Play Nice Random Chat Thread: Episode III

SpiderBurton22

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Mar 17, 2012
Posts
6,192
Likes
16,694
Location
Caught in the web.
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Firstly, you should take with a grain of salt any opinion that is clearly marked as a tinfoil hat conspiracy theory. Does that make sense?

I don't have any prejudice, when a point of evidence sounds suspect then it gives me cause for concern. I don't know what other evidence was presented though so the public is left to speculate. It was similar to Majak Daw's case where important evidence seemed to change, I thought he was cactus after there was an eyewitness but some of the evidence that was reported gave me cause to have some doubt. Was I victim blaming his accuser? Do I just believe every accusation? Do you think Majak is guilty? The evidence matters and when you only have testimony then it has to be beyond reasonable doubt. I am sure much of the precise detail would be blurry given how memories work, however, something critical like how he got his willy out I would assume would be something horrific you wouldn't forget.

I just think it is dangerous for people to form absolute opinions part way through a process. As I said, what I threw out was a tin hat conspiracy to try and explain why someone would make an accusation if there was doubt about the evidence. When you look at all these infamous false rape claim incidents that happened in US Colleges that were heavily publicised everyone had a motive to make the claim. The person who accused Daw had a motive to accuse him. I was just exploring what possible motive there might have been had there been no satisfactory reason to explain the issues other clergymen have raised with the evidence, which will likely be explored on appeal.

This will be appealed and go to the supreme court and from there it will end up in one of the higher courts and the evidence will have gone over again and again and different groups of peers will evaluate the evidence, when the appeals end then we will have a final verdict. Am I to enrage about Pell being a rapist now... what if the Supreme Court overturns it? I then have to accept he is innocent? What if the prosecutors appeal and he is convicted again in a higher court. It seems kind of silly to get caught up into the rollercoaster of emotions until a final verdict is made.

You seem passionate that he is guilty, will you accept that he is innocent if a higher court overturns the conviction? It can be a dangerous thing to form a mob, be it a physical one or a virtual one. i don't think this drama is remotely close to it's conclusion.

All I hope that is if he was guilty that the final verdict remains guilty and he is given an appropriate punishment.
I'm not passionate about Pell's guilt, I take offence to people making up crackpot theories that make the victims out to be frauds without knowing the full evidence, whilst a jury who heard the ALL of the evidence found him to be guilty.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Tas

Premium Gold
Joined
Dec 23, 2002
Posts
52,047
Likes
32,949
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
There can be only one...
I'm not passionate about Pell's guilt, I take offence to people making up crackpot theories that make the victims out to be frauds without knowing the full evidence, whilst a jury who heard the ALL of the evidence found him to be guilty.
It doesn't bother you are all the his guilt is based on nothing other than his testimony and part of his testimony in relation to the garment clergy claim is not possible for it to function in that way?

Yeah, a county court jury did find him guilty, but a lot of county court verdicts are overturned.

Our criminal justice system is completely ******, some innocent people get unjustly convicted, a lot of people who commit crimes go unpunished. If he is a victim or if Pell is guilty wont ultimately be determined until the appeal process ends.

Assuming the Supreme Court overturns his conviction, it wont necessarily mean he didn't do it, it could just mean there was reasonable doubt about the evidence. Assuming this is one of the rare cases where someone made a false claim, there must be motive behind someone doing that. We can't explore any possible scenario as to why someone would do that?

Assuming he was actually a victim and everything happened as he testified, not in the least bit interested why the police didn't even examine his vestments and see if it could function in the way the victim claimed? It seems odd to me. It creates doubt in my mind and you are right we haven't seen any evidence and only have to go by what has been claimed by the media but they aren't exactly infallible either.

It doesn't mean we can't try to make sense of things in our own way.
 

LuvtheKangas

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Posts
13,769
Likes
25,549
Location
Destination Club
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Hmmm, still running this line.

If the vestments made it physically impossible for him to expose himself, as claimed, then Richter would have gone through the theatre of dressing someone up in the court in the exact same vestments, demonstrating unequivocally that it couldn't be as the witness claimed.

There's a good reason that he didn't.
 

Hearts to hearts

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Mar 16, 2001
Posts
18,858
Likes
26,791
Location
Melbourne VIC
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Wales, Eastwood, West Ham
It doesn't bother you are all the his guilt is based on nothing other than his testimony and part of his testimony in relation to the garment clergy claim is not possible for it to function in that way?

Yeah, a county court jury did find him guilty, but a lot of county court verdicts are overturned.

Our criminal justice system is completely ******, some innocent people get unjustly convicted, a lot of people who commit crimes go unpunished. If he is a victim or if Pell is guilty wont ultimately be determined until the appeal process ends.

