Protecting George Pell

schneebly1

Cancelled
Jan 18, 2020
84
162
AFL Club
Richmond
Where were the altar servers?

Not in the sacristy. As the appeals court majority found was open to the jury to decide after the testimony from Potter and Portelli et al that supposedly denied this was exposed as false upon cross examination.

It seems the Pell defenders just read the arguments of the defence and stopped there rather than read how the prosecution tore that testimony (along with the other 12 points the defence tried to make to prove impossibility) to pieces upon cross examination.

You still haven’t said why the defence lied in Court about Pell’s robes? Or do you believe $20,000 a day lawyers are so incompetent they didn’t bother spending 5 minutes to check that the robes actually did prevent the molesting in the manner described before presenting this as evidence under oath in one of the highest profile trials ever held in this country?
 
Jan 13, 2007
14,553
17,676
Melbourne
AFL Club
Sydney
Not in the sacristy. As the appeals court majority found was open to the jury to decide after the testimony from Potter and Portelli et al that supposedly denied this was exposed as false upon cross examination.

It seems the Pell defenders just read the arguments of the defence and stopped there rather than read how the prosecution tore that testimony (along with the other 12 points the defence tried to make to prove impossibility) to pieces upon cross examination.

You still haven’t said why the defence lied in Court about Pell’s robes? Or do you believe $20,000 a day lawyers are so incompetent they didn’t bother spending 5 minutes to check that the robes actually did prevent the molesting in the manner described before presenting this as evidence under oath in one of the highest profile trials ever held in this country?
On the majority’s own timeline, the offending couldn’t have happened.

Where were the altar servers.

Why are you sock puppeting?
 

Corpuscles

Norm Smith Medallist
Jul 3, 2006
8,843
1,827
Lunatic Park
AFL Club
Sydney
Well the prosecution did exactly what you said.

I think there’s a bit of a myth about how the standard of guilt is established in a trial. In an age of DNA testing and all these TV shows where suddenly a critical piece of evidence shows up at the last minute we all think that every guilty verdict is made and upheld with solid corroborative evidence. Even the Appeals court stated this is a furphy. Lots of criminal trials come down to witness statements and witness credibility. I remember a murder case in Sydney a few years back where the judgement stated the trial basically rested on the credibility of a single witness. But after going through the exhaustive legal standards and procedures that witness was accepted as credible, as was the witness in the Pell case (and yes, witness testimony is evidence).

But even though you dismiss “Australia’s best criminal defence lawyers” blatant incompetence when it came to not checking whether or not a key defence in their trial (offending could not have taken place whilst wearing those robes) as irrelevant it actually does point to the credibility of the evidence they present in front of the jury.

Even Pell’s appeal to the High court now accepts the witness is telling the truth. Their appeal is based around their claim that the Appeals majority and jury didn’t accept their witnesses statements that supposedly exonerated Pell were not taken as credible.

As the appeals court majority pointed out, it was exactly things like the apparent lie on the stand by Potter and Portelli about the robes. Which instantly in the minds of the jury puts all their other apparent exculpatory evidence into doubt. Portelli reckons he was with Pell all the time after the mass? He was a heavy smoker, and loved to go outside for a ciggie ASAP after mass, another lie. Can’t you see it’s actually the defence who were exposed as liars? The prosecution proved their case beyond reasonable doubt to the jury using a very credible witness. And despite all your protests that’s enough to convict. That’s why the Appeals majority agreed with the prosecution. The defence now has to prove their witnesses should be seen as credible, which will in my opinion be hard with their robes defence, but who knows what black magic they can work.

The High Court isn’t going to review the case a third time. Unlike the jury and Appeals judges they aren’t going to walk through the crime scene, they aren’t going to examine the robes, they aren’t going to view the victim’s testimony. This appeal will solely be on the underlying law used in the case and the defence’s attempt to make it invalid. Legal loopholism at it’s finest. Who knows with $20-30,000 a day lawyers they may trick them to see it their way.


