-
Mobile App Discontinued
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
Religion Pell Guilty!
- Thread starter Colonial
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
- Status
- Aug 2, 2012
- 34,820
- 56,399
- AFL Club
- Geelong
These guys just don't get "beyond reasonable doubt".
Skip, you're not making allowances for the lapse of time - 20 plus years which is plausible explanation as to why memories of the detail each of those masses is far more imprecise than it would have been say only one year away from the incident?
This has always been the big problem with the Crown's case - no corroboration for complainant plus lengthy lapse of time for defense alibi witnesses. Since Defence doesn't have to prove Pell's innocence it is they who have the advantage.
It's probably why Dept of prosecutions kept returning the brief to the cops until the pressure got too much.
It's now to the satisfaction of the 3 Appeal judges. As they made very clear during proceedings.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
- Aug 21, 2016
- 19,241
- 32,991
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Oldham
So a long way from showing the alleged events were impossible to have occurred, to a jury, and making a conviction on that basis.
Now we're back to appellate judges making a judgment on the likelihood of the offences beyond reasonable doubt.
- Aug 2, 2012
- 34,820
- 56,399
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Correct.
RupieDupie
Guru
- Jun 30, 2017
- 4,228
- 3,501
- AFL Club
- GWS
Yep, when people who have all the power and money to expose a conspiracy against them refuse to do so...
- Banned
- #2,908
I'm sure if they had been able to narrow the dates down to the weeks leading up to Christmas 1996, they would have had thousands. Especially if they'd advertised. As it was, the alleged dates weren't given as then until the trial. Initially, they were in 1997.
I’m sticking with the thread title.
I hope he goes all the way to the High Court.
I’ll still be sticking to the thread title, as will the H.C.
I hope he goes all the way to the High Court.
I’ll still be sticking to the thread title, as will the H.C.
Silly comment.
Many people remember meetings with rock stars.
Defence always the advantage. It's the way it should be.
You would hope the DPP would return briefs if they aren't up to scratch.
Thousands. How many masses did Pell give at that Church in that time frame? That's a lot of people Bruce.
Anyway, to avoid being involved in circular arguments this is my take of the situation for the 0% of people who give a rats arse about my opinion.
When the defence argument is that it is impossible to happen then the prosecution need to show that is not impossible to happen, merely to negate that defence. In no way does that imply guilt. It just shows that it was not impossible. As far as I know, no-one has come forward and given Pell an alibi other than saying what usually happened.
Obviously the jury didn’t buy that defence and believed the testimony of the accuser and as such believed that it happened beyond reasonable doubt. The word of one man V the right of another man to remain silent.
It’s now in a higher court and 3 judges get to decide. Nothing has changed other than the layman could view a stream of the proceedings. The reported arguments haven’t changed. The layman still hasn’t seen the testimony.
Once this has finished then most likely a higher court will have their chance to have a crack.
Regardless of the final court outcome some people will still believe he did it, some will still believe he didn’t, some will still attack/defend the jury/CA/HC.
When the defence argument is that it is impossible to happen then the prosecution need to show that is not impossible to happen, merely to negate that defence. In no way does that imply guilt. It just shows that it was not impossible. As far as I know, no-one has come forward and given Pell an alibi other than saying what usually happened.
Obviously the jury didn’t buy that defence and believed the testimony of the accuser and as such believed that it happened beyond reasonable doubt. The word of one man V the right of another man to remain silent.
It’s now in a higher court and 3 judges get to decide. Nothing has changed other than the layman could view a stream of the proceedings. The reported arguments haven’t changed. The layman still hasn’t seen the testimony.
Once this has finished then most likely a higher court will have their chance to have a crack.
Regardless of the final court outcome some people will still believe he did it, some will still believe he didn’t, some will still attack/defend the jury/CA/HC.
- Banned
- #2,913
That’s not right, SK.
The prosecution must actually disprove the alibi.
This is at the absolute heart of why the appeal will be upheld. And it was referred to a number of times at the appeal hearing.
And it also goes a long way to explaining Boyce’s difficulty in responding to the direct (and a touch unfair) question “If we accept Portelli as an honest and credible witness then we must acquit, do you agree?” Those weren’t the exact words.
The reason it’s an unfair question is that it’s a given, and they were essentially asking Boyce to concede the case. Perhaps to demonstrate to the public that they have no choice.
Here’s a good explanation...
https://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/publications/benchbks/criminal/alibi.html
- Banned
- #2,914
It has a capacity of 2,400. In the weeks leading up to Christmas, in part due to the choir and carols etc, it’s generally pretty full. In Catholic land, Pell’s profile even then was at Buddy Franklin levels.
