Protecting George Pell

Remove this Banner Ad

Lebbo73 said:
I’ll accept the High Courts decision in this matter if Pell is granted leave to appeal.
The fact that Justice Weinberg believed that Pell did not commit the child sex crimes and should have been freed has cast significant doubt over the decision of the Court of Appeal to uphold the County Courts guilty verdict.
www.google.com.au

Why the dissenting judge believed George Pell should walk free

One of the three Court of Appeal judges who heard George Pell's appeal believes there is a "significant possibility" the cardinal did not commit the child sex crimes he's in jail for and would have acquitted him.
www.google.com.au www.google.com.au
Click to expand...
It shows that of the 15 people who had access to all the evidence, one had some misgivings. And in keeping with the checks and balances the system offers that will provide some succor to the Pellists as they pursue the matter further. Not that they would not have pursued that course had there been no dissenting opinion I suspect. So onward and upward for Pell, together with his army of silks. My reckoning is that at possible rejection in the HC will not change the views of his adherents one iota.

Btw. Witness 'J' not only had to withstand a cross examination battering from the Red Baron and his cohorts but before he'd reached that point he'd been subjected to a working over by both the Police and DPP to ensure his evidence stood-up. Unlike the many other allegations of child abuse his did.
 
AM said:
It shows that of the 15 people who had access to all the evidence, one had some misgivings. And in keeping with the checks and balances the system offers that will provide some succor to the Pellists as they pursue the matter further. Not that they would not have pursued that course had there been no dissenting opinion I suspect. So onward and upward for Pell, together with his army of silks. My reckoning is that at possible rejection in the HC will not change the views of his adherents one iota.

Btw. Witness 'J' not only had to withstand a cross examination battering from the Red Baron and his cohorts but before he'd reached that point he'd been subjected to a working over by both the Police and DPP to ensure his evidence stood-up. Unlike the many other allegations of child abuse his did.
Click to expand...
Pell may well* be getting due deserts for hellish crimes.

*sorry for the charged language. As I acknowledged a disconfirmation[sic] bias hard to shake. But if it is about principle not the individual, and there would be multiples of innocent men in gaol, why does one give a hoot about the individual concerned.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

AM said:
It shows that of the 15 people who had access to all the evidence, one had some misgivings. And in keeping with the checks and balances the system offers that will provide some succor to the Pellists as they pursue the matter further. Not that they would not have pursued that course had there been no dissenting opinion I suspect. So onward and upward for Pell, together with his army of silks. My reckoning is that at possible rejection in the HC will not change the views of his adherents one iota.
Click to expand...

Actually, in the two jury trials, up to 10 people who had access to all the evidence had some misgivings. We don't know the rationale for their decisions.

In the appeal case, one out of three judges who had access to all the evidence had some misgivings. We know the arguments for the appellate judge's decisions and their rationale can be disputed.
 
sorted said:
Actually, in the two jury trials, up to 10 people who had access to all the evidence had some misgivings. We don't know the rationale for their decisions.

In the appeal case, one out of three judges who had access to all the evidence had some misgivings. We know the arguments for the appellate judge's decisions and their rationale can be disputed.
Click to expand...
Supposition. Actually, it may have been as few as 2.
 
AM said:
It shows that of the 15 people who had access to all the evidence, one had some misgivings. And in keeping with the checks and balances the system offers that will provide some succor to the Pellists as they pursue the matter further. Not that they would not have pursued that course had there been no dissenting opinion I suspect. So onward and upward for Pell, together with his army of silks. My reckoning is that at possible rejection in the HC will not change the views of his adherents one iota.

Btw. Witness 'J' not only had to withstand a cross examination battering from the Red Baron and his cohorts but before he'd reached that point he'd been subjected to a working over by both the Police and DPP to ensure his evidence stood-up. Unlike the many other allegations of child abuse his did.
Click to expand...

They've got nothing left to argue besides 'we wuz robbed'.
Not even the dissenting judgment gives any ray of hope because it is wholly bereft of a legal argument that might sway the HC.
 
AM said:
Supposition. Actually, it may have been as few as 2.
Click to expand...

