Universal Love TRTT Part 10: Ken Things I Hate About You

MaxPowa is

  • Definitely not Janus

    Votes: 14 37.8%
  • Definitely Janus

    Votes: 23 62.2%

  • Total voters
    37

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
The evidence against Pell was entirely circumstantial though. It came down to who the jury believed.

testimony isn’t considered circumstantial evidence.

if a witness saw Pell going to a back room, at a time that an offence occurred that would be called circumstantial evidence

a witness saying he did x to me is not a circumstantial witness.
 
...

I am not a Catholic. I'm not religious. I despise Paedos. Pell comes off as a complete campaigner. Andrew Bolt is an A grade *******. But the mob baying for blood doesn't make somebody inherently guilty.

I think some admission on his lawyers behalf does though

Sent from my Nokia 7.2 using Tapatalk
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Mate I don't know. But it would appear that this was a case where it was pretty much he said against he said. The person making the allegations came off as more believable to a jury than the accused. Pell's reputation for covering up sex abuse in the past would have counted greatly against him in the eyes of the jury as would of his arrogance and aloofness. Does that mean he did it? Again, I don't know. He denied it continually and there were no witnesses, the other kid who's now dead said it never happened. It also is supposed to have happened 25 plus years ago. A lot of these things usually go against a conviction.

I am not a Catholic. I'm not religious. I despise Paedos. Pell comes off as a complete campaigner. Andrew Bolt is an A grade *******. But the mob baying for blood doesn't make somebody inherently guilty.

I was raised a Catholic

Then I became C&E (Christmas & Easter)

Then I became hatch match and despatch.

The leadership of the church and the blindness of its dedicated followers makes me sick.
 
I was raised a Catholic

Then I became C&E (Christmas & Easter)

Then I became hatch match and despatch.

The leadership of the church and the blindness of its dedicated followers makes me sick.

I completely agree. But this case, from a legal point of view, was definitely not open and shut like most want it to be. The absolutism from many just because they hate Pell and all he represents is palpable.

Remember when 90% of Australia were convinced Lindy Killed Azaria?
 
The evidence against Pell was entirely circumstantial though. It came down to who the jury believed.

Also this isn’t true.

the high court stated they found the witness believable.

it wasn’t a case if he said she said at all.

It’s a case of the defending lawyers taking advantage of the ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ by suggesting that Pells normal routine would have made it somewhat unlikely he committed the acts.

here is what they said

F1280D93-74E9-49CB-92F3-D9E33385C430.jpeg
 
I completely agree. But this case, from a legal point of view, was definitely not open and shut like most want it to be. The absolutism from many just because they hate Pell and all he represents is palpable.

Remember when 90% of Australia were convinced Lindy Killed Azaria?

She did though
 
Isn’t that why we have judges and juries?

Don’t they determine guilt or innocence based on evidence?
No they determine guilt based on evidence. They don't make any judgement on innocence at all.

They only ever find that there was not enough evidence to prove you didn't do what you're accused off.
The closest we get to finding innocence is charges being withdrawn.

She did though
On this, Lindy Chamberlain's is a bit special, because they were never happy with "not guilty because of reasonable doubt that a dingo may have killed her baby". She has actually been specifically found innocent, with the 2012 Coronial Inquest ruling that a Dingo killed Azaria without human intervention.
 
Last edited:
The evidence against Pell was entirely circumstantial though. It came down to who the jury believed.

Not just the jury. Pell lost his initial appeal 2-1 at state level. The reasonable doubt the High Court used in their decision is an intentional flaw in the legal system designed to protect the genuinely innocent. FWIW I reckon the Victorian justice system got it right with their verdicts and the High Court did the right thing by not redefining reasonable doubt. The legal system worked as it was designed to. As painful as that is for the victims, they still brought down a very powerful man who's life and legacy will now be forever associated with child abuse and imo that is worse than any punishment a court hands down.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

And that job is goone!


Luckily have some casual stuff to fall back on


Sorry didn't meant to interrupt your pedo chat
Do you think by saying pedo chat my IP address is on a watch list?

Or do you have to say like sodium nitrate and fertilizer makes mY foot fetish come out to play?
 
they still brought down a very powerful man who's life and legacy will now be forever associated with child abuse and imo that is worse than any punishment a court hands down.

yeah I imagine sex abuse victims world wide are stoked that a pedo who lives In an ivory tower, with rich and influential friends, a job for life, and surrounded by a circle of friends and co workers who will not ostracise him isn’t being punished by the courts.
* me

let’s not pretend that Pell is now going to be shunned and live out his last days in some gross hole pennyless and distraught.

the church will look after him.
 
yeah I imagine sex abuse victims world wide are stoked that a pedo who lives In an ivory tower, with rich and influential friends, a job for life, and surrounded by a circle of friends and co workers who will not ostracise him isn’t being punished by the courts.
fu** me

let’s not pretend that Pell is now going to be shunned and live out his last days in some gross hole pennyless and distraught.

the church will look after him.

As far as I’m aware even though he was convicted and lost his appeal they didn’t even strip him of his title of cardinal.

And Catholics wonder why people are angrily shaking their fists.
 
As far as I’m aware even though he was convicted and lost his appeal they didn’t even strip him of his title of cardinal.

And Catholics wonder why people are angrily shaking their fists.
And now they are deciding if they will continue an internal investigation.... fck me. A catholic church internal investigation. Would probably find him not pedo enough.
 
He's a pedo and a defender of pedos. Get over it.

Even if, and it's a ******* huge IF, he didn't gob those poor kids then THIS alone should be enough for all Catholics to absolutely reject him as not only a cardinal in their church but as a christian outright

But no, the ******* leader of the whole ******* religion still backs him in

Get stuffed
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top