Religion Pell Guilty!

[aCunningPlan]

Word is that ACU will be heavily picketed during their Open Day on Sunday with their refusal to accept the verdict. Pell still has his name on buildings there and staff have been muzzled, being told they must not comment on the case in any way.

This is in direct contrast to the school that made him, immediately removing Pell's name from their school grounds and issuing a strong statement of support to the victims.

 

[Frank Bunn]

One thing that I did find interesting was that while Weinberg was equivocal about Pell's guilt or innocence, Ferguson and Maxwell made their opinions perfectly clear

​

Having reviewed the whole of the evidence, two of the judges of the Court of Appeal (Chief Justice Ferguson and Justice Maxwell, President of the Court of Appeal) decided that it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Cardinal Pell was guilty of the offences charged. In other words, those judges decided that there was nothing about the complainant’s evidence, or about the opportunity evidence, which meant that the jury ‘must have had a doubt’ about the truth of the complainant’s account.They stated that it is not enough that one or more jurors ‘might have had a doubt.’ Rather, the jury ‘must have had a doubt.’​

The Chief Justice and Justice Maxwell stated that they did not experience a doubt.​

I haven't read through the whole judgement yet but it seems that Weinberg is interested in the defence challenging the prosecution's case that it would have been 'impossible' for the events to have occurred as described by the complainant. He points out that the prosecution accepted that this emphasis did not detract from the onus of proof not lying with the defendant to prove his innocence. Weinberg emphasises the ‘compounding improbabilities’ of the unlikely events that complainant alleged.

The chances of ‘all the planets aligning’, in that way, would, at the very least, be doubtful. This form of ‘probabilistic analysis’, if properly applied, suggests​

strongly to me that the jury, acting reasonably, on the whole of the evidence in this case, ought to have had a reasonable doubt as to the applicant’s guilt.​

Weinberg differs from Ferguson and Maxwell about the 'advantage of the jury'.

As I have said, each member of this Court has had the opportunity to see and hear all of the witnesses give evidence. It is a fact that this was only by way of recording, and there is obviously a difference between being present in court and seeing a witness live, and merely watching that witness give evidence on a television or computer screen. As regards the complainant, however, the members of this Court have seen exactly what the jury in the second trial saw. Clearly, those jurors had no advantage over this Court, at least in that respect​

Ferguson and Maxwell think somehow the live dynamics of a jury witnessing a video recording gives them an advantage.

 

[Del191229]

I take issue with your paragraph about the QC’s failing to pick it apart.

Well, they clearly didn't because a jury went with the victim's testimony.

But anyway, I've come down the tramstop and chosen to engage with the weirdo raving about their theories, so I'll give the silks the benefit and say they did pick it apart.

Your position is then that the Chief Justice and the President of the Court of Appeal, presumably in league with VicPol who had decided to stitch up Pell in revenge for Ashton being "humiliated' at the RC, deliberately and knowingly carried out an enormous miscarriage of justice, putting their own careers and reputations at risk?

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Compounding improbabilities. Almost as though Weinberg had read one of my initial posts for which I was roundly ridiculed and abused for pages after.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Well, they clearly didn't because a jury went with the victim's testimony.

But anyway, I've come down the tramstop and chosen to engage with the weirdo raving about their theories, so I'll give the silks the benefit and say they did pick it apart.

Your position is then that the Chief Justice and the President of the Court of Appeal, presumably in league with VicPol who had decided to stitch up Pell in revenge for Ashton being "humiliated' at the RC, deliberately and knowingly carried out an enormous miscarriage of justice, putting their own careers and reputations at risk?

To quote Jesus “It is you who says it.”

 

[Del191229]

To quote Jesus “It is you who says it.”

Squib.

 

[Strange Cat]

I do recall some things you wrote about another poster who disclosed his (presumably) story which seemed not to take his account at face value.

Yeah I’m sure my aniexty attacks, nightmares , multiple suicide attempts and nightmares have nothing to do with the fact that I was r*ped and abused for years and years as a kid

I made it all up huh? Because why?

But hey when survivors are not even believed after a conviction and appeal what ****ing chance do I or others have on here.

**** off

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Squib.

You’ve been trying all day to get me to write in publishable form words that might get me in trouble. I avoid that and you call me a squib.

In the heat of this debate, don’t you think that’s unfair?

