Religion Pell Guilty!

[AM]

What’s Bolt got to do with it?

“Witness of Truth”. Now there’s an Orwellian expression that should strike fear into the hearts of society.

Blot was part of the lead in conversation and as you and he sing from the same song sheet ..........

If you have some difficulty in coping with the term 'witness of truth', perhaps the words that preceded it from the Chief Justice and Justice Maxwell might have some resonance. They were "the complainant was a very compelling witness, was clearly not a liar, was not a fantasist...."

The reality is that two Court of Appeal judges found him credible as the quotes in this thread show. So did 12 jurors. And Justice Kidd didn't appear to have major issues with him either.

I note you avoided the reference to the redacted parts of the child abuse RC relating to Pell's evidence. I see no reason why they shouldn't be made public now as the likelihood of them affecting the High Court considerations is zilch. Any problems with those parts being made public now?

And FWIW I don't find your 'story' about speaking to someone who heard all the complainants testimony during the closed court hearings as being credible.

 

[FredLeDeux]

Is it just me or is this perhaps something you might have raised in the trial

Bit tricky using that alternative after Richter expressly called the victim a liar.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Bit tricky using that alternative after Richter expressly called the victim a liar.

Ironic the "liar" witness was thoroughly cross-examined for a couple of days by Richter, whist the poor "innocent" Pell refused to be cross-examined, using his right to remain silent.

Telling really...

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Blot was part of the lead in conversation and as you and he sing from the same song sheet ..........

If you have some difficulty in coping with the term 'witness of truth', perhaps the words that preceded it from the Chief Justice and Justice Maxwell might have some resonance. They were "the complainant was a very compelling witness, was clearly not a liar, was not a fantasist...."

The reality is that two Court of Appeal judges found him credible as the quotes in this thread show. So did 12 jurors. And Justice Kidd didn't appear to have major issues with him either.

I note you avoided the reference to the redacted parts of the child abuse RC relating to Pell's evidence. I see no reason why they shouldn't be made public now as the likelihood of them affecting the High Court considerations is zilch. Any problems with those parts being made public now?

And FWIW I don't find your 'story' about speaking to someone who heard all the complainants testimony during the closed court hearings as being credible.

Yes but you live in the delusion, like 2 of the judges and the second jury, that 13 extremely unlikely events occurred concurrently and that Pell was aware of this at the time.

I'm surprised you don't find it credible. How else was I to have known the matters described by Weinberg in his Judgement?

 

[Del191229]

Yes but you live in the delusion, like 2 of the judges and the second jury, that 13 extremely unlikely events occurred concurrently and that Pell was aware of this at the time.

I'm surprised you don't find it credible. How else was I to have known the matters described by Weinberg in his Judgement?

Majestic stuff.

From a man who literally believes that some Jacobs Creek decanted into a fancy cup gets turned into the blood of a 2000 year old Jewish prophet.

In a church in suburban Melbourne.

 

[Bont2Bruce]

Majestic stuff.

From a man who literally believes that some Jacobs Creek decanted into a fancy cup gets turned into the blood of a 2000 year old Jewish prophet.

In a church in suburban Melbourne.

Their ability to accept low likelihood possibilities is only used when it suits them.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Yes but you live in the delusion, like 2 of the judges and the second jury, that 13 extremely unlikely events occurred concurrently and that Pell was aware of this at the time.

I'm surprised you don't find it credible. How else was I to have known the matters described by Weinberg in his Judgement?

When you think 90%+ of people are deluded it's likely you are in fact deluded & lack self-awareness!

 

[western royboy]

Yes but you live in the delusion, like 2 of the judges and the second jury, that 13 extremely unlikely events occurred concurrently and that Pell was aware of this at the time.

I'm surprised you don't find it credible. How else was I to have known the matters described by Weinberg in his Judgement?

Wow just - hope Santa comes to you this year

 

[FredLeDeux]

When you think 90%+ of people are deluded it's likely you are in fact deluded & lack self-awareness!

FMD, I hope that's not true!

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

No apparently the QC were asleep and forgot to raise such issues

They really missed the boat in hiring Bruce instead

It's a theory I've had and expressed on here for some time.

Perhaps I should have got the gig.

 

[Strange Cat]

It's a theory I've had and expressed on here for some time.

Perhaps I should have got the gig.

I’m sure the courts would had been swayed by your theory as opposed to the evidence presented

Delusional to the extreme

 

[Del191229]

It's a theory I've had and expressed on here for some time.

Perhaps I should have got the gig.

Bruce: Hey, anyone care to join me in a belt of Scotch?

Chief Justice Maxwell: Mr From-Balnarring, its nine thirty in the morning!

Bruce: That's OK, I haven't slept in days!

 

[A Cut Above]

'Shocked': Melbourne Archbishop still believes Pell is innocent

The Archbishop of Melbourne has dramatically suggested George Pell's surviving victim may have been abused by someone else, a day after Victoria's highest court sent the disgraced cardinal back to jail.

www.theage.com.au

Not sure if this has been reported before, but this Comensoli chap is manifestly unfit to hold any form of rank in the Catholic Church if Pell's actions "surprised" him and he continues to publicly support Pell in the face of a guilty verdict AND a failed appeal. Plainly covering for the church the way Pell covered for his fellow child fornicators is more important to this guy than doing everything in his power to make life easier for the church's legion of child abuse victims, because openly backing Pell effectively pours salt on their wounds.

