifth time, just why I think it’s impossible. I shouldn’t say impossible. So improbable as to be considered, for the purposes of criminal justice, impossible.

But I’m the arseh*le. Because the anonymous complainant was “compelling”. And complainants/victims/survivors never lie. Well it so happens that they do. In family law and criminal law. They do. Not most of them, but some of them. Their claims should beknew who it was. treated seriously, far more seriously than they have in the past, but they should not simply be believed.

And police should not be opening investigations into potential abusers in the absence of complaints of abuse.

The complainants/victims/survivors are much more trustworthy than someone who knew about the abuse of hundreds of children in Ballarat in the 1970's and protected the perpetrators of the evil crimes. There is only person lying and the jury knew who it was.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Nah, you are being foolish. Once you admit there is a possibility that it happened, however remote, then you cannot “know” it didn’t happen.

I am a rusted on mick who was “barracking” for Pell’s innocence but I accept a jury verdict as well as the potential success of an appeal. I know lawyers far closer to the action than Balnarring who hold a similar view. None of them are able to profess certainty. Yet you seem to be.

Your constant harping about “knowing” is embarrassing. And worse, clearly insulting to many. So please give it a rest.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

You didn’t read my post. I said the odds were 1 in 10,000 (generously) that the opportunity for the crime presented themselves.

 

[Toump Ass]

Doesn't matter if Pell is guilty of these particular crimes, we already know as a fact that he facilitated countless pedophile's offending. He deserves everything he gets, and if he's innocent all the better.

Catholicism is as much a scam as Scientology, even worse given the Catholic Church is basically a pedophile ring.

I agree with this article:
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...-status-over-child-abuse-former-tax-head-says

 

[sideswipe]

You didn’t read my post. I said the odds were 1 in 10,000 (generously) that the opportunity for the crime presented themselves.

I was referring to your many posts that I have read where you professed to “know” that Pell is innocent. You then sought to bring a very unlikely chance to your argument. This was an error. Once you introduced chance you lost the ability to “know”. This is logic. You must be a very ordinary lawyer. Or maybe a staffer.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[yodellinhank]

You didn’t read my post. I said the odds were 1 in 10,000 (generously) that the opportunity for the crime presented themselves.

And? That in and of itself does not constitute reasonable doubt. People have won powerball.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Everyone please remember Bruce is in denial.
He stated that he was so convinced of lindy chamberlains guilt
So now he is clearly overcompensating
He denies it because he is sadly unaware of his own motivations.

Pity him.

 

[AM]

Why spoil a good story with the facts. In line with the Murdochrasies approach to reporting generally.

 

[Present Not Past]

And? That in and of itself does not constitute reasonable doubt. People have won powerball.

People win Powerball and Lotto all the time due to the huge numbers of people participating.
For your statement to make any sense at all there must be huge numbers of Australians participating in pedophilia.

 

[AM]

Speculation that a former St Joseph's Boys Home student will lodge a claim in the Supreme Court today alleging he was molested in a swimming pool in the 1970's by Cardinal Pell.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

I was referring to your many posts that I have read where you professed to “know” that Pell is innocent. You then sought to bring a very unlikely chance to your argument. This was an error. Once you introduced chance you lost the ability to “know”. This is logic. You must be a very ordinary lawyer. Or maybe a staffer.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Because on top of the miniscule chance of the circumstances presenting themselves, Pell would have had to be utterly stupidly reckless to have committed the crime knowing it was entirely likely he'd be caught in the act. And he's have needed 3 hands, probably more.

Pell may well be a lot of things. But he is not stupid (cue the "sky fairy" sneers).

 

[Richard Pryor]

You didn’t read my post. I said the odds were 1 in 10,000 (generously) that the opportunity for the crime presented themselves.

LOL.

I know the crime as alleged is impossible. I therefore refuse to acknowledge that he is anything but innocent of the crime.

He is innocent.

No. I’m stating a fact. He didn’t do it. There’s no arrogance in saying what you know.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

LOL.

"LOL" What are you, a child?

There's no back pedal. The odds presented are just very generous (in terms of "guilty") of the opportunity for the crime to present themselves. They don't deal with the actual commission of the crime itself.

I've asked the question a few times here for no response.

Is anyone even a little concerned that VicPol opened and investigation into a bloke for sexual abuse in the absence of a complainant?

 

[Richard Pryor]

"LOL" What are you, a child?

Come now Bruce, for as much flamebait as you've been putting out there yourself don't tell me LOL is all it takes to set you off. Also a bit rich to call someone a child when your response to getting called out is this:

No.

As for this:

There's no back pedal. The odds presented are just very generous (in terms of "guilty") of the opportunity for the crime to present themselves. They don't deal with the actual commission of the crime itself.

I've asked the question a few times here for no response.

Is anyone even a little concerned that VicPol opened and investigation into a bloke for sexual abuse in the absence of a complainant?

If you don't still know that it was impossible it's a backpedal, no matter how much you've "mathematically" proven that it's unlikely.

 

[Richard Pryor]

Anatomy of a backpedal:
Act I: The strong ultimatum

I know the crime as alleged is impossible. I therefore refuse to acknowledge that he is anything but innocent of the crime.

He is innocent.