The jury didn't believe the alibi that Pell wasn't there (in the room). It's quite clear Bruce. The defence argued it was impossible because he usually did something else. Portelli can be credible and honest by saying this is what Pell usually did but he isn't saying what Pell actually did. The prosecution are disproving this by the testimony of the person making the accusation. Both can be valid and accepted by the jury. Portelli didn't say Pell was with him all the time because he either doesn't remember or it didn't happen. If he doesn't remember then that is credible and honest.
My position is not whether Pell did it or didn't do it, my position is that the argument of impossibility was not supported by the reported facts. Note the language has changed to highly improbable.
You know as well as I do what the judges were doing when saying to Boyce about 'we must acquit if we accept ..........'. They were helping him along with an argument which they do all the time.
That's a lot of people not to remember meeting Buddy on the steps of the cathedral on the days in question. How many masses did he give over the time frame in question?
- Banned
- #2,917
Ah I see. You’re missing one small bit. Portelli did give direct evidence that he was on the steps with Pell on the days in question.
I can understand why you missed that because there was a lot about theoretical possibilities but Portelli did give that direct evidence.
Cheers. Pell did go directly from the service to the steps?
- Banned
- #2,919
The days in question changed too late in the day for them to advertise for witnesses. Up until the trial, the events were alleged to be in 1997.
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
- Banned
- #2,920
Yes. Mass finishes. They parade down the aisle. Altar boys and choirboys continue round to their respective areas. The Archbishop and his MC stop at the steps and greet churchgoers who are leaving. Unless on the very odd occasion that Pell has to take off in a hurry. But if that was the case, the MC would still be with him because he can’t get out of his gear without him.
But Portelli was able to say that in that period he specifically remembered because they’d just returned to using the Cathedral after renovations.
I'm trying to find the direct quotes were Portelli said he was with him on the days in question. Can you help me out please Bruce.
Has anyone come forward since?
Is this a good summary of his evidence?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-26/george-pell-guilty-child-sexual-abuse-court-trial/10837564
"Monsignor Portelli gave evidence that Pell was using the priest’s sacristy in 1996 because workmen had lacquered the drawers closed in the archbishop’s sacristy during restoration works at the time.
He said he could remember Pell’s first few masses as archbishop specifically because they were “ironing out bugs in the system”.
It was after one of those masses that the abuse was alleged to have occurred.
Monsignor Portelli told the jury that archbishop Pell would have greeted members of the congregation on the front steps of the cathedral immediately after those masses as there were people who wanted to meet him.
He could not remember a time when he did not return to the sacristy with Pell to help him disrobe.
But Monsignor Portelli said there were rare occasions when he did not follow Pell into the sacristy and instead returned to the sanctuary to ensure the sermons were ready for an afternoon function.
“I am not aware he was ever alone in the sacristy,” he told the jury."
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-26/george-pell-guilty-child-sexual-abuse-court-trial/10837564
"Monsignor Portelli gave evidence that Pell was using the priest’s sacristy in 1996 because workmen had lacquered the drawers closed in the archbishop’s sacristy during restoration works at the time.
He said he could remember Pell’s first few masses as archbishop specifically because they were “ironing out bugs in the system”.
It was after one of those masses that the abuse was alleged to have occurred.
Monsignor Portelli told the jury that archbishop Pell would have greeted members of the congregation on the front steps of the cathedral immediately after those masses as there were people who wanted to meet him.
He could not remember a time when he did not return to the sacristy with Pell to help him disrobe.
But Monsignor Portelli said there were rare occasions when he did not follow Pell into the sacristy and instead returned to the sanctuary to ensure the sermons were ready for an afternoon function.
“I am not aware he was ever alone in the sacristy,” he told the jury."
Anyone not matching Bruce's energetic standard of pedophile advocacy, I'd assume.
TheGreatBarryB
Hall of Famer
You have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he abused those children, not just if Pell was in a room. How can you know beyond reasonable doubt that children were there?
You can trace back any priests movements and say they were in a room on a particular date. I can say I was at a rock concert and snuck backstage into artists room. There would be little doubt the artist was in that room on that day. Yet no one saw me in there or came forward and said I was backstage.
In regards to the abuse in this case, I’ll again quote Prof Gans...
“In many sexual abuse cases, the prosecution has evidence of suspicious statements by the accused, or accounts given repeatedly by the crime’s victim, or a pattern of similar allegations, or witnesses who saw the accused grooming the victim, or witnesses who could at least place the defendant and victim in the same room at some point. Pell’s trial had none of that.
Importantly, there was one person other than the man and Pell who knew the truth of what happened at St Patrick’s in 1996: the other boy in the sacristy that day. That boy never told anyone that Pell abused him. “
- Status
