Play Nice Random Chat Thread: Episode III

[kangaspurs]

Look, I think that he probably did do at least some of what he's been found guilty of, and that's the basis for the conviction. I'm not calling it a fit-up, either. But there's reasonable doubt.

Is there though?

If there was reasonable doubt, he wouldn't have been found guilty in the first place, and it certainly wouldn't have been upheld on appeal, right? remember that the public is not privy to all the evidence that the jury saw. For all we know it could be an identifying mark on the end of his dick, or something similar that's the smoking gun.

 

[The Warlord]

Look, I think that he probably did do at least some of what he's been found guilty of, and that's the basis for the conviction. I'm not calling it a fit-up, either. But there's reasonable doubt.

I don't know how he's escaped sanction for all the other stuff. I suppose the cover-ups that he engineered have been mostly effective.

I stated up front that I'm no Bolt fan. I rarely read his stuff because I can't stand him. But just because I don't like him doesn't mean I conclude that he's 100% wrong every time.

The Chief Justice and the President of the Court of Appeal do not believe there is reasonable doubt.

 

[LuvtheKangas]

Is there though?

If there was reasonable doubt, he wouldn't have been found guilty in the first place, and it certainly wouldn't have been upheld on appeal, right? remember that the public is not privy to all the evidence that the jury saw. For all we know it could be an identifying mark on the end of his dick, or something similar that's the smoking gun.

The Chief Justice and the President of the Court of Appeal do not believe there is reasonable doubt.

Yeah, all good. I suspect the reasonable doubt is eliminated by evidence not reported publicly.

 

[kangaspurs]

Yeah, all good. I suspect the reasonable doubt is eliminated by evidence not reported publicly.

This has been my assumption from the time of the original conviction too. It must have been compelling, because although I absolutely 100% believe the victims, going by the analysis I read at the time it would be incredibly hard for it to be proved beyond reasonable doubt if it was just a victim said this happened, Pell said this happened type of case.

And actually, the more I thought about it, the more my assumption moved to some sort of identifier that made it clear. It would make sense to keep that from the public in order to avoid compromising any potential future case and to stop opportunists from taking advantage of that knowledge. Obviously I'm guess and I could well be completely wrong, but that's been my assumption.

 

[The Warlord]

Yeah, all good. I suspect the reasonable doubt is eliminated by evidence not reported publicly.

Its more by the fact that what Bolt claims is reasonable doubt - he was wearing his stupid archbishop get up, he couldn't have! - has been disproven by the jurors and judges who have handled the garments themselves.

 

[LuvtheKangas]

Its more by the fact that what Bolt claims is reasonable doubt - he was wearing his stupid archbishop get up, he couldn't have! - has been disproven by the jurors and judges who have handled the garments themselves.

The first time around, i.e. upon the original conviction, I argued that the garments thing was a furphy, on the basis that Richter would have been all over it if they could prove the impossibility of the act based on the garments. So, no, that's not the source of the doubt I have and that's not Bolt's main point (well, I only skimmed his article, I'm saying he made better points).

I absolutely believe the victim / witness was abused, and in all likelihood by Pell. I also concede the possibility that his memory might have been a little faulty in relation to specific facts, especially those relating to the abuse of the deceased victim. That's not uncommon.

All moot now (unless it gets to the HC).

 

[Val Keating]

He was part of a bigger pedo ring then Epstein. Stuff him.

 

[B4Bear]

Pell never testified. He was not subject to questions or cross-examination beyond saying 'Not Guilty'.

If he was innocent, why not get in the dock and say so?

Guilty as hell. Rot in gaol you bastard.

 

[muttley45]

I saw a clip on the news tonight of old President Trump, where he actually calls himself "The Chosen One" , champagne comedy.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Pell never testified. He was not subject to questions or cross-examination beyond saying 'Not Guilty'.

If he was innocent, why not get in the dock and say so?

Guilty as hell. Rot in gaol you bastard.

It doesn't work like that.

 

[Snake_Baker]

 

[Liam Boy]

What do Catholics need evidence for anyway? Just have faith that he's guilty

 

[Tas]

Pell never testified. He was not subject to questions or cross-examination beyond saying 'Not Guilty'.

If he was innocent, why not get in the dock and say so?

Guilty as hell. Rot in gaol you bastard.

It is not up to him to prove he is innocent, it is up to the prosecution to prove he is guilty beyond reasonable doubt and they have to do that without his testimony if he doesn't wish to give it. Jury is instructed that someone not testifying can not be considered as evidence against the accused.