Well. I am glad you quickly had an opportunity to vent your speen and pretend to be a Perry Mason for a while.
Did that make it all feel better? Let's hope so.

"Well the prosecution did exactly what you said."

Actually, that was decided in a 2:1 ratio by the Court of Appeal. A majority of just one, that ONE matters because is either Ferguson or Maxwell was on the fence and went the other way it would be acquittal. One Judge Weinberg considered the jury ought to have had reasonable doubt. The High Court has agreed to listen to reasons why they ought assess both the majority and minority judgements.

We can read that Portelli admitted to being a smoker. However your claim that he did so immediately after mass ended is mere unsupported conjure and fabrication . When exactly, in your imagination, at what point is the mass ended and did he disappear in formal attire to have a f**?

If one excludes the venom and bias caused by the genuinely felt disgust and public outcry and reaction to the rampant sexual abuse and paedophilia in the Catholic church ( I have and still hold similar disgust) and just consider the facts then , I believe there is room for reasonable doubt.

There appears only to be a limited number of options for Pell's movements.
Pell processed led by alter servers and choir and others to at least the western steps
a. Pell remained at Western steps to meet and greet
b. Pell continued with procession externally (internal procession was not an option on those particular days)
c. Pell almost immediately having reached Western steps went directly to the Sacristy

You have to claim c. How did he get there? Surely , if it happened, only externally.

Then the doors of the Sacristy had to be coincidentally already unlocked by Potter. Why was not Potter also at the Sacristy as many considered usual practice.

Where was Portelli you guess having a f** , but that is unsubstantiated.

Why did not the alter servers proceed directly to the Sacristy? What possible reason for delay in such?

How was did not any of the other choir notice the complainant leave the procession or absent from choir practice? Nor declare such an unusual disciplinary event?

Many Catholic priests and perhaps Archbishops are a weird mob, brazen in such criminal activity, but it is completely insane that Pell would take advantage of a set of compounding coincidences and chose on his first or second Cathedral attendance (post promotion) to chose to victims completely unknown to him, in unfamiliar surrounds and established procedures likely to have alter servers arrive almost immediately .

I guess you think it was all a big conspiracy and all the witnesses were fabricating lies under oath?

Got any answers to the above Perry????? I know you don't!

If it was not church or catholic or religious, but rather at the theatre play rehearsal where you were playing in pretence to be the part of the lawyer, and you were accused of sexual assault of a minor. There being no corroborative evidence and you denied the claim and similar unexplained coincidental circumstances. Would you not feel you would be entitled to feel there was some grounds for similar types of reasonable doubt about your guilt?

You are entitled to feel disgust and outrage. Just address the judgements not your suspicions or "feelings".
 

schneebly1

Cancelled
Jan 18, 2020
84
162
AFL Club
Richmond
Got any answers to the above Perry????? I know you don't!

I’ll link this again:
Pell vs Queen
All your answers there in pages 1-120.

I’m Perry Mason? No that’s ones like you and Bolt who have cracked this apparent miscarriage of justice with your 5 minute detective work stroll of the cathedral.

But I will address this point:

Many Catholic priests and perhaps Archbishops are a weird mob, brazen in such criminal activity, but it is completely insane that Pell would take advantage of a set of compounding coincidences and chose on his first or second Cathedral attendance (post promotion) to chose to victims completely unknown to him, in unfamiliar surrounds and established procedures likely to have alter servers arrive almost immediately

Why would Pell be afraid of getting caught? From attending Corpus Christi Seminary in the 60’s full of paedophiles, from molesting kids at church camps in the early 60’s, to feeling up kids in swimming pools in the 70’s, to being a part of a paedo ring in Ballarat 70’s and 80’s, to living with Australia’s most notorious paedophile, to exposing himself to kids in surf clubs changerooms in the 80’s, to covering up molesters, moving them around and bribing victims to remain quiet in the 80’s and 90’s, to orally raping boys at cathedrals in the 90’s. For the entirety of this guy’s career he was surrounded by paedophiles and his own paedophile actions and at no stage did his career suffer for it. He was continually promoted to higher and higher positions. He knew victims were easily shamed into having their silence bought. He knew his fellow molesters suffered no consequences for their actions. He was convinced his actions would suffer no consequences. Why would anyone believe a poor kid from a poor suburb over an Archbishop who was becoming friendly with Prime Ministers?
 

