Religion Pell Guilty!

[Donakebab]

That's twice you've said that. Demolished by who precisely? Using what argument? The only argument put up against mine is that "the jury found him guilty." Nothing more.

Thank god for convicted innocents everywhere that the majority of this board isn't responsible for them.

A complete lynch mob. "Throw away the key!" It's actually frightening.

What's actually frightening is that you are so vehemently defending a convicted paedophile. It's people like you and your ridiculous blind faith that have excused the likes of Pell and Risdale over decades that has left these monsters free to abuse more children.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

What's actually frightening is that you are so vehemently defending a convicted paedophile. It's people like you and your ridiculous blind faith that have excused the likes of Pell and Risdale over decades that has left these monsters free to abuse more children.

I've never excused Ridsdale. Ever.

I am so vehemently defending him because I don't believe he is guilty. And someone has to stand up against the mob.

 

[Craven Morehead]

I've never excused Ridsdale. Ever.

Yeah, but Pell sure as hell did. And here you are defending Pell.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Bruce about to affix himself to an inverted cross. "Why is it upside down?", asked the howling mob.

"Because Im not fit to be slain on the same cross that is adorned on the jewelry worn by George Pell", remarked Bruce through a stream of tears.

 

[Strange Cat]

I've never excused Ridsdale. Ever.

I am so vehemently defending him because I don't believe he is guilty. And someone has to stand up against the mob.

So you have a messiah complex along with your victim mentality

Quite a combination

 

[gordo2016]

I don't have the actual stats to hand either, but Victoria's appeal courts definitely overturn juries' decisions in sexual assault cases at a significantly higher rate than in other cases, and at a higher rate than appeal courts elsewhere in Australia.

Most of the time though it has been overturned when the defendant has given testimony at the trial. If the defendant was silent at the trial, most appeals failed.

 

[Gavin Excell]

That's twice you've said that. Demolished by who precisely? Using what argument? The only argument put up against mine is that "the jury found him guilty." Nothing more.

Thank god for convicted innocents everywhere that the majority of this board isn't responsible for them.

A complete lynch mob. "Throw away the key!" It's actually frightening.

Bruce
Do you have faith in the appeal system?

 

[FredLeDeux]

Most of the time though it has been overturned when the defendant has given testimony at the trial. If the defendant was silent at the trial, most appeals failed.

I don't doubt that you're correct; but the number of he said/she said cases where the defendant did not give evidence would, I imagine, be a very, very small proportion of cases.

 

[Crankyhawk]

I have explained, more than once, just why I think it was impossible for Pell to have committed the offense.

Not one person has explained how it was possible. Just lots of triumphant "THE JURY SAID SO"'s.

Well juries have got things wrong before. Police have stitched up accused people before.

This is just another one of those occasions. But please don't say I've been outargued. No one has presented a skerrick of an argument.

Hard for us to say how given we have neither the evidence nor the props..

 

[Lebbo73]

Jesus Mary and Joseph, your victim act is wearing really thin.

And your attacks on anyone with a different opinion to yours is childish.

 

[Strange Cat]

And your attacks on anyone with a different opinion to yours is childish.

So is your moral grandstanding

 

[skipper kelly]

It is not impossible for Pell to have r*ped these children. If that was the argument used by the defence in court then it is highly flawed.

Again, the use of probability to determine if past events occured is highly misleading. If anyone is interested then the prosecutors fallacy is a good starting point to research.

 

[sideswipe]

Most of the time though it has been overturned when the defendant has given testimony at the trial. If the defendant was silent at the trial, most appeals failed.

Yep, agree - and no doubt since the verdict there would have been some massive second-guessing of Richter’s call not to put Pell on the stand. It is being widely discussed that the sitting judge was in disbelief when the jury delivered its verdict - evidenced by his call for an immediate recess which was more than a little odd.

More to play out from here.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[skilts]

I am so vehemently defending him because I don't believe he is guilty. And someone has to stand up against the mob.

