Religion Pell Guilty!

[Del191229]

I failed to finish that sentence. It was meant to say dishonest. Not meant to say a grub.

So you're standing by the claim the victim lied?

 

[Del191229]

Justice Weinberg appears to share my view. So not that overwhelming.

Actually, no.

Justice Weinberg says very differently to you.

 

[chelseacarlton]

I’m not here to gloat........................................ahhh **** it, who am I kidding, eat a massive bag to all the apologists of this heinous rape individual.

And finally to the Catholic Church and it’s adherents, your entire organisation is the bile of the planet.
This is better than the Hird saga, I’m going to enjoy some blood of Christ tonight I tells ya’s!!!

 

[Del191229]

No. He was honest. It’s the complainant who is,


It's not playing dumb. I consider the complainant in the Pell case to be a liar (although perhaps a victim but in other circumstances).

I mentioned on one single other occasion that one of a number of personal abusers towards me was not behaving in a manner suggestive of one who had been abused.

If you can perhaps point me to these 3 I would be most grateful.

Have you read his statement after the verdict today?

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

So you're standing by the claim the victim lied?

Yes. It stands to reason does it not? Pell could not have committed this offence therefore my opinion is that the complainant lied.

I suspect that perhaps the complainant was a victim, possibly at that venue, at another time with a different perpetrator.

 

[Chief]

The Catholics bishops conference already has

Archbishop Mark Coleridge, the president of the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference, has released a statement on the appeal.
He says the conference believes “all Australians must be equal under the law and accept today’s judgement accordingly”.
“The bishops realise that this has been and remains a most difficult time for survivors of child sexual abuse and those who support them,” Coleridge said in the statement.
“We acknowledge the pain that those abused by clergy have experienced through the long process of the trials and appeal of Cardinal Pell. We also acknowledge that this judgement will be distressing to many people.
“We remain committed to doing everything we can to bring healing to those who have suffered greatly and to ensuring that Catholic settings are the safest possible places for all people, but especially for children and vulnerable adults.”

They seem to be recognising that the trial and judgment caused pain.

Nothing in there apologising to Pell’s victims and the friends and family of the dead guy.

 

[FredLeDeux]

Justice Weinberg appears to share my view. So not that overwhelming.

There is no evidence that he shares "your view" that Pell is innocent.
This is as good as it gets
To his mind, there is a significant possibility that the Cardinal may not have committed the offences.

 

[Chief]

And did I read one of Bolt’s arguments was that the kids didn’t come forward at the time?

ABC article I read says about 60% of victims take an average of 30 years to speak up.

Bolt is either ignorant or dishonest in this instance.

 

[Cooldude]

Yes. It stands to reason does it not?

No, it does not

Claiming you have knowledge of something that you have no way of knowing is the epitomy of unreasonable, which is what you have been doing for this entire thread

Only a madman or a villain continually claims untruths as truth with a straight face. Which one are you, or possibly both?

 

[yodellinhank]

Come the F on people. Bruce is full of S and wrong, but he's surely allowed to express his genuinely held opinion on the case.

Not as fact, especially given it differs to the verdict of the court.

 

[Happy Mastenator]

Scomo was happy to stand with Hillsong whose actual founder was a pedo and his son alleged to have covered all of it up. He has no qualms defending pedos

Those who are willing to go that far standing with pedos and their accomplices will not change that just because a few of them are going to jail. That's just how depraved that clique is

Not defending scomo and his beliefs/past support. Simply stating a fact that his denomination aren’t fans of Catholics so he’s not going to go the the barricades on this decision, Abbott would have been threatening to overturn courts etc if still PM

 

[Del191229]

Yes. It stands to reason does it not? Pell could not have committed this offence therefore my opinion is that the complainant lied.

I suspect that perhaps the complainant was a victim, possibly at that venue, at another time with a different perpetrator.

Well Bruce, if it is so open and shut why did not George - a learned man with extensive education - not just get up on the stand and set everything straight?

And no, it does not stand to reason. Pell did commit the offences, and the way he did so - the MO - is a very common form of offending among his class of child rapist.

 

[Happy Mastenator]

Bolt is either ignorant or dishonest in this instance.

I think you’ve just summed up bolts entire career

 

[Del191229]

And did I read one of Bolt’s arguments was that the kids didn’t come forward at the time?

ABC article I read says about 60% of victims take an average of 30 years to speak up.

Bolt is either ignorant or dishonest in this instance.

And that the subsequently deceased kid said no when his Mum asked directly if he'd been abused.

Milligan addresses all these in her book.

 

[Bombermania]

Yes. It stands to reason does it not? Pell could not have committed this offence therefore my opinion is that the complainant lied.

