Religion Pell Guilty!

[Jibroni]

Jesus of Nazerth would be very disappointed with Cardinal Pell today and the lack of appropriate response toward survivors of this abuse.

 

[DaRick]

You’re a sad sad man if you think you know more than the evidence presented in court that resulted in a conviction.

The fact that the appeal was rejected doesn’t seem to faze you....I don’t know if it’s cost sunk fallacy or if you’re truly that delusional that you can’t accept that Pell is a child rapist

Group loyalty taken to its logical extreme.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Pretty funny when Bruce has stated that the incident was IMPOSSIBLE to have occur

Now it’s could had happen but not by Pell...despite it being IMPOSSIBLE to have occurred

I can’t wait for the next backtrack in an effort to not accept that Pell is a convicted child rapist

I think it's plausible that the offence occurred much later in the day. Unlikely still, but plausible. But Pell would have been elsewhere.

The initial story that was leaked had it occurring at 3 in the afternoon. But of course Pell would have had diaries as to his whereabouts.

It's telling that the actual date on which it was alleged to have occurred was allowed to be changed 3 times.

 

[Strange Cat]

I think it's plausible that the offence occurred much later in the day. Unlikely still, but plausible. But Pell would have been elsewhere.

The initial story that was leaked had it occurring at 3 in the afternoon. But of course Pell would have had diaries as to his whereabouts.

It's telling that the actual date on which it was alleged to have occurred was allowed to be changed 3 times.

Who gives a **** what you think

Pell been found to be guilty and convicted

Deal with it cretin

 

[Sentinel]

2 to 1 seems to infer some doubt. Extrapolate that to 12 person jury and that’s 8-4. Is that enough for a conviction? And this is from far more knowledgeable judges.

Couldn’t give a flying **** about Georgie but close enough shouldn’t be good enough. They are courts overseas that use judges that require unanimous decisions

The judges were not deliberating on whether Pell was guilty or not, that was up to the original jury to decide. They were instead deliberating whether the original jury acted reasonably in coming to a decision beyond reasonable doubt. Big difference.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Start with the premise that 2 choirboys, still in their gear, are going to decide to get into the altar wine straight after Mass at the Cathedral when everyone is going in and out of the sacristy. I mean that's 2 pretty ****ing dumb choirboys. It's not "high jinx". You're definitely 100% going to get caught. I mean to not even have one of them looking out?

But I'm the delusional one.

 

[iluvparis]

Bruce's seeming complete willingness to ignore all facts presented to him takes me back to the heady days of the peak Essendope saga.

 

[Strange Cat]

Start with the premise that 2 choirboys, still in their gear, are going to decide to get into the altar wine straight after Mass at the Cathedral when everyone is going in and out of the sacristy. I mean that's 2 pretty ******* dumb choirboys. It's not "high jinx". You're definitely 100% going to get caught. I mean to not even have one of them looking out?

But I'm the delusional one.

Pell is a child rapists who was drunk on power and initially avoided any consequences for decades

But of course you know better

 

[stax on the mull]

I thought it was odd when Pell made the statement after his arrest that he would look forward to having the opportunity to clear his name in court, and then he and his defence counsel chose for Pell not to give evidence and be cross examined.

The verdict seemed to hinge on what turned out to be compelling evidence of the surviving boy who witnessed what happened, and who was believed under cross-examination of the best legal defence the Catholic Church could buy.

Why wouldn't the defendant (Pell), allow his character to be his witness and give evidence as a counter; let the jury hear his own words as to why they should believe he is innocent.

 

[Bombermania]

I think it's plausible that the offence occurred much later in the day. Unlikely still, but plausible. But Pell would have been elsewhere.

The initial story that was leaked had it occurring at 3 in the afternoon. But of course Pell would have had diaries as to his whereabouts.

It's telling that the actual date on which it was alleged to have occurred was allowed to be changed 3 times.

Okay if that is the case then someone of Richer QC legal ability would have been all over it and Pell would have been demanding to be allowed on the stand.

 

[Sentinel]

Looking forward to Archbishop Comensoli adding his voice of support to Pell again too.

Shocked to be sitting here. After being quick to add a sympathetic voice to Pell last week too because his time in the slammer so far had "taken it's toll"

Archbishop accepts George Pell ruling, but stops short of apologising

Melbourne' Archbishop says he accepts the decision to uphold George Pell's conviction but stopped short of condemning his predecessor or offering an apology.

www.theage.com.au

 

[Strange Cat]

Shocked to be sitting here

Archbishop accepts George Pell ruling, but stops short of apologising

Melbourne' Archbishop says he accepts the decision to uphold George Pell's conviction but stopped short of condemning his predecessor or offering an apology.

www.theage.com.au

And the church wonders why everyone ****ing hates them

 

[Slartibartfast]

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.