It's good that we agree that your assertion that 'of the 15 people who had access to all the evidence, one had some misgivings' is false. Of the 33 people had access to all the evidence, up to 11 of them had misgivings, one of whom was a very experienced appeal court judge.
 
Number37 said:
They've got nothing left to argue besides 'we wuz robbed'.
Not even the dissenting judgment gives any ray of hope because it is wholly bereft of a legal argument that might sway the HC.
Click to expand...
Justice Weinberg didn’t leave the door open for an appeal? We’ll see!
 
sorted said:
It's good that we agree that your assertion that 'of the 15 people who had access to all the evidence, one had some misgivings' is false. Of the 33 people had access to all the evidence, up to 11 of them had misgivings, one of whom was a very experienced appeal court judge.
Click to expand...
giphy.gif
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Number37 said:
Weinberg's judgment is weak.

The HC may hear an appeal but there is nothing in Weinberg's judgment that would sway them to uphold an appeal.
Click to expand...
The HC will be making a call on the way the law has been interpreted and applied. Whether there's sufficient there to warrant the Pellists getting to an appeal, who knows.
 
AM said:
The HC will be making a call on the way the law has been interpreted and applied. Whether there's sufficient there to warrant the Pellists getting to an appeal, who knows.
Click to expand...

Weinberg's judgment could easily pass as a typical answer offered by a first year law student to a problem question. Started with the conclusion and filled in the reasoning with anything that would fit.

Weinberg also wasn't silly (or brave) enough to throw in a bit of obiter, he offered the same rationes as the majority judgment.

Questions of law is the HC's remit.
"We wuz robbed" isn't a question of law, is it?

I will be looking forward to the we wuz robbed crowd getting all up in arms about the HC entertaining a Pell appeal that will be nothing more than a 3rd crack at a trial.
 
Number37 said:
Weinberg's judgment could easily pass as a typical answer offered by a first year law student to a problem question. Started with the conclusion and filled in the reasoning with anything that would fit.

Weinberg also wasn't silly (or brave) enough to throw in a bit of obiter, he offered the same rationes as the majority judgment.

Questions of law is the HC's remit.
"We wuz robbed" isn't a question of law, is it?

I will be looking forward to the we wuz robbed crowd getting all up in arms about the HC entertaining a Pell appeal that will be nothing more than a 3rd crack at a trial.
Click to expand...


Can't agree about Weinberg, 37. Although we might have qualms about his dissenting judgement he has quite a legal pedigree.

In any event the focus of the HC consideration will be the trial and the correctness of the interpretation and application of the law there. And Justice Kidd's handling of the case has been widely seen as a master class.
 
AM said:
Can't agree about Weinberg, 37. Although we might have qualms about his dissenting judgement he has quite a legal pedigree.

In any event the focus of the HC consideration will be the trial and the correctness of the interpretation and application of the law there. And Justice Kidd's handling of the case has been widely seen as a master class.
Click to expand...

A legal pedigree doesn't preclude weak judgments.... from time to time.
Dyson Heydon is regarded as one of the best legal minds...his judgments in Pape (GFC bonuses) & Williams (Schools chaplaincy) were weak for the same reason that Weiberg's judgment in Pell's CA appeal is weak. They start with a conclusion and work backwards.


Not even Weinberg could pick apart any aspect of Kidd's handling of the case. Absolute masterclass.
Which left him with nothing but the credibility of the witness to use as fodder for writing his dissenting judgment.
The credibility question sits in that grey area of question of law/question of fact.
The only way Pell's appeal was going to succeed was if the witness's credibility was undermined sufficient to raise reasonable doubt.
But not just ordinary reasonable doubt but plain as the nose on your face reasonable doubt.
To achieve plain as the nose on your face reasonable doubt the witness's credibility in relation to key questions of fact had to be established.
When you put it all through the wash Weinberg has effectively argued that the witness was credible in relation to minor of questions of fact but not key questions of fact. To me that is a little too convenient and in some ways defies logic.
I say it is convenient and defies logic because not even Pell's defence team could successfully make those arguments at trial or on appeal.
Pell's defence team consists of some of the best legal minds in the country.

