Play Nice Random Chat Thread: Episode III

[SpiderBurton22]

It is the classic progressive playbook, can't win the most basic of arguments so droll out personal attacks. It is why we end up with Trump, Brexit and are soon going to be bombarded with right wing extremists because progressives value feelings more than logic.

Nobody and I mean NOBODY would want to front some kind of judicial system where the accuser's testimony is the only form of evidence required to ruin your life and put you in jail for god knows how long.

I wish we had a better legal system but this one has evolved out of thousands of years of really s**tty forms of justice and at this point in time is the best we can do. Yeah, it sucks when people we assume are guilty walk free but we can't have a kangaroo court where we choose who gets justice and who doesn't.

It is why I bought up Daw, an accusation and testimony of the accuser and a witness was not enough to convict him. I haven't seen these moral arbiters with pitchforks in hand storm Arden street with noose in hand. I thought Daw was in strife, a witness is a significant piece of evidence. The jury obviously didn't feel they were credible enough to pass the burden of proof test. I didn't see the moral outrage.

At the end of the day the jury had to make a judgement, an educated guess based on the evidence presented. We don't know who is guilty or innocent, we have a s**tty system and it is why you can appeal the s**t out of judgements to try and prevent a mistake being made but we still have numerous mistakes fall through the cracks. Whatever happens is going to be imperfect and will never please everyone, wont even please a majority of people but nobody has a better solution.

I'm guessing, no in fact, I'm certain, that you haven't seen the whole evidence in both cases to form an educated opinion on either of Pell or Daw's guilt. Yet here you are doubting all the people that have.

 

[Themanbun]

Our law in this area is frequently criticized precisely because it sets the burden of proof in these cases too high for an accusation alone to secure a conviction (not saying I agree with this criticism). That Pell was convicted indicates that there was more evidence presented than testimony alone, and the cumulative weight of that evidence led to a beyond reasonable doubt conviction, more than once.

 

[Del191229]

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

"The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution: that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a personis innocent until proven guilty."

You think an accuser's testimony alone can pass that test?

I can think of a number of other logical explanations, that is where other evidence is critical to form an educated opinion. That doesn't mean I don't think he did it or could have done it, but the testimony alone doesn't eliminate reasonable doubt.

It is a matter of logic, not feelings.

At some point it is going to dawn on you that "testimony alone" is not what did Pell.

And that nobody is done on "testimony alone".

You keep crapping on about "feelings and emotion" completely oblivious to the fact that it is YOU who has chucked logic and reason - by your own admission you don't know any details of the case beyond media reporting - and are going purely on emotion.

And you keep ignoring the fact that Pell has been accused many times, and that only this case was actually brought to court.

 

[Val Keating]

We think about the yanks more than they think about Australia. Even for stuff like defence and strategy.

That’s my point. It cracks me up

 

[Del191229]

If social media is an addiction machine, the addictive behaviour it is closest to is gambling: a rigged lottery. Every gambler trusts in a few abstract symbols – the dots on a dice, numerals, suits, red or black, the graphemes on a fruit machine – to tell them who they are. In most cases, the answer is brutal and swift: you are a loser and you are going home with nothing. The true gambler takes a perverse joy in anteing up, putting their whole being at stake. On social media, you scratch out a few words, a few symbols, and press send, rolling the dice. The internet will tell you who you are and what your destiny is through arithmetic likes, shares and comments.

The interesting question is what it is that is so addictive. In principle, anyone can win big; in practice, not everyone is playing with the same odds. Our social media accounts are set up like enterprises competing for attention. If we are all authors now, we write not for money, but for the satisfaction of being read. Going viral, or trending, is the equivalent of a windfall. But sometimes, winning is the worst thing that can happen. The temperate climate of likes and approval is apt to break, lightning-quick, into sudden storms of fury and disapproval.

The machine always wins: what drives our addiction to social media

The long read: Social media was supposed to liberate us, but for many people it has proved addictive, punishing and toxic. What keeps us hooked?

www.theguardian.com

 

[Tas]

I'm guessing, no in fact, I'm certain, that you haven't seen the whole evidence in both cases to form an educated opinion on either of Pell or Daw's guilt. Yet here you are doubting all the people that have.

