Religion Pell Guilty!

[TheGreatBarryB]

Also I don't understand why it was so hard for Boyce to say why the jury's decision should stand when it's the whole basis to the legal system in Victoria and why three over-privileged elites of the System judging the same evidence for Pell, another over-privileged elite of the System, is better.

Could it be their combined 100 years more legal experience?

 

[Benny78]

How much longer until his fate is sealed?

 

[western royboy]

For the record, GuruJane has been perma-banned from this thread due to some very inappropriate comment (to put it kindly). And also for the record, the poster has asked for their sincere apology to all those that were hurt by the comment to be posted on their behalf.

Tell him to GAGF! His apologies are as useless as the ones from the Catholic Church who walk into mediation and tell me they are sorry for my abuse and then try and screw me over legally

 

[Craven Morehead]

For the record, GuruJane has been perma-banned from this thread due to some very inappropriate comment (to put it kindly). And also for the record, the poster has asked for their sincere apology to all those that were hurt by the comment to be posted on their behalf.

Meh to the apology and an even bigger meh to the 'supposed' punishment.
Both are a disgrace.

Your first paragraph is ********.

Your second paragraph is irrelevant.

Your third paragraph is also ********.

And, after that...
What a revolting POS you are.

 

[Freo Big Fella]

For what it’s worth, if it’s the question I think it was that got her banned, it was a legitimate question. Horseplay in the local public pool has no power imbalance to it. Irrespective of age. You choose to get thrown only because it’s fun. If it’s not fun, you don’t get thrown.

I appreciate the difficulty many young (especially) boys found themselves in in believing they had no choice but to accept their abuse, but I don’t accept it in this case.

.....wow.

The Church I was brought up in would have extended love and support to victims.

That you and your ilk - and seemingly the bulk of those in positions of power in the Australian Church currently - choose instead to belittle their experience like this goes a a long way to explaining the hole you find yourselves in.

Dogs, fleas etc.

 

[Dixie Normous]

You are seriously ignorant of the fact that pedophiles use swimming pools with groping under and through bathers of young children as a common grooming tool.

It takes a lot to creep me out but that might be the most disturbing thing I've read on this forum. Ughhh....

 

[Jack Gun Cyril Stun]

.....wow.

The Church I was brought up in would have extended love and support to victims.

That you and your ilk - and seemingly the bulk of those in positions of power in the Australian Church currently - choose instead to belittle their experience like this goes a a long way to explaining the hole you find yourselves in.

Dogs, fleas etc.

Yep its never been about the victims

 

[ralphmalph]

Could it be their combined 100 years more legal experience?

Plus they provide written reasons for their decision. People who want to criticize judges should focus on and critique their reasons, not their suspected or alleged political allegiances.

As an aside, why is everyone in this thread so keen to predict the outcome? Particularly where the majority of the evidence isn’t and won’t be available to the public.

 

[Jack Gun Cyril Stun]

Plus they provide written reasons for their decision. People who want to criticize judges should focus on and critique their reasons, not their suspected or alleged political allegiances.

As an aside, why is everyone in this thread so keen to predict the outcome? Particularly where the majority of the evidence isn’t and won’t be available to the public.

I don’t think that many are making predictions, in fact a lot of the debate has stemmed from the fact as you say a lot of the evidence wasn’t and won’t ever be publicly available. So to then repeatedly have doubt cast over the jury’s verdict as well as constant theorising over why Pell would win his appeal has rightly angered a lot of people with a lot to be angry about.

 

[BlueE]

It takes a lot to creep me out but that might be the most disturbing thing I've read on this forum. Ughhh....

So sorry, poor you. "Grooming" just didn't cover the evidence the victims were giving against Pell.

 

[ralphmalph]

I don’t think that many are making predictions, in fact a lot of the debate has stemmed from the fact as you say a lot of the evidence wasn’t and won’t ever be publicly available. So to then repeatedly have doubt cast over the jury’s verdict as well as constant theorising over why Pell would win his appeal has rightly angered a lot of people with a lot to be angry about.

I understand why some people would feel angry.

The “constant theorizing” you refer to is what I’d characterize as making predictions. There are just too many unknowns in this case.

Even when all the evidence is publicly available, some decisions are unpredictable or unexpected but (at the risk of stating the obvious) the written reasons explain them and it’s fair game to argue over whether the reasoning is valid.

Anyway that’s enough from me - until the decision.

 

[BlueE]

Could it be their combined 100 years more legal experience?

The defence are saying the jury got it wrong. I was hoping the appeal lawyers could better defend the jury system, but it may not make a difference to the appeal judges decision.

"The argument for impossibility logically loses it's force as uncertainty grows" Maxwell.

If the jurors convicted based on the believably of the complainant and the possibility the offences could happen, then they reached a valid conclusion of guilt.

Does 100 years more of legal experience make them come to the same conclusion whether Pell's alibi, Portelli's evidence could be believed or could they have unconscious bias favouring him or Pell? The jury was the decider of facts and it was up to them whether they believed Portelli or not and seemed they didn't.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

.....wow.