I suspect that perhaps the complainant was a victim, possibly at that venue, at another time with a different perpetrator.

This reads as if you after repeatably saying that it couldn't happen, are now saying well yeah it could but it was someone else.

 

[Strange Cat]

No. He was honest. It’s the complainant who is,


It's not playing dumb. I consider the complainant in the Pell case to be a liar (although perhaps a victim but in other circumstances).

I mentioned on one single other occasion that one of a number of personal abusers towards me was not behaving in a manner suggestive of one who had been abused.

If you can perhaps point me to these 3 I would be most grateful.

That was me , for others not knowing the context

I explained my personal history of being a survivor of sexual abuse/rape

I made a dark joke about Pell treatment in jail...Bruce somehow misinterpreted that (despite me explaining several times) as an attack on him and somehow linked making a dark joke about rape as being something a victim of abuse wouldn’t behave in that manner.

He then called me a liar multiple times to get a rise out of me and others who came forward with their own stories

 

[FredLeDeux]

Yes. It stands to reason does it not? Pell could not have committed this offence therefore my opinion is that the complainant lied.

Would that be because of the 80-tonne immovable robes?

The defence relied on categorical statements by Monsignor Portelli (the prefect of ceremonies to Cardinal Pell) and by Mr Potter (the sacristan) that it was not possible to pull the Cardinal’s robes to the side. The robes were an exhibit at the trial and had been available to the jury in the jury room during their deliberation.​

Having taken advantage of the opportunity to feel the weight of the robes and assess their manoeuvrability as garments, the Chief Justice and Justice Maxwell decided that it was well open to the jury to reject the contention of physical impossibility. The robes were not so heavy nor so immoveable as the evidence of Monsignor Portelli and Mr Potter had suggested. The Chief Justice and Justice Maxwell found that the robes were capable of being manoeuvred in a way that might be described as being moved or pulled to one side or pulled apart.​

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

There is no evidence that he shares "your view" that Pell is innocent.
This is as good as it gets
To his mind, there is a significant possibility that the Cardinal may not have committed the offences.

So you’ve read the summary then?

 

[FredLeDeux]

So you’ve read the summary then?

Yes, and listened to it.

 

[AM]

Pell could not have committed this offence therefore my opinion is that the complainant lied.

Yeah! Yeah! We've heard that interminably, despite you having not been there at the time nor were present at the trial.

The Chief Justice and Justice Maxwell accepted the prosecution’s submission that the complainant was a very compelling witness, was clearly not a liar, was not a fantasist and as a witness of truth.

I suspect that perhaps the complainant was a victim, possibly at that venue, at another time with a different perpetrator.

I suspect you're delusional.

 

[Del191229]

So you’ve read the summary then?

You're acting like Weinberg said Pell was clearly innocent when he made no such finding.

 

[AM]

A great day the jury system and for the expertise of Judge Kidd.

Kudos to the brave individual who stood firm not only for himself but his deceased mate and endured days of grilling by the police, the DPP, during committal and the trials. Not to mention months of public kickings from the media and Papist apologists.

Many believe more money and human effort has been devoted to the protection of Pell and the church's brand than any previous legal action. $10m so far was one estimate. Which is why I believe the apologists will continue the 'campaign' and seek leave to appeal to the High Court. Good luck with that.

Much more to come too. One legal firm has 6 solicitors working on civil claims relating to sexual assault. Over 60% of which relate to the moribund outfit known as the Catholic Church.

Musing: Wonder why the lead counsel for Pell was not present for the Court of Appeal judgement.

 

[Del191229]

I suspect you're delusional.

I know he's a campaigner.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Would that be because of the 80-tonne immovable robes?

The defence relied on categorical statements by Monsignor Portelli (the prefect of ceremonies to Cardinal Pell) and by Mr Potter (the sacristan) that it was not possible to pull the Cardinal’s robes to the side. The robes were an exhibit at the trial and had been available to the jury in the jury room during their deliberation.​

Having taken advantage of the opportunity to feel the weight of the robes and assess their manoeuvrability as garments, the Chief Justice and Justice Maxwell decided that it was well open to the jury to reject the contention of physical impossibility. The robes were not so heavy nor so immoveable as the evidence of Monsignor Portelli and Mr Potter had suggested. The Chief Justice and Justice Maxwell found that the robes were capable of being manoeuvred in a way that might be described as being moved or pulled to one side or pulled apart.​

Yeah that. And the 12 other highly improbable events that had to occur concurrently to present the opportunity for the offence to be committed, and that Pell has to know in the moment of the actual occurrence of those improbable events.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Yes, and listened to it.

Might want to read his actual judgement.