Yeah, nobody knows. I mean if he had a massive wart on his knob and he was able to describe it then testimony could be compelling evidence, but information of that nature wasn't reported in the media, you would assume that it something noteworthy was provided that it would have been reported given they covered every other minor piece of evidence.

 

[Del191229]

Yeah, nobody knows. I mean if he had a massive wart on his knob and he was able to describe it then testimony could be compelling evidence, but information of that nature wasn't reported in the media, you would assume that it something noteworthy was provided that it would have been reported given they covered every other minor piece of evidence.

Oh dear Jesus. You actually don't have a clue about this at all.

 

[Del191229]

Keen for your views on helicopters Tas.

Can you explain how every bit of machinery works in one?

NO?

Then they are WITCHCRAFT and must be banned.

 

[Tas]

At some point it is going to dawn on you that "testimony alone" is not what did Pell.

And that nobody is done on "testimony alone".

You keep crapping on about "feelings and emotion" completely oblivious to the fact that it is YOU who has chucked logic and reason - by your own admission you don't know any details of the case beyond media reporting - and are going purely on emotion.

And you keep ignoring the fact that Pell has been accused many times, and that only this case was actually brought to court.

"There is no eyewitness evidence, no physical evidence, no circumstantial evidence, no cogency, and no contemporary report. Scott lodged his claim four decades after the alleged assaults—enough time for memories and evidence, if there had been any, to perish; and enough time for Pell to have become a lightning rod in the Australian media. We are left with Scott’s word against Pell’s."

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2017/07/the-case-against-cardinal-pell

"Before the trial, one of the complainants died, having told his mother that he had never been assaulted. During the trial, there was no corroboration of the surviving complainant’s charges. Other choirboys (now, of course, grown), as well as the choir director and his assistant, the adult members of the choir, the master of ceremonies, and the sacristan all testified, and from their testimony we learn the following: that no one recalled any choirboys bolting from the procession after Mass; that none of those in the immediate vicinity of the alleged abuse noticed anything; that indeed nothing could have happened in a secured space without someone noticing; and that there was neither gossip nor rumor about any such dramatic and vile incident afterward."

Why the Case against Cardinal George Pell Doesn’t Stand Up | National Review

On appeal, judges may decide that the verdict against Cardinal Pell could not have been reached on the basis of the evidence.

www.nationalreview.com

You keep saying I don't know anything about the case, then tell me in your all-knowing wisdom what he was convicted on?

You keep bringing up the other accusations... he wasn't on trial for the other accusations.

I am not saying or even suggesting he isn't guilty, or that the information posted above isn't biased, all that I have read or heard is the accused testimony and no other evidence is the entire basis for the prosecution.

 

[Val Keating]

The chosen one likes the bible. It’s very special.

 

[Del191229]

Tas that first quote- the Scott one - refers to an entirely different accusation from 30 years before.

Not the matter he's been convicted of.

As I said, you don't understand even the basics of this stuff.

 

[Liam Boy]

Meanwhile the Amazon is on fire. Possibly deliberately lit

Possibly? I'd say definitely. The attempt to strip Indigenous people of their land failed in court so now they're taking the guerilla approach. Deforesting to make room to breed more ****ing cows and keep destroying the planet.

Everyone should be aware that none of this would be happening if it wasn't for the political imprisonment of Luis Inacio Lula Da Silva, former president of brazil who brought millions out of poverty among other things, was leading by double digits in the polls before his arrest, and the judge behind his imprisonment went on to become Bolsonaro's justice minister, was later found to have been colluding with the prosecution and probably had ties to the CIA.

 

[Tas]

Tas that first quote- the Scott one - refers to an entirely different accusation from 30 years before.

Not the matter he's been convicted of.

As I said, you don't understand even the basics of this stuff.

How about the second one where they say there is no evidence?

I have better things to do than follow pedo trials but what I have read in the news doesn't seem to suggest there is any other evidence. Do you actually know anything about the case or are you just Witchsmelling?

