Religion Pell Guilty!

[Crankyhawk]

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

Yes; but you were also discussing with me re fallability of courts citing chamberlain which is where strange cat came in and what I was clarifying.

 

[Strange Cat]

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.

Bruce said it was impossible a few times too

But he’s not dismissing the evidence remeber , just presenting his theory as to why Pell is innoncent despite the evidence contradicting him.

 

[Corpuscles]

I’ll give you one short reason.

The more abuse I receive the more motivated I am to express my genuinely held beliefs. I hate mobs.

Bruce

I can sympathise with your reasons to have personal doubts , about the 'beyond reasonable doubt verdict' . I note it has now changed to speculation about mistaken identity.
However, even having only read 1/3rd of the Appeal Judgement so far (and the general serious tone of that) I find it difficult that you do not understand the clear reasons why the conviction was Upheld.

It is clear to me you are a very capable legal professional with some strong affiliations with the case. I think your initial contributions were very interesting and enlightening to a broad BF audience, but STRANGE that you would get so worked up about defending your honour or opinion, on a forum like Big Footy!!! and then whining about insults and mobs?

Yes there has been somewhat of a gang up you. However, you are continuing to throw punches!? On a massively emotional subject that has effected every decent Australian, and is of a world wide concern.

I accept your "I hate mobs" comment. Good on you!

You are likely to perceive this as an "insult"? but I certainly hope you have relieved yourself of any and all association e Roman Catholic Church MOB! Forever!???
1600 years of ….. disgrace and abuse of manipulative power and hypocrisy!
An institution unfit, due to uncountable multiple criminal abuse of the worst kind, to participate in the affairs of 21st century Australia.

Boy didn't the Prosecution slam the defence in the cross examination of Monsignor Portelli. Made mince meat of his evidence!!!

"
If he needed to talk to somebody he would often tell him either before Mass, ‘look, I’m going to talk to so-and-so’, and so I would simply wait just outside the door."

 

[AM]

Bruce, you get your knickers in a knot when people go at you. Perhaps it's because you came onto this thread not putting the viewpoint that you believe Pell to be not guilty but claiming to know he's not guilty.

This despite not having been at the Cathedral at the time and not having been at the trial at all.

Also, despite 12 jury members who heard all the evidence, including that of the claimant, unanimously reaching the conclusion Pell was guilty. And despite the two most senior appellant court judges who examined all the evidence, including that of the claimant, also concluding Pell was guilty. Even Justice Weinberg wrestled with the matter before arriving at his dissenting judgement. But Bruce knows.

Then you make unsupported claims that you know someone who heard the claimants closed court evidence. Many of your assertions have been discredited - the impossibly due to the robes being but one. And you either avoid answering questions or parry them - the redacting of parts of the child abuse RC concerning Pell being but one.

Perhaps had you not pursued the I know pretence and been more I believe there'd have been more tolerance.

Anyway, an interesting piece that could well be about the 'Bruce's' of this world.

Australia’s conservative organs have almost all embraced a mythology, by turns unhinged and incoherent, that seeks to turn Pell from an offender into a martyr. Before the summary was even publicly available, columnists were filing stories that decried a miscarriage of justice.

The power and hypocrisy of George Pell’s supporters

As the Victorian Court of Appeal affirms the cardinal’s guilt, he retains dogged support from many in the conservative establishment.

www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au

 

[Happy Mastenator]

Ok then... defence team wasn’t scared at all....

 

[Frank Bunn]

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.

A number of witnesses stated that the robes worn by the Archbishop when he said Sunday solemn Mass were multi-layered, heavy, and cumbersome.

The complainant's statement to the police said that Pell had moved his robes to the side and exposed his penis. In court, when shown one of the Archbishop’s vestments, the alb, which went all the way down to the ground, and clearly could not be parted or moved to the side, the complainant suggested that perhaps you can pull the alb up first.

It seems that it was impossible for the robes to be moved to the side and Pell's penis to be exposed. But possible for them to be lifted and the assault took place - with the complainant's vagueness explained by the passage of time. The jury may have examined the robes and thought 'it's not impossible'.

It's not a reason to cast doubt on the defence witnesses.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

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.

How was he found guilty? Look at the unrelenting hate emanating from the mob in this thread. A hate that has as its foundation falsehood after falsehood.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Bruce, you get your knickers in a knot when people go at you. Perhaps it's because you came onto this thread not putting the viewpoint that you believe Pell to be not guilty but claiming to know he's not guilty.

This despite not having been at the Cathedral at the time and not having been at the trial at all.

Also, despite 12 jury members who heard all the evidence, including that of the claimant, unanimously reaching the conclusion Pell was guilty. And despite the two most senior appellant court judges who examined all the evidence, including that of the claimant, also concluding Pell was guilty. Even Justice Weinberg wrestled with the matter before arriving at his dissenting judgement. But Bruce knows.

Then you make unsupported claims that you know someone who heard the claimants closed court evidence. Many of your assertions have been discredited - the impossibly due to the robes being but one. And you either avoid answering questions or parry them - the redacting of parts of the child abuse RC concerning Pell being but one.

Perhaps had you not pursued the I know pretence and been more I believe there'd have been more tolerance.

Anyway, an interesting piece that could well be about the 'Bruce's' of this world.

The power and hypocrisy of George Pell’s supporters

As the Victorian Court of Appeal affirms the cardinal’s guilt, he retains dogged support from many in the conservative establishment.

www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au

I am not worked up by the abuse, as should be evidenced by my not returning fire in kind.

I am motivated by it though.

 

[Strange Cat]

How was he found guilty? Look at the unrelenting hate emanating from the mob in this thread. A hate that has as its foundation falsehood after falsehood.

So Pell is the victim?

And you wonder why you get the abuse

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Bruce

I can sympathise with your reasons to have personal doubts , about the 'beyond reasonable doubt verdict' . I note it has now changed to speculation about mistaken identity.
However, even having only read 1/3rd of the Appeal Judgement so far (and the general serious tone of that) I find it difficult that you do not understand the clear reasons why the conviction was Upheld.

It is clear to me you are a very capable legal professional with some strong affiliations with the case. I think your initial contributions were very interesting and enlightening to a broad BF audience, but STRANGE that you would get so worked up about defending your honour or opinion, on a forum like Big Footy!!! and then whining about insults and mobs?

Yes there has been somewhat of a gang up you. However, you are continuing to throw punches!? On a massively emotional subject that has effected every decent Australian, and is of a world wide concern.

I accept your "I hate mobs" comment. Good on you!

You are likely to perceive this as an "insult"? but I certainly hope you have relieved yourself of any and all association e Roman Catholic Church MOB! Forever!???
1600 years of ….. disgrace and abuse of manipulative power and hypocrisy!
An institution unfit, due to uncountable multiple criminal abuse of the worst kind, to participate in the affairs of 21st century Australia.

Boy didn't the Prosecution slam the defence in the cross examination of Monsignor Portelli. Made mince meat of his evidence!!!

"
If he needed to talk to somebody he would often tell him either before Mass, ‘look, I’m going to talk to so-and-so’, and so I would simply wait just outside the door."

There’s nothing in the Judgement that evidences Portelli being made mincemeat of. Just an absolute (and disgraceful) difference in how various uncertainties were treated by the majority judges as between the complainant and the defence witnesses.

My religion or lack of it (more relevantly) is nobody’s business and doesn’t inform in any way my motivation on this particular subject. Except my own personal recollection of how things went on Sundays at St Pats in the mid 90s.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

So Pell is the victim?

And you wonder why you get the abuse

In this situation Pell is most certainly a victim. Of a vengeful mob. Who want to shake off their own collective guilt by pointing the finger at the only bloke with the guts to actually confront the issue.

 

[Strange Cat]

In this situation Pell is most certainly a victim. Of a vengeful mob. Who want to shake off their own collective guilt by pointing the finger at the only bloke with the guts to actually confront the issue.

Collective guilt ...laughable


Pell is in charge of his own behaviour there’s no public guilt with how he chose to rape children.

Pell has never confronted his own actions or those in the church, he covered up the actions of his pedo priest mates and advocated for legal immunity and financial immunity for the church.

Your delusional is sad and I pity you

 

[Happy Mastenator]

In this situation Pell is most certainly a victim. Of a vengeful mob. Who want to shake off their own collective guilt by pointing the finger at the only bloke with the guts to actually confront the issue.

No pell is a criminal rock monster. As found by two courts.

I’m sure he’ll treasure your findings of innocence though and it will keep him warm in his cell

 

[Slartibartfast]

How was he found guilty? Look at the unrelenting hate emanating from the mob in this thread. A hate that has as its foundation falsehood after falsehood.

Why would anybody hate a man of power abusing kids , so surprising!!

 

[Number37]

How was he found guilty?

What a truly stupid question.

Unanimous jury verdict.

 

[Cooldude]

In this situation Pell is most certainly a victim. Of a vengeful mob. Who want to shake off their own collective guilt by pointing the finger at the only bloke with the guts to actually confront the issue.

You people made that "mob" by systematically abusing so many kids, boohoo, it's your doing

Yet again, get over yourself and your messiah complex, you actually get off on being seen as the lone hero defending a pedo on the interweb. What a sad life you must live

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

What a truly stupid question.

Unanimous jury verdict.

Look at the rest of the post.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Where did all those altar servers go?

Where did all those assistant priests go?

Where was The sacristan?

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

The complainant said he was offended against twice.

At Sunday am Mass.

Before Christmas.

A month apart.

In 1996.

It’s not in dispute that Pell said Mass only on the 15th and 22nd December in 1996.

Reasonable doubt. Right there.

That is the evidence.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Where did all those altar servers go?

Where did all those assistant priests go?

Where was The sacristan?

Having a party!

 

[western royboy]

The complainant said he was offended against twice.

At Sunday am Mass.

Before Christmas.

A month apart.

In 1996.

It’s not in dispute that Pell said Mass only on the 15th and 22nd December in 1996.

Reasonable doubt. Right there.

That is the evidence.

In my situation it was there was an altar boy pie night the night before it happened. I’ve no idea of the date - but I estimated it was most likely April and definitely 1982 - that was enough for the police to go with - I understand what you are suggesting but I think given the elapse in time some of the evidence you point to has been considered and set aside in favour of other suggestions

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Having a party!

Cute answer. And not dissimilar in seriousness to the various “theories” proffered by the prosecutor. But there was no evidence, except from them saying that like always they went straight to the sacristy.

Unrebutted.

Reasonable doubt.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Cute answer. And not dissimilar in seriousness to the various “theories” proffered by the prosecutor. But there was no evidence, except from them saying that like always they went straight to the sacristy.

Unrebutted.

Reasonable doubt.

Or viewed as “low value statements because they are just trying to protect Pell” ie not neutral witnesses.
(Supposition only)

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

In my situation it was there was an altar boy pie night the night before it happened. I’ve no idea of the date - but I estimated it was most likely April and definitely 1982 - that was enough for the police to go with - I understand what you are suggesting but I think given the elapse in time some of the evidence you point to has been considered and set aside in favour of other suggestions

But there was no evidence. Not even from the complainant. His evidence was as I said. For Pell to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt there must at the very least be evidence. There was none. Just a supposition from the prosecutor.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Or viewed as “low value statements because they are just trying to protect Pell” ie not neutral witnesses.
(Supposition only)

You can’t simply dismiss on that basis.