Corpuscles

Norm Smith Medallist
Jul 3, 2006
8,843
1,827
Lunatic Park
AFL Club
Sydney
I’ll link this again:
Pell vs Queen
All your answers there in pages 1-120.

I’m Perry Mason? No that’s ones like you and Bolt who have cracked this apparent miscarriage of justice with your 5 minute detective work stroll of the cathedral.

But I will address this point:



Why would Pell be afraid of getting caught? From attending Corpus Christi Seminary in the 60’s full of paedophiles, from molesting kids at church camps in the early 60’s, to feeling up kids in swimming pools in the 70’s, to being a part of a paedo ring in Ballarat 70’s and 80’s, to living with Australia’s most notorious paedophile, to exposing himself to kids in surf clubs changerooms in the 80’s, to covering up molesters, moving them around and bribing victims to remain quiet in the 80’s and 90’s, to orally raping boys at cathedrals in the 90’s. For the entirety of this guy’s career he was surrounded by paedophiles and his own paedophile actions and at no stage did his career suffer for it. He was continually promoted to higher and higher positions. He knew victims were easily shamed into having their silence bought. He knew his fellow molesters suffered no consequences for their actions. He was convinced his actions would suffer no consequences. Why would anyone believe a poor kid from a poor suburb over an Archbishop who was becoming friendly with Prime Ministers?

If you have any direct evidence (offences bolded) of such then I urge you to contact the police.

According to you, Pell had to be confident that in a very new environment, working with unfamiliar persons, some only lay persons and choirboy parents, you are suggesting he could be confident that no 'whistle would be blown' (other than his own d!ck) by anyone likely and totally expected to enter the Sacristy almost exactly at that exact time (majority "hiatus") and witness the offence . I do not think that is credible.

I agree he must have been aware and part of previous cover ups.

I do not claim it could not possibly happen, to an insane out of control madman! I am suggesting there ought be grounds for reasonable doubt given matters you , nor the majority, adequately explained other than via vague speculation, and insistence of the Complainant sounded believable in his vague account. Something likely did happen to the poor lad but by whom and when exactly?

Not claim to have cracked anything!

Anyway, I guess if you can manage to blast off a bit more anger with speculation you'll eventually feel better?

Pity you weren't here when you would have had more support, or were you?
 
Jan 13, 2007
14,553
17,676
Melbourne
AFL Club
Sydney
Because you know more about the prosecution case than the prosecution.....

It blows away Pell’s impossibility argument.

No. It doesn’t. It merely shifts it. They shift the time, it’s still impossible. There are assistant priests, attendants, florists and all sorts following the altar servers in.

It’s even more impossible.

But what’s with this constant shifting of dates and times? Even between appeals FFS! At the trial, the Crown was clearly talking about the procession as the hiatus. The opportunity ended when the altar servers returned from the procession. Now suddenly it’s “Oh did you think we meant that? Oh no, we meant after they returned then left again!” Having led absolutely no evidence of that and having not canvassed it with a single witness.
 

schneebly1

Cancelled
Jan 18, 2020
84
162
AFL Club
Richmond
No. It doesn’t. It merely shifts it. They shift the time, it’s still impossible. There are assistant priests, attendants, florists and all sorts following the altar servers in.

It’s even more impossible.

But what’s with this constant shifting of dates and times? Even between appeals FFS! At the trial, the Crown was clearly talking about the procession as the hiatus. The opportunity ended when the altar servers returned from the procession. Now suddenly it’s “Oh did you think we meant that? Oh no, we meant after they returned then left again!” Having led absolutely no evidence of that and having not canvassed it with a single witness.

Can you point to where that’s specifically written in the judgement or the crown case or did you just make it up?

