Four Corners Guilty: The Conviction of Cardinal Pell

8:32PM - 9:18PM

CC

Reveals how Australia's highest ranking Catholic, Cardinal George Pell, was brought to justice. With the suppression order lifted on his conviction, the full story can now be told.

What if his appeal is successful?

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 4^th, 2019 at 6:54pm:

What if his appeal is successful?

Then 4 Corners could be embarrassed.

Bobby. wrote on Mar 4^th, 2019 at 7:01pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 4th, 2019 at 6:54pm: What if his appeal is successful? Then 4 Corners could be embarrassed.

Maybe this will happen to them:


https://akkaoldfart.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/analprobe_aliens.gif

That was a good program tonight.

Q&A was also quite good for a change...

The Rabbi was entertaining and the guy from the Catholic Review was really on the ball.

Bobby. wrote on Mar 4^th, 2019 at 6:25pm:

Four Corners Guilty: The Conviction of Cardinal Pell 8:32PM - 9:18PM CC Reveals how Australia's highest ranking Catholic, Cardinal George Pell, was brought to justice. With the suppression order lifted on his conviction, the full story can now be told.

George Pell was convicted, in a court of law, bobby.

But it was an 'unsafe' conviction, imo.




Surely, if Pell had committed such acts, and over decades of time, there must be more than one lone accuser who would stand up in a court, and accuse this man ???!!!!

It was an 'unsafe' conviction.



.




Deuteronomy 19:15
One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.

Yadda wrote on Mar 4^th, 2019 at 11:15pm:

It was an 'unsafe' conviction.

What was unsafe about it.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/mar/02/cardinal-george-pells-conviction-the-questions-that-remain

Try reading

Bobby. wrote on Mar 4^th, 2019 at 6:25pm:

Four Corners Guilty: The Conviction of Cardinal Pell 8:32PM - 9:18PM CC Reveals how Australia's highest ranking Catholic, Cardinal George Pell, was brought to justice. With the suppression order lifted on his conviction, the full story can now be told.

It turns out that I saw bits and pieces of this show when visiting a friend last night.

I noticed something a bit odd.

All of the victims and witnesses seem to be blue collar workers (or unemployed) who probably never stayed on past year 10 at school.

It seems to be a theme with these sort of things: witnesses interviewed at the scene of a crime; victims of crime; etc.

You never (or at least very rarely) see people in suits being portrayed as witnesses or victims in these TV shows. Never any doctors, lawyers, accountants or dentists, etc.

Just something I've noticed.

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 5^th, 2019 at 7:39am:

Bobby. wrote on Mar 4th, 2019 at 6:25pm: Four Corners Guilty: The Conviction of Cardinal Pell 8:32PM - 9:18PM CC Reveals how Australia's highest ranking Catholic, Cardinal George Pell, was brought to justice. With the suppression order lifted on his conviction, the full story can now be told. It turns out that I saw bits and pieces of this show when visiting a friend last night. I noticed something a bit odd. All of the victims and witnesses seem to be blue collar workers (or unemployed) who probably never stayed on past year 10 at school. It seems to be a theme with these sort of things: witnesses interviewed at the scene of a crime; victims of crime; etc. You never (or at least very rarely) see people in suits being portrayed as witnesses or victims in these TV shows. Never any doctors, lawyers, accountants or dentists, etc. Just something I've noticed.

The witness in the Pell case is university educated with a family.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Mar 5^th, 2019 at 7:41am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 7:39am: Bobby. wrote on Mar 4th, 2019 at 6:25pm: Four Corners Guilty: The Conviction of Cardinal Pell 8:32PM - 9:18PM CC Reveals how Australia's highest ranking Catholic, Cardinal George Pell, was brought to justice. With the suppression order lifted on his conviction, the full story can now be told. It turns out that I saw bits and pieces of this show when visiting a friend last night. I noticed something a bit odd. All of the victims and witnesses seem to be blue collar workers (or unemployed) who probably never stayed on past year 10 at school. It seems to be a theme with these sort of things: witnesses interviewed at the scene of a crime; victims of crime; etc. You never (or at least very rarely) see people in suits being portrayed as witnesses or victims in these TV shows. Never any doctors, lawyers, accountants or dentists, etc. Just something I've noticed. The witness in the Pell case is university educated with a family.

When you say witness, I gather you mean the victim.

Has he appeared on TV?

I still dont know. I mean if their evidence after all these years is a few ppl who saw him in the changing room naked . . . .  my father did that stuff. he would just stand there in all his glory not realising he was making ppl uncomfortable. some ppl are like that. It wasnt sexual molestation though was it. Seems to me more ppl would have come forward if this stuff happened. Perhaps that boy fingered the wrong person.

Spot

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 5^th, 2019 at 7:45am:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 7:41am: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 7:39am: Bobby. wrote on Mar 4th, 2019 at 6:25pm: Four Corners Guilty: The Conviction of Cardinal Pell 8:32PM - 9:18PM CC Reveals how Australia's highest ranking Catholic, Cardinal George Pell, was brought to justice. With the suppression order lifted on his conviction, the full story can now be told. It turns out that I saw bits and pieces of this show when visiting a friend last night. I noticed something a bit odd. All of the victims and witnesses seem to be blue collar workers (or unemployed) who probably never stayed on past year 10 at school. It seems to be a theme with these sort of things: witnesses interviewed at the scene of a crime; victims of crime; etc. You never (or at least very rarely) see people in suits being portrayed as witnesses or victims in these TV shows. Never any doctors, lawyers, accountants or dentists, etc. Just something I've noticed. The witness in the Pell case is university educated with a family. When you say witness, I gather you mean the victim. Has he appeared on TV?

No, because he wants privacy. His evidence was given via video link.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 5^th, 2019 at 8:31am:

I still dont know. I mean if their evidence after all these years is a few ppl who saw him in the changing room naked . . . .  my father did that stuff. he would just stand there in all his glory not realising he was making ppl uncomfortable. some ppl are like that. It wasnt sexual molestation though was it. Seems to me more ppl would have come forward if this stuff happened. Perhaps that boy fingered the wrong person. Spot

Why? Given how much poo has happened in this case, why would people risk it?

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Mar 5^th, 2019 at 9:05am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 7:45am: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 7:41am: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 7:39am: Bobby. wrote on Mar 4th, 2019 at 6:25pm: Four Corners Guilty: The Conviction of Cardinal Pell 8:32PM - 9:18PM CC Reveals how Australia's highest ranking Catholic, Cardinal George Pell, was brought to justice. With the suppression order lifted on his conviction, the full story can now be told. It turns out that I saw bits and pieces of this show when visiting a friend last night. I noticed something a bit odd. All of the victims and witnesses seem to be blue collar workers (or unemployed) who probably never stayed on past year 10 at school. It seems to be a theme with these sort of things: witnesses interviewed at the scene of a crime; victims of crime; etc. You never (or at least very rarely) see people in suits being portrayed as witnesses or victims in these TV shows. Never any doctors, lawyers, accountants or dentists, etc. Just something I've noticed. The witness in the Pell case is university educated with a family. When you say witness, I gather you mean the victim. Has he appeared on TV? No, because he wants privacy. His evidence was given via video link.

So that fits in with what I'm saying, in general.

It seems to be the less educated people who want to go public and get in front of the TV cameras.

When you watch those stories on Channel 7 "News" about cars driving into swimming pools, you rarely see a businessman in a suit giving the eyewitness account.

Similarly, with cases like Pell's, the witnesses are usually less educated individuals in lower paying jobs, or even unemployed.

It's not an attack on or criticism of anyone in particular - it's just something I've noticed over the years, and that 4 Corners show last night reinforced my argument.

I guess the question is, why?

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 5^th, 2019 at 9:13am:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 9:05am: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 7:45am: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 7:41am: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 7:39am: Bobby. wrote on Mar 4th, 2019 at 6:25pm: Four Corners Guilty: The Conviction of Cardinal Pell 8:32PM - 9:18PM CC Reveals how Australia's highest ranking Catholic, Cardinal George Pell, was brought to justice. With the suppression order lifted on his conviction, the full story can now be told. It turns out that I saw bits and pieces of this show when visiting a friend last night. I noticed something a bit odd. All of the victims and witnesses seem to be blue collar workers (or unemployed) who probably never stayed on past year 10 at school. It seems to be a theme with these sort of things: witnesses interviewed at the scene of a crime; victims of crime; etc. You never (or at least very rarely) see people in suits being portrayed as witnesses or victims in these TV shows. Never any doctors, lawyers, accountants or dentists, etc. Just something I've noticed. The witness in the Pell case is university educated with a family. When you say witness, I gather you mean the victim. Has he appeared on TV? No, because he wants privacy. His evidence was given via video link. So that fits in with what I'm saying, in general. It seems to be the less educated people who want to go public and get in front of the TV cameras. When you watch those stories on Channel 7 "News" about cars driving into swimming pools, you rarely see a businessman in a suit giving the eyewitness account. Similarly, with cases like Pell's, the witnesses are usually less educated individuals in lower paying jobs, or even unemployed. It's not an attack on or criticism of anyone in particular - it's just something I've noticed over the years, and that 4 Corners show last night reinforced my argument. I guess the question is, why?

That bogans tend to want to go on TV more?

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Mar 5^th, 2019 at 9:15am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 9:13am: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 9:05am: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 7:45am: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 7:41am: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 7:39am: Bobby. wrote on Mar 4th, 2019 at 6:25pm: Four Corners Guilty: The Conviction of Cardinal Pell 8:32PM - 9:18PM CC Reveals how Australia's highest ranking Catholic, Cardinal George Pell, was brought to justice. With the suppression order lifted on his conviction, the full story can now be told. It turns out that I saw bits and pieces of this show when visiting a friend last night. I noticed something a bit odd. All of the victims and witnesses seem to be blue collar workers (or unemployed) who probably never stayed on past year 10 at school. It seems to be a theme with these sort of things: witnesses interviewed at the scene of a crime; victims of crime; etc. You never (or at least very rarely) see people in suits being portrayed as witnesses or victims in these TV shows. Never any doctors, lawyers, accountants or dentists, etc. Just something I've noticed. The witness in the Pell case is university educated with a family. When you say witness, I gather you mean the victim. Has he appeared on TV? No, because he wants privacy. His evidence was given via video link. So that fits in with what I'm saying, in general. It seems to be the less educated people who want to go public and get in front of the TV cameras. When you watch those stories on Channel 7 "News" about cars driving into swimming pools, you rarely see a businessman in a suit giving the eyewitness account. Similarly, with cases like Pell's, the witnesses are usually less educated individuals in lower paying jobs, or even unemployed. It's not an attack on or criticism of anyone in particular - it's just something I've noticed over the years, and that 4 Corners show last night reinforced my argument. I guess the question is, why? That bogans tend to want to go on TV more?

Yes.

Why do they love the camera so much?

I'd love to do a thesis on it.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Mar 5^th, 2019 at 9:05am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 8:31am: I still dont know. I mean if their evidence after all these years is a few ppl who saw him in the changing room naked . . . .  my father did that stuff. he would just stand there in all his glory not realising he was making ppl uncomfortable. some ppl are like that. It wasnt sexual molestation though was it. Seems to me more ppl would have come forward if this stuff happened. Perhaps that boy fingered the wrong person. Spot Why? Given how much poo has happened in this case, why would people risk it?

Risk what?

Spot

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 5^th, 2019 at 9:32am:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 9:05am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 8:31am: I still dont know. I mean if their evidence after all these years is a few ppl who saw him in the changing room naked . . . .  my father did that stuff. he would just stand there in all his glory not realising he was making ppl uncomfortable. some ppl are like that. It wasnt sexual molestation though was it. Seems to me more ppl would have come forward if this stuff happened. Perhaps that boy fingered the wrong person. Spot Why? Given how much poo has happened in this case, why would people risk it? Risk what? Spot

Humiliation, being accused of hysteria, of making it up etc etc.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Mar 5^th, 2019 at 9:34am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 9:32am: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 9:05am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 8:31am: I still dont know. I mean if their evidence after all these years is a few ppl who saw him in the changing room naked . . . .  my father did that stuff. he would just stand there in all his glory not realising he was making ppl uncomfortable. some ppl are like that. It wasnt sexual molestation though was it. Seems to me more ppl would have come forward if this stuff happened. Perhaps that boy fingered the wrong person. Spot Why? Given how much poo has happened in this case, why would people risk it? Risk what? Spot Humiliation, being accused of hysteria, of making it up etc etc.

Gets back to this, doesn't it?

"That bogans tend to want to go on TV more?"

More than likely, I posted the Guardian article as a response to some queries I have seen. It seems well thought and has me confident the trial was fair.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Mar 5^th, 2019 at 9:51am:

More than likely, I posted the Guardian article as a response to some queries I have seen. It seems well thought and has me confident the trial was fair.

The article is ... meh, okay, but it doesn't answer the big question for me.

Why did Pell come back to Australia to face the charges?

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 5^th, 2019 at 9:55am:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 9:51am: More than likely, I posted the Guardian article as a response to some queries I have seen. It seems well thought and has me confident the trial was fair. The article is ... meh, okay, but it doesn't answer the big question for me. Why did Pell come back to Australia to face the charges?

Maybe his ego thought in terms of the old legal systems. It was one complainant so he thought the courts dont really allow that.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Mar 5^th, 2019 at 9:57am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 9:55am: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 9:51am: More than likely, I posted the Guardian article as a response to some queries I have seen. It seems well thought and has me confident the trial was fair. The article is ... meh, okay, but it doesn't answer the big question for me. Why did Pell come back to Australia to face the charges? Maybe his ego thought in terms of the old legal systems. It was one complainant so he thought the courts dont really allow that.

From your article:

"There were 14 witnesses called by prosecutors, all of them men. But there was only one firsthand witness who gave evidence – the complainant. A large part of the prosecution’s case necessarily hinged on his testimony. This is not at all unusual in sexual abuse trials which are known as “word on word” cases."

I don't buy the ego/ignorance thing.

How many people, knowing that they're guilty of a crime in another country, would return to face the charges even if they were under no legal obligation to do so?

Very few, if any, I'd suggest.

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 5^th, 2019 at 10:03am:

I don't buy the ego/ignorance thing. How many people, knowing that they're guilty of a crime in another country, would return to face the charges even if they were under no legal obligation to do so? Very few, if any, I'd suggest.

Maybe again his ego thought he could get off it.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Mar 5^th, 2019 at 10:05am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 10:03am: I don't buy the ego/ignorance thing. How many people, knowing that they're guilty of a crime in another country, would return to face the charges even if they were under no legal obligation to do so? Very few, if any, I'd suggest. Maybe again his ego thought he could get off it.

I don't buy it.

Why would anyone risk it?

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 5^th, 2019 at 10:09am:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 10:05am: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 10:03am: I don't buy the ego/ignorance thing. How many people, knowing that they're guilty of a crime in another country, would return to face the charges even if they were under no legal obligation to do so? Very few, if any, I'd suggest. Maybe again his ego thought he could get off it. I don't buy it. Why would anyone risk it?

Argument from incredulity, just because you don't buy it doesn't mean it couldnt happen.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Mar 5^th, 2019 at 10:29am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 10:09am: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 10:05am: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 10:03am: I don't buy the ego/ignorance thing. How many people, knowing that they're guilty of a crime in another country, would return to face the charges even if they were under no legal obligation to do so? Very few, if any, I'd suggest. Maybe again his ego thought he could get off it. I don't buy it. Why would anyone risk it? Argument from incredulity, just because you don't buy it doesn't mean it couldnt happen.

I'm not saying it couldn't happen - I'm saying it's extremely unlikely.

I've looked at this objectively, and with an open mind, all along.

I remove the names, genders, and locations.

I just look at the raw facts:

- A teenager says an adult sexually assaulted him

- The adult says he did no such thing

- No independent witnesses

- No forensic science

- The adult was living happily in another country, and was under no legal obligation to face the court in the country where the allegations have been made, but did so willingly

- Adult is found guilty.