No. I’m stating a fact. He didn’t do it. There’s no arrogance in saying what you know.

Act II: The escape routes are laid out.

And that is why the crime as alleged is impossible. Or at least so improbable as to be effectively impossible.

We’ll see. I’ve just tried to explain, for about the fifth time, just why I think it’s impossible. I shouldn’t say impossible. So improbable as to be considered, for the purposes of criminal justice, impossible.

Act III: The backpedal is executed.

You didn’t read my post. I said the odds were 1 in 10,000 (generously) that the opportunity for the crime presented themselves.

LOL

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Anatomy of a backpedal:
Act I: The strong ultimatum


Act II: The escape routes are laid out.


Act III: The backpedal is executed.
LOL

There is no backpedal. There is no escape.

The commission of the crime was impossible.

Pell is innocent.

 

[Richard Pryor]

Act IV: The reverse backpedal; if confronted revert back to the initial ultimatum

There is no backpedal. There is no escape.

The commission of the crime was impossible.

Pell is innocent.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Act IV: The reverse backpedal; if confronted revert back to the initial ultimatum

Yeah. *Yawn* More mindless sneering.

I'm not here to convince you or any of the other mindless detractors I have on this thread.

Your minds are made up. Either you are blind suckers for a relentless media campaign or driven by a pathological hatred for the Catholic Church.

You are a waste of my time. I normally wouldn't bother.

I do know though that there are a number of other "watchers" and it is they I am hoping to convince. Every sneer from you works in my favour. Every anti-Catholic insult serves to reinforce exactly my point. These "watchers" are interested to find out how it came to be that this famous bloke got found guilty when so many like me say he is innocent.

You, along with a group of others, are demonstrating exactly how it came to pass. Mob hate. That's how it happened. And a mob hate that is likely politically orchestrated.

 

[Richard Pryor]

Yeah. *Yawn* More mindless sneering.

I'm not here to convince you or any of the other mindless detractors I have on this thread.

Your minds are made up. Either you are blind suckers for a relentless media campaign or driven by a pathological hatred for the Catholic Church.

You are a waste of my time. I normally wouldn't bother.

I do know though that there are a number of other "watchers" and it is they I am hoping to convince. Every sneer from you works in my favour. Every anti-Catholic insult serves to reinforce exactly my point. These "watchers" are interested to find out how it came to be that this famous bloke got found guilty when so many like me say he is innocent.

You, along with a group of others, are demonstrating exactly how it came to pass. Mob hate. That's how it happened. And a mob hate that is likely politically orchestrated.

Nice melt putting your persecution and superiority complex on full display buddy. Sorry you embarrassed yourself with a ridiculous statement, if you weren't so up yourself you'd just be able to admit you got carried away instead of chucking a "you're anti-Catholic" tantrum. Back before you went full troll mode you should note this was how I closed off our discussion:

This is just talking in circles, I can bleat on about the accusers testimony, and you can bellow about your anecdotal experience until we're both blue in the face. At the end of the day either the jury system is broken, Pell's defence team is incompetent, or Pell is guilty and whichever one it is will, God willing, be proven in the appeal.

Although I will say I think Sandusky leaves the football analogy unconvincing to me.

Of course you didn't respond to this because it didn't fuel your martyrdom fantasy, so glad I was able to give you something to take away from this thread in the end.

I wish you luck in making better use of your time though (e.g. by showing your mathematical model of Pell's innocence to barristers in the pub).

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Nice melt putting your persecution and superiority complex on full display buddy. Sorry you embarrassed yourself with a ridiculous statement, if you weren't so up yourself you'd just be able to admit you got carried away instead of chucking a "you're anti-Catholic" tantrum. Back before you went full troll mode you should note this was how I closed off our discussion:

Of course you didn't respond to this because it didn't fuel your martyrdom fantasy, so glad I was able to give you something to take away from this thread in the end.

Or maybe I had 10 odd others haters screaming at me at the same time. Your post requires deeper thought.

The easy answer is that the jury system is broken. But I don't think it's that simple. If you don't have juries, you run the risk of politically appointed judges. I think the judiciary as it stands are not too bad. But I can sense a growing problem certainly in the Magistrates Court of political influence. The jury system is some protection from that.

But I don't know that it is ideal to have a jury in a case such as this. Particularly when there has clearly been a coordinated campaign between VicPol and elements of the media to influence public opinion in advance of the trial.

Or maybe it was just this jury. The word is that the previous jury had voted 10-2 to acquit. That was the legal gossip and anecdotally, as gossip goes, it's generally not bad. But you can't hang your hat on it. There is word drifting out in the media that the defence might believe some in this jury didn't declare their ineligibility to sit on the jury. We'll have to wait and see. If, and it's a massive if, there is evidence presented that certain jurors should have excused themselves from the jury and that evidence is accepted on appeal and it gets chucked out then perhaps the jury system isn't broken.

In short, it's too early to say the jury system is broken but I can say they got it horribly wrong in this case.

Pell's defence team wasn't incompetent and Pell isn't guilty.

 

[Craven Morehead]

When a well adjusted, family loving, 13 year old boy suddenly spirals into heroin addiction by the time he's 14.
Gee, I wonder why that happened?

No-one is above the law.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03...ims-family-police-speak-to-4-corners/10856998