Then again this is the Catholic Church we're talking about -an organization that effectively condones pedophilia by excusing it on a systemic level- so who really cares which morally bankrupt Pell apologist they have running their sermons? Surely only the country's most naive fools continue attending them by this stage.

 

[Del191229]

'Shocked': Melbourne Archbishop still believes Pell is innocent

The Archbishop of Melbourne has dramatically suggested George Pell's surviving victim may have been abused by someone else, a day after Victoria's highest court sent the disgraced cardinal back to jail.

www.theage.com.au

Not sure if this has been reported before, but this Comensoli chap is manifestly unfit to hold any form of rank in the Catholic Church if Pell's actions "surprised" him and he continues to publicly support Pell in the face of a guilty verdict AND a failed appeal. Plainly covering for the church the way Pell covered for his fellow child fornicators is more important to this guy than doing everything in his power to make life easier for the church's legion of child abuse victims, because openly backing Pell effectively pours salt on their wounds.

Then again this is the Catholic Church we're talking about -an organization that effectively condones pedophilia by excusing it on a systemic level- so who really cares which morally bankrupt Pell apologist they have running their sermons? Surely only the country's most naive fools continue attending them by this stage.

He's a Pell acolyte.

I'd be DNA swabbing him on principle if I were the coppers.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

I’m sure the courts would had been swayed by your theory as opposed to the evidence presented

Delusional to the extreme

Maybe. But it does explain:

1. The complainant's knowledge of the interior of the sacristy and
2. How the initial leak had the offence occurring mid afternoon.

 

[Del191229]

Maybe. But it does explain:

1. The complainant's knowledge of the interior of the sacristy and
2. How the initial leak had the offence occurring mid afternoon.

You and Comensoli actually swap lines last night?

 

[Strange Cat]

Maybe. But it does explain:

1. The complainant's knowledge of the interior of the sacristy and
2. How the initial leak had the offence occurring mid afternoon.

You really need help

 

[Lebbo73]

Blot was part of the lead in conversation and as you and he sing from the same song sheet ..........

If you have some difficulty in coping with the term 'witness of truth', perhaps the words that preceded it from the Chief Justice and Justice Maxwell might have some resonance. They were "the complainant was a very compelling witness, was clearly not a liar, was not a fantasist...."

The reality is that two Court of Appeal judges found him credible as the quotes in this thread show. So did 12 jurors. And Justice Kidd didn't appear to have major issues with him either.

I note you avoided the reference to the redacted parts of the child abuse RC relating to Pell's evidence. I see no reason why they shouldn't be made public now as the likelihood of them affecting the High Court considerations is zilch. Any problems with those parts being made public now?

And FWIW I don't find your 'story' about speaking to someone who heard all the complainants testimony during the closed court hearings as being credible.

Good points AM..

 

[QuietB]

Maybe. But it does explain:

1. The complainant's knowledge of the interior of the sacristy and
2. How the initial leak had the offence occurring mid afternoon.

So you want Pell exonerated on the "initial leak"

 

[Not Important]

don't worry bruce as the archie of melbourne said there's a higher power up there in the mythical heaven where the pedo will be judged. so none of this really matters really. right?

 

[Frank Bunn]

Even Wienberg in dissent agrees that the term impossible would have better been avoided.

With 50/50 hindsight this was probably a mistake by Richter. By making a case that it would have been 'impossible' for the events to have occurred as described by the complainant, in the minds of the jury it could have shifted the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defence. If the defence could show that some of the 'impossible' events were possible it could lead the jury to sway on the side of the prosecution.

I reckon Pell would wish he had had Weinberg defending him. In his dissent he emphasises the ‘compounding improbabilities’ of the unlikely events that the complainant alleged, and concludes

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.​

 

[Cooldude]

A jury of 12 and 2 more judges found in favour of the victims over Pell, but let's focus on that one sole judge who ruled the way we wanted instead, he is the one who speaks the truth

 

[AM]

Yes but you live in the delusion, like 2 of the judges and the second jury, that 13 extremely unlikely events occurred concurrently and that Pell was aware of this at the time.

I'm surprised you don't find it credible. How else was I to have known the matters described by Weinberg in his Judgement?

As is customary you completely avoided the questions put.

Hmm!

Did Cardinal George Pell Say Abortion Was Worse Than Sexual Abuse of Children?

The head of the Vatican's Secretariat for the Economy has declined to backtrack on his controversial July 2002 statement.

www.snopes.com

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

So you want Pell exonerated on the "initial leak"

Well it was certainly a bit odd that the complainant was seemingly allowed to change the date of the offending mid trial.

Seems he's changed the year, the date, and the time of day. But he's #compelling. And a #witnessoftruth.

 

[Frank Bunn]

Milligan speaks.
Milligan who was a witness at the trial, saw the main witnesses evidence and probably knows more about this case than any other.
But Bruce knows better.
Dickhead.

As a witness at George Pell's trial, I saw first-hand the strength of his victim

In the end, just as in the beginning, this was a case about two little boys and their battle with the world's third most-senior Catholic. And today, child protection won, writes Louise Milligan.

www.abc.net.au

Did Milligan give witness testimony? Or was she just present during the County Court trial? Either way, I think we should defer to the learned opinions of our Chief Justices.