Australian Politics Forum
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl
General Discussion >> General Board >> Pell Court of Appeal Decision
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1565844268

Message started by Aussie on Aug 15th, 2019 at 2:44pm

Title: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Aussie on Aug 15th, 2019 at 2:44pm
Due next Wednesday.

So, now is the time for all you sooth sayers to have a go....before, not after the event.

Link.

My view is:

Appeal upheld.  Conviction quashed.  No re-trial.  No Appeal to the High Court.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Setanta on Aug 15th, 2019 at 3:26pm
So you are a soothsayer?

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Redmond Neck on Aug 15th, 2019 at 3:28pm
Yep Aussie may be right !

The correct hand shake would have been given to the appeal judges!  ;)


Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Bobby. on Aug 15th, 2019 at 3:30pm

Redmond Neck wrote on Aug 15th, 2019 at 3:28pm:
Yep Aussie may be right !

The correct hand shake would have been given to the appeal judges!  ;)



Pell will receive divine intervention via the Pope.

Pell will walk free and spend his last years in luxury at the Vatican.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by greggerypeccary on Aug 15th, 2019 at 3:48pm

I predict that if Aussie is right, many forum members here will not accept the decision.


Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Setanta on Aug 15th, 2019 at 4:05pm
I predict I'll just let the courts handle it.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Laugh till you cry on Aug 15th, 2019 at 4:08pm

Setanta wrote on Aug 15th, 2019 at 4:05pm:
I predict I'll just let the courts handle it.


Are you off your game? You need a Haji Gordon University of Love refresher course.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Aussie on Aug 15th, 2019 at 4:17pm

Setanta wrote on Aug 15th, 2019 at 4:05pm:
I predict I'll just let the courts handle it.


Fine, just don't later be Monday's expert......or in this case Thursday's expert.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Raven on Aug 15th, 2019 at 5:00pm

Aussie wrote on Aug 15th, 2019 at 2:44pm:
Due next Wednesday.

So, now is the time for all you sooth sayers to have a go....before, not after the event.

Link.

My view is:

Appeal upheld.  Conviction quashed.  No re-trial.  No Appeal to the High Court.


That's a very high bar there Aussie.

Raven disagrees, the best Pell can hope for is a retrial. Raven finds it highly unlikely the Appeal Court will render the jury's verdict unsafe. To do that the Judges would have to be convinced the jury entertained reasonable doubt and convicted him anyway.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Aussie on Aug 15th, 2019 at 5:08pm

Raven wrote on Aug 15th, 2019 at 5:00pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 15th, 2019 at 2:44pm:
Due next Wednesday.

So, now is the time for all you sooth sayers to have a go....before, not after the event.

Link.

My view is:

Appeal upheld.  Conviction quashed.  No re-trial.  No Appeal to the High Court.


That's a very high bar there Aussie.

Raven disagrees, the best Pell can hope for is a retrial. Raven finds it highly unlikely the Appeal Court will render the jury's verdict unsafe. To do that the Judges would have to be convinced the jury entertained reasonable doubt and convicted him anyway.



No.  It is not argued that the decision was perverse.  It is argued that, given the evidence, the Jury could not reasonably have come to a verdict of guilty.

I do agree it is a high bar, but the state of the evidence is correspondingly at a very low bar.  Also........in support of your caution, I acknowledge that if I am right, it is a kick in the arse for the Trial Judge.  That is because the Appeal Court is saying....'You should never have allowed this to go to a Jury.  It should have been a directed verdict.'

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by philperth2010 on Aug 15th, 2019 at 5:38pm
I never thought he would be convicted....The jury believed the victims over Pell so go figure....The bloke is finished even if he is released on a technicality???

:-? :-? :-?


Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Setanta on Aug 15th, 2019 at 5:44pm

Aussie wrote on Aug 15th, 2019 at 4:17pm:

Setanta wrote on Aug 15th, 2019 at 4:05pm:
I predict I'll just let the courts handle it.


Fine, just don't later be Monday's expert......or in this case Thursday's expert.


Why do you think I would? I'm happy for the courts to decide on verdicts, I don't have the info they have although I find it hard to believe he didn't know what was going on with the info I do have.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Aussie on Aug 15th, 2019 at 7:08pm

Setanta wrote on Aug 15th, 2019 at 5:44pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 15th, 2019 at 4:17pm:

Setanta wrote on Aug 15th, 2019 at 4:05pm:
I predict I'll just let the courts handle it.


Fine, just don't later be Monday's expert......or in this case Thursday's expert.


Why do you think I would? I'm happy for the courts to decide on verdicts, I don't have the info they have although I find it hard to believe he didn't know what was going on with the info I do have.


Makes no sense.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Setanta on Aug 15th, 2019 at 7:34pm

Aussie wrote on Aug 15th, 2019 at 7:08pm:

Setanta wrote on Aug 15th, 2019 at 5:44pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 15th, 2019 at 4:17pm:

Setanta wrote on Aug 15th, 2019 at 4:05pm:
I predict I'll just let the courts handle it.


