I’m not sure enough of anything in this case to call anyone a liar.
I don’t think Pell should have been convicted, but I don’t think saying so casts any aspersions on the victim. Beyond reasonable doubt is a very high threshold.
Protecting George Pell
- Thread starter pazza
- Start date
- Tagged users None
I don’t think Pell should have been convicted, but I don’t think saying so casts any aspersions on the victim. Beyond reasonable doubt is a very high threshold.
Demontim275
Club Legend
- Sep 13, 2019
- 2,839
- 2,421
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
I was using the Royal you
Sorry, I'm not familiar with that phrase...?
- Banned
- #1,379
I’ll summarise it for you.
If you think Pell is innocent you, by definition, think the complainant is lying.
If you think this complainant is lying, you think all complainants are lying.
That makes you a pedophile apologist.
Somehow.
Demontim275
Club Legend
- Sep 13, 2019
- 2,839
- 2,421
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
Tell us more about how you loiter around Moorabbin courts and can spot all the lying victims.
Last edited by a moderator:
Demontim275
Club Legend
- Sep 13, 2019
- 2,839
- 2,421
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
Asking in a general sense. Not if you’d call the victim a liar, but if by your above reasoning are you okay, with other people calling the victim a liar. Even after pell is convicted.
IMO it's an uncharitable characterisation. Whilst believing Pell's account necessarily involves disbelieving the victim's (and vice-versa), it is not necessary to assume that the victim is being deliberately malicious. I feel like the word 'liar' definitely carries connotations of the latter.
The jury found the complainant to be highly credible, the defence witnesses less so. They (and the officers of the court) are the only ones to be privy to all the evidence. The defence legal team have switched their strategy from attacking the integrity of the ’victim’, to legal technicalities.
If it wasn’t for the huge financial resources of the Church (and friends) the case would be over.
Clearly "all the evidence" was the complainant's somewhat vague memory of events, which were not deliberately embellished, and in the context of current affairs seemed reliable and credible.
You and many others have read the Appeal Judgments, with extensive detail provided (particularly if the cited caselaw is and the reference texts quoted are read also). There are cases that have been overturned.
Now you are most likely a very fine upstanding law abiding citizen (despite the AFL club you support
) does it not concern you that you could be found guilty of 'a crime' because the accuser sounded really believable and stuck to their guns under cross examination as vague as the answers might be? What piece of evidence cited in the judgements clinched it for you?
PS translate Caesars Latin signature !
I don't necessarily think that is so. The article by Russell Marks I posted earlier shows that cases of this nature often go to the High Court. The fact that the appellate court was a split decision means that the law is unclear, and in those circumstances all parties are generally keen for an appeal to the highest level so that the issue can be comprehensively resolved.
Were Pell an indigent appellant, it is possible he would have received financial assistance to allow this.
Last edited:
- Banned
- #1,387
It was accepted at the appeal by all that a key question was opportunity.
If that opportunity, as presented by the prosecution, and relied upon by the majority, disappears ON THEIR OWN ANALYSIS does this not make the offence as described impossible?
With due respect, I think you have admirably missed the point.
I bolded the part of your comment which was “In general I would encourage people to make up their own minds about Pell” Which was the bit to which I was responding.
What I have merely put is that that is what most people here have done ie take a broader (general) view which includes matters not open to a jury to consider. So we, the great unwashed, can take account of Pell’s known behaviour outside the bounds of these court proceedings and the fact that it has been more than the courts in this legal process who have considered there has been quite some force to the complainants case.
Of course the trial process requires the application of the law and it’s the role of the judge to direct in that regard. Just as it’s the juries role to consider the arguments within those parameters and give them such weight as they think appropriate. Which is what has occurred. And, may I say, Judge Kidd was widely praised for his conduct of the trial.
So far as the trial is concerned, none of us were there during the events, nor did any of us sit through the trial or know what Witness J said during his exhaustive in-camera cross-examination covering several days. What we can deduce is that it impressed the jury – all 12 of them.
- Banned
- #1,389
Sorry I missed this one.
At no stage did I tell anyone how they should behave. I made one single post (to my recollection) in which I suggested there were potential benefits beyond a victim’s immediate case in reporting the offence committed against them.
- Oct 20, 2014
- 18,405
- 19,537
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Liverpool
You’ve nailed this case in a nutshell.
It doesn’t matter which way the High Court goes on this. I will not be celebrating because if Pell is acquitted, none of us know if he is innocent or guilty. Then there is his record as someone responsible for overseeing compensation to survivors of Catholic Church pedophilia. There will be no winners out of this.
- Oct 20, 2014
- 18,405
- 19,537
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Liverpool
The Church itself refused to fund his case. Catholics and supporters did this with the backing of rich benefactors. Everyone deserves the best legal representation possible. Just a little disclaimer that I didn’t give a cent.
considering that the c#%^ should be in jail for the term of his natural as an enabling accessory before during and after the fact he deserved the public defender.
- Banned
- #1,393
Why do you say he was an enabling accessory?
The hearings are examining child sexual abuse by the Catholic clergy within Ballarat institutions. In the first round of hearings, in May, the commission heard allegations that Pell tried to bribe child sex abuse victim David Ridsdale, who is the nephew and victim of Gerald Francis Ridsdale.
George Pell to be called to second royal commission hearings in Ballarat
Read more
Before the Ballarat town hall, the commission also heard evidence which suggested Pell was involved in the decision to move Ridsdale between parishes once the abuse came to light, including parishes in Mildura, Swan Hill, Warrnambool, Apollo Bay, Ballarat and Mortlake.
Abuse victims angry as site of George Pell royal commission hearing is moved
Royal commission’s explanation that logistical issues reason hearing in Melbourne not Ballarat dismissed by victims who say Pell ‘clearly fears coming to Ballarat’
- Banned
- #1,395
The David Ridsdale allegation was dismissed by the RC . The basis being the news the subject of the alleged bribe was already well public.
Pell has been placed at one meeting only where a decision was made to shift a priest because of abuse. Pell says he understood it was to do with homosexuality. Regardless, Ridsdale at that particular meeting was shifted to a desk job.
What specific basis do you have that Pell should rot in a cell (over and above dozens of others).
Pell has been placed at one meeting only where a decision was made to shift a priest because of abuse. Pell says he understood it was to do with homosexuality. Regardless, Ridsdale at that particular meeting was shifted to a desk job.
What specific basis do you have that Pell should rot in a cell (over and above dozens of others).
He lived with the prick - that whole rotten mob know exactly what was going on - they are the worlds largest paedophile organisation. Tens of thousands of kids lives ruined.
if you think he knew nothing
- ive got a bridge for sale
- Banned
- #1,397
Standard.
No its the harbour bridge - defo non standard and worth shitloads - but for you brucey - cheap as mate
In February 2017 the Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse released a report revealing 7% of Australian priests between 1950 and 2009 were accused of abusing children, with 4,444 sex abuse incidents recorded, and with some Catholic orders having up to 40.4% of their priests with allegations against them.
Like i said - a mob of paedophiles.
Like i said - a mob of paedophiles.
Last edited:
- Banned
- #1,400
Right. So where we’ve got to is that Pell should be locked up for life for being a Catholic.