Assuming the Supreme Court overturns his conviction, it wont necessarily mean he didn't do it, it could just mean there was reasonable doubt about the evidence. Assuming this is one of the rare cases where someone made a false claim, there must be motive behind someone doing that. We can't explore any possible scenario as to why someone would do that?

Assuming he was actually a victim and everything happened as he testified, not in the least bit interested why the police didn't even examine his vestments and see if it could function in the way the victim claimed? It seems odd to me. It creates doubt in my mind and you are right we haven't seen any evidence and only have to go by what has been claimed by the media but they aren't exactly infallible either.

It doesn't mean we can't try to make sense of things in our own way.
We don't "have to go by what's claimed in the media" at all. We can accept that the only people who heard all the evidence and all the cross-examination decided unanimously to convict on all charges, and not try to invent theories about how that could have happened. He has been tried and convicted, now there will be an appeal. None of us needs to weigh in, nor is there any benefit to media speculation or opinions.
 

Tas

Premium Gold
Joined
Dec 23, 2002
Posts
52,047
Likes
32,949
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
There can be only one...
We don't "have to go by what's claimed in the media" at all. We can accept that the only people who heard all the evidence and all the cross-examination decided unanimously to convict on all charges, and not try to invent theories about how that could have happened. He has been tried and convicted, now there will be an appeal. None of us needs to weigh in, nor is there any benefit to media speculation or opinions.
Absolutely nobody NEEDS to weigh in, but it is human nature to form opinions based on what you have at your disposal, any paper you look at, any news you see on TV it is a huge story and it will have major ramifications.

People who have interest in it can comment about these things, those who do not do not need to. If I have no interest in people speculating on something I will ignore the comments and move on, not attempt to control someone else's speech or brow beat them with my disapproval. It is a forum, people can discuss whatever topic they want within the forum rules.

If this was a final verdict and there was no further appeal then it would be moot to discuss the evidence, knowing it will be appealed and the evidence will be examined in a higher court, it is of significant interest I think for anyone who wants a just verdict.

Maybe I am just twisted, but whenever someone of a high profile gets caught up in a legal case, be it murder or whatever I think what if I was accused of that crime, would I be okay with being convicted on the weight of that evidence. What if it wasn't Pell and it was someone you knew, a family member you think was incapable of doing it. I have seem a few male feminists who have gone on and on about always believing victims, until they were accused of a sexual assault crime and then they wanted people not to believe the accusations.

I am consistent in that I want one set of rules for everyone, including myself, and sadly I don't think that occurs. Yeah, the county court convicted him and if that is where it ended then fine, there is no need to question the jury or how they came to that conclusion but it will be appealed and it will be the responsibility of the supreme court jury to evaluate the evidence again. Maybe it will get overturned, maybe it wont. It wont necessarily mean he didn't do it if the conviction is overturned, it may just mean there wasn't enough evidence to convict.

We will have to accept the final verdict no matter which way the pendulum swings, but the accusation itself is a powerful thing, Pell is cactus irrespective of the final outcome. I've never done anything inappropriate so I will never have any fear that I will be accused by someone, however, it is still a minefield that a lot of people have to navigate. I just have little faith in our justice system that it gets the right decision, it is massively flawed and sadly, I don't know if any way we can make it fair and just.
 

SpiderBurton22

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Mar 17, 2012
Posts
6,192
Likes
16,694
Location
Caught in the web.
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Hmmm, still running this line.

If the vestments made it physically impossible for him to expose himself, as claimed, then Richter would have gone through the theatre of dressing someone up in the court in the exact same vestments, demonstrating unequivocally that it couldn't be as the witness claimed.

There's a good reason that he didn't.
The victim was subjected to 5 hours of cross examination and believe me defence councils do not hold back on the witness. They will try to twist your words, play word games to try and "catch the victim out" and generally attack his credibility. Despite all this, a jury found Pell guilty.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Hearts to hearts

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Mar 16, 2001
Posts
18,858
Likes
26,791
Location
Melbourne VIC
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Wales, Eastwood, West Ham
The victim was subjected to 5 hours of cross examination and believe me defence councils do not hold back on the witness. They will try to twist your words, play word games to try and "catch the victim out" and generally attack his credibility. Despite all this, a jury found Pell guilty.
Some bloody hard reading in here, but the point is made on the evidence. All the things that are being said to suggest the evidence (that we haven't heard) is weak have been covered in other hideous cases. It's only "unthinkable" if you don't want to think about it.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...rs-just-displays-their-power?CMP=share_btn_tw
 

LuvtheKangas

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Posts
13,769
Likes
25,549
Location
Destination Club
AFL Club
North Melbourne
The victim was subjected to 5 hours of cross examination and believe me defence councils do not hold back on the witness. They will try to twist your words, play word games to try and "catch the victim out" and generally attack his credibility. Despite all this, a jury found Pell guilty.
Correct. Pretty simple, really.