And

At the trial, the Crown was clearly talking about the procession as the hiatus

Did you attend every day of the trial? Have you read a full transcript of the trial?
 
Last edited:

schneebly1

Cancelled
Jan 18, 2020
84
162
AFL Club
Richmond
And this:

Pell vs Queen Respondent Submission

I’ll direct you to paragraph 7, where the prosecution correctly reminds the High Court their job isn’t to judge the case themselves, or pretend they are the jury (like Weinberg did) that their job is to ensure that the Appeals Court didn’t make mistakes (like how Maxwell and Ferguson made sure the trial judges didn’t make any mistakes not play jury themselves):

Paragraph 6 suggests that the High Court should determine for itself whether it was open to the jury to find the offending proven beyond reasonable doubt. In the absence of identified error in the approach of the majority of the Court of Appeal, this is not the role of the High Court. Further, it is not a task that can be properly undertaken by the High Court when it has not been apprised ofthe whole of the evidence at trial

What the defence is arguing is for the High Court to find a legal loophole to get their client off without examining the evidence of the case like the full witness testimony, the testimony of the witnesses who backed up the prosecution case and to ignore the obvious lies of the defence like the “Pell couldn’t have abused them wearing those robes” lie (still waiting on your explanation of why the defence lied about that??)
 
Jan 13, 2007
14,553
17,676
Melbourne
AFL Club
Sydney
And this:

Pell vs Queen Respondent Submission

I’ll direct you to paragraph 7, where the prosecution correctly reminds the High Court their job isn’t to judge the case themselves, or pretend they are the jury (like Weinberg did) that their job is to ensure that the Appeals Court didn’t make mistakes (like how Maxwell and Ferguson made sure the trial judges didn’t make any mistakes not play jury themselves):



What the defence is arguing is for the High Court to find a legal loophole to get their client off without examining the evidence of the case like the full witness testimony, the testimony of the witnesses who backed up the prosecution case and to ignore the obvious lies of the defence like the “Pell couldn’t have abused them wearing those robes” lie (still waiting on your explanation of why the defence lied about that??)

Bullshit. By you and the Crown.

Paragraph 6 asks whether having regard to the errors of the majority suggested in the previous paragraphs, it was open to the majority to concede that it was open to the jury to enter a guilty verdict.

Now the Crown are representing the case as being different to that presented.

And the defence didn’t lie about the garments. The majority lied about what the defence had said about them. It was one sleight of hand of many.
 

Corpuscles

Norm Smith Medallist
Jul 3, 2006
8,843
1,827
Lunatic Park
AFL Club
Sydney
Hi Perry (your comments bolded)

Still trying to get your head around this with some left over emotion I see.

"schneebly1, post: 64264383, member: 201461"
And this:

Pell vs Queen Respondent Submission


I am sure some Forum members would appreciate you posting the link! Thanks
I wonder whether you ALSO thoroughly read the Applicant submission? You know to get a balanced perspective!

Pell V Queen Applicant Submission


"I’ll direct you to paragraph 7, where the prosecution correctly reminds the High Court their job isn’t to judge the case themselves, or pretend they are the jury (like Weinberg did) that their job is to ensure that the Appeals Court didn’t make mistakes (like how Maxwell and Ferguson made sure the trial judges didn’t make any mistakes not play jury themselves):"

This ( the first part just past the comma) is correct, albeit seemingly an unnecessary or redundant reminder.
In fact rather a little condescending, suggesting that the High Court would not understand it's role?

I think you need to study (again) the application of the tests outlined in M V Queen. (detailed later )
It was Weinberg's (and indeed Ferguson and Maxwell) role to assess the evidence , and view it from the perspective of the jury.

re quoted
Paragraph 6 suggests that the High Court should determine for itself whether it was open to the jury to find the offending proven beyond reasonable doubt. In the absence of identified error in the approach of the majority of the Court of Appeal, this is not the role of the High Court. Further, it is not a task that can be properly undertaken by the High Court when it has not been apprised of the whole of the evidence at trial

No!. Para 6 of the Applicant Submission is not suggesting the High Court do any such thing, as you suggested (act like a jury) . Rather their redundant reminder in Respondent para 7 as misinterpreting the para 6
It is restating the accepted Ground 1 of the Appeal (COA) and restating one of the basis/ issues for application to the High Court. The primary issue - verdict "beyond reasonable doubt", did the Majority err in their approach?

