- Banned
- #401
I've been called a lot more than a dickhead.
As to your contribution, it's nothing more than a bigoted anti-Catholic attack.
What are your thoughts on his actual contribution.
I've quoted the important references.
Protecting George Pell
- Thread starter pazza
- Start date
- Tagged users None
I've been called a lot more than a dickhead.
As to your contribution, it's nothing more than a bigoted anti-Catholic attack.
What are your thoughts on his actual contribution.
I've quoted the important references.
You’ve never responded to my reasoned arguments just reposting other people’s thoughts. The belief that the Catholic Church are innocent of facilitating the rape of young children and covering it up for centuries - everyone else is conspiring against the church. You have not even stopped short of slandering some of our finest, based on a bullshit defence that Pell, the most political of creatures did not have a clue what was going on, as he established extensive networks to fulfil his ambition to rise through the church’s heirarchy and that persisted for decades. Well people of intellect find that proposition extremely unlikely.
Of course he’s unlucky to be found conclusively guilty after 25 years with no live witnesses - rapists very rarely get found guilty. Was he partly found guilty because he enabled and protected child rapists for decades - a fair chance. Did the jury feel for the victim and held it against Pell for not testifying and appearing heartless - also a fair chance.
No one is really arguing that. The same as his defence is not arguing that he is innocent, rather that they will attack the victim and try all means to create doubt so that it cannot be ‘proved’ that the alleged crime occurred.
Was he lucky to not be charged on more accounts of rape and conspiracy?
Was it right that records were destroyed and witnesses bullied?
Did he have the best legal team ever assembled?
I must have missed all the work you have been doing for victims of injustice, that aren’t Catholic clerics.
Cardinal George Pell sued by Australian man alleging sexual assault
Pell, the former Vatican finance chief, will be sentenced next week for convictions of orally raping a 13-year-old choirboy.
www.scmp.com
Last edited:
- Banned
- #403
Of course he’s unlucky to be found conclusively guilty after 25 years with no live witnesses - rapists very rarely get found guilty. Was he partly found guilty because he enabled and protected child rapists for decades - a fair chance. Did the jury feel for the victim and held it against Pell for not testifying and appearing heartless - also a fair chance.
No one is really arguing that. The same as his defence is not arguing that he is innocent, rather that they will attack the victim and try all means to create doubt so that it cannot be ‘proved’ that the alleged crime occurred.
Was he lucky to not be charged on more accounts of rape and conspiracy?
Was it right that records were destroyed and witnesses bullied?
Did he have the best legal team ever assembled?
I must have missed all the work you have been doing for victims of injustice, that aren’t Catholic clerics.
Cardinal George Pell sued by Australian man alleging sexual assault
Pell, the former Vatican finance chief, will be sentenced next week for convictions of orally raping a 13-year-old choirboy.
Actually, to the extent that the Defence erred, it was in arguing that he was innocent, rather than not guilty, which ultimately gave the excuse, referenced above, for the majority to upend the accepted definition of beyond reasonable doubt.
You have made a bunch of other assumptions and false conclusions in this post. There is no evidence (certainly not effectively rebutted) that Pell protected or enabled child rapists at all, let alone for decades.
You have missed quite a bunch of work that I have done and continue to do for victims of injustice. That's not your fault though, it's not been the subject of BigFooty chatter.
I recall linking to an examination of Pell in one of the locked (read censored) Pell threads which went into some detail about the convicted pedos executive history, including the numbers of staff who left after each of his appointments. Yet many of these folk stood-up for him during his trial and after his conviction and unsuccessful appeal. The conclusion was that protecting the 'brand' took precedence. I'm guessing Father Brennan falls into that group.
Candidly, Bruce, I think my explanation makes more sense. That is, of course, if you regard the church - read churches - as principally corporate entities. As I do.
- Banned
- #408
I see the report today that 10 educators had been caught this year for sexual abuse appeared then was gone inside 4 hours.
Didn’t even appear on the ABC app.
I guess we’re not really interested if it’snot a Catholic cleric.
