Religion Pell Guilty!

[Feerits Elf]

probably pretty dumb comment to make. Multiple cases last year of paedo going into the toilets and committing an indecent act on a random victi.

Yeah but those weren't normal paedos, see?

 

[TimmeT]

Yeah but those weren't normal paedos, see?

forgot sorry

 

[GuruJane]

Peddo'ing was at it heights in the 70's and 80's?

Most experts think peddo'ing is getting worse...mainly thanks to the internet.

Institutional paedophilia was at its height in 70s and 80s and into 90s ... as the RC reported.

Of course paedophila and child abuse within the family and in remote communities continues to be covered up and may well have been increased

btw - do you have concerns about child abuse in families?

 

[GuruJane]

forgot sorry

Do you have any links to these multiple cases?

 

[GuruJane]

Are we using portable goal posts?

Peddo'ing used to be localised, nowadays it's globalised. The amount of peddos who go to places like Thailand is huge, mainly because they can get away with it over there.


Do I have concerns about child abuse in families?
What makes you think I don't?

I don't recall you posting vehemently on the subject?

 

[Admiral Byng]

I suggest you have a good read of the narratives in the Royal Child Abuse commission.

What Pell was accused of doing does not fit the usual paedo profile. Paedos actually seduce children - they try to get them aroused so that they'll come back for more. Confuse them. That's what makes paedophilia so insidious.

The Pell scenario suggests a straight out power trip, testing the fates, caution to the wind ....utter arrogance ...

Pell does not need to be a paedophile to be guilty of child sex offences. They are different things. Not all child sex offenders are paedophiles, not all paedophiles go on to commit sex offences against children. There is overlap of course, but these are two things.

Someone will be along soon to draw you a Venn Diagram.

 

[Craven Morehead]

I know a great deal about this subject, having had family and neighbourly experience of institutional paedophiles grooming their targets and their families and using arousal as a weapon. This was in the 70s and 80s when the practice was at its height. Their methods are particularly insidious and cruel.

Pell so far presents more as the arrogant, entitled extreme alpha male.

You know jack shit about this.

 

[GuruJane]

Pell does not need to be a paedophile to be guilty of child sex offences. They are different things. Not all child sex offenders are paedophiles, not all paedophiles go on to commit sex offences against children. There is overlap of course, but these are two things.

Where have I been arguing that?

Why would I argue those propositions when when I have a lot of knowledge of the issues surrounding child abuse and paedophilia.

The reasons why there are doubts about this jurys verdict is to do with the reasonable doubt test and absence of corroboration.

The fact that Pell does not fit into the normal institutional paedo profile feeds into the reasonable doubt question mark. On the face of it the opportunist - new Archbishop - Sunday Mass - full regalia - hundreds of congregants (probably including the choirs parents) - rape of two choirboys is preposterous in the absence of some allegation of similar alpha male sexual predation on Pells part in the past.

 

[Admiral Byng]

Where have I been arguing that?

Why would I argue those propositions when when I have a lot of knowledge of the issues surrounding child abuse and paedophilia.

The reasons why there are doubts about this jurys verdict is to do with the reasonable doubt test and absence of corroboration.

The fact that Pell does not fit into the normal institutional paedo profile feeds into the reasonable doubt question mark. On the face of it the opportunist - new Archbishop - Sunday Mass - full regalia - hundreds of congregants (probably including the choirs parents) - rape of two choirboys is preposterous in the absence of some allegation of similar alpha male sexual predation on Pells part in the past.

Well you just said it in the rest of that post.

You don't want to believe Pell is guilty based upon the merits of the case with one complainant, you want a pattern of offending against multiple victims otherwise you wont believe it.

A line of arguing which the courts don't allow the prosecution to follow, the courts insist on each incident being tried and heard separately on its merits.

 

[Maggie5]

Pell does not need to be a paedophile to be guilty of child sex offences. They are different things. Not all child sex offenders are paedophiles, not all paedophiles go on to commit sex offences against children. There is overlap of course, but these are two things.

Someone will be along soon to draw you a Venn Diagram.

Good point, the following are two good articles explaining further.
http://theconversation.com/the-caus...e-more-complex-than-the-public-believes-94915
https://aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi429

Further I am not sure why some posters keep bringing in pedophilia as Pell has been charged and convicted of child sexual assault.

 

[Lebbo73]

Take the stand and attempt to convince jury of your version of events

I had a chuckle at this post

 

[Frank Bunn]

I suppose even if was video they still saw witness being cross examined

True, but it would mean that the witness could not be cross examined again in the 2nd trial. That could potentially put the defence at at disadvantage.

And it's relevant to my 2nd point. If the jury in the 2nd trial was just shown videos of the victim giving evidence from the 1st trial then they would probably be aware that it was a retrial. Knowledge that it was a retrial may have led to the 2nd jury feeling pressure not to return another mistrial.