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 5^th, 2019 at 10:36am:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 10:29am: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 10:09am: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 10:05am: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 10:03am: I don't buy the ego/ignorance thing. How many people, knowing that they're guilty of a crime in another country, would return to face the charges even if they were under no legal obligation to do so? Very few, if any, I'd suggest. Maybe again his ego thought he could get off it. I don't buy it. Why would anyone risk it? Argument from incredulity, just because you don't buy it doesn't mean it couldnt happen. I'm not saying it couldn't happen - I'm saying it's extremely unlikely. I've looked at this objectively, and with an open mind, all along. I remove the names, genders, and locations. I just look at the raw facts: - A teenager says an adult sexually assaulted him - The adult says he did no such thing - No independent witnesses - No forensic science - The adult was living happily in another country, and was under no legal obligation to face the court in the country where the allegations have been made, but did so willingly - Adult is found guilty.

Thats a extremely brief summary, not covering the details. Again, just because you don't believe it, doesn't mean it didnt happen.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Mar 5^th, 2019 at 10:38am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 10:36am: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 10:29am: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 10:09am: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 10:05am: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 10:03am: I don't buy the ego/ignorance thing. How many people, knowing that they're guilty of a crime in another country, would return to face the charges even if they were under no legal obligation to do so? Very few, if any, I'd suggest. Maybe again his ego thought he could get off it. I don't buy it. Why would anyone risk it? Argument from incredulity, just because you don't buy it doesn't mean it couldnt happen. I'm not saying it couldn't happen - I'm saying it's extremely unlikely. I've looked at this objectively, and with an open mind, all along. I remove the names, genders, and locations. I just look at the raw facts: - A teenager says an adult sexually assaulted him - The adult says he did no such thing - No independent witnesses - No forensic science - The adult was living happily in another country, and was under no legal obligation to face the court in the country where the allegations have been made, but did so willingly - Adult is found guilty. Thats a extremely brief summary, not covering the details. Again, just because you don't believe it, doesn't mean it didnt happen.

It covers the facts though, doesn't it?

And again, I'm not saying it didn't happen.

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 5^th, 2019 at 10:45am:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 10:38am: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 10:36am: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 10:29am: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 10:09am: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 10:05am: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 10:03am: I don't buy the ego/ignorance thing. How many people, knowing that they're guilty of a crime in another country, would return to face the charges even if they were under no legal obligation to do so? Very few, if any, I'd suggest. Maybe again his ego thought he could get off it. I don't buy it. Why would anyone risk it? Argument from incredulity, just because you don't buy it doesn't mean it couldnt happen. I'm not saying it couldn't happen - I'm saying it's extremely unlikely. I've looked at this objectively, and with an open mind, all along. I remove the names, genders, and locations. I just look at the raw facts: - A teenager says an adult sexually assaulted him - The adult says he did no such thing - No independent witnesses - No forensic science - The adult was living happily in another country, and was under no legal obligation to face the court in the country where the allegations have been made, but did so willingly - Adult is found guilty. Thats a extremely brief summary, not covering the details. Again, just because you don't believe it, doesn't mean it didnt happen. It covers the facts though, doesn't it? And again, I'm not saying it didn't happen.

NO it actually doesn't it only covers rewally whats been allowed to be reported.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Mar 5^th, 2019 at 1:00pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 10:45am: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 10:38am: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 10:36am: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 10:29am: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 10:09am: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 10:05am: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 10:03am: I don't buy the ego/ignorance thing. How many people, knowing that they're guilty of a crime in another country, would return to face the charges even if they were under no legal obligation to do so? Very few, if any, I'd suggest. Maybe again his ego thought he could get off it. I don't buy it. Why would anyone risk it? Argument from incredulity, just because you don't buy it doesn't mean it couldnt happen. I'm not saying it couldn't happen - I'm saying it's extremely unlikely. I've looked at this objectively, and with an open mind, all along. I remove the names, genders, and locations. I just look at the raw facts: - A teenager says an adult sexually assaulted him - The adult says he did no such thing - No independent witnesses - No forensic science - The adult was living happily in another country, and was under no legal obligation to face the court in the country where the allegations have been made, but did so willingly - Adult is found guilty. Thats a extremely brief summary, not covering the details. Again, just because you don't believe it, doesn't mean it didnt happen. It covers the facts though, doesn't it? And again, I'm not saying it didn't happen. NO it actually doesn't it only covers rewally whats been allowed to be reported.