 

[Del191229]

"There is no eyewitness evidence, no physical evidence, no circumstantial evidence, no cogency, and no contemporary report. Scott lodged his claim four decades after the alleged assaults—enough time for memories and evidence, if there had been any, to perish; and enough time for Pell to have become a lightning rod in the Australian media. We are left with Scott’s word against Pell’s."

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2017/07/the-case-against-cardinal-pell

This refers to an entirely seperate incident.

 

[Del191229]

How about the second one where they say there is no evidence?

I have better things to do than follow pedo trials but what I have read in the news doesn't seem to suggest there is any other evidence. Do you actually know anything about the case or are you just Witchsmelling?

I clearly know more about it than you.

 

[Tas]

Possibly? I'd say definitely. The attempt to strip Indigenous people of their land failed in court so now they're taking the guerilla approach. Deforesting to make room to breed more ******* cows and keep destroying the planet.

Everyone should be aware that none of this would be happening if it wasn't for the political imprisonment of Luis Inacio Lula Da Silva, former president of brazil who brought millions out of poverty among other things, was leading by double digits in the polls before his arrest, and the judge behind his imprisonment went on to become Bolsonaro's justice minister, was later found to have been colluding with the prosecution and probably had ties to the CIA.

Seems it is being deliberately cleared to grow soybeans, pretty sad.

 

[Tas]

I clearly know more about it than you.

Then tell us.

 

[Val Keating]

Possibly? I'd say definitely. The attempt to strip Indigenous people of their land failed in court so now they're taking the guerilla approach. Deforesting to make room to breed more ******* cows and keep destroying the planet.

Everyone should be aware that none of this would be happening if it wasn't for the political imprisonment of Luis Inacio Lula Da Silva, former president of brazil who brought millions out of poverty among other things, was leading by double digits in the polls before his arrest, and the judge behind his imprisonment went on to become Bolsonaro's justice minister, was later found to have been colluding with the prosecution and probably had ties to the CIA.

Criminal. Our generation will be looked back on as the most destructive period in human existence.

 

[Del191229]

How about the second one where they say there is no evidence?

I have better things to do than follow pedo trials but what I have read in the news doesn't seem to suggest there is any other evidence. Do you actually know anything about the case or are you just Witchsmelling?

Sigh.

For a start, there were tens of other people giving testimony, church officials, choir boys, people who were there on the day the crimes occurred.

All their evidence was heard, and tested against the testimony of the accuser. So it wasn't just "his word".

The accuser's - Witness J - testimony you haven't read about in the media because shockingly, we don't publicly hang child rape victims out to dry anymore in this country, so it was delivered in closed court. I realise you live in some bizarro universe where "logically" a 13 year old should immediately go down the police station and report a savage sexual assault or it "doesn't count" thirty years later, but society at large believes otherwise.

So indeed, Pell may have some identifying mark on his penis and the kid identified it - sadly, you will never know that element, but rest assured that jurors did as did four judges and only one judge saw the possibility of reasonable doubt.

And Witness J was cross examined by Robert Richter for a full day and their testimony did not fall apart. None of the testimony given by the other people in the court room apparently controverted this to the point where the jury - or Chef Justice and President of the Court of Appeal - went "hang on, this is bullshit".

Recall Robert Richter convinced a jury that when Mick Gatto took Benji Veniamin's gun off him and shot him in the head with it, it was "self defence".

But aha I hear you say, nobody saw the actual rape take place apart from the other choirboy - who went from being a happy go lucky 13 year old kid to a 13 year injecting heroin in alleyways in the months after the rap, obviously there's enormous links between childhood sexual abuse and serious drug addiction - who is now dead of a heroin overdose.

Which brings us to Pell himself - why didn't he give evidence? Indeed it is his right not to and he exercised that right.

But surely a man of his stature, literally a Prince of the largest, richest, most powerful organisation in human history, an Oxford man, surely he gets up in court and clears his name? If it is all so ridiculous and tenuous?