Edit - BruceFromBalnarring JeanLucGoddard - do you have any knowledge re the above?

 

[AM]

And to think some Catholics will actually take part.

 

[AM]

A piece well worth reading.

A survivor speaks

 

[Cooldude]

And to think some Catholics will actually take part.

Christianity is a haven for criminals, abusers and bullies. Even their doctrine says so

 

[GuruJane]

Well you just said it in the rest of that post.

Etr ... where have I ever said Pell can't be found guilty of child sex offences because he doesn't fit the usual paedophile profile?

You don't want to believe Pell is guilty based upon the merits of the case with one complainant, you want a pattern of offending against multiple victims otherwise you wont believe it.

No. I think the conviction could be in danger of not passing the beyond reasonable doubt test. How many times do I have to state that proposition?
What I believe or don't believe is not relevant

A line of arguing which the courts don't allow the prosecution to follow, the courts insist on each incident being tried and heard separately on its merits.

Not so. multi victim paedo cases may be heard in magistrates court. More serious might go to trial but Broken Rites records that juries have heard more than one victim.
The pressure on the paedo priests mounts up and they often throw in towell and plead guilty. They are invariably beta males, these cruel, insidious creeps.

 

[GuruJane]

Pell isn't a mad child rapist therefore he couldn't possibly have done what he was found guilty of.
I haven't vehemently posted about child abuse, therefore I must condone it.

I didn't say you condone it. I would venture however that you don't get too worked up about child abuse in the family as you do in the catholic church?

Well you're surely not own your pat alone with that, either.

 

[Colonial]

I didn't say you condone it. I would venture however that you don't get too worked up about child abuse in the family as you do in the catholic church?

Well you're surely not own your pat alone with that, either.

That's your defence of the church?

Pedophilia happens in families?

Ffs [emoji2357]

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

That's your defence of the church?

Pedophilia happens in families?

Ffs [emoji2357]

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

Well to be fair there does seem to be significantly more outrage about an offence against a 13yo 23 years ago than there was about an offence against a 2yo one year ago.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

True, but it would mean that the witness could not be cross examined again in the 2nd trial. That could potentially put the defence at at disadvantage.

And it's relevant to my 2nd point. If the jury in the 2nd trial was just shown videos of the victim giving evidence from the 1st trial then they would probably be aware that it was a retrial. Knowledge that it was a retrial may have led to the 2nd jury feeling pressure not to return another mistrial.

Edit - BruceFromBalnarring JeanLucGoddard - do you have any knowledge re the above?

I doubt that a lot turned on it. If anything, that kind of thing should influence towards doubt rather than guilt.

I think Pell just copped a Jury desperate to find him guilty. This thread is instructive as to how that happened.

 

[AM]

Christianity is a haven for criminals, abusers and bullies. Even their doctrine says so

As an atheist, even I wouldn't go that far.

 

[Colonial]

https://amp.brisbanetimes.com.au/na...0190308-p512vc.html?__twitter_impression=true

And another.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

That is what you keep trying to tell us.
Without a single piece of substantiating evidence.

The jury had it in for him...he would need to be on ice to do such a thing...you can't be serious. Those are no more than bullshit excuses.

I was responding to a question directed at me. The question came from someone who harbours similar, though perhaps not as extreme doubts as I. In responding I anticipated what his next question might be so I covered it.

Go down to Albert St East Melbourne on Sunday morning. It’s a long weekend so it will be relatively quiet. Watch the comings and goings immediately after Mass. you might then get some idea.

Remember the overwhelming mob hate directed at Adam Goodes a year or so ago? I think then we were on the same side. Fighting the mob. Now you’re part of the mob.

If the SCA throws this out on appeal will you stand down? Because they’re going to. It’s a horrible verdict. On the evidence before the jury and on the circumstances as I know them.

Or will you cry about the jury not being respected?

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

You seem to be forgetting that Pell has been found guilty. That's kinda important, don't you think?
Or is it not important because you don't agree with the verdict?

If the SCA upholds the appeal then it will be for good reason. Why would I have a problem with that? Or is that just you projecting again?

Your suggestion that because so many people are around no crime can be committed is totally f*cking ridiculous.

Answer me this, assuming a person attending church actually saw Pell raping those boys would every person in that position dob him in?
What percentage of those persons do you think would dob in the Archbishop?

Given what we know of the cover-ups within the Catholic Church in relation to child sexual abuse, it would be reasonable to conclude that the percentage would be low rather than high. That it wouldn't be 100% also says something.

Read that post again and consider editing it.

It says a lot more about you than about the church congregation.

 

[Cooldude]

As an atheist, even I wouldn't go that far.

They specifically appeal to "terrible sinners" for recruitment, murderers are their most famous figures

They welcome all who sin, stop sinning though? That's optional