But they are all facts, yes?

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 5^th, 2019 at 1:07pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 1:00pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 10:45am: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 10:38am: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 10:36am: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 10:29am: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 10:09am: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 10:05am: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 10:03am: I don't buy the ego/ignorance thing. How many people, knowing that they're guilty of a crime in another country, would return to face the charges even if they were under no legal obligation to do so? Very few, if any, I'd suggest. Maybe again his ego thought he could get off it. I don't buy it. Why would anyone risk it? Argument from incredulity, just because you don't buy it doesn't mean it couldnt happen. I'm not saying it couldn't happen - I'm saying it's extremely unlikely. I've looked at this objectively, and with an open mind, all along. I remove the names, genders, and locations. I just look at the raw facts: - A teenager says an adult sexually assaulted him - The adult says he did no such thing - No independent witnesses - No forensic science - The adult was living happily in another country, and was under no legal obligation to face the court in the country where the allegations have been made, but did so willingly - Adult is found guilty. Thats a extremely brief summary, not covering the details. Again, just because you don't believe it, doesn't mean it didnt happen. It covers the facts though, doesn't it? And again, I'm not saying it didn't happen. NO it actually doesn't it only covers rewally whats been allowed to be reported. But they are all facts, yes?

Its like 10 pieces of a bigger jigsaw puzzle.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Mar 5^th, 2019 at 1:08pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 1:07pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 1:00pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 10:45am: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 10:38am: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 10:36am: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 10:29am: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 10:09am: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 10:05am: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 10:03am: I don't buy the ego/ignorance thing. How many people, knowing that they're guilty of a crime in another country, would return to face the charges even if they were under no legal obligation to do so? Very few, if any, I'd suggest. Maybe again his ego thought he could get off it. I don't buy it. Why would anyone risk it? Argument from incredulity, just because you don't buy it doesn't mean it couldnt happen. I'm not saying it couldn't happen - I'm saying it's extremely unlikely. I've looked at this objectively, and with an open mind, all along. I remove the names, genders, and locations. I just look at the raw facts: - A teenager says an adult sexually assaulted him - The adult says he did no such thing - No independent witnesses - No forensic science - The adult was living happily in another country, and was under no legal obligation to face the court in the country where the allegations have been made, but did so willingly - Adult is found guilty. Thats a extremely brief summary, not covering the details. Again, just because you don't believe it, doesn't mean it didnt happen. It covers the facts though, doesn't it? And again, I'm not saying it didn't happen. NO it actually doesn't it only covers rewally whats been allowed to be reported. But they are all facts, yes? Its like 10 pieces of a bigger jigsaw puzzle.

I get the feeling the jury didn't have the box lid when they were putting it together.

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 5^th, 2019 at 1:13pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 1:08pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 1:07pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 1:00pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 10:45am: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 10:38am: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 10:36am: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 10:29am: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 10:09am: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 10:05am: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 10:03am: I don't buy the ego/ignorance thing. How many people, knowing that they're guilty of a crime in another country, would return to face the charges even if they were under no legal obligation to do so? Very few, if any, I'd suggest. Maybe again his ego thought he could get off it. I don't buy it. Why would anyone risk it? Argument from incredulity, just because you don't buy it doesn't mean it couldnt happen. I'm not saying it couldn't happen - I'm saying it's extremely unlikely. I've looked at this objectively, and with an open mind, all along. I remove the names, genders, and locations. I just look at the raw facts: - A teenager says an adult sexually assaulted him - The adult says he did no such thing - No independent witnesses - No forensic science - The adult was living happily in another country, and was under no legal obligation to face the court in the country where the allegations have been made, but did so willingly - Adult is found guilty. Thats a extremely brief summary, not covering the details. Again, just because you don't believe it, doesn't mean it didnt happen. It covers the facts though, doesn't it? And again, I'm not saying it didn't happen. NO it actually doesn't it only covers rewally whats been allowed to be reported. But they are all facts, yes? Its like 10 pieces of a bigger jigsaw puzzle. I get the feeling the jury didn't have the box lid when they were putting it together.

