Post BF Upgrade Feedback - Click Here

Remove this Banner Ad

Religion Pell Guilty!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Colonial
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Status
Not open for further replies.
sorted said:
It's a different allegation but your comment is relevant to this thread.



Why did you have misgivings about the woman who accused Bill Shorten because she waited 28 years before taking action over an alleged rape - but not in relation to the accuser in the recent Pell trial who took over 20 years before taking action on an alleged rape?
Click to expand...
Okay, I'll try once more. You picked up a comment I made about speculation a person was likely to take civil action in the Supreme Court that or the next day on a Pell related matter.I made no reference to anything other than that prospect - ie the person was about to take civil action. It turned out to be accurate. You then went on to conflate it with the Shorten allegation. If you want to go down the whataboutism path then start a Shorten thread and we can toss around that allegation and any views I might have on it and time delays.
 
Last edited:
QuietB said:
What we know is next to nothing. We have not heard the evidence or the cross examination.

Hypotheticals are a waste of time
Click to expand...

We do know broadly what it was. Everyone knows the evidence of the complainant.

Pell’s defence was to have 20 odd witnesses line up and say (like I have said) “for these reasons this could not have happened”. Granted the jury found differently.

So back to Sorted’s question. If innocent, what evidence could Pell have led to defeat the charge after 20 years.
 
QuietB said:
What we know is next to nothing. We have not heard the evidence or the cross examination.

Hypotheticals are a waste of time
Click to expand...
What we know is Pell was found guilty of Pedophilia under Victorian law by a jury of his peers. Honestly what more do we need to know??
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Craven Morehead said:
No, I'm a survivor of such an offence from 30 years ago. And I made that plainly clear on Page 2 of this thread.
Just how would I go making a complaint to police if your scenario was enacted into law?
Click to expand...

As I said earlier, after a period I think accusers should make their complaints earlier. But I think that that should not come in until the current spate of claims are dealt with, for better or worse.
 
Craven Morehead said:
That's a f***ing big bus reversing at alarming speed.
I hope you enjoyed 4Corners last night, you campaigner.
Click to expand...

I looked at what that was and who was involved and didn’t watch as I avoid propaganda.

Did they ask why the cops opened an investigation into Pell 2 years ahead of a complaint?
 
If it's so hard to provide a defence for an historical offence you didn't commit, tell us why then there have been a multitude of matters Pell was involved in not proceeded with? Why not stitch him up with the lot BruceFromBalnarring, not as if there's a shortage of complainants?
 
Number37 said:
Hypothetically...if Pell didn't forcibly put his dick in the mouth of a 13 year old, in between church services, then that 13 year old kid wouldn't have to wait 30 years to find the courage to speak up and Pell would have no case to answer.
Click to expand...

Well one thing is for sure, I would imagine that this hypothetical person would not want, nor need, to have the spin-king Bolt, who spins... constantly, constantly spins... and cries wolf like no one else’s business, in this, his shameful career, a career built on utter utter bullshit, years and years and years of tireless diatribe and crappola... years and years and years.. after so so so much crap... I mean I can’t describe it to you, here’s a person who’s only point of existence is to constantly write utter hog-washed-stainless-steel-shit... coming to their defence.

I mean... let’s face it... Bolt would defend a convicted paedo if it suited him.
 
Number37 said:
How could you know it was propaganda before, or without, watching it?
Click to expand...

Milligan? Sergeant Disgrace? It’s like watching Married at First Sight and thinking it’s real.

How many times to you need to be burned by believing the 4 Corners hysteria before realising you’re being taken for an emotional ride?
 
yodellinhank said:
If it's so hard to provide a defence for an historical offence you didn't commit, tell us why then there have been a multitude of matters Pell was involved in not proceeded with? Why not stitch him up with the lot BruceFromBalnarring, not as if there's a shortage of complainants?
Click to expand...

Because he was able to prove, for instance, that whatever movie that he molested some kid at wasn’t showing in Ballarat at the time he was alleged to have molested the kid. And he’d left Ballarat by the time to movie was showing. Therefore he couldn’t have molested said kid at that movie.