So, rather than just the victim's word against Pell's word, as if this is the vice principals's office and kids are trying to blame a broken window on each other, it was slightly more structured than that, and predicated at every point on removing reasonable doubt - from deciding whether to even press charges to the appeal.

Someone made an accusation, it was tested by cops to see if it was true for them to investigate, tested to the point where they charged and the DPP agreed to take it on, then tested through the court process, including a re-trial after the first jury couldn't agree, then tested again in the Court of Appeal. And it stood up.

Pell had the opportunity to be represented and could afford the finest silks going - Richter and Bret Walker - and these legal miracle workers couldn't convince others the accusation was false. Despite that being their very highly paid job.

And Pell, for whatever reason, felt that his silence was preferable to answering questions about the accusation.

You're saying that anyone can make a complaint - I could go bumble down the jack shop and say Mr Tas Tediously-Longposts touched me up when I were a kiddy. And then you'd be dragged before a court and have no chance to defend yourself. That's not what happens in real life.

 

[SpiderBurton22]

Sigh.

For a start, there were tens of other people giving testimony, church officials, choir boys, people who were there on the day the crimes occurred.

All their evidence was heard, and tested against the testimony of the accuser. So it wasn't just "his word".

The accuser's - Witness J - testimony you haven't read about in the media because shockingly, we don't publicly hang child rape victims out to dry anymore in this country, so it was delivered in closed court. I realise you live in some bizarro universe where "logically" a 13 year old should immediately go down the police station and report a savage sexual assault or it "doesn't count" thirty years later, but society at large believes otherwise.

So indeed, Pell may have some identifying mark on his penis and the kid identified it - sadly, you will never know that element, but rest assured that jurors did as did four judges and only one judge saw the possibility of reasonable doubt.

And Witness J was cross examined by Robert Richter for a full day and their testimony did not fall apart. None of the testimony given by the other people in the court room apparently controverted this to the point where the jury - or Chef Justice and President of the Court of Appeal - went "hang on, this is bulls**t".

Recall Robert Richter convinced a jury that when Mick Gatto took Benji Veniamin's gun off him and shot him in the head with it, it was "self defence".

But aha I hear you say, nobody saw the actual rape take place apart from the other choirboy - who went from being a happy go lucky 13 year old kid to a 13 year injecting heroin in alleyways in the months after the rap, obviously there's enormous links between childhood sexual abuse and serious drug addiction - who is now dead of a heroin overdose.

Which brings us to Pell himself - why didn't he give evidence? Indeed it is his right not to and he exercised that right.

But surely a man of his stature, literally a Prince of the largest, richest, most powerful organisation in human history, an Oxford man, surely he gets up in court and clears his name? If it is all so ridiculous and tenuous?

So, rather than just the victim's word against Pell's word, as if this is the vice principals's office and kids are trying to blame a broken window on each other, it was slightly more structured than that, and predicated at every point on removing reasonable doubt - from deciding whether to even press charges to the appeal.

Someone made an accusation, it was tested by cops to see if it was true for them to investigate, tested to the point where they charged and the DPP agreed to take it on, then tested through the court process, including a re-trial after the first jury couldn't agree, then tested again in the Court of Appeal. And it stood up.

Pell had the opportunity to be represented and could afford the finest silks going - Richter and Bret Walker - and these legal miracle workers couldn't convince others the accusation was false. Despite that being their very highly paid job.

And Pell, for whatever reason, felt that his silence was preferable to answering questions about the accusation.

You're saying that anyone can make a complaint - I could go bumble down the jack shop and say Mr Tas Tediously-Longposts touched me up when I were a kiddy. And then you'd be dragged before a court and have no chance to defend yourself. That's not what happens in real life.

You reckon that will be enough detail, I'm not sure.

 

[Themanbun]

Pointing out what most of us already know but it's starting to spread. We could be approaching a massive rupture point in industrial relations.

Redirect Notice

www.google.com

 

[Tas]

Sigh.

For a start, there were tens of other people giving testimony, church officials, choir boys, people who were there on the day the crimes occurred.

All their evidence was heard, and tested against the testimony of the accuser. So it wasn't just "his word".

