Play Nice Random Chat Thread IV

(Log in to remove this ad.)

kangatime

Premium Platinum
Mar 29, 2009
9,918
14,167
kangaplace
AFL Club
North Melbourne
If you're rich, part of a major institution and politically connected, you're allowed to rape children.
Bullshit.

Anyone that has spent time in a church that equates to more than the odd wedding/funeral knows that there was reasonable doubt.

Growing up in a catholic home in WA I have very good reason to have zero time for Pell, but it has nothing to with raping of children. On this occasion Pell was judged by media, those out there that want to bring down the catholic church. The lack of unbiased reporting has been disgusting.

When Pell was found guilty a lot of people on here said, he's been found guilty there for he's a child rapist. Well know he's been acquitted so you cant call him a rapist. It works both ways.
 

DesertRoo

Norm Smith Medallist
Feb 11, 2013
5,795
11,196
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Bullshit.

Anyone that has spent time in a church that equates to more than the odd wedding/funeral knows that there was reasonable doubt.

Growing up in a catholic home in WA I have very good reason to have zero time for Pell, but it has nothing to with raping of children. On this occasion Pell was judged by media, those out there that want to bring down the catholic church. The lack of unbiased reporting has been disgusting.

When Pell was found guilty a lot of people on here said, he's been found guilty there for he's a child rapist. Well know he's been acquitted so you cant call him a rapist. It works both ways.
Take off the blinkers, he lived In the same room as Gerald Ridsdale in the Ballarat diocese.
 

JeanLucGoddard

Premium Platinum
Aug 21, 2018
14,900
34,141
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Bullshit.

Anyone that has spent time in a church that equates to more than the odd wedding/funeral knows that there was reasonable doubt.

Growing up in a catholic home in WA I have very good reason to have zero time for Pell, but it has nothing to with raping of children. On this occasion Pell was judged by media, those out there that want to bring down the catholic church. The lack of unbiased reporting has been disgusting.

When Pell was found guilty a lot of people on here said, he's been found guilty there for he's a child rapist. Well know he's been acquitted so you cant call him a rapist. It works both ways.
Yeah I was raised Catholic, educated by Christian Brother for a few years, and had a parent worked in the CEO in the 90s under Pell. Until they left because they couldn't work among the child rapists and their accomplices any longer.

He's a child rapist who got off because he could afford top silk to argue all the way to the High Court.

Prince Andrew Down Under.
 

DesertRoo

Norm Smith Medallist
Feb 11, 2013
5,795
11,196
AFL Club
North Melbourne
And that's enough to convict him? Guilty by association?

Like I said, I cant stand the guy, but if you look at this case subjectively then there is more than reasonable doubt.

The Ballarat Pool case, that is more likely.
He was convicted by a jury of his peers, by the testimony of someone who had nothing to gain.
 

kangatime

Premium Platinum
Mar 29, 2009
9,918
14,167
kangaplace
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Yeah I was raised Catholic, educated by Christian Brother for a few years, and had a parent worked in the CEO in the 90s under Pell. Until they left because they couldn't work among the child rapists and their accomplices any longer.

He's a child rapist who got off because he could afford top silk to argue all the way to the High Court.

Prince Andrew Down Under.
No, he got off because there was reasonable doubt. If Victoria had the same system as SA or WA this would have been a Judge only trial from the beginning. He only got convicted because a jury was prejudiced and like you wanted to convict him for this based on rumors. Our legal system doesn't work like that. It can't work like that.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

kangatime

Premium Platinum
Mar 29, 2009
9,918
14,167
kangaplace
AFL Club
North Melbourne
He got off because he could afford an establishment SC who could go up to the Canberra Court for the Politically Connected and speak their language and wriggle out on a technicality.

It is disgusting but predictable.
It wasn't a technicality. Read the evidence without bias. There is so much doubt its not funny. The timings just don't work. The jury convicted him because of a trial by media that went on for years. It was impossible to get a jury that hadn't been influenced.
 

JeanLucGoddard

Premium Platinum
Aug 21, 2018
14,900
34,141
AFL Club
North Melbourne
It wasn't a technicality. Read the evidence without bias. There is so much doubt its not funny. The timings just don't work. The jury convicted him because of a trial by media that went on for years. It was impossible to get a jury that hadn't been influenced.
I followed it very closely.

Everyone including his own counsel accepted the victim was utterly credible.

The only ones throwing doubt in were his fellow clergy/accomplices.
 

DesertRoo

Norm Smith Medallist
Feb 11, 2013
5,795
11,196
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Which has now been shown to be a wrong conviction. You have to accept this. Like at the time I was told I had to accept the verdict because it's law. I'll say it again. It works both ways.
Hahaha, would you let your kids go on vacation alone with Pell for six weeks at the Vatican?
 

Tas

Premium Gold
Dec 23, 2002
53,387
36,701
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
There can be only one...
He got off because he could afford an establishment SC who could go up to the Canberra Court for the Politically Connected and speak their language and wriggle out on a technicality.

It is disgusting but predictable.
My major gripe with our legal system is the cost and accessibility of competent legal representation and the courts themselves and the time it takes, it is an archaic system that needs modernisation. The High Court has to worry about the precedence of allowing case law to go through the system which binds future judgements. If they had allowed a conviction basically requiring the defendant to prove their innocence then the fundamental nature of our laws would change.

I still have a high level of suspicion that he is guilty of the crime, and possibly others, however, you would be mortified if someone brought a charge against you or a loved one and was sent to prison for a long period of time based on that level of evidence, which was basically the account of the accuser.

To me, it is not possible to be free of reasonable doubt on that alone. That would be asking the jury to try and determine who is lying and a jury doesn't have the ability to do so. There was far more compelling evidence against Daw, I think you need to take the emotion out of the science of how these mechanisms work, we were happy for a jury to disregard an eyewitness' account because we wanted Daw to be innocent. Pell is guilty of a lot of shit, we know what the church did to avoid prosecutions of priests, and a lot of people I think want him to pay and don't really care how or why it happens.

People weren't lambasting the corruption of the courts when Daw got off a rape charge, and footballers have dodged more bullets in the police/court system than the average punter can dream of. We have to take our natural bias off when we look at the nuts and bolts of something as emotionally driven as this.
 

Top Bottom