Play Nice Random Chat Thread: Episode III

[Val Keating]

It has gotten to the stage where we need to have a serious discussion about the merit of legalising all drugs and bringing the drug trade under public control.

Portugal is a perfect example of why they should be.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

Portugal is a perfect example of why they should be.

Switzerland is an example that is often cited to me as well. It just makes the most sense to me, but what would I know...

 

[Tas]

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 ****ed, 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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Groin guru]

The Joe Rogan / Alex Jones returns podcast is one of the greatest things in entertainment history. His best one yet.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

The Joe Rogan / Alex Jones returns podcast is one of the greatest things in entertainment history. His best one yet.

I am not sure if you are being satirical or deadly serious...

 

[SpiderBurton22]

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.

 

[Val Keating]

I am not sure if you are being satirical or deadly serious...

I reached that point a while ago

 

[Hearts to hearts]

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]

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]

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.

 

[giantroo]

 

[Tas]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[SpiderBurton22]

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?

IIRC, he gave evidence via video link

 

[The acurate one]

Not sure he isn't worth his own thread........


Mick Nolan to be announced tomorrow in the O and M team of the century. No small feat for no small man.

 

[Val Keating]

Not sure he isn't worth his own thread........


Mick Nolan to be announced tomorrow in the O and M team of the century. No small feat for no small man.

Nice one. He does deserve his own thread. All North players can have thier own thread in the past players section.

 

[The Other Dean]

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.

 

[Snake_Baker]

This bloke is a shining example of how people should approach life.

Go
Climb the treasure mountain
Do not return empty handed
Where are you now?

 

[Mav]

Hard to believe that a discussion could be any less productive than the Jordan Peterson one that preceded it. Yet here we are.

Try the Josh Kelly thread.