Further recommended study:
Firstly read both submissions. You will note different stances taken by the two step M tests .

In the Applicant submission read Para 42 then carefully read Para 43. You will see that the full description of both steps is stated clearly and this will help you (others) understand the Appellant Judges FULL role and what the Applicant is asking the High Court to consider whether the majority got this correct.

In the Respondent submission read Para 22 first then compare with the abbreviated M test described in Para 23. Then the more detailed argument in Para's 24 & 25

This is the main point of difference as I see it. In essence the Applicant side is arguing that Majority failed to properly assess whether it was open to the jury to convict beyond reasonable doubt . Whilst the Respondent side is clearly trying to reaffirm the primacy of the role and verdict of the jury.

Interesting. I will wait and see. I do not presume to be qualified to make that call.


"What the defence is arguing is for the High Court to find a legal loophole to get their client off without examining the evidence of the case like the full witness testimony, the testimony of the witnesses who backed up the prosecution case and to ignore the obvious lies of the defence like the “Pell couldn’t have abused them wearing those robes” lie "

Again read the Applicant submission, it is much more than (what I think you mean) as "legal loophole".

In particular read Para 48 (in full).
The bit which is guts (essence) of it, as I see it

In other words, absent the impermissible reasoning that the alibi is eliminated simply because it is
inconsistent with the complainant's account, the majority found only that these witnesses
might be wrong which, by its corollary, meant they might be right. On the majority's own
analysis, the alibi was not eliminated. 13

(still waiting on your explanation of why the defence lied about that??)

I realise you were asking BruceFromBalnarring.
However, again read Applicant Submission Footnote 13 starts on page 16 the important bit overflow on page 17.

Indeed it seems we were all lacking full knowledge of the matter (read for yourself carefully) but I post an extract for your 'Perry Mason like' scrutiny

(iii) the complainant agreed when shown the robes that they could not be pushed aside ICA 14381-t4401 CAB 316-71; (iv) the prosecution agreed on the appeal that the robes could not be moved to one side IAPpeal Hearing 241.13-244.8 AFM 104-71; and (v) Weinberg IA, who also examined the robes, found that the alb 'most certainly cannot be parted, pulled or pushed to one side' ICA 18241 CAB 4171

As I have said before I don't know, I never want to be anywhere near such robes!!!!!!!!

Hope that is of some value
(Yes up very early have an early start later)
Cheers
 
Last edited:

schneebly1

Cancelled
Jan 18, 2020
84
162
AFL Club
Richmond
(iv)the prosecution agreed on the appealthat the robes could not be moved to one side

I’ll again direct you to the judgement of the Appeals court, para 144-146:

The issue of Cardinal Pell’s robes is a good example. As already noted, the contention on the appeal was (as it had been before the jury) that the acts alleged to have been committed by Cardinal Pell in the first incident were ‘physically impossible’. Reliance was placed on categorical statements by Portelli and by Potter that it was not possible to pull the alb to the side while the cincture was tied at the waist.

In response, senior counsel for the Crown invited the members of the Court to try on the robes. They were an exhibit at the trial and, we were told, had been available to the jury in the jury room during their deliberation. Counsel for Cardinal Pell did not demur.

In final address, the prosecutor invited the jury to feel the weight of the alb and ‘assess its manoeuvrability as a garment’. This gave the jury the opportunity, counsel submitted, ‘to assess whether what [the victim] described as having occurred is physically possible or impossible.’ Having taken advantage of that opportunity ourselves, we consider that it was well open to the jury to reject the contention of physical impossibility. The alb was neither so heavy nor so immoveable as the evidence of Portelli and Potter had suggested. To our observation, it was well capable of being manoeuvred — while the cincture was firmly tied at the waist — in a way that might be described as being moved or pulled to one side or pulled apart.