The jury heard and came to a conclusion based on factual evidence during the trial. No matter how much you contest that with your beliefs, those beliefs can't possibly carry the weight of the evidence heard by the jury. If they did, you would have been invited to present your case to the jury. You were not invited because your beliefs are worthless. Why should anyone take any notice of something built on the shifting sands of mere belief?

 

[chelseacarlton]

Hate to say it mate......but I'm not going to be intimidated or shamed by some online mob into thinking, saying, or writing that which I don't believe.

If you don't like it, shove it.

There there big fella!
george pell is now a convicted child rapist, regardless of the appeal, this is how he will be forever known.
To be honest, I don’t feel anything but sombre in the knowledge that at least one of his living victims has closure of sorts!
There ya’ have it!

 

[FredLeDeux]

Yep, agree - and no doubt since the verdict there would have been some massive second-guessing of Richter’s call not to put Pell on the stand. It is being widely discussed that the sitting judge was in disbelief when the jury delivered its verdict - evidenced by his call for an immediate recess which was more than a little odd.

More to play out from here.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Didn't happen; a Pell-apologist rumour on a par with the (bs) 10-2 count in the first trial.

It was actually Richter who was shocked, not the judge;
Richter’s confident demeanour evaporated. His voice barely rose above a whisper as he discussed bail requirements and a sentencing date with the judge.

 

[sideswipe]

Didn't happen; a Pell-apologist rumour on a par with the (bs) 10-2 count in the first trial.

It was actually Richter who was shocked, not the judge;
Richter’s confident demeanour evaporated. His voice barely rose above a whisper as he discussed bail requirements and a sentencing date with the judge.

10-2 for acquittal in first trial true.
Judge called recess after verdict true.
My source good.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[AM]

I've never excused Ridsdale. Ever.

I am so vehemently defending him because I don't believe he is guilty. And someone has to stand up against the mob.

You "don't believe he's guilty". That's a softening from you know he's not guilty.

The jury sat through the whole trial, heard and saw all the witnesses cross examined, including witness "J", who was cross examined for 4 days, and whose testimony is only known to those present at the time. On the other hand Pell did not take the opportunity to take the stand.

I heard the occupations of some of the jurors in one of the media reports and it would be hard to get a more diverse group of people. And Pell's silks challenged none of them.

So you claim that despite not having this primary evidence you know better than the 12 people who did and who unanimously found him guilty on each of the five counts.

To suggest you, as someone who has none of that primary evidence, know better is risible.

I might add that Melissa Davey, who is head of the Melbourne bureau of the Guardian, also sat through the whole trial - excluding witness "J" which was a closed session - and she came to the same conclusion as the jury.

And taking a line through the judges comments he appears of the same view as the jury.

The Catholic Church spared no expense in this matter. Two top silks and a bevy of lawyers assisting not to mention the rooms full of helpers who sifted through every piece of information that might be admissible in order to cast some doubt in the minds of the jury. They failed to find anything of that sort.

I note that people of the same resolute belief as you are still pushing the lie that the jury in the aborted trial was in Pell's favour.

I do wonder, should the Court of Appeal uphold the verdict, whether you'll keep trotting out this sophistry.

 

[Strange Cat]

You "don't believe he's guilty". That's a softening from you know he's not guilty.

The jury sat through the whole trial, heard and saw all the witnesses cross examined, including witness "J", who was cross examined for 4 days, and whose testimony is only known to those present at the time. On the other hand Pell did not take the opportunity to take the stand.

I heard the occupations of some of the jurors in one of the media reports and it would be hard to get a more diverse group of people. And Pell's silks challenged none of them.

So you claim that despite not having this primary evidence you know better than the 12 people who did and who unanimously found him guilty on each of the five counts.

To suggest you, as someone who has none of that primary evidence, know better is risible.

I might add that Melissa Davey, who is head of the Melbourne bureau of the Guardian, also sat through the whole trial - excluding witness "J" which was a closed session - and she came to the same conclusion as the jury.

And taking a line through the judges comments he appears of the same view as the jury.