Fine, just don't later be Monday's expert......or in this case Thursday's expert.


Why do you think I would? I'm happy for the courts to decide on verdicts, I don't have the info they have although I find it hard to believe he didn't know what was going on with the info I do have.


Makes no sense.


Why?

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by John Smith on Aug 15th, 2019 at 7:35pm

Aussie wrote on Aug 15th, 2019 at 7:08pm:
Makes no sense.



makes sense to me

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Aussie on Aug 15th, 2019 at 8:20pm

John Smith wrote on Aug 15th, 2019 at 7:35pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 15th, 2019 at 7:08pm:
Makes no sense.



makes sense to me


Dunno how.  It is unintelligible.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Setanta on Aug 15th, 2019 at 9:40pm

Aussie wrote on Aug 15th, 2019 at 8:20pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 15th, 2019 at 7:35pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 15th, 2019 at 7:08pm:
Makes no sense.



makes sense to me


Dunno how.  It is unintelligible.


Obviously not, eh?

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Yadda on Aug 15th, 2019 at 10:07pm

Aussie wrote on Aug 15th, 2019 at 2:44pm:

Due next Wednesday.

So, now is the time for all you sooth sayers to have a go....before, not after the event.

Link.

My view is:

Appeal upheld.

Conviction quashed.

No re-trial.

No Appeal to the High Court.



IMO, Pell's conviction was fundamentally unsafe.



No person should be convicted in a court of law, in Australia, on the evidence of ONE witness.

That is an ancient [biblical] principal, and that principal should still stand today.




Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Setanta on Aug 15th, 2019 at 10:13pm

Yadda wrote on Aug 15th, 2019 at 10:07pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 15th, 2019 at 2:44pm:

Due next Wednesday.

So, now is the time for all you sooth sayers to have a go....before, not after the event.

Link.

My view is:

Appeal upheld.

Conviction quashed.

No re-trial.

No Appeal to the High Court.



IMO, Pell's conviction was fundamentally unsafe.



No person should be convicted in a court of law, in Australia, on the evidence of ONE witness.

That is an ancient [biblical] principal, and that principal should still stand today.


Was it one witness? I don't have the data, please share. I know he shared accommodation(a house) with another priest who had boys visit him and was convicted of fiddling them, which is why I say he must have at least been aware. You can't rise to his position being a dimwit. Or perhaps that's exactly what religious ascendancy requires.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Yadda on Aug 15th, 2019 at 10:36pm

Yadda wrote on Aug 15th, 2019 at 10:07pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 15th, 2019 at 2:44pm:

Due next Wednesday.

So, now is the time for all you sooth sayers to have a go....before, not after the event.

Link.

My view is:

Appeal upheld.

Conviction quashed.

No re-trial.

No Appeal to the High Court.



IMO, Pell's conviction was fundamentally unsafe.



No person should be convicted in a court of law, in Australia, on the evidence of ONE witness.

That is an ancient [biblical] principal, and that principal should still stand today.




Setanta wrote on Aug 15th, 2019 at 10:13pm:


Was it one witness?


I don't have the data, please share.

I know he shared accommodation(a house) with another priest who had boys visit him and was convicted of fiddling them, which is why I say he must have at least been aware.

You can't rise to his position being a dimwit.

Or perhaps that's exactly what religious ascendancy requires.





WWW search....
Pell's conviction was unsafe, "one witness"


Setanta,


one hit contains.....
This concern is summed up by Melbourne crime reporter John Silvester who says Pell's conviction means, in effect, that the cardinal "was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt on the uncorroborated evidence of one witness, without forensic evidence, a pattern of behaviour, or a confession".


Go chase it Setanta, if you doubt that fact          [   the fact that Pell "was found guilty....on the uncorroborated evidence of one witness"].



Setanta,

QUESTION;
Would      YOU     like to be convicted on such a charge,       on the uncorroborated evidence of just one witness ?




Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Gnads on Aug 16th, 2019 at 7:49am

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 15th, 2019 at 3:48pm:
I predict that if Aussie is right, many forum members here will not accept the decision.


Like you not accepting Trump becoming the POTUS? And then failing to honour your bet to leave if he did win?

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by greggerypeccary on Aug 16th, 2019 at 8:03am

Gnads wrote on Aug 16th, 2019 at 7:49am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 15th, 2019 at 3:48pm:
I predict that if Aussie is right, many forum members here will not accept the decision.


Like you not accepting Trump becoming the POTUS? And then failing to honour your bet to leave if he did win?


When have I ever said that I don't accept Trump as POTUS?

Show me just one link, bullshitter.

Come on, don't run away like you always do you little coward.

Provide a link.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by cods on Aug 16th, 2019 at 8:32am

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 16th, 2019 at 8:03am:

Gnads wrote on Aug 16th, 2019 at 7:49am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 15th, 2019 at 3:48pm:
I predict that if Aussie is right, many forum members here will not accept the decision.


Like you not accepting Trump becoming the POTUS? And then failing to honour your bet to leave if he did win?


