Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlike your indifferent self, who is consumed by heat for a member of the clergy. How are the conjugal visits coming along?You’re so consumed by hate. You need to take a break.
Got a friend from the Rat who's mum wouldn't let any of the kids near the pool if George was around because of how handsy he was with children. The ghouls here don't care. Barracking regardless.Find this topic a bit ‘triggering’ for reasons I won’t go into, so just a little browse...have to say it’s shameful to see a few Richmond blokes in this thread seemingly prepared to take support for there footy team to the most grotesque of extremes.
Shame.
Everyone in Ballarat knew what Pell is.
Best of all this led to the Prosecutor advising their Honors that they should try the robes on and see for themselves. Which they seemed to agree to.!
well that is the nature of trials in that even if perceived as not guilty they are going to live with the dynamic of a trial which will scar them for theHe may get off on technicality, but there is no going back for him, he's done.
One priest getting off out of how many that have been caught fiddling kids around the world? At this stage, if any parents take their kids to these religious institutions, they have no complaints about what could end up happening to their children. The red flags are there loud and clear: the church is not safe for children
are you just being a reprehensible funny person.. I just couldn't say it properly..I thought they said they had no need to try on the robes.
are you just being a reprehensible funny person.. I just couldn't say it properly..
It's just a matter of his personal style - a style that is, in fact, not unusual amongst appeal specialists.
It's the C/A, not a jury.
Here it's what you say that counts, not how you say it.
And he's done just fine in presenting the State's case.
As Walker did yesterday with Pell's case.
Got a friend from the Rat who's mum wouldn't let any of the kids near the pool if George was around because of how handsy he was with children. The ghouls here don't care. Barracking regardless.
Firstly you wroteNot wrong. 20 stories on the ABC News app. None involving Pell. Was wall to wall coverage when the news was adverse to him.
He may yet not get his conviction overturned but our unbiased taxpayer funded news outlet which has dedicated countless hours to ensuring public opinion is against Pell is suddenly silent when all who watched agree the Prosecution had a shocker.
What I was "interpreting" was that it is "amazing he was found guilty really". Not based on the evidence during the exhaustive trial but on what you've - presumably - read about in the media relating to the two days of the appeal process.So you interpret the words 'looking today' as 'having watched the whole trial'.. presumably.
Why you so mad bro? Relax.
Still waiting for the details of your eye-witness version of the assaults in the sacristy (which didn't happen according to you), from your privileged vantage point underneath Pell's garments. You know, the incontrovertible evidence, exclusive to you alone, which proves conclusively, without question, that Pell COULDN'T POSSIBLY have raped the boys.
Firstly you wrote
Nothing on the National Broadcaster's website.
No mention at all.
You'd think today wasn't news.
Then I linked to an update and you shifted your ground to it wasn't listed before which was also wrong as update would indicate. My impression is you just miss stuff or don't navigate the website that well. My first port of call is "Just In"
Then you shifted to the ABC television news which didn't have it, then it did. I watched the major bulletin @ 7 and it was covered comprehensively. Attempting to bash the most trusted news organisation by covering your clear blooper is not helping your credibility here - if I may be so bold as to suggest.
That case is closed.
One of the Prosecution has had better days - as I've said. Mark Gibson was, as is usual, clear and articulate I'm told.
I thought Fred LeDeux covered that issue well in #2,910.
The appeal was within the first 10 "Top Stories" on both the ABC website and its app for the entire day.Nice essay. When I first posted there was nothing on the ABC website front page. That’s why I posted that there was nothing on the ABC website front page.
That there is something now buried 20 stories deep doesn’t change that. What it does show though is that the ABC pick and choose what they give prominence to with Pell and always with the result of showing him in a poor light.
If it had been Walker rather than Boyce who had had that train wreck you can bet it would have dominated headlines.
The appeal was within the first 10 "Top Stories" on both the ABC website and its app for the entire day.
Oh, you mean that unfailingly brave, surviving victim of Pell's vile rape, whom you have consistently and without fail, branded as a monstrous and malicious liar.
Still waiting for the details of your eye-witness version of the assaults in the sacristy (which didn't happen according to you), from your privileged vantage point underneath Pell's garments. You know, the incontrovertible evidence, exclusive to you alone, which proves conclusively, without question, that Pell COULDN'T POSSIBLY have raped the boys.
The problem with all Christian apologists, in every aspect of their lives, is the ridiculous certainty that they actually KNOW something. Lack of evidence for such a postulation is no barrier for those of your ilk. Unlike we humans who live in this world, you are petrified of the uncertainty we mere mortals embrace as an exciting aspect of lived existence,
FMD, you're even incapable of saying you BELIEVE Pell to be innocent. For you, that would leave open the possibility that you might possibly be wrong. Dangerous territory for those who are so pathetically insecure.
Leaving aside the rest of your auto generated skilts post..
The onus of proof is on the accuser. Pell should not have needed to prove that he couldn't possibly have raped the boys, just demonstrated that it was extremely unlikely.
I don't trust my memory, but I thought the judges said they had no need to try on the robes as they had seen the robes, or seen a display of the robes being worn, or something along those lines.
There was discussion at the end about jury trying on robes. Boyce said the robes where available to be tried on.
The point was then made (can't remember by whom) that if the jury had been ablo to try on robes then the Honors could do the same.
Since when does unlikely = impossible?
Since when does unlikely = impossible?