Didn’t even appear on the ABC app.
I guess we’re not really interested if it’snot a Catholic cleric.
It is not becoming to treat increased prevalence in child rape as an opportunity for ‘whataboutism’. Some people might mistakenly see your zeal being less about victims of injustice and more about defending the Catholic Church and it’s clerics.
- Banned
- #410
I don’t think it’s increased prevalence.
And I don’t give a s**t whether it’s becoming or not.
And I don’t give a s**t whether it’s becoming or not.
cartwright
Brownlow Medallist
you mean the article that stated they were all disqualified as educators.
as we know, if it were in the church they’d be moved on and the whole thing hidden.
More than 700 teachers under investigation over misconduct claims
Ten Victorian teachers were disqualified for misconduct in 2018-19 and a further 19 suspended over allegations including sexual offences against children.
- Banned
- #412
Until George Pell took over and put a stop to all of that.you mean the article that stated they were all disqualified as educators.
as we know, if it were in the church they’d be moved on and the whole thing hidden.
More than 700 teachers under investigation over misconduct claims
Ten Victorian teachers were disqualified for misconduct in 2018-19 and a further 19 suspended over allegations including sexual offences against children.www.google.com.au
A faith in its death throes - maybe, perhaps, possibly, could be.........
https://johnmenadue.com/peter-donna...earching-for-australian-catholics/#more-32388
https://johnmenadue.com/peter-donna...earching-for-australian-catholics/#more-32388
Craven Morehead
I really don't care what you think.
- Jan 2, 2019
- 4,103
- 5,411
- AFL Club
- Gold Coast
- Banned
- #416
Oh Bruce, you're not crumbling are you?
After all that staunch defense over months and months?
Did the Holy Father send a private message to expect the worst and hope for the best?
How tragic for you.
- Banned
- #417
Not sure what you mean by crumbling.
He didn’t commit the crime of that much I remain convinced. The majority judgement has left me wondering whether that really matters to the judiciary.
Your bigoted sneer will, as usual, go ignored.
I watched the excellent Netflix program The Devil Next Door last night. Bringing forth prosecutions 30,40,60 years after the event is extremely difficult, when as a juror you would understandably doubt a person’s recollection of the incidents.
Going to the High Court.
Well. so much for the anti-Catholic bias some have been claiming. He now gets his third go at proving his innocence.
BTW - surely the whole "it was impossible" that it happened line of logic is now dead. There are convicted paedophiles who were abusing children in full class rooms.
BTW - surely the whole "it was impossible" that it happened line of logic is now dead. There are convicted paedophiles who were abusing children in full class rooms.
What makes you hold that view Bruce?
I wasn't at the court case but I'm sure the whole, "it couldn't have happened" defence was put to the test. I do know the jurors toured the cathedral, entered the sacristy - geez, I'm guessing the robes were brought out and tried on.
Someone with better legal understanding than myself can illuminate me as to whether this would have been the case.
- Banned
- #422
I think that's been done to death, really. But you might try reading the Majority Judgement of the Supreme Court of Appeal and ask yourself how time managed to stand still for the key players to be at the scene of the crime to enable the crime to be committed.
In short, the opportunity to commit the crime at the time alleged and in the manner alleged simply doesn't exist.
Now I'm sure there were a bunch on here with analyses drafted as to what a decision on the papers would have meant for Pell had leave been denied. Words like "entirely without merit" might have been used, I'd suggest.
I wonder what they think about what a decision in Pell's favour means when made on the papers.
See the issue is, the opportunity to commit the crime at the time alleged DOES exist. As I pointed out, there are cases where Christian brothers have been found guilty and admitted to abuse in full classrooms. To me this has been one of the fundamental flaws in Pell's defence.
Simplistically the High court can review the law as applied, not anothet 'retrial'.
For a legal dumbarse like me, what does that mean? I'm guessing no new evidence can be tabled, no new witnesses, etc
And if Pell wins his appeal, can that appeal be appealed by the prosecution?