When have I ever said that I don't accept Trump as POTUS?

Show me just one link, bullshitter.

Come on, don't run away like you always do you little coward.

Provide a link.




he didnt say YOU SAID>.

the temper tantrum you have put on since he {Trump}made office    is enough to send everyone here bonkers...

so we know you dont accept him as the POTUS..


plus the fact you are still here.. ::) ::) ::) ;) ;) ;)

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by greggerypeccary on Aug 16th, 2019 at 8:35am

cods wrote on Aug 16th, 2019 at 8:32am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 16th, 2019 at 8:03am:

Gnads wrote on Aug 16th, 2019 at 7:49am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 15th, 2019 at 3:48pm:
I predict that if Aussie is right, many forum members here will not accept the decision.


Like you not accepting Trump becoming the POTUS? And then failing to honour your bet to leave if he did win?


When have I ever said that I don't accept Trump as POTUS?

Show me just one link, bullshitter.

Come on, don't run away like you always do you little coward.

Provide a link.




he didnt say YOU SAID>.

the temper tantrum you have put on since he {Trump}made office    is enough to send everyone here bonkers...

so we know you dont accept him as the POTUS..


plus the fact you are still here.. ::) ::) ::) ;) ;) ;)


On the day he won the election, I said that I accept him as the POTUS.

Nothing has changed since then.

He won the election, and I accept that he is the POTUS.

Not sure how much clearer I can be, cods.

If you need a translator, let me know.


Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Gnads on Aug 16th, 2019 at 10:16am

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 16th, 2019 at 8:03am:

Gnads wrote on Aug 16th, 2019 at 7:49am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 15th, 2019 at 3:48pm:
I predict that if Aussie is right, many forum members here will not accept the decision.


Like you not accepting Trump becoming the POTUS? And then failing to honour your bet to leave if he did win?


When have I ever said that I don't accept Trump as POTUS?

Show me just one link, bullshitter.

Come on, don't run away like you always do you little coward.

Provide a link.


Who da farque do you think you are?

Little coward you ... you twat.

That was the general gist of your shock at his win & that if he won you'd leave .....

you're still here ... who's the bullshyter?

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by greggerypeccary on Aug 16th, 2019 at 10:20am

Gnads wrote on Aug 16th, 2019 at 10:16am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 16th, 2019 at 8:03am:

Gnads wrote on Aug 16th, 2019 at 7:49am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 15th, 2019 at 3:48pm:
I predict that if Aussie is right, many forum members here will not accept the decision.


Like you not accepting Trump becoming the POTUS? And then failing to honour your bet to leave if he did win?


When have I ever said that I don't accept Trump as POTUS?

Show me just one link, bullshitter.

Come on, don't run away like you always do you little coward.

Provide a link.


Who da farque do you think you are?

Little coward you ... you twat.

That was the general gist of your shock at his win & that if he won you'd leave .....

you're still here ... who's the bullshyter?


When have I ever said that I don't accept Trump as POTUS?

Show me just one link.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Redmond Neck on Aug 16th, 2019 at 10:21am
Can we stick to the topic lads!  :)

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Fuzzball on Aug 16th, 2019 at 12:14pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 16th, 2019 at 8:03am:

Gnads wrote on Aug 16th, 2019 at 7:49am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 15th, 2019 at 3:48pm:
I predict that if Aussie is right, many forum members here will not accept the decision.


Like you not accepting Trump becoming the POTUS? And then failing to honour your bet to leave if he did win?


When have I ever said that I don't accept Trump as POTUS?

Show me just one link, bullshitter.

Come on, don't run away like you always do you little coward.

Provide a link.


Nobody could be any more of a COWARD than you pessary............you're a gutless POS.....and you know it....

You made a wager that you'd leave this forum for good if Trump was elected President........and you're still here COWARD...........

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by red baron on Aug 16th, 2019 at 3:31pm
If Pell's appeal is upheld then  we can truly say the Legal system has gone to hell in a hand basket

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by greggerypeccary on Aug 16th, 2019 at 3:33pm

red baron wrote on Aug 16th, 2019 at 3:31pm:
If Pell's appeal is upheld then  we can truly say the Legal system has gone to hell in a hand basket


Why is that?


Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by red baron on Aug 16th, 2019 at 3:40pm
Because Pell is as guilty as hell ha! ha!

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by greggerypeccary on Aug 16th, 2019 at 3:43pm

red baron wrote on Aug 16th, 2019 at 3:40pm:
Because Pell is as guilty as hell ha! ha!


That's what the law says, yes.

And you and I both accept that.

However, you're now saying that if the law says he isn't guilty, you won't accept that decision.

Why do you pick and choose when to accept legal decisions?



Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by philperth2010 on Aug 16th, 2019 at 6:09pm
When a priest rapes a child does anyone think they really believe in God???

When a church covers up child sexual abuse they have lost all credibility and use religion to hide behind!!!

Pell is part of an organisation that is a criminal cartel....The Catholic Church is evil incarnate and Pell is it's pin up paedophile!!!

[smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

Such evil deeds could religion prompt.
Lucretius (96 BC - 55 BC), De Rerum Natura

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Aussie on Aug 16th, 2019 at 6:17pm

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 16th, 2019 at 6:09pm:
When a priest rapes a child does anyone think they really believe in God???

When a church covers up child sexual abuse they have lost all credibility and use religion to hide behind!!!

Pell is part of an organisation that is a criminal cartel....The Catholic Church is evil incarnate and Pell is it's pin up paedophile!!!

[smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

Such evil deeds could religion prompt.
Lucretius (96 BC - 55 BC), De Rerum Natura


Yes, no-one will disagree.  Pell?

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Rider on Aug 16th, 2019 at 6:42pm
But will Pell be epsteined before Wednesday?? 


Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Setanta on Aug 16th, 2019 at 6:47pm

Aussie wrote on Aug 16th, 2019 at 6:17pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 16th, 2019 at 6:09pm:
When a priest rapes a child does anyone think they really believe in God???

When a church covers up child sexual abuse they have lost all credibility and use religion to hide behind!!!

Pell is part of an organisation that is a criminal cartel....The Catholic Church is evil incarnate and Pell is it's pin up paedophile!!!

[smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

Such evil deeds could religion prompt.
Lucretius (96 BC - 55 BC), De Rerum Natura


Yes, no-one will disagree.  Pell?


That's a bold claim. I know Catholics that don't agree with that and see him as innocent.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Setanta on Aug 16th, 2019 at 6:51pm

Yadda wrote on Aug 15th, 2019 at 10:36pm:
Setanta,

QUESTION;
Would  YOU  like to be convicted on such a charge, on the uncorroborated evidence of just one witness ?


No and if that's really the case his appeal should win. I can't be bothered enough to go looking though.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Aussie on Aug 16th, 2019 at 7:14pm

Setanta wrote on Aug 16th, 2019 at 6:47pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 16th, 2019 at 6:17pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 16th, 2019 at 6:09pm:
When a priest rapes a child does anyone think they really believe in God???

When a church covers up child sexual abuse they have lost all credibility and use religion to hide behind!!!

Pell is part of an organisation that is a criminal cartel....The Catholic Church is evil incarnate and Pell is it's pin up paedophile!!!

[smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

Such evil deeds could religion prompt.
Lucretius (96 BC - 55 BC), De Rerum Natura


Yes, no-one will disagree.  Pell?


That's a bold claim. I know Catholics that don't agree with that and see him as innocent.


There goes another batch of parrots.  FFS....read what I said.  I was asking Phil what his prediction was with Pell.  See the Topic.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Aussie on Aug 16th, 2019 at 7:19pm

Setanta wrote on Aug 16th, 2019 at 6:51pm:

Yadda wrote on Aug 15th, 2019 at 10:36pm:
Setanta,

QUESTION;
Would  YOU  like to be convicted on such a charge, on the uncorroborated evidence of just one witness ?


No and if that's really the case his appeal should win. I can't be bothered enough to go looking though.


Yes.....that is really the case.  The word of one man against another's, and the version given by the accuser was shown to be virtually impossible to have happened given all the circumstances.  I say Pell was convicted as a metaphoric protest against the Church.  The Jury could not convict the Church so they convicted Pell instead.

But......Appeal Courts do not lightly over turn a Jury decision.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Setanta on Aug 16th, 2019 at 7:22pm

Aussie wrote on Aug 16th, 2019 at 7:14pm:

Setanta wrote on Aug 16th, 2019 at 6:47pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 16th, 2019 at 6:17pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 16th, 2019 at 6:09pm:
When a priest rapes a child does anyone think they really believe in God???

When a church covers up child sexual abuse they have lost all credibility and use religion to hide behind!!!

Pell is part of an organisation that is a criminal cartel....The Catholic Church is evil incarnate and Pell is it's pin up paedophile!!!

[smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

Such evil deeds could religion prompt.
Lucretius (96 BC - 55 BC), De Rerum Natura


Yes, no-one will disagree.  Pell?


That's a bold claim. I know Catholics that don't agree with that and see him as innocent.


There goes another batch of parrots.  FFS....read what I said.  I was asking Phil what his prediction was with Pell.  See the Topic.


No idea why you say that. Be that as it may, I know Catholics that disagree. That's the nature of religion, those that belong to it will defend it. They will not agree to Phil's accusations. Some bad apples... Hence your no-one is bull. Who are these no-ones? You are making a claim and it's wrong.



Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Aussie on Aug 16th, 2019 at 7:32pm

Quote:
When a priest rapes a child does anyone think they really believe in God???


Who would disagree?  Only an idiot.


Quote:
When a church covers up child sexual abuse they have lost all credibility and use religion to hide behind!!!


Who would disagree?  Only an idiot.


Quote:
Pell is part of an organisation that is a criminal cartel....The Catholic Church is evil incarnate


Who can possibly disagree with that?  Only an idiot.


Quote:
and Pell is it's pin up paedophile!!!


Hence my one word attempt to direct Phil back to Pell...the Topic.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Setanta on Aug 16th, 2019 at 7:40pm

Aussie wrote on Aug 16th, 2019 at 7:32pm:

Quote:
When a priest rapes a child does anyone think they really believe in God???


Who would disagree?  Only an idiot.

[quote]When a church covers up child sexual abuse they have lost all credibility and use religion to hide behind!!!


Who would disagree?  Only an idiot.


Quote:
Pell is part of an organisation that is a criminal cartel....The Catholic Church is evil incarnate


Who can possibly disagree with that?  Only an idiot.


Quote:
and Pell is it's pin up paedophile!!!


Hence my one word attempt to direct Phil back to Pell...the Topic.[/quote]

You forgot his closing line...

Quote:
Pell is part of an organisation that is a criminal cartel....The Catholic Church is evil incarnate and Pell is it's pin up paedophile!!!


Your "no-one would disagree" also included that. Catholics don't see their church like that and would disagree, hence you are wrong. They would also disagree that what Phil said reflects their church. You have no problem with what he said but you support Islam and defend it in spite of it's very many failings. What is that H word?


Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Aussie on Aug 16th, 2019 at 7:41pm
I have never made ONE post supporting Islam.  Retract that, "apologise, and make it good."

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Setanta on Aug 16th, 2019 at 7:43pm

Aussie wrote on Aug 16th, 2019 at 7:41pm:
I have never made ONE post supporting Islam.  Retract that, "apologise, and make it good."


What would be your take on it then? Enlighten me, I may have misread you. Is it evil incarnate and Mohammed it's pin up paedophile?


Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Gordon on Aug 16th, 2019 at 7:49pm

Setanta wrote on Aug 16th, 2019 at 7:43pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 16th, 2019 at 7:41pm:
I have never made ONE post supporting Islam.  Retract that, "apologise, and make it good."


What would be your take on it then? Enlighten me, I may have misread you. Is it evil incarnate and Mohammed it's pin up paedophile?


They follow in his footsteps.

The girl, who cannot be named, was playing at DFO Homebush in December 2016 when 30-year-old Mohammad Hassan Al Bayati took her by the hand and led her to a set of fire stairs, where he indecently touched her and exposed himself.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Setanta on Aug 16th, 2019 at 7:53pm

Aussie wrote on Aug 16th, 2019 at 7:19pm:

Setanta wrote on Aug 16th, 2019 at 6:51pm:

Yadda wrote on Aug 15th, 2019 at 10:36pm:
Setanta,

QUESTION;
Would  YOU  like to be convicted on such a charge, on the uncorroborated evidence of just one witness ?


No and if that's really the case his appeal should win. I can't be bothered enough to go looking though.


Yes.....that is really the case.  The word of one man against another's, and the version given by the accuser was shown to be virtually impossible to have happened given all the circumstances.  I say Pell was convicted as a metaphoric protest against the Church.  The Jury could not convict the Church so they convicted Pell instead.

But......Appeal Courts do not lightly over turn a Jury decision.


If that is the case they should overturn it. He said/he said can never leave anything but doubt.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Aussie on Aug 16th, 2019 at 8:15pm

Setanta wrote on Aug 16th, 2019 at 7:43pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 16th, 2019 at 7:41pm:
I have never made ONE post supporting Islam.  Retract that, "apologise, and make it good."


What would be your take on it then? Enlighten me, I may have misread you. Is it evil incarnate and Mohammed it's pin up paedophile?


You made a very false accusation.


Quote:
You have no problem with what he said but you support Islam and defend it in spite of it's very many failings. What is that H word?


Retract, apologise and make it good.    

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Setanta on Aug 16th, 2019 at 8:20pm

Aussie wrote on Aug 16th, 2019 at 8:15pm:

Setanta wrote on Aug 16th, 2019 at 7:43pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 16th, 2019 at 7:41pm:
I have never made ONE post supporting Islam.  Retract that, "apologise, and make it good."


What would be your take on it then? Enlighten me, I may have misread you. Is it evil incarnate and Mohammed it's pin up paedophile?


You made a very false accusation.


Quote:
You have no problem with what he said but you support Islam and defend it in spite of it's very many failings. What is that H word?


Retract, apologise and make it good.    


You have read my post on the previous page. If I'm wrong, show me. Is Islam evil incarnate and Mohammed it's pin up paedophile? You agreed with Phil that Catholicism was. If you tell me Islam is just as evil and paedophilic, if not more so, I might find it in my heart to apologise.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by SerialBrain9 on Aug 16th, 2019 at 8:22pm
Some people are criminals who got away with their crimes although their crimes were known. Go figure.

As for Pell.

As I have predicted straight after the Trial - these judges have to find Pell NOT GUILTY.

There was never any evidence that a crime was committed - only "hearsay"

The jury should have been instructed to come back with a NOT GUILTY verdict citing a lack of evidence.

If the decision stands - I will see it as a miscarriage of justice which would be a danger to all of us and it would show a corrupt legal system.