He doesn't know exactly when it happened, it is understandable given the time that has passed but if according the second article I quoted none of the people questioned could corroborate the events as Witness J testified, the other alleged victim has passed away and he never admitted to being a victim to anyone other than victim J as far as the media have described.

The accuser's - Witness J - testimony you haven't read about in the media because shockingly, we don't publicly hang child rape victims out to dry anymore in this country, so it was delivered in closed court. I realise you live in some bizarro universe where "logically" a 13 year old should immediately go down the police station and report a savage sexual assault or it "doesn't count" thirty years later, but society at large believes otherwise.

Yeah, identity of victims are usually protected, don't really need to know anything about him. I'm not saying that people should come forward immediately, it is what authorities tell us to do, because it is extremely difficult to convict people without physical evidence.

So indeed, Pell may have some identifying mark on his penis and the kid identified it - sadly, you will never know that element, but rest assured that jurors did as did four judges and only one judge saw the possibility of reasonable doubt.

The media hasn't mentioned anything of the sort and the embargo on media reporting on the evidence has been lifted for some time. If he was able to physically identify Pell in a manner that he shouldn't normally able to, that would be compelling evidence. I'm not aware if there was anything more substantial in the testimony, if there was, I would be surprised one of the judges would have voted against the other two if that was the case.

And Witness J was cross examined by Robert Richter for a full day and their testimony did not fall apart. None of the testimony given by the other people in the court room apparently controverted this to the point where the jury - or Chef Justice and President of the Court of Appeal - went "hang on, this is bulls**t".

Yeah, it is not like this was someone off the street accusing Pell, it was someone who was a choir boy, he knew the cathedral and the process well enough. I am not suggesting his account wasn't accurate, however, if he had a vendetta against Pell for say his role in preventing other priests being brought to justice and he wanted to fabricate a story to get back at him after someone he believed was abused died, it wouldn't be unreasonable to believe he could come up with a convincing story against Pell. That is my only real issue, in the way beyond reasonable doubt is legally defined and it's implementation. Not suggesting that the victim made it up, but there are other possibilities that can account for the testimony and evidence needs to be beyond reasonable doubt.

If there is satisfactory evidence then I am fine with that, if there is other evidence that hasn't made it to the media, they should probably detail it because a lot of people are having a hard time reconciling the verdict with what has been made public and I don't give a shit about Pell, I just have no confidence in the system based on what has been made public.

Recall Robert Richter convinced a jury that when Mick Gatto took Benji Veniamin's gun off him and shot him in the head with it, it was "self defence".

But aha I hear you say, nobody saw the actual rape take place apart from the other choirboy - who went from being a happy go lucky 13 year old kid to a 13 year injecting heroin in alleyways in the months after the rap, obviously there's enormous links between childhood sexual abuse and serious drug addiction - who is now dead of a heroin overdose.

It is not that nobody saw the rapes, nobody recalls anyone leaving in the manner he described or hearing rumours of abuse afterwards. They could be lying of course but it is a stretch that everyone would be lying under oath.

Hard drugs are bad for kids, a lot of kids go from happy go lucky to shit when they mess with drugs, it isn't evidence that they have been abused.

Which brings us to Pell himself - why didn't he give evidence? Indeed it is his right not to and he exercised that right.

I don't know. He isn't required to by law. He isn't required to prove his innocence. Some personality types are not the most empathetic and a jury of common people might take even honest evidence the wrong way. He might just not handle cross examination well after testing how he would handle it. A legal defence team would need to take all of that into consideration when considering if they put someone on the stand or not.

But surely a man of his stature, literally a Prince of the largest, richest, most powerful organisation in human history, an Oxford man, surely he gets up in court and clears his name? If it is all so ridiculous and tenuous?

I would have thought he would have, but I am not legal expert. Choosing not to give evidence is not grounds to find someone guilty though. It is up to the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt without the defendant giving evidence during the trial, they have his statements he made to police. He wasn't even required to make statements to the police. A lack of evidence isn't evidence of something else, if that makes sense.

So, rather than just the victim's word against Pell's word, as if this is the vice principals's office and kids are trying to blame a broken window on each other, it was slightly more structured than that, and predicated at every point on removing reasonable doubt - from deciding whether to even press charges to the appeal.

Yeah, it was a lot more structured than that. However, it really comes down to someone's account of events was all that was required to get a guilty conviction unless what was stated in the article I linked was inaccurate. This isn't about Pell, I would have a hard time if you or anyone was convicted of a crime that required beyond reasonable doubt based on that level of evidence.

I know that is hard to reconcile, people see rape and sexual abuse as particularly heinous crimes and they are, but when you break down what exactly they have on Pell from this case in particular, it is really **** all unless there is some smoking gun nobody has bothered to mention in the media and I find that hard to believe given all the other drivel that have been able to write profusely about.

It is kind of scary to think someone who hates you, perhaps for justifiable reason, perhaps for not, could get a guilty of verdict on that level of evidence. I've never done anything in my life to have someone come at me for rape, sexual assault or anything of the sort so I have no fear that someone is coming after me, perhaps it is just the uncertainty of the whole system. You could be innocent but it is your performance during giving testimony that is all that matters? Perhaps it is my personality type that finds that pretty disturbing because I'd be ****ed if I relied on my ability to charm an audience to save my arse. That is ****ing disturbing to me.

Someone made an accusation, it was tested by cops to see if it was true for them to investigate, tested to the point where they charged and the DPP agreed to take it on, then tested through the court process, including a re-trial after the first jury couldn't agree, then tested again in the Court of Appeal. And it stood up.

On a serious note, I am not looking for excuses or victim blaming or anything. Don't even think about it in relation to this case. Just imagine Person A has a vendetta on Person B and created a story about something that happened 30 years ago and it was compelling. How would it be even remotely possible to determine if it was true or not? The detail? The way they describe it? We know there are false accusations made, from time to time people admit they were false. Is there any way possible for us to tell the difference between a true or false account? There was a recent case of a lady who accused a good samaritan of raping her because of the way he talked to her. He was divorced by his wife because of it, put in jail, but the lack of evidence of where she said it happened with no cctv footage itself made the police push her if it was false and she eventually confessed. She said she would have eventually confessed out of guilt, but would she knowing the consequences? If it wasn't for the lack of evidence, everyone would have believed her story.

That doesn't mean false accusations are common or that this was a false accusation, we just have no way of knowing if it was true or not regardless what police of jury believe, many innocent people have been put behind bars. We can't even begin to explore how accurate something was 30 years in the past. I don't even know how we would even try to piece together what happened so long ago.

Pell had the opportunity to be represented and could afford the finest silks going - Richter and Bret Walker - and these legal miracle workers couldn't convince others the accusation was false. Despite that being their very highly paid job.

And Pell, for whatever reason, felt that his silence was preferable to answering questions about the accusation.

You're saying that anyone can make a complaint - I could go bumble down the jack shop and say Mr Tas Tediously-Longposts touched me up when I were a kiddy. And then you'd be dragged before a court and have no chance to defend yourself. That's not what happens in real life.

It is not that easy, he obviously knew Pell well enough and knew how the cathedral operated being a choir boy. Someone who knows you well enough could though, someone at work or school for example, wouldn't be the first time.

I think if something did go down that way, you would much rather there was a Tas on the jury who have a very libertarian view of reasonable doubt than someone like you, if you life was on the line.

Look we all have personal bias, I am not going to lose any sleep if Pell spends his entire sentence in jail because my personal bias believes he has has a nefarious relationship with priests who have been guilty of abuse. I don't know if he is guilty or not of this alleged crime, I think the Church hasn't come close to paying for it's sins.

However, that doesn't mean I am happy that anyone can be found guilty on the basis of testimony alone, it hasn't proven to be reliable enough in itself. I am sorry for people who want justice for crimes committed against them but people who lie under oath have made it impossible to just listen and believe.

 

[SpiderBurton22]

Someone call Andew Bolt, here is his next article.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

Someone call Andew Bolt, here is his next article.

That’s quite insulting for anyone.

 

[SpiderBurton22]