So you (or the defence lawyers) are saying the prosecution in the original trial originally said the robes COULD be pulled to the side, then at some point in the appeal the prosecution agreed that the robes COULDN’T be pulled to the side, but then the Appeals majority wrote the prosecution went back to saying the robes COULD be pulled to the side, and the Appeals majority agreed they COULD be pulled to the side??!!!???

Lies and the lying liars who tell them.

And by the way, stop with your childish “Perry Mason” insults. If you’d actually bothered to watch any episodes of Perry Mason (and this is good evidence you like to say things that are false and misleading) you’d know that descriptor is more apt for you and Brucey, because it’s about a defence lawyer who tries to get his apparently innocent clients off charges and find the real perpetrator of the crime, not argue legal loopholes to get your politically connected pedo mate released. If you two want to be Perry Masons you should be looking for the “real” (in your opinion) perpetrator of this crime.

All I’m doing is backing up what the Victorian Police, Victorian Department of Prosecutions, Victorian Magistrates, the Chief Justice of the County Court, a jury, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the President of the Appeals Court have said.
 

Corpuscles

Norm Smith Medallist
Jul 3, 2006
8,843
1,827
Lunatic Park
AFL Club
Sydney
="schneebly1, post: 64267210, member: 201461"
I’ll again direct you to the judgement of the Appeals court, para 144-146:

I am aware of the Majority Judgment comment on this. Obviously some appreciate you reposting it.

So you (or the defence lawyers) are saying the prosecution in the original trial originally said the robes COULD be pulled to the side, then at some point in the appeal the prosecution agreed that the robes COULDN’T be pulled to the side, but then the Appeals majority wrote the prosecution went back to saying the robes COULD be pulled to the side, and the Appeals majority agreed they COULD be pulled to the side??!!!???

Lies and the lying liars who tell them.

Yes. However the footnote quotes the relevant sections of the Appeal.
Therefore, I was merely addressing your repeated (emphasised) claim that the "defence lied".
They obviously had grounds to raise the issue it is a matter of contention but apparently conceded by the Prosecution


And by the way, stop with your childish “Perry Mason” insults. If you’d actually bothered to watch any episodes of Perry Mason (and this is good evidence you like to say things that are false and misleading) you’d know that descriptor is more apt for you and Brucey, because it’s about a defence lawyer who tries to get his apparently innocent clients off charges and find the real perpetrator of the crime, not argue legal loopholes to get your politically connected pedo mate released. If you two want to be Perry Masons you should be looking for the “real” (in your opinion) perpetrator of this crime.

Sorry snowflake. It is just that schneebly1 is more difficult to remember and type, and I just was having some fun.
Point noted and accepted .
Is that your real name or even normal BF handle?

Good point re: Perry

He definitely ain't no paedo mate of mine!


All I’m doing is backing up what the Victorian Police, Victorian Department of Prosecutions, Victorian Magistrates, the Chief Justice of the County Court, a jury, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the President of the Appeals Court have said.


Good for you. There is much weight behind conviction. One step to go!
However, my interest is (I believe) objective, and relates to the legal aspects rather than the particular crime, nor the person concerned.
 
Jun 30, 2009
30,327
41,691
Deroesfromgero
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
east perth
“The disturbing figures were revealed by senior counsel assisting, Gail Furness, SC. She also revealed that the Holy See had refused to hand over documents involving Australian priests accused of abuse”

 

AM

The standard you walk past is the one you accept
Aug 18, 2006
24,579
23,475
Here there and everywhere
AFL Club
Geelong
Appeal set for hearing on March 11 & 12.

So he's dodged Friday 13th.

And he's dodged the Ides of March.

Can he get lucky a 3rd time?
A considered legal opinion that will get Brucie opining again please Fred? I'm yearning for more 'I know he couldn't have done it no matter what anyone says'.;)
 
Back