I don't know if he is guilty or not, a jury said he is and that decision has been upheld on appeal, however, I am mortified that someone's testimony as the only piece of evidence can be considered as beyond reasonable doubt. I hate that guilty people get away with heinous crimes due to the heavy burden of proof required. However, if someone was to accuse you and the only evidence the court had was the person who made the accusation against you, I am not sure anyone who is ready to cast the first stone here would like to be on the other end.

I just hope the right decision has been made in the end. The one judge that didn't vote for upholding the verdict gave a lengthy account of why he thought it would be impossible to believe a jury could be free or reasonable doubt, he went into detail about the inconsistency of the evidence and lack of accuracy about some details, I think that is kind of irrelevant, it is proven that the brain is foggy on details and that is to be expected.

My issue is with cases that have:
Accuser: He did this.
Defendant: I didn't.

That is reasonable doubt to me, 100% of the time. Nobody is equipped with the ability to determine who is lying, that is a guess and is not beyond reasonable doubt. The jury is put in an impossible scenario. Reasonable doubt is a lack of proof. A testimony is zero proof, it is an accusation. It just does my head in.

 

[Val Keating]

I saw a clip on the news tonight of old President Trump, where he actually calls himself "The Chosen One" , champagne comedy.

He’s losing his mind

 

[Snake_Baker]

Hey guys! Come back!

You know that whole thing where we called you sexist pigs and your sons rapists in waiting?

We were KIDDING!

Now buy our razors again.

Please.

Gillette’s backflip after $12 billion ‘toxic masculinity’ backlash

Razor brand Gillette says it is “shifting the spotlight from social issues to local heroes” after an ad delving into “toxic masculinity” caused a customer backlash.

www.news.com.au

 

[B4Bear]

View attachment 732031

Good chuckle out of this. have been working in the electrical field as a tradie and engineer for 35 years, and find this to be highly amusing for some reason.

 

[B4Bear]

It doesn't work like that.

Correct, but an awful lot of weight was placed on credibility of the accuser.

And it is not like it hadn't been tested many times before it got to this point; police, DPP, two trials and the appeal. In each instance he was found to be credible.

Pell's defence was found not to be credible.

Either way, he is locked up.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

Hey guys! Come back!

You know that whole thing where we called you sexist pigs and your sons rapists in waiting?

We were KIDDING!

Now buy our razors again.

Please.

Gillette’s backflip after $12 billion ‘toxic masculinity’ backlash

Razor brand Gillette says it is “shifting the spotlight from social issues to local heroes” after an ad delving into “toxic masculinity” caused a customer backlash.

www.news.com.au

Brings new meaning to the phrase, go woke, go broke.

 

[ferball]

Brings new meaning to the phrase, go woke, go broke.

Anyone who thinks a corporation can be "woke" ... ahhh what's the point.

 

[The Warlord]

My issue is with cases that have:
Accuser: He did this.
Defendant: I didn't.

That is reasonable doubt to me, 100% of the time. Nobody is equipped with the ability to determine who is lying, that is a guess and is not beyond reasonable doubt. The jury is put in an impossible scenario. Reasonable doubt is a lack of proof. A testimony is zero proof, it is an accusation. It just does my head in.

Sweet, so basically you can rape or abuse someone with no witnesses and never be held accountable for it.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Correct, but an awful lot of weight was placed on credibility of the accuser.

And it is not like it hadn't been tested many times before it got to this point; police, DPP, two trials and the appeal. In each instance he was found to be credible.

Pell's defence was found not to be credible.

Either way, he is locked up.

Got no problems with torturing anyone to death who is guilty of such matters, and I mean that literally, but let's not overlook the complete lack of integrity in the Victorian legal system at the same time.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Anyone who thinks a corporation can be "woke" ... ahhh what's the point.

I get it, but they should still pay the price for engaging in such ridiculous crap.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Sweet, so basically you can rape or abuse someone with no witnesses and never be held accountable for it.

Flip side:

...... so basically you can lie about being raped or abused by someone with no witnesses and never be held accountable for it, whilst ruining their lives.

 

[The Warlord]

Flip side:

...... so basically you can lie about being raped or abused by someone with no witnesses and never be held accountable for it, whilst ruining their lives.

I'm very confident there's no Catholic priests doing time who were set up by their malevolent accusers.

On another note - is there any class of person who remains as staunch as the priests and brothers?

Never turn on each other, never do deals.

 

[Snake_Baker]

I'm very confident there's no Catholic priests doing time who were set up by their malevolent accusers.

On another note - is there any class of person who remains as staunch as the priests and brothers?

Never turn on each other, never do deals.

I'm not claiming anything otherwise without proof to the contrary, but let's not utilise the blanket term "rape" as a social phenomenon where accusations must always be taken at face value as truth, because it's certainly not the case.