I'm not so naive as to believe that juries always get it right, and I'm not anti-Pell, but I am quite bemused at the number of people (mainly journalists) who think they can credibly question the verdict without being party to the full proceedings.
 

Snake_Baker

L'enfant terrible
Joined
Apr 24, 2013
Posts
38,957
Likes
69,049
Location
inside your head
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Milf Smashers
Correct. Pretty simple, really.

I'm not so naive as to believe that juries always get it right, and I'm not anti-Pell, but I am quite bemused at the number of people (mainly journalists) who think they can credibly question the verdict without being party to the full proceedings.
John Silvester took the afternoon off from working for the coppers to put in some time for the Catholic Church.
 

Tas

Premium Gold
Joined
Dec 23, 2002
Posts
52,047
Likes
32,949
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
There can be only one...
Some bloody hard reading in here, but the point is made on the evidence. All the things that are being said to suggest the evidence (that we haven't heard) is weak have been covered in other hideous cases. It's only "unthinkable" if you don't want to think about it.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...rs-just-displays-their-power?CMP=share_btn_tw
Absolutely deplorable and abhorrent behavior by numerous people in a position of trust, sickening even looking at those cases. However, Pell isn't on trial on behalf of every victim, it is easy to be blinded by rage if you allow the overwhelming emotions to dictate the reasoning. Just the facts of this case need to be examined. If the jury had sound reason to disregard the concerns about the place it happened at the time it happened and how it happened then the conviction will stand on appeal and justice will be served.

I agree with him that I do not know how people could possibly give a character witness to someone who may have committed these acts, especially after he was found guilty by the county court. Sure, it is well known he would appeal a guilty verdict, however, you would have to question your ability to judge someone's character. If someone is a pedophile, they aren't exactly going to flaunt it in public.
 

Tas

Premium Gold
Joined
Dec 23, 2002
Posts
52,047
Likes
32,949
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
There can be only one...
Correct. Pretty simple, really.

I'm not so naive as to believe that juries always get it right, and I'm not anti-Pell, but I am quite bemused at the number of people (mainly journalists) who think they can credibly question the verdict without being party to the full proceedings.
Yeah, nobody can. Even if you were there, even if you had all the evidence, it must be one of the hardest things to do, to decide someone is guilty beyond reasonable doubt based on one person's testimony vs a police statement that denies it.

I just hope they made the right call.
 

LuvtheKangas

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Posts
13,769
Likes
25,549
Location
Destination Club
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Yeah, nobody can. Even if you were there, even if you had all the evidence, it must be one of the hardest things to do, to decide someone is guilty beyond reasonable doubt based on one person's testimony vs a police statement that denies it.

I just hope they made the right call.
Me too.
 

Val Keating

Premiership Player
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Posts
3,230
Likes
7,259
AFL Club
North Melbourne
The victim was subjected to 5 hours of cross examination and believe me defence councils do not hold back on the witness. They will try to twist your words, play word games to try and "catch the victim out" and generally attack his credibility. Despite all this, a jury found Pell guilty.
I could be wrong but I thought the victim just gave his statement and the transcript was given to both parties to make a case. Was he cross examined?
 

TennisPlayerAndy

Klay Thompson's Jumpshot
Joined
Apr 1, 2008
Posts
38,651
Likes
51,132
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Liverpool, Raiders, GSW
Richter has apologised for his comments about Pell only being guilty of vanilla sex offences. For the top dog defence lawyer in Melbourne he really bottled this. I’d be surprised if he represents him in the appeal. He compared Pell to Darth Vader ffs. Apparently he was full of drama through the whole thing, probably a ploy to try and draw the jurors away from what was apparently a very compelling statement from the victim.

He might go from $15k a day to 10k after this.

View attachment 627248
Classic 'look at the monkey' defence.
 

The Other Dean

Whirling Dervish
Joined
May 29, 2006
Posts
17,711
Likes
21,632
Location
Eyre, Qatar
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Rebecca Romney Book Club
We don't "have to go by what's claimed in the media" at all. We can accept that the only people who heard all the evidence and all the cross-examination decided unanimously to convict on all charges, and not try to invent theories about how that could have happened. He has been tried and convicted, now there will be an appeal. None of us needs to weigh in, nor is there any benefit to media speculation or opinions.
Hard to believe that a discussion could be any less productive than the Jordan Peterson one that preceded it. Yet here we are.
 
Top Bottom