I’ve put it all to you, far more politely than I’ve been addressed here on this topic. What more do you want?

Do I think the appointment of the Chief Justice at the time she was appointed strange? Yes. I do.

 

[Del191229]

To quote Jesus “It is you who says it.”

Jesus also spoke about rendering unto Caeser what is Caesers, and in this case, you are disobeying Jesus' teaching by spitting in the face of the law of the land.

 

[Del191229]

You’ve been trying all day to get me to write in publishable form words that might get me in trouble. I avoid that and you call me a squib.

In the heat of this debate, don’t you think that’s unfair?

I’ve put it all to you, far more politely than I’ve been addressed here on this topic. What more do you want?

Do I think the appointment of the Chief Justice at the time she was appointed strange? Yes. I do.

LOL, you've already written enough.

 

[Crankyhawk]

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?

How do you know the same reason doesn’t apply?

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Jesus also spoke about rendering unto Caeser what is Caesers, and in this case, you are disobeying Jesus' teaching by spitting in the face of the law of the land.

I’m not spitting in anyone’s face. I’m saying they have it wrong, and I harbour concerns as to why.

 

[AM]

You made that up. Ferguson appointed to Court of Appeal in 2014. Weinberg 2008.

Weinberg the only one of the 3 with a criminal law background.

Stand corrected about Ferguson and Weinberg. However, you failed to mention The Hon Chris Maxwell - 2005

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Stand corrected about Ferguson and Weinberg. However, you failed to mention The Hon Chris Maxwell - 2005

Who never practiced in crime.

 

[AM]

Think it was more Richter thinking that his demeanour would come across as aloof arrogance that would do more harm than good for his client

The Red Baron has never been keen to place his clients in the dock though.

 

[AM]

Who never practiced in crime.

Is an eminent and highly regarded Judge of long standing.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

The Red Baron has never been keen to place his clients in the dock though.

On a side note, the fallout for defence barristers will be interesting.

“Don’t take the stand.” Standard advice.

Accused: “Are you ****ing kidding?”

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Is an eminent and highly regarded Judge of long standing.

I don’t actually know either way. Do you?

His background is Liberty Victoria which doesn’t fill me with confidence.

 

[Seeds]

I take issue with your paragraph about the QC’s failing to pick it apart.

The judges werent swayed so it failed. Thats the definition of fail.

 

[AM]

On a side note, the fallout for defence barristers will be interesting.

“Don’t take the stand.” Standard advice.

Accused: “Are you ******* kidding?”

It's always been the prerogative of the accused to take the stand. Gatto went against the advice of RR with quite some effect.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

The judges werent swayed so it failed. Thats the definition of fail.

Well I guess if the motivation isn’t there.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

It's always been the prerogative of the accused to take the stand. Gatto went against the advice of RR with quite some effect.

I have occasionally wondered whether there’s an element of hubris in that advice.

I don’t think it would have helped Pell though. If they were going to ignore the significant weight of evidence in his favour, they were going to ignore his own words.

 

[western royboy]

Lastly, to all the survivors that so bravely shared in some part their deeply personal and horrific stories with this little community.
I imagine that closure for you will not be found in this judgement, but I’d hope that in someway, that that child inside of you that must have cried in terror and screamed what would have felt like the abyss, has in someway be heard down through the ages and decades and that that little child feels and finds some type of peace with today’s outcome!
Peace to you, your family and friends and to those that may have helped you along the way!❤
Sincerely yours
cc

Many thanks - for me personally there is and will never be closure - but I’ll rest easier when the institution is held accountable for the abuse they enabled and I’ll be able to hold my head up knowing that when it was my time to go - I went and stood up for some people I know who are no longer around to do so

 

[Strange Cat]

I have occasionally wondered whether there’s an element of hubris in that advice.

I don’t think it would have helped Pell though. If they were going to ignore the significant weight of evidence in his favour, they were going to ignore his own words.

Laughable to suggest that the courts or a QC wouldn’t present or argue any favourable evidence

You really are grasping at straws when you know **** all

 

[Del191229]

I’m not spitting in anyone’s face. I’m saying they have it wrong, and I harbour concerns as to why.

Ummm, you're not rendering unto Caeser what is Caesers.

And you are spitting in the face of the Court - you said two judges KNEW they were locking up an innocent man.