What evidence to you have for this fantasy ???


You choose to believe your fantasy over the facts. So sad, no consideration for the victims or the damage he caused to them or their families.
Pell IS a Peodophile!!!!

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Okay if that is the case then someone of Richer QC legal ability would have been all over it and Pell would have been demanding to be allowed on the stand.

Richter was all over it. The Judge allowed it. And 2 of the Appeal Court judges ignored it (apparently). Worse, they were critical of defence witnesses for not being clear enough on the alibi evidence. Tough when the date of the offence changes midstream.

 

[A Cut Above]

Bolt has come out and said he was appalled with the decision according to news.com

Anyone else begun wondering if an affection for conservative views might not be the only thing Andrew Bolt & George Pell may have.... shared?

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

What evidence to you have for this fantasy ???


You choose to believe your fantasy over the facts. So sad, no consideration for the victims or the damage he caused to them or their families.
Pell IS a Peodophile!!!!

Look up the word suspect. I don't have evidence for it.

I do have reasoning.

 

[Strange Cat]

Look up the word suspect. I don't have evidence for it.

I do have reasoning.

You have **** all

Meanwhile the judges and the jurors did have the evidence to make a decision

Grow up

 

[Cooldude]

I don't have evidence for it.

Ah, finally a truthful answer outta your mouth: you don't have anything to prove or backup your delusional biased bullshit

 

[Cooldude]

Jesus of Nazerth would be very disappointed with Cardinal Pell today and the lack of appropriate response toward survivors of this abuse.

But Pell has compared his "suffering" to Jesus and he is going through what Jesus went through

That's kinda insulting to his own god by saying god is a pedo just like him

 

[Del191229]

Start with the premise that 2 choirboys, still in their gear, are going to decide to get into the altar wine straight after Mass at the Cathedral when everyone is going in and out of the sacristy. I mean that's 2 pretty ******* dumb choirboys. It's not "high jinx". You're definitely 100% going to get caught. I mean to not even have one of them looking out?

But I'm the delusional one.

Can you please PM your details so I can ensure I never ever have anything to do with your in any kind of legal sense?

 

[Del191229]

Look up the word suspect. I don't have evidence for it.

I do have reasoning.

So does the bloke at the tram stop raving about how CIA trained aliens are talking to him through the TV.

In fact, at this rate. his bullshit is more acceptable because he has an excuse for it.

What's yours?

 

[Strange Cat]

So does the bloke at the tram stop raving about how CIA trained aliens are talking to him through the TV.

In fact, at this rate. his bulls**t is more acceptable because he has an excuse for it.

What's yours?

It’s almost like he thinks that the case should be judged on “reasoning” (whatever the **** that means) rather than use evidence to convict

Strange line of thinking

 

[Forward Press]

Regardless of your personal beliefs, religious affiliation, or militant atheism, the fact that the victim is not seeking compensation and remains anonymous is telling. He isn't doing it for the money or the fame, he's doing it because he wants justice for him and his dead friend. For those claiming he made it up - that kind of claim does not stand up under any sort of logic.

It is incredibly sad that there are some on this board (and presumably out there in society) that are effectively victim-shaming an abuse survivor, and shitting on the legacy of another victim that died, by questioning the legal system that arrived at the initial verdict and the dismissed appeal. The jury that sat through the trial were clearly convinced that Pell was guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and the appeal court agreed. But noooooo - the keyboard warriors on here and the scum like Andrew Bolt (call him what he is, pedophile apologist) know better than them apparently.

I bet even if Pell was to have his appeal dismissed again by the High Court that people will still persist in the victim-shaming. A pox on those apologists - there is a special room in hell for them.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

You have fu** all

Meanwhile the judges and the jurors did have the evidence to make a decision

Grow up

For someone who doesn’t give a **** what I think you sure respond to a lot of it. And only with abuse.

 

[Strange Cat]

Regardless of your personal beliefs, religious affiliation, or militant atheism, the fact that the victim is not seeking compensation and remains anonymous is telling. He isn't doing it for the money or the fame, he's doing it because he wants justice for him and his dead friend. For those claiming he made it up - that kind of claim does not stand up under any sort of logic.

It is incredibly sad that there are some on this board (and presumably out there in society) that are effectively victim-shaming an abuse survivor, and s**tting on the legacy of another victim that died, by questioning the legal system that arrived at the initial verdict and the dismissed appeal.

I bet even if Pell was to have his appeal dismissed again by the High Court that people will still persist in the victim-shaming. A pox on those apologists - there is a special room in hell for them.

Even if he was to get financial compensation that shouldn’t be used against him regarding the validity of the verdict imo

I agree with the rest of the statement tho