The Catholic Church spared no expense in this matter. Two top silks and a bevy of lawyers assisting not to mention the rooms full of helpers who sifted through every piece of information that might be admissible in order to cast some doubt in the minds of the jury. They failed to find anything of that sort.

I note that people of the same resolute belief as you are still pushing the lie that the jury in the aborted trial was in Pell's favour.

I do wonder, should the Court of Appeal uphold the verdict, whether you'll keep trotting out this sophistry.

 

[FredLeDeux]

10-2 for acquittal in first trial true.
Judge called recess after verdict true.
My source good.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

The 10-2 count is complete bs, made up out of the whole cloth by a US Catholic website on the day of the conviction, by someone who almost certainly wasn't even at the trial, with no source or substantiation, and with no earthly way of knowing what went on in the jury room and thereafter it became an internet meme. Even the judge and the lawyers normally have no way of knowing the count; the judge always tells the jury not to tell him or anyone else if the count is anything but 12-0 or 11-1.

In the usual procedure, the judge called a short recess after the jury gave its verdict; and after he thanked them, gave them the usual confidentiality warnings and discharged them.

The recess is called so he can gather his thoughts on bail, and check his calendar for a sentencing hearing, and so the defence/prosecution can also consider and talk about bail.

The suggestion that such an experienced criminal trial lawyer and judge as Peter Kidd would be so "shocked" by the verdict in a criminal trial that he would have to leave the courtroom to recover is simply laughable.

 

[Strange Cat]

The 10-2 count is complete bs, made up out of the whole cloth by a US Catholic website on the day of the conviction, by someone who almost certainly wasn't even at the trial, with no source or substantiation, and with no earthly way of knowing what went on in the jury room and thereafter it became an internet meme. Even the judge and the lawyers normally have no way of knowing the count; the judge always tells the jury not to tell him or anyone else if the count is anything but 12-0 or 11-1.

In the usual procedure, the judge called a short recess after the jury gave its verdict; and after he thanked them, gave them the usual confidentiality warnings and discharged them.

The recess is called so he can gather his thoughts on bail, and check his calendar for a sentencing hearing, and so the defence/prosecution can also consider and talk about bail.

The suggestion that such an experienced criminal trial lawyer and judge as Peter Kidd would be so "shocked" by the verdict in a criminal trial that he would have to leave the courtroom to recover is simply laughable.

But ....but ....BruceFromBalnarring told us the channel 7 cameramen in the lift were shocked by the Judge reaction...and this was good evidence as a sign that Judge Kidd didn’t agree with the verdict!!!

 

[FredLeDeux]

I do wonder, should the Court of Appeal uphold the verdict, whether you'll keep trotting out this sophistry.

I think I know the answer to that one.

 

[FredLeDeux]

So you claim that despite not having this primary evidence you know better than the 12 people who did and who unanimously found him guilty on each of the five counts.

He's actually now claiming that the jury agreed with him that Pell is not guilty.

 

[sideswipe]

The 10-2 count is complete bs, made up out of the whole cloth by a US Catholic website on the day of the conviction, by someone who almost certainly wasn't even at the trial, with no source or substantiation, and with no earthly way of knowing what went on in the jury room and thereafter it became an internet meme. Even the judge and the lawyers normally have no way of knowing the count; the judge always tells the jury not to tell him or anyone else if the count is anything but 12-0 or 11-1.

In the usual procedure, the judge called a short recess after the jury gave its verdict; and after he thanked them, gave them the usual confidentiality warnings and discharged them.

The recess is called so he can gather his thoughts on bail, and check his calendar for a sentencing hearing, and so the defence/prosecution can also consider and talk about bail.

The suggestion that such an experienced criminal trial lawyer and judge as Peter Kidd would be so "shocked" by the verdict in a criminal trial that he would have to leave the courtroom to recover is simply laughable.

Guessing you aren’t a lawyer Freddie. I am. Regardless, the lawyers who told me their version of events know far more than me or you.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Strange Cat]

He's actually now claiming that the jury agreed with him that Pell is not guilty.

Strange considering his previous stance was that the jury was corrupted and got the verdict wrong due to a vendetta against the Catholic Church