How does he defend a charge like this when he can’t place himself elsewhere?
 
BruceFromBalnarring said:
We do know broadly what it was. Everyone knows the evidence of the complainant.

Pell’s defence was to have 20 odd witnesses line up and say (like I have said) “for these reasons this could not have happened”. Granted the jury found differently.

So back to Sorted’s question. If innocent, what evidence could Pell have led to defeat the charge after 20 years.
Click to expand...

No.

Everyone knows the allegations of the complainant.

Only the jury, lawyers, judge, Pell and complainant know the evidence of the complainant.

It is a very important distinction.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Bombermania said:
People saying Pell is innocent might want to think about OJ Simpson, many people were convinced beyond any doubt that he was totally innocent, nearly 30 years later does anyone think OJ was innocent besides his hardcore supporters. In that case he was essentially cleared because the defence suggested that the glove didn't fit his hand.
Click to expand...
You are the first person I've ever come across who suggested OJ might be innocent
 
BruceFromBalnarring said:
Because he was able to prove, for instance, that whatever movie that he molested some kid at wasn’t showing in Ballarat at the time he was alleged to have molested the kid. And he’d left Ballarat by the time to movie was showing. Therefore he couldn’t have molested said kid at that movie.

How does he defend a charge like this when he can’t place himself elsewhere?
Click to expand...
Yeah, somehow I don't think alibi is getting him off, say, the swimming pool accusations. Unless he never did the swimming?

When were the cinema accusations?
 
BruceFromBalnarring said:
As I said earlier, after a period I think accusers should make their complaints earlier. But I think that that should not come in until the current spate of claims are dealt with, for better or worse.
Click to expand...

You utter *******.
Let's say, for example that Pell or any other Paedo, had their way with you in the past?
Just what period of time would be acceptable to YOU, the SURVIVOR, to bring forth your complaint? You seem to know all about it after all.
I'm inclined to believe, as has been claimed here before, that you also enjoy the company of children.

Do you, (now the apologist), not think that this case has emboldened survivors to come forth with more complaints?

Do you, (now the survivor), not think that the bullshit and claims of fake has put them back into their cave for good?
You campaigner.

Or, as I suspect, that has been your intention all along.

BruceFromBalnarring said:
I looked at what that was and who was involved and didn’t watch as I avoid propaganda.

Did they ask why the cops opened an investigation into Pell 2 years ahead of a complaint?
Click to expand...

Again wrong.

The initial complaint triggered the rest of the investigation. All you had to do was watch it.
A bit too close to the bone no doubt.
You campaigner.
 
QuietB said:
No.

Everyone knows the allegations of the complainant.

Only the jury, lawyers, judge, Pell and complainant know the evidence of the complainant.

It is a very important distinction.
Click to expand...
Yep. The victim may have been able to describe Pell's dick in very specific detail. Or something else that convinced a jury.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

BruceFromBalnarring said:
Did they ask why the cops opened an investigation into Pell 2 years ahead of a complaint?
Click to expand...

Had you watched the program, you would KNOW that this issue was addressed. It was mentioned, in passing, as if there was no contention about it that the complainant had, indeed, been the source and initiator of the complaint against Pell, to police. Nobody but you thinks this to be an issue.

Why are you propounding such lies? Oh, that's right, you're mindlessly defending your best buddy. Given any opportunity, you will vehemently attack anyone, including the Victoria Police, the complainant, the justice system, the prosecutor, everyone but the convicted paedophile.

I've heard he likes rough sex. In fact, it would seem he thinks any sex will do. Being as intimate as you claim to be with the convicted pervert, I'm sure you would know this already. If not, it would appear you don't know him as well as you claim.
 
They’ve been after Pell for a very long time, been ticking along over the years, getting him back to Australia took time, They have a file on him 2 metres thick

Ballarat with Ridsdale etc

He is guilty, don’t worry about that of this crime and many more

Evil
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

Osho
    • Like
USA Daniel Penny Not Guilty
Replies
4
Views
705
Osho
Osho

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom