Protecting George Pell

[BruceFromBalnarring]

I understand precisely what it means and the context in which it was put. Just as I understand your arrogance and how you resort to abuse and selectivity when responding.

In many respects you are a good example of what's wrong with the Catholic religion today.

Just one example of abuse please?

I didn’t conflate sexual abuse with handing out IVOs.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Which part of I already did, do you not understand?

The part where you didn't.

You've been avoiding this one for a long time now. It's a problem when you write with this air of authority and someone calls bullshit.

Well I'm calling bullshit.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Which part of I already did, do you not understand?

Perhaps you could quickly scroll through your posting history and point us all to the relevant one?

 

[Number37]

The part where you didn't.

You've been avoiding this one for a long time now. It's a problem when you write with this air of authority and someone calls bulls**t.

Well I'm calling bulls**t.

You've attempted this goading me with insults for a while now.
Perhaps in primary school that kind of thing worked for you?
Sure, Bigfooty is a lot like primary school.

For someone who claims they have actual knowledge that Pell isn't a child rapist your delusion in claiming someone else is claiming an 'air of authority' says you're not very bright.
You're not very bright because you've not only created that strawman but it seems to be upsetting you AND it also makes you a hypocrite.
Your insults are nothing more than projection.
You can keep the ad-homs coming, do your best. You could at least try to make them interesting or funny...the same old gets a bit stale.
To be clear, you can label my opinions anything you want. Delusion, unsubstantiated, 'air of authority'...anything you want.
Call BS all you want. I don't give a rats.

At the core of it you're only upset because my opinion isn't the same as yours.
Find a way to cope with people having a different opinion to yours.

 

[Number37]

Perhaps you could quickly scroll through your posting history and point us all to the relevant one?

One of the very first things they teach law students is that in law the conclusion is not important at all. The only thing that matters is the reasoning.
It has a latin name, Ratio Decidendi or ratio for short. Translated roughly to reason for the decision.
The ratio (rationes) is the relevant legal principle (principles) applied to the facts of the case.

The ratio is what gets scrutinized in appellate courts.

Lots of focus on Weinberg's conclusion.
What matters is his reasoning.
His reasoning is identical to the reasoning applied in the majority judgment.

 

[Number37]

Perhaps you could quickly scroll through your posting history and point us all to the relevant one?

It's not that far back.


For a HC appeal to work;
The majority must have got the reasoning wrong. Widely accepted that this is not the case. Also reflected in the specifics of the appeal, they aren't really arguing specifically how they got it wrong, they're just arguing broadly they got it wrong.

Or

Weinberg offered 10% alternate reasoning that would give the HC a reason to uphold an appeal by endorsing that alternate reasoning.
Usually dissenting judgments whilst offering the 90% the same reasoning, offer 10% alternate reasoning.

Weinberg wasn't brave, or clever, enough to open that door.

i.e. His judgment is weak.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

It's not that far back.


For a HC appeal to work;
The majority must have got the reasoning wrong. Widely accepted that this is not the case. Also reflected in the specifics of the appeal, they aren't really arguing specifically how they got it wrong, they're just arguing broadly they got it wrong.

Or

Weinberg offered 10% alternate reasoning that would give the HC a reason to uphold an appeal by endorsing that alternate reasoning.
Usually dissenting judgments whilst offering the 90% the same reasoning, offer 10% alternate reasoning.

Weinberg wasn't brave, or clever, enough to open that door.

i.e. His judgment is weak.

Your rationale makes no sense.

Have you even read Weinberg's judgement? How can you possibly say his reasoning is identical to the majority?

 

[Number37]

Your rationale makes no sense.

Have you even read Weinberg's judgement? How can you possibly say his reasoning is identical to the majority?

Like I have repeatedly said.
You wouldn't understand.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Like I have repeatedly said.
You wouldn't understand.

Well you're right about me not understanding. Because it's simply nonsense.

I've worked it out I think. You're not a first year. You're worse. You're an academic.

All theory and big words and no practice.

For those watching at home.

Weinberg said (in summary) if you accept any of the defence evidence as being reasonably possible you must acquit. IE Was it possible that Pell was accompanied by Portelli at all times (Portelli's evidence)? If so. Must acquit. That's reasonable doubt. Was it possible that like every other week the altar server returned straight to the sacristy (the scene of the crime) at the end of Mass to commence cleaning up and getting out of his uniform? If so. Must acquit. Reasonable doubt.

The majority said it is enough if you find the complainant a witness of truth to reject the contrary evidence. IE I believe the complainant. Therefore I don't believe Portelli. Therefore guilty.

Now that MIGHT be fine in a case of "he said/he said". I don't think it is fine but I understand in matters of sexual abuse that others hold a different view.

But this wasn't such a case. Portelli, amongst many others gave direct evidence of being with Pell at all relevant times (Pell's first 2 Masses, in Advent, in 1996). Other than the Prosecution contending that it was possible he wasn't, that evidence went unrebutted. As did the evidence of the altar server, the sacristant etc etc.

The minority judgements in the High Court in Chamberlain are good on this. "Is it possible the witnesses heard a baby cry? If it is, you must acquit".

It's the difference between rejecting evidence and ignoring evidence.

Now the majority say they rejected evidence. They gave vague excuses of uncertainty about peripheral matters. Was Portelli off having a dart? Yeah possible. Highly unlikely. His evidence was that he wasn't. Their excuses for rejecting evidence were flimsy. Weinberg exposed that. Hopefully the High Court doesn't make the same mistake it made in Chamberlain.

 

[Kwality]

I already did, that's how I know that you wouldn't understand.

We'll all be wiser after the Appeal, unless you already have made up your mind.

 

[Craven Morehead]

The minority judgements in the High Court in Chamberlain are good on this. "Is it possible the witnesses heard a baby cry? If it is, you must acquit".

Correct me if I'm wrong as it was many years ago..

The HC reversal of Chamberlains conviction came after significant NEW forensic evidence came to light, via new technology, and the revelation that the NT coppers were less than professional.

Are you really trying to equate both cases?

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Correct me if I'm wrong as it was many years ago..

The HC reversal of Chamberlains conviction came after significant NEW forensic evidence came to light, via new technology, and the revelation that the NT coppers were less than professional.

Are you really trying to equate both cases?

I said the minority judgements. Which were the correct ones.

I wouldn’t equate the cases. This latest judgement is far far more egregious than Chamberlain.

 

[Craven Morehead]

I said the minority judgements. Which were the correct ones.

I wouldn’t equate the cases. This latest judgement is far far more egregious than Chamberlain.

So, basically, you have no case.

You're just outraged.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

I summarised the case above.

And yes, I’m outraged. As should anyone with an interest in criminal justice be. Rather than a malevolent hatred for a person and the church he represents, mostly for political reasons.

 

[Craven Morehead]

I summarised the case above.

And yes, I’m outraged. As should anyone with an interest in criminal justice be. Rather than a malevolent hatred for a person and the church he represents, mostly for political reasons.

Yes you did and in a manner which suited your ongoing narrative.

However, you conveniently neglected to acknowledge the genuine reasons why Lindy got off.

George has no new conclusive forensic evidence, despite your screaming. None.

Your attempt in drawing a conclusion that the HC will side with your 'man' let alone hear it...well Bruce... again...it's laughable.

 

[AM]

Just one example of abuse please?

I didn’t conflate sexual abuse with handing out IVOs.

You only need to refresh your memory by looking at the two censored threads, Bruce. It is, however, pleasing that you haven't baulked at the arrogance. Some progress there at least.

You're also very adept at moving the conversation around by cherry picking and shifting your ground. Nice bit of misdirection by choosing to focus on a word while avoiding the main matters raised in my post.

There is no question you attempted to equate the treatment the convicted pedophile received at the hands of the legal system with that of that systems use of IVO's. Pell's offences were at the most serious end of the scale. He had/has the best legal minds on his side and what seems an unlimited amount of money - estimates of $10m before the appellate court hearing. In addition to the Dirty Diggers dirt brigade working in his interests.

As I mentioned in the post you largely avoided, that is in contrast Witness' J' who could not afford legal representation, having to rely on the generosity of people of good will like Viv Waller. He was put through the ringer by the Police before the referral to the DPP who rigorously test their witnesses before they take a case to trial. Then he had to endure days of questioning by top silks after which a jury of 12 unanimously convicted Pell. Subsequent to which the two most senior appellate court judges found Witness' J' "was a very compelling witness, was clearly not a liar, was not a fantasist and as a witness of truth." At great personal cost to him I might add.

It's understandable that Pell's testimony and the views of the RC regarding them were redacted in the final report due to the timing. However there is no substantive reason for those details not be released now. Would make for interesting reading.

To be candid, Bruce, it isn't your blinkered opinions that got me going. It was your arrogant - and continued - assertions that despite not being there on the days of the events in question or being present at any of the trial you know the convicted pedofile to be innocent. Nothing material to support that opinion. Very Bolt-like approach that.

Viv Waller's practice alone has 6 lawyers working on civil action against kiddy fiddlers, about 65% of whom are victims of your church. A church whose Cardinal, and arguably it's most powerful figure, you defend.

 

[Number37]

Well you're right about me not understanding. Because it's simply nonsense.

I've worked it out I think. You're not a first year. You're worse. You're an academic.

All theory and big words and no practice.

Another ad-hom.
Not interesting, not funny. Same old same old.

I've worked it out.
You've got cooties.

For those watching at home.

Weinberg said (in summary) if you accept any of the defence evidence as being reasonably possible you must acquit. IE Was it possible that Pell was accompanied by Portelli at all times (Portelli's evidence)? If so. Must acquit. That's reasonable doubt. Was it possible that like every other week the altar server returned straight to the sacristy (the scene of the crime) at the end of Mass to commence cleaning up and getting out of his uniform? If so. Must acquit. Reasonable doubt.

The majority said it is enough if you find the complainant a witness of truth to reject the contrary evidence. IE I believe the complainant. Therefore I don't believe Portelli. Therefore guilty.

Now that MIGHT be fine in a case of "he said/he said". I don't think it is fine but I understand in matters of sexual abuse that others hold a different view.

But this wasn't such a case. Portelli, amongst many others gave direct evidence of being with Pell at all relevant times (Pell's first 2 Masses, in Advent, in 1996). Other than the Prosecution contending that it was possible he wasn't, that evidence went unrebutted. As did the evidence of the altar server, the sacristant etc etc.

The minority judgements in the High Court in Chamberlain are good on this. "Is it possible the witnesses heard a baby cry? If it is, you must acquit".

It's the difference between rejecting evidence and ignoring evidence.

Now the majority say they rejected evidence. They gave vague excuses of uncertainty about peripheral matters. Was Portelli off having a dart? Yeah possible. Highly unlikely. His evidence was that he wasn't. Their excuses for rejecting evidence were flimsy. Weinberg exposed that. Hopefully the High Court doesn't make the same mistake it made in Chamberlain.

It's a reasonable attempt but you get marks for your analysis not your conclusion.
It's quite obvious that you started with a conclusion and worked backwards.
Proper legal reasoning is a deductive process.
5.5/10.

 

[Number37]

We'll all be wiser after the Appeal, unless you already have made up your mind.

It is no more than an attempt to run another trial.
The HC shouldn't even hear the appeal.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

You only need to refresh your memory by looking at the two censored threads, Bruce. It is, however, pleasing that you haven't baulked at the arrogance. Some progress there at least.

You're also very adept at moving the conversation around by cherry picking and shifting your ground. Nice bit of misdirection by choosing to focus on a word while avoiding the main matters raised in my post.

There is no question you attempted to equate the treatment the convicted pedophile received at the hands of the legal system with that of that systems use of IVO's. Pell's offences were at the most serious end of the scale. He had/has the best legal minds on his side and what seems an unlimited amount of money - estimates of $10m before the appellate court hearing. In addition to the Dirty Diggers dirt brigade working in his interests.

As I mentioned in the post you largely avoided, that is in contrast Witness' J' who could not afford legal representation, having to rely on the generosity of people of good will like Viv Waller. He was put through the ringer by the Police before the referral to the DPP who rigorously test their witnesses before they take a case to trial. Then he had to endure days of questioning by top silks after which a jury of 12 unanimously convicted Pell. Subsequent to which the two most senior appellate court judges found Witness' J' "was a very compelling witness, was clearly not a liar, was not a fantasist and as a witness of truth." At great personal cost to him I might add.

It's understandable that Pell's testimony and the views of the RC regarding them were redacted in the final report due to the timing. However there is no substantive reason for those details not be released now. Would make for interesting reading.

To be candid, Bruce, it isn't your blinkered opinions that got me going. It was your arrogant - and continued - assertions that despite not being there on the days of the events in question or being present at any of the trial you know the convicted pedofile to be innocent. Nothing material to support that opinion. Very Bolt-like approach that.

Viv Waller's practice alone has 6 lawyers working on civil action against kiddy fiddlers, about 65% of whom are victims of your church. A church whose Cardinal, and arguably it's most powerful figure, you defend.

You can quote from censored threads. One example of abuse. Just one.

Now as to the IVOs dished out at Moorabbin.

There is no equivalence between IVOs and sexual abuse against children. I didn't say there was and I don't think there is. The point I was making was about shifting the standard of proof. Moorabbin Magistrates Court is an example of a magistrate only too willing to use her power for her own ideological purposes. The standard of proof (beyond reasonable doubt as we have always known it) is a safeguard against people like her putting away people she doesn't like. If you drop the standard of proof down to mere "believability", you open the door to people like her wielding their power in the worst way.

$10 million is bullshit. Any calculation of legal fees doesn't come near that. And I'm very aware of a number of QCs who have stepped forward offering to do the High Court challenge pro bono, such is their distress at the consequence of the Supreme Court ruling.

Witness "J" was not put through the ringer by the police. I've given you enough already to research the form of the investigating officer. Let's call him Dougal Smithton. Look up the Theophanous case.

Viv Waller is not a good person. She's aboard a gravy train that's attracted many hard core socialists. She doesn't give a s**t about the victims. She gives a s**t about political outcomes and getting her head on TV. Oh and leaking under pseudonyms on Twitter. Oh, and her website shows 3 solicitors including her. Maybe the publicity has caused her to double her staff.

And don't "2 most senior" me regarding the Court of Appeal. FFS Ferguson was a commercial lawyer and and Maxwell former head of the ironically named Liberty Victoria. Weinberg was the only one with any serious criminal cred. Funny that Ferguson was appointed Chief Justice a month or so after Pell was charged. Almost as if the President of the Socialist Republic of Victoria was putting his ducks in a row. There really are an awful lot of coincidences in this matter.

I mean, think about it. 2 weeks into his gig as Archbishop Pell decides he won't meet the parishioners after Mass. And on the same day, by pure coincidence, Portelli decdes he's busting for a dart so breaks off around the corner for a quickie before coming back into the sacristy. And by pure coincidence, all of the altar boys are distracted and instead of going back to the sacristy they all get waylaid doing something that delays their return. And by pure coincidence, the sacristant gets caught in conversation over the other side of the church. And by pure coincidence, on the very same day, two cheeky young kids decide to sneak in and knock of some wine. And by pure coincidence, Pell arrives and for some reason has the horn. And of course, coincidentally, the money collectors, assistant priests, and all of the other comers and goers just happen to not come and go in that 5-10 minute period. And in the most incredible coincidence of them all, Pell KNOWS all of this is going on because he feels confident enough to sexually abuse the two young boys without getting caught!!

I mean it's just amazing the coincidences. But I'm the delusional one.

Good grief!

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

It is no more than an attempt to run another trial.
The HC shouldn't even hear the appeal.

You have said yourself that the law has changed on standard of proof and you don't think that should be tested in the High Court?

Right.

 

[Number37]

You have said yourself that the law has changed on standard of proof and you don't think that should be tested in the High Court?

Right.

I thought you were arguing that DV victims are lying in court which has lead to a police/court/DPP/Justice Kidd & 2 Appeal Court judges stitching up a filthy child rapist.
Everyone in the Catholic Church knows the filthy child rapist rapes children because the Catholic Church has an exemplary record of covering up for child rapists, because...

"Abortion is a worse moral scandal than priests sexually abusing children."
When asked why, he responded with...
"I don't back off my statements".

As it turns out, he doesn't back off his statements because he is a filthy child rapist himself.

 

[Kwality]

It is no more than an attempt to run another trial.
The HC shouldn't even hear the appeal.

Not my understanding of a High Court Appeal, but you've clearly got a view so go for it.

 

[Number37]

Not my understanding of a High Court Appeal, but you've clearly got a view so go for it.

You can continue to believe the misinformation that spews from people like Bolt, Devine & Bruce. That's up to you.
What they really want to do is undermine the credibility of Witness J.
They'd love nothing more than to character assassinate him.

Fr child rapist A, it is claimed, testified that Cardinal child rapist couldn't have done it because he was with him at all times.
Fr child rapist A didn't testify that he was actually with Cardinal child rapist, he only testified that ordinarily he would have been with Cardinal child rapist.
Big difference. Important difference.
In the absence of other exculpatory evidence (in relation to that particular question of fact) do you take the word of a witness who says he was there (specific) or the word of Fr child rapist A who says he woulda/coulda/shoulda been there (general)?

 

[Number37]

It is also claimed that it would be impossible to engage in the depravity that is child rape at church because somebody would have seen or said something.
~10,000 priests have been accused of the historic sexual assault of ~1 million children worldwide.
But nobody saw or did anything at the time, hence they are classified as historic.

The idea that it would be impossible is laughable for 2 reasons, (1) it has actually happened (2) there is a hell of a lot of evidence that it has been covered up for decades (if not longer).

 

[Kwality]

You can continue to believe the misinformation that spews from people like Bolt, Devine & Bruce. That's up to you.
What they really want to do is undermine the credibility of Witness J.
They'd love nothing more than to character assassinate him.

Fr child rapist A, it is claimed, testified that Cardinal child rapist couldn't have done it because he was with him at all times.
Fr child rapist A didn't testify that he was actually with Cardinal child rapist, he only testified that ordinarily he would have been with Cardinal child rapist.
Big difference. Important difference.
In the absence of other exculpatory evidence (in relation to that particular question of fact) do you take the word of a witness who says he was there (specific) or the word of Fr child rapist A who says he woulda/coulda/shoulda been there (general)?

Not interested in media on the subject, its the Appeal to the High Court that interests me - you've made up ypur mind & thats your right, dont think you are across the appeal process though.