The Church I was brought up in would have extended love and support to victims.

That you and your ilk - and seemingly the bulk of those in positions of power in the Australian Church currently - choose instead to belittle their experience like this goes a a long way to explaining the hole you find yourselves in.

Dogs, fleas etc.

I will extend support to victims every time. Not all who say they are victims are actually victims.

You seem to overlook the fact of so many of Pell’s accusers having had their allegations disproven. You would think that might lead to some scepticism.

 

[Frank Bunn]

I understand why some people would feel angry.

The “constant theorizing” you refer to is what I’d characterize as making predictions. There are just too many unknowns in this case.

Even when all the evidence is publicly available, some decisions are unpredictable or unexpected but (at the risk of stating the obvious) the written reasons explain them and it’s fair game to argue over whether the reasoning is valid.

Anyway that’s enough from me - until the decision.

Perhaps it's been because there has been so much of the discussion outside the courtroom proceedings.

Victims of abuse wanting payback towards the leadership figure of the entity they deem responsible.

Catholics might give Pell the benefit of the doubt. Catholic haters assume and desire his guilt.

Has the #metoo movement shifted the balance of proving innocence/guilt in such cases?

WAs the police involvement neutral?

The sensational media coverage.

How did all these factors impact the jury?

 

[yodellinhank]

I will extend support to victims every time. Not all who say they are victims are actually victims.

You seem to overlook the fact of so many of Pell’s accusers having had their allegations disproven. You would think that might lead to some scepticism.

Who has had their accusations "disproven"? The only trial I'm aware of was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[HairyO]

Who has had their accusations "disproven"? The only trial I'm aware of was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

I would say disproven is maybe the wrong word. But the number who made claims was whittled down to 1 person.

And time will tell on that one.

 

[FredLeDeux]

I would say disproven is maybe the wrong word. But the number who made claims was whittled down to 1 person.

And time will tell on that one.

No, the number of claims proceeding to trial was whittled down to the two the subjects of the current appeal.

Obviously a police/DPP conspiracy to ignore the others.

 

[HairyO]

No, the number of claims proceeding to trial was whittled down to the two the subjects of the current appeal.

Obviously a police/DPP conspiracy to ignore the others.

One person made claims on behalf of 2 people. One of whom is dead and never once uttered a word to anyone else.

A more conservative judge could very easily have not allowed any testimony related to the 2nd person.

 

[FredLeDeux]

One person made claims on behalf of 2 people. One of whom is dead and never once uttered a word to anyone else.

A more conservative judge could very easily have not allowed any testimony related to the 2nd person.

The appeal relates to his conviction on 2 separate offences against respectively (1) complainants 1 and 2, and (2) complainant 1.

No judge would or could have disallowed the evidence on the first complaint simply because one of the 2 alleged victims was dead.

You can't walk up to 2 people, shoot both of them, then tell one of them that he can't give evidence of the alleged crime because the other bloke has died in the meantime.

 

[its free real estate]

Bruce really is outing himself isn’t he.

 

[HairyO]

The appeal relates to his conviction on 2 separate offences against respectively (1) complainants 1 and 2, and (2) complainant 1.

No judge would or could have disallowed the evidence on the first complaint simply because one of the 2 alleged victims was dead.

You can't walk up to 2 people, shoot both of them, then tell one of them that he can't give evidence of the alleged crime because the other bloke has died in the meantime.

Sure, but that is exactly nothing like what happened here. There is not one piece of evidence indicating Pell did anything at all to the 2nd victim, beyond what is claimed by the 1st victim.

Id be interested to know if NSW and VIC have different laws dealing with hearsay evidence.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Who has had their accusations "disproven"? The only trial I'm aware of was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The fella who claimed Pell abused him in the cinema for one.

 

[FredLeDeux]

Sure, but that is exactly nothing like what happened here. There is not one piece of evidence indicating Pell did anything at all to the 2nd victim, beyond what is claimed by the 1st victim.

The example I gave is a precisely direct analogy.

Id be interested to know if NSW and VIC have different laws dealing with hearsay evidence.

This case did not involve hearsay evidence, or anything even remotely like it; the complainant gave direct evidence of what happened to the 2 of them when they were together.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

This case did not involve hearsay evidence, or anything even remotely like it; the complainant gave direct evidence of what happened to the 2 of them when they were together.

I believe there was some instruction from Judge Kidd that some consideration be given to the statements made by the deceased boy to his mother. I think there was reference to this at the appeal.

 

[BlueE]

I would say disproven is maybe the wrong word. But the number who made claims was whittled down to 1 person.

And time will tell on that one.

Whittled down because one accuser died in January 2018 and another was too ill to continue after the committal hearing and their charges didn't proceed. The swimming pool accusations did not continue because critical evidence was not allowed and another accuser was proceeding separately.

So I guess they were hoping the one complainant that the case was whittled down to when the case eventually got to trial was not going to stand up.