I like feelings, completely bloody subjective.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Mar 5^th, 2019 at 1:16pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 1:13pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 1:08pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 1:07pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 1:00pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 10:45am: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 10:38am: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 10:36am: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 10:29am: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 10:09am: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 10:05am: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 10:03am: I don't buy the ego/ignorance thing. How many people, knowing that they're guilty of a crime in another country, would return to face the charges even if they were under no legal obligation to do so? Very few, if any, I'd suggest. Maybe again his ego thought he could get off it. I don't buy it. Why would anyone risk it? Argument from incredulity, just because you don't buy it doesn't mean it couldnt happen. I'm not saying it couldn't happen - I'm saying it's extremely unlikely. I've looked at this objectively, and with an open mind, all along. I remove the names, genders, and locations. I just look at the raw facts: - A teenager says an adult sexually assaulted him - The adult says he did no such thing - No independent witnesses - No forensic science - The adult was living happily in another country, and was under no legal obligation to face the court in the country where the allegations have been made, but did so willingly - Adult is found guilty. Thats a extremely brief summary, not covering the details. Again, just because you don't believe it, doesn't mean it didnt happen. It covers the facts though, doesn't it? And again, I'm not saying it didn't happen. NO it actually doesn't it only covers rewally whats been allowed to be reported. But they are all facts, yes? Its like 10 pieces of a bigger jigsaw puzzle. I get the feeling the jury didn't have the box lid when they were putting it together. I like feelings, completely bloody subjective.

Well, you should remain objective like I am.

I'm just looking at the facts.

Teenager said adult did something - adult said he didn't.

No material evidence, and no independent witnesses.

Still, adult is found guilty.

Something doesn't add up.

Was the Catholic Church on trial, or was Cardinal Pell?

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 5^th, 2019 at 1:21pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 1:16pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 1:13pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 1:08pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 1:07pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 1:00pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 10:45am: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 10:38am: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 10:36am: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 10:29am: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 10:09am: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 10:05am: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 10:03am: I don't buy the ego/ignorance thing. How many people, knowing that they're guilty of a crime in another country, would return to face the charges even if they were under no legal obligation to do so? Very few, if any, I'd suggest. Maybe again his ego thought he could get off it. I don't buy it. Why would anyone risk it? Argument from incredulity, just because you don't buy it doesn't mean it couldnt happen. I'm not saying it couldn't happen - I'm saying it's extremely unlikely. I've looked at this objectively, and with an open mind, all along. I remove the names, genders, and locations. I just look at the raw facts: - A teenager says an adult sexually assaulted him - The adult says he did no such thing - No independent witnesses - No forensic science - The adult was living happily in another country, and was under no legal obligation to face the court in the country where the allegations have been made, but did so willingly - Adult is found guilty. Thats a extremely brief summary, not covering the details. Again, just because you don't believe it, doesn't mean it didnt happen. It covers the facts though, doesn't it? And again, I'm not saying it didn't happen. NO it actually doesn't it only covers rewally whats been allowed to be reported. But they are all facts, yes? Its like 10 pieces of a bigger jigsaw puzzle. I get the feeling the jury didn't have the box lid when they were putting it together. I like feelings, completely bloody subjective. Well, you should remain objective like I am. I'm just looking at the facts. Teenager said adult did something - adult said he didn't. No material evidence, and no independent witnesses. Still, adult is found guilty. Something doesn't add up. Was the Catholic Church on trial, or was Cardinal Pell?

