Religion Pell Guilty!

[BruceFromBalnarring]

But not on the evidence available at the time. Unlike yourself I lack the arrogance to presume I know what it true more than the judge whose job and training it is.

Did you know she was innocent before the new evidence came to light?

I was part of the mob and a teenager. I studied the case at Uni though and it is held up as an example of what should never be allowed to happen. There was never the evidence for a conviction.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Dont post Evidence you'll drive the guy out of the discussion!

Ramblings on the internet (even mine) aren’t evidence. Nor are suppositions proposed by prosecutors (at least they weren’t before this week).

 

[Strange Cat]

I was part of the mob and a teenager. I studied the case at Uni though and it is held up as an example of what should never be allowed to happen. There was never the evidence for a conviction.

I’m still struggling to understand how her case is related to Pell’s conviction? Unless you are saying that the courts gets it wrong every single time?

She was found not guilty once the evidence was contested and new evidence found, but at the time the evidence stood up.

Pell had his appeal and failed, the process is sound and he is still a convicted child rapist.

Your attempt to somehow link the two cases is beyond laughable.

 

[Strange Cat]

Ramblings on the internet (even mine) aren’t evidence. Nor are suppositions proposed by prosecutors (at least they weren’t before this week).

Well your “theory” isn’t evidence but that doesn’t stop you from clinging onto them you ******* hypocrite

 

[Crankyhawk]

I’m still struggling to understand how her case is related to Pell’s conviction? Unless you are saying that the courts gets it wrong every single time?

She was found not guilty once the evidence was contested and new evidence found, but at the time the evidence stood up.

Pell had his appeal and failed, the process is sound and he is still a convicted child rapist.

Your attempt to somehow link the two cases is beyond laughable.

I think he is saying courts can get it wrong; and that what he did at uni (not sure what course) found that the original lindy evidence should have been insufficient; I do not know if that is just an individual opinion from that particular lecturer or a widespread view by today’s legal system.
The other factor in that analysis reducing its relevance is we aren’t able to see what the legal system at the time would have seen the original lindy evidence as sufficient.

Bottom line is Bruce appears to believe because court got it wrong there he can argue they get it wrong whenever it suits him.

 

[Strange Cat]

I think he is saying courts can get it wrong; and that what he did at uni (not sure what course) found that the original lindy evidence should have been insufficient; I do not know if that is just an individual opinion from that particular lecturer or a widespread view by today’s legal system.
The other factor in that analysis reducing its relevance is we aren’t able to see what the legal system at the time would have seen the original lindy evidence as sufficient.

Bottom line is Bruce appears to believe because court got it wrong there he can argue they get it wrong whenever it suits him.

So selective examples that’s irrelevant to a case in which he doesn’t have full access to the evidence at hand, nor has the appropriate experience to make a sound unbiased opinion .

Grasping at straws imo

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

I think he is saying courts can get it wrong; and that what he did at uni (not sure what course) found that the original lindy evidence should have been insufficient; I do not know if that is just an individual opinion from that particular lecturer or a widespread view by today’s legal system.
The other factor in that analysis reducing its relevance is we aren’t able to see what the legal system at the time would have seen the original lindy evidence as sufficient.

Bottom line is Bruce appears to believe because court got it wrong there he can argue they get it wrong whenever it suits him.

You just need to hit the up arrow on the quotes. I was asked whether the RC findings should be released.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Well your “theory” isn’t evidence but that doesn’t stop you from clinging onto them you ******* hypocrite

I’m not presenting my theories as evidence.

Notice how I managed to write that without the abuse on the end?

 

[Strange Cat]

I’m not presenting my theories as evidence.

Notice how I managed to write that without the abuse on the end?

You dismiss the findings and evidence of the courts and state your theory is the correct one

So * off

 

[The Warlord]

I doubt that the will - this is not an error of law case - it’s a case decided on evidence - my read is that the won’t touch it

What is Walker going to say in his 20 minutes?

 

[The Warlord]

Are you aware that part of the reason child sexual abuse was allowed to fester is that people weren’t prepared to confront the mob?

No, it was allowed to fester because people like you made endless excuses for those committing it, like you have on this thread.

 

[Craven Morehead]

Please stop abusing poor Bruce as he's obviously the victim here and deserves sound, reasoned, rational and respectful discourse in response to his well-constructed, plausible, tasteful and logical comments on the issue.

Said no-one ever.
F*** you Bruce.

 

[Gough]

That papal knighthood for Murdoch paid off in spades, barely a mention of Pell aside from a few a digs at the Victorian legal system in his rags. Compare that with the coverage of Craig Thomson.

 

[western royboy]

What is Walker going to say in his 20 minutes?

I’d be briefing D Denuto

 

[western royboy]

Getting the damned back together: Pell to spend time with familiar faces

Now his appeal has been denied, George Pell is likely to join at least seven current and former Catholic clergy imprisoned in Ararat for sex crimes against children.

amp.watoday.com.au

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

You dismiss the findings and evidence of the courts and state your theory is the correct one

So fu** off

No. I never even stated my theory was correct. It’s a suspicion. No more. No less.