The only way a HC appeal could succeed is if (1) the majority got the legal principle wrong or (2) the minority shifted the legal principle sufficient for the HC to endorse that shifting.
The consensus seems to be that (1) isn't a live option.
IMO (2) isn't a live option because Weinberg's judgment is too weak to sustain the argument in the HC.
 
AM said:
Yeah! The guy just repeated his pure supposition. It's as if he thinks by repeating it makes it fact. Little point in taking that misrepresentation seriously.
Click to expand...

Ironic, seeing as I corrected you on your misrepresentation. All you have in response is jejune GIFs.
 
sorted said:
Ironic, seeing as I corrected you on your misrepresentation. All you have in response is jejune GIFs.
Click to expand...

When you use a form of words deliberately designed to create the impression a mistrial came to a conclusion that may have been encouraging to Pellists and you're called on it for its pure supposition, rather than accept that correction you attempt to weasel out of it. True to form. Not so unlike the bogus claims of the Pellists that the mistrial jury was in favour of Pell - just more unfounded supposition. A GIF is better than you deserve.

12 jury members found against Pell - FACT

The two most senior appellant court judges confirmed that finding - FACT

All the rest is pure supposition.

End of story.
 
Last edited:
Only 14% of special leave applications in criminal law get approved for hearing by the HC.
and

"Most importantly, an appellate judge's own doubt alone is simply not the legal test for a verdict's unreasonableness, and does not automatically mean the jury must have had this doubt. "

Interesting article from the Professor of Law who was the Professorial Fellow to the Royal Commission.
www.abc.net.au

What are Pell's chances of going to the High Court? Statistically, not great

Cardinal Pell's legal team will pursue its last avenue to overturn his conviction for child sex abuse but the way ahead is far from clear, writes Ben Mathews.
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au
 
www.theage.com.au

Revealed: How paedophile priests in Victoria worked together to share victims

"Seminarians would come out through the corridor into the sitting room and select a boy to go back with them," says an explosive new statement of claim.
www.theage.com.au www.theage.com.au

Just to be clear, we are meant to accept there's "reasonable doubt" in Pell's conviction because some other kiddly fiddler in a priest collar reckons it was "impossible" for him to have been there.

I'll say one thing for the Catholic Church in Victoria - VicPol usually break every criminal conspiracy, they get drug dealers and hitmen and jihadis to rat each other out sooner or later, or they turn their lawyers dog, or whatever.

But the Catholic Church stay solid as a rock(spider). They never look to get their sentences reduced by turning on each other, they just cop their whack and go up to Ararat or Langi Kal Kal.

Sociopaths.

BruceFromBalnarring - sorry mate, your "Oh but Fancy Kiddy Fiddler Protector Name would have been there or Fancy Kiddy Fiddler Protector Name 2 was always with him" just doesn't wash.

Their evidence is more doubtful than the victims - they have more of a motive to lie than him.
 
JeanLucGoddard said:
www.theage.com.au

Revealed: How paedophile priests in Victoria worked together to share victims

"Seminarians would come out through the corridor into the sitting room and select a boy to go back with them," says an explosive new statement of claim.
www.theage.com.au www.theage.com.au

Just to be clear, we are meant to accept there's "reasonable doubt" in Pell's conviction because some other kiddly fiddler in a priest collar reckons it was "impossible" for him to have been there.

I'll say one thing for the Catholic Church in Victoria - VicPol usually break every criminal conspiracy, they get drug dealers and hitmen and jihadis to rat each other out sooner or later, or they turn their lawyers dog, or whatever.

But the Catholic Church stay solid as a rock(spider). They never look to get their sentences reduced by turning on each other, they just cop their whack and go up to Ararat or Langi Kal Kal.

Sociopaths.

BruceFromBalnarring - sorry mate, your "Oh but Fancy Kiddy Fiddler Protector Name would have been there or Fancy Kiddy Fiddler Protector Name 2 was always with him" just doesn't wash.

Their evidence is more doubtful than the victims - they have more of a motive to lie than him.
Click to expand...

Aren't there rules about dragging people into conversations for no purpose other than to insult them?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top