Also if the decision stands - then the women how have continually accused Bill Shorten of rape need to have their day in court and he needs to be found GUILTY as well.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Aussie on Aug 16th, 2019 at 8:40pm
Can't argue with what you have posted except this.


Quote:
There was never any evidence that a crime was committed - only "hearsay"


Incorrect. Do a simple check on Google on hearsay evidence.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Setanta on Aug 16th, 2019 at 9:02pm

Setanta wrote on Aug 16th, 2019 at 8:20pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 16th, 2019 at 8:15pm:

Setanta wrote on Aug 16th, 2019 at 7:43pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 16th, 2019 at 7:41pm:
I have never made ONE post supporting Islam.  Retract that, "apologise, and make it good."


What would be your take on it then? Enlighten me, I may have misread you. Is it evil incarnate and Mohammed it's pin up paedophile?


You made a very false accusation.


Quote:
You have no problem with what he said but you support Islam and defend it in spite of it's very many failings. What is that H word?


Retract, apologise and make it good.    


You have read my post on the previous page. If I'm wrong, show me. Is Islam evil incarnate and Mohammed it's pin up paedophile? You agreed with Phil that Catholicism was. If you tell me Islam is just as evil and paedophilic, if not more so, I might find it in my heart to apologise.


Aussie? Do you want that apology?

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Aussie on Aug 16th, 2019 at 9:04pm
"Make it good."

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Setanta on Aug 16th, 2019 at 9:09pm

Aussie wrote on Aug 16th, 2019 at 9:04pm:
"Make it good."


If you do what I asked, I'll apologise. Is Islam evil incarnate and Mohammed it's pin up paedophile? Will you hold Islam to at least the same standards as you do Catholicism? Or is that bent over a barrel to far?


Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Setanta on Aug 16th, 2019 at 9:21pm
Sometimes a question is just a question.
Sometimes not answering is an answer.
What sound does a jellyfish make Aussie?

Don't you want that apology? It's an easy thing to make happen, surely.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Setanta on Aug 16th, 2019 at 9:51pm
I guess I was right then Aussie. No apology for you.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by xeej on Aug 16th, 2019 at 10:06pm
My money is on him walking.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Setanta on Aug 16th, 2019 at 11:43pm
Man up Aussie.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Gnads on Aug 17th, 2019 at 8:26am

Redmond Neck wrote on Aug 16th, 2019 at 10:21am:
Can we stick to the topic lads!  :)


Not possible for this twat

It's a wonder he's not on about Trump being an alleged child rapist.

He brings that into almost every post.

Even though he shouldn't even be here.  ::)

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Gnads on Aug 17th, 2019 at 8:29am

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 16th, 2019 at 6:09pm:
When a priest rapes a child does anyone think they really believe in God???

When a church covers up child sexual abuse they have lost all credibility and use religion to hide behind!!!

Pell is part of an organisation that is a criminal cartel....The Catholic Church is evil incarnate and Pell is it's pin up paedophile!!!

[smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

Such evil deeds could religion prompt.
Lucretius (96 BC - 55 BC), De Rerum Natura


Finally a post of yours that I can agree with.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Gnads on Aug 17th, 2019 at 8:42am
I'll also agree with the question that Set asked of Aussie but remove the question mark and use it like the statement Phil made .....

Islam is evil incarnate and Mohammad is it's pin up paedophile.

To me it's not worth trying to guess what the judiciary will do with Pell ......

it's been full of rock spiders for years.

If Pell wasn't guilty of actually sexually abusing anyone .............

he's still guilty of aiding & abetting those that did....

and therefore abusing his position.

That should hold for some criminal punishment.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Yadda on Aug 17th, 2019 at 10:59am

Redmond Neck wrote on Aug 16th, 2019 at 10:21am:

Can we stick to the topic lads!  :)



Why should we !!!
.....when greggery wants to talk about Trump      [again, and again, and again, and again, and..... ].



Freedom, innit.




Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Yadda on Aug 17th, 2019 at 11:10am

red baron wrote on Aug 16th, 2019 at 3:31pm:

If Pell's appeal is upheld then we can truly say the Legal system has gone to hell in a hand basket


Oh ?

Why so ?




Don't you think, that if his defence team can bring legitimate arguments, as to why his conviction was unsafe, that those arguments deserve to be fairly considered ?

And, if that they are considered to be valid arguments,    that his conviction should be overturned.


what arguments ?
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1565844268/19#19




p.s.
i am not a Roman Catholic.
and i am not making this argument, because i want to see Pell's conviction overturned.

i just believe, that the circumstances of his conviction     SHOW,    to any reasonable person, that his conviction was unsafe [unjust].





Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Yadda on Aug 17th, 2019 at 11:34am

SerialBrain9 wrote on Aug 16th, 2019 at 8:22pm:
Some people are criminals who got away with their crimes although their crimes were known. Go figure.

As for Pell.

As I have predicted straight after the Trial - these judges have to find Pell NOT GUILTY.

There was never any evidence that a crime was committed - only "hearsay"

The jury should have been instructed to come back with a NOT GUILTY verdict citing a lack of evidence.