No insult.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

No, it was allowed to fester because people like you made endless excuses for those committing it, like you have on this thread.

I’d like you to find one single quote of mine excusing the commission of child abuse.

 

[The Warlord]

No. I never even stated my theory was correct. It’s a suspicion. No more. No less.

No insult.

Your Jesuitical equivocation turns the stomach.

 

[The Warlord]

I’d like you to find one single quote of mine excusing the commission of child abuse.

I'd like you to discuss the principle of sins of commission and omission, given you've just used the C word.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

I'd like you to discuss the principle of sins of commission and omission, given you've just used the C word.

“Endless excuses”. I’m just after one single example.

 

[The Warlord]

“Endless excuses”. I’m just after one single example.

Bruce, are you familiar with the Chris Rock skit about the difference between an En Eye Gee Gee Ay and a black man.

N-person: "I'm ain't never been to jail!"

Chris Rock: "You ain't meant to go to jail!"

You're not MEANT to excuse the commissioning of child abuse! NOT DOING it is not something to be proud of.

The reality is you've spent this entire thread claiming a man now doing six years for child abuse didn't do it. Weaving conspiracies, blaming the victims, asserting the judges knew their decision was wrong but made it anyway.

 

[Strange Cat]

No. I never even stated my theory was correct. It’s a suspicion. No more. No less.

No insult.

Lies

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Bruce, are you familiar with the Chris Rock skit about the difference between an En Eye Gee Gee Ay and a black man.

N-person: "I'm ain't never been to jail!"

Chris Rock: "You ain't meant to go to jail!"

You're not MEANT to excuse the commissioning of child abuse! NOT DOING it is not something to be proud of.

The reality is you've spent this entire thread claiming a man now doing six years for child abuse didn't do it. Weaving conspiracies, blaming the victims, asserting the judges knew their decision was wrong but made it anyway.

None of that is excusing child abuse.

Argue with what I write. Don’t make up s**t that I’ve said then argue with that and award yourself some sort of moral victory.

I asked before. Where did the altar servers go. Where did the sacristan go? Where did the assistant priests go?

That was the EVIDENCE. Unrebutted evidence. They were all in the sacristy in the period immediately after Mass. you don’t get to ignore evidence. You can rebut it. You can reject it (but only with reason). But you can’t ignore it.

The 2 judges elected to reject it. Their reasons for doing so were flimsy. “Witness of truth” is not a basis for rejecting unchallenged evidence. You have to, by law, prove beyond reasonable doubt that the evidence led was false.

The prosecution didn’t. They simply danced around it by saying it was possible it was false.

That is not enough, by law, to convict a man. And that’s why the judges are wrong.

 

[The Warlord]

None of that is excusing child abuse.

Argue with what I write. Don’t make up s**t that I’ve said then argue with that and award yourself some sort of moral victory.

I asked before. Where did the altar servers go. Where did the sacristan go? Where did the assistant priests go?

That was the EVIDENCE. Unrebutted evidence. They were all in the sacristy in the period immediately after Mass. you don’t get to ignore evidence. You can rebut it. You can reject it (but only with reason). But you can’t ignore it.

The 2 judges elected to reject it. Their reasons for doing so were flimsy. “Witness of truth” is not a basis for rejecting unchallenged evidence. You have to, by law, prove beyond reasonable doubt that the evidence led was false.

The prosecution didn’t. They simply danced around it by saying it was possible it was false.

That is not enough, by law, to convict a man. And that’s why the judges are wrong.

The same sacristan who told the court it was "impossible" to move the robes? Which was patently untrue.

Frankly, I don't believe him if he says it was "impossible" for Pell to have been alone there,given we know what his "impossible" means.

 

[Number37]

Once again, yet again, you are horribly out of your depth on the subject.

It's not 1st year legal studies.

Try this.........Google Presumption of innocence, alibi evidence, alternative possibilities. It's a bit more reading than you've done but you'll learn something.

Alternatively, there's a pretty good explainer in Weinberg's Judgement.

I'll take that as confirmation that your claim that reasonable doubt has been turned on its head as another of your baseless claims.

I'm still trying to work out if that is the most ridiculous claim you've made in this thread. There is a long list of your ridiculous claims.



That there is a dissenting decision to you seems to indicate that Pell was wronged. Worse than that you dismiss the majority decision as if it is nothing. Worse than that you claim that the majority decision is a result of the the Chief of the Supreme Court and another judge putting it in the too hard basket.


You are merely parroting the same unsubstantiated drivel that we hear from DHs like Andrew Bolt.
It is disgraceful that you would attempt to trash the entire justice system just because you don't like the verdict.
The one glaring omission from all your unsubstantiated drivel is an explanation as to how Pell was found guilty by a jury, now confirmed on appeal, when you keep claiming he is so obviously innocent. The best legal representation that money can buy couldn't convince a jury or the CofA that Pell is so obviously innocent. F me, you are delusional.