You do realise you arent being objective though right when you use the term I get the feeling? And Something doesnt addup. Those are subjective measures.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Mar 5^th, 2019 at 1:26pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 1:21pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 1:16pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 1:13pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 1:08pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 1:07pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 1:00pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 10:45am: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 10:38am: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 10:36am: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 10:29am: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 10:09am: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 10:05am: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 10:03am: I don't buy the ego/ignorance thing. How many people, knowing that they're guilty of a crime in another country, would return to face the charges even if they were under no legal obligation to do so? Very few, if any, I'd suggest. Maybe again his ego thought he could get off it. I don't buy it. Why would anyone risk it? Argument from incredulity, just because you don't buy it doesn't mean it couldnt happen. I'm not saying it couldn't happen - I'm saying it's extremely unlikely. I've looked at this objectively, and with an open mind, all along. I remove the names, genders, and locations. I just look at the raw facts: - A teenager says an adult sexually assaulted him - The adult says he did no such thing - No independent witnesses - No forensic science - The adult was living happily in another country, and was under no legal obligation to face the court in the country where the allegations have been made, but did so willingly - Adult is found guilty. Thats a extremely brief summary, not covering the details. Again, just because you don't believe it, doesn't mean it didnt happen. It covers the facts though, doesn't it? And again, I'm not saying it didn't happen. NO it actually doesn't it only covers rewally whats been allowed to be reported. But they are all facts, yes? Its like 10 pieces of a bigger jigsaw puzzle. I get the feeling the jury didn't have the box lid when they were putting it together. I like feelings, completely bloody subjective. Well, you should remain objective like I am. I'm just looking at the facts. Teenager said adult did something - adult said he didn't. No material evidence, and no independent witnesses. Still, adult is found guilty. Something doesn't add up. Was the Catholic Church on trial, or was Cardinal Pell? You do realise you arent being objective though right when you use the term I get the feeling? And Something doesnt addup. Those are subjective measures.

I'm being objective when considering the verdict.

I also remain completely open-minded.

At this stage, I'm not convinced of his guilt.

And this is despite me not liking pedophiles, Pell, his religion, his Chrurch, Abbott, Howard, Bolt, and Devine.

Juries, and our legal system in general, get it wrong way too often.

I was right when I said the Chamberlains were wrongfully convicted, and I could be right about this too (although I'm not saying it's a wrongful conviction at this stage).

We probably won't find out for many years, though.

Staying objective by being subjective. Got you.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Mar 5^th, 2019 at 1:46pm:

Staying objective by being subjective. Got you.

I'm remain objective, and open-minded.

Others are being subjective, and very narrow-minded.

Such is life.

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 5^th, 2019 at 1:48pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 1:46pm: Staying objective by being subjective. Got you. I'm remain objective, and open-minded. Others are being subjective, and very narrow-minded. Such is life.

The only issue being that by saying I believe etc etc you're being more subjective than people on here. But I expect the usual thing when you're disagreed with.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Mar 5^th, 2019 at 4:00pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 1:48pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 1:46pm: Staying objective by being subjective. Got you. I'm remain objective, and open-minded. Others are being subjective, and very narrow-minded. Such is life. The only issue being that by saying I believe etc etc you're being more subjective than people on here. But I expect the usual thing when you're disagreed with.

Incorrect.

I'm far more objective than most on here.

Moreover, I remain open-minded.

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 5^th, 2019 at 4:11pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 4:00pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 1:48pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 1:46pm: Staying objective by being subjective. Got you. I'm remain objective, and open-minded. Others are being subjective, and very narrow-minded. Such is life. The only issue being that by saying I believe etc etc you're being more subjective than people on here. But I expect the usual thing when you're disagreed with. Incorrect. I'm far more objective than most on here. Moreover, I remain open-minded.

Given most on here, thats still pretty subjective.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Mar 5^th, 2019 at 4:12pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 4:11pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 4:00pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 1:48pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Mar 5th, 2019 at 1:46pm: Staying objective by being subjective. Got you. I'm remain objective, and open-minded. Others are being subjective, and very narrow-minded. Such is life. The only issue being that by saying I believe etc etc you're being more subjective than people on here. But I expect the usual thing when you're disagreed with. Incorrect. I'm far more objective than most on here. Moreover, I remain open-minded. Given most on here, thats still pretty subjective.

I remain objective, and open-minded.

I know that irritates a lot of people, but I don't really care.