If the decision stands - I will see it as a miscarriage of justice which would be a danger to all of us and it would show a corrupt legal system.



Also if the decision stands - then the women how have continually accused Bill Shorten of rape need to have their day in court and he needs to be found GUILTY as well.



SerialBrain,

Yes, that logic is difficult to argue against.

If guilt in a court of law, is to be decided ['confirmed'] by the testimony of one accuser, then every one of us is in danger!


It is a stupid decision [Pell's conviction], imo.



Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Ye Grappler on Aug 17th, 2019 at 8:40pm
It's what I expected - I'm no Catholic and no adherent to any religion, but I thought the entire premise on which the conviction was made was flawed.

As I've said - he may have been guilty of not blasting bastards for abuse and not acting, but he wasn't  on trial for that.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Gordon on Aug 17th, 2019 at 8:42pm

Ye Grappler wrote on Aug 17th, 2019 at 8:40pm:
It's what I expected - I'm no Catholic and no adherent to any religion, but I thought the entire premise on which the conviction was made was flawed.

As I've said - he may have been guilty of not blasting bastards for abuse and not acting, but he wasn't  on trial for that.


I detest Pell but I also get the same vibe. If it turns out he's innocent of the actual abuse I recon he deserved the time he got for the coverups.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by rhino on Aug 17th, 2019 at 8:51pm

Ye Grappler wrote on Aug 17th, 2019 at 8:40pm:
It's what I expected - I'm no Catholic and no adherent to any religion, but I thought the entire premise on which the conviction was made was flawed.

As I've said - he may have been guilty of not blasting bastards for abuse and not acting, but he wasn't  on trial for that.

What "premise"? It was his word against his accuser, thats what it boiled down to. The jury believed his accuser. 

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by mothra on Aug 17th, 2019 at 10:53pm

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 16th, 2019 at 6:09pm:
When a priest rapes a child does anyone think they really believe in God???

When a church covers up child sexual abuse they have lost all credibility and use religion to hide behind!!!

Pell is part of an organisation that is a criminal cartel....The Catholic Church is evil incarnate and Pell is it's pin up paedophile!!!

[smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

Such evil deeds could religion prompt.
Lucretius (96 BC - 55 BC), De Rerum Natura


Phil, i know your post is days old but Seatanta has instructed that if i';m to have any integrity at all i must venture to comment upon what you said.

While i agree that the powers behind the church are about as far from altruistic as it is possible to get, there are a great many wonderful Catholic priests and followers who devote themselves to the greater good.

I was raised Catholic and whilst i have turned on the church, i;'ve not turned on all of it's teachiongs ... and some of the finest people i know are Catholic.

Please don;t fall into the bigot's trap of labelling the all with the few.

Happy now, Setanta?

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Setanta on Aug 17th, 2019 at 11:58pm

mothra wrote on Aug 17th, 2019 at 10:53pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 16th, 2019 at 6:09pm:
When a priest rapes a child does anyone think they really believe in God???

When a church covers up child sexual abuse they have lost all credibility and use religion to hide behind!!!

Pell is part of an organisation that is a criminal cartel....The Catholic Church is evil incarnate and Pell is it's pin up paedophile!!!

[smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

Such evil deeds could religion prompt.
Lucretius (96 BC - 55 BC), De Rerum Natura


Phil, i know your post is days old but Seatanta has instructed that if i';m to have any integrity at all i must venture to comment upon what you said.

While i agree that the powers behind the church are about as far from altruistic as it is possible to get, there are a great many wonderful Catholic priests and followers who devote themselves to the greater good.

I was raised Catholic and whilst i have turned on the church, i;'ve not turned on all of it's teachiongs ... and some of the finest people i know are Catholic.

Please don;t fall into the bigot's trap of labelling the all with the few.

Happy now, Setanta?


Yes.
I'm not religious at all in any way but I believe if you are going to pay out on any you must pay out on all. If you defend any you must defend all. Personally I would have them all gone, they are a blight on mankind. Some more than others.


Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Ye Grappler on Aug 18th, 2019 at 12:01am

rhino wrote on Aug 17th, 2019 at 8:51pm:

Ye Grappler wrote on Aug 17th, 2019 at 8:40pm:
It's what I expected - I'm no Catholic and no adherent to any religion, but I thought the entire premise on which the conviction was made was flawed.

As I've said - he may have been guilty of not blasting bastards for abuse and not acting, but he wasn't  on trial for that.

What "premise"? It was his word against his accuser, thats what it boiled down to. The jury believed his accuser. 


Precisely the premise that was in doubt - the jury believed one word against another without any substantial corroborating evidence.

You understand the difference?

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by mothra on Aug 18th, 2019 at 12:10am

Setanta wrote on Aug 17th, 2019 at 11:58pm:

mothra wrote on Aug 17th, 2019 at 10:53pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 16th, 2019 at 6:09pm:
When a priest rapes a child does anyone think they really believe in God???

When a church covers up child sexual abuse they have lost all credibility and use religion to hide behind!!!

Pell is part of an organisation that is a criminal cartel....The Catholic Church is evil incarnate and Pell is it's pin up paedophile!!!

[smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

Such evil deeds could religion prompt.
Lucretius (96 BC - 55 BC), De Rerum Natura


Phil, i know your post is days old but Seatanta has instructed that if i';m to have any integrity at all i must venture to comment upon what you said.

While i agree that the powers behind the church are about as far from altruistic as it is possible to get, there are a great many wonderful Catholic priests and followers who devote themselves to the greater good.

I was raised Catholic and whilst i have turned on the church, i;'ve not turned on all of it's teachiongs ... and some of the finest people i know are Catholic.

Please don;t fall into the bigot's trap of labelling the all with the few.

Happy now, Setanta?


Yes.
I'm not religious at all in any way but I believe if you are going to pay out on any you must pay out on all. If you defend any you must defend all. Personally I would have them all gone, they are a blight on mankind. Some more than others.


And one must never miss an opportunity to impress their ethical standpoint on each and every comment, even if they don't see it.

Should one not see it, it may be held against one in other threads days after the event.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Setanta on Aug 18th, 2019 at 12:14am

mothra wrote on Aug 18th, 2019 at 12:10am:

Setanta wrote on Aug 17th, 2019 at 11:58pm:

mothra wrote on Aug 17th, 2019 at 10:53pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 16th, 2019 at 6:09pm:
When a priest rapes a child does anyone think they really believe in God???

When a church covers up child sexual abuse they have lost all credibility and use religion to hide behind!!!

Pell is part of an organisation that is a criminal cartel....The Catholic Church is evil incarnate and Pell is it's pin up paedophile!!!

[smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

Such evil deeds could religion prompt.
Lucretius (96 BC - 55 BC), De Rerum Natura


Phil, i know your post is days old but Seatanta has instructed that if i';m to have any integrity at all i must venture to comment upon what you said.

While i agree that the powers behind the church are about as far from altruistic as it is possible to get, there are a great many wonderful Catholic priests and followers who devote themselves to the greater good.

I was raised Catholic and whilst i have turned on the church, i;'ve not turned on all of it's teachiongs ... and some of the finest people i know are Catholic.

Please don;t fall into the bigot's trap of labelling the all with the few.

Happy now, Setanta?


Yes.
I'm not religious at all in any way but I believe if you are going to pay out on any you must pay out on all. If you defend any you must defend all. Personally I would have them all gone, they are a blight on mankind. Some more than others.


And one must never miss an opportunity to impress their ethical standpoint on each and every comment, even if they don't see it.

Should one not see it, it may be held against one in other threads days after the event.


;D Go for it. I don't know how you'll pull it off though. Ethics do not need religion and religion bypasses ethics.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by mothra on Aug 18th, 2019 at 12:16am

Setanta wrote on Aug 18th, 2019 at 12:14am:

mothra wrote on Aug 18th, 2019 at 12:10am:

Setanta wrote on Aug 17th, 2019 at 11:58pm:

mothra wrote on Aug 17th, 2019 at 10:53pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 16th, 2019 at 6:09pm:
When a priest rapes a child does anyone think they really believe in God???

When a church covers up child sexual abuse they have lost all credibility and use religion to hide behind!!!

Pell is part of an organisation that is a criminal cartel....The Catholic Church is evil incarnate and Pell is it's pin up paedophile!!!

[smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

Such evil deeds could religion prompt.
Lucretius (96 BC - 55 BC), De Rerum Natura


Phil, i know your post is days old but Seatanta has instructed that if i';m to have any integrity at all i must venture to comment upon what you said.

While i agree that the powers behind the church are about as far from altruistic as it is possible to get, there are a great many wonderful Catholic priests and followers who devote themselves to the greater good.

I was raised Catholic and whilst i have turned on the church, i;'ve not turned on all of it's teachiongs ... and some of the finest people i know are Catholic.

Please don;t fall into the bigot's trap of labelling the all with the few.

Happy now, Setanta?


Yes.
I'm not religious at all in any way but I believe if you are going to pay out on any you must pay out on all. If you defend any you must defend all. Personally I would have them all gone, they are a blight on mankind. Some more than others.


And one must never miss an opportunity to impress their ethical standpoint on each and every comment, even if they don't see it.

Should one not see it, it may be held against one in other threads days after the event.


;D Go for it. I don't know how you'll pull it off though. Ethics do not need religion and religion bypasses ethics.



I'm sad for you how far from the point you are.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Setanta on Aug 18th, 2019 at 12:18am

mothra wrote on Aug 18th, 2019 at 12:16am:

Setanta wrote on Aug 18th, 2019 at 12:14am:

mothra wrote on Aug 18th, 2019 at 12:10am:

Setanta wrote on Aug 17th, 2019 at 11:58pm:

mothra wrote on Aug 17th, 2019 at 10:53pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 16th, 2019 at 6:09pm:
When a priest rapes a child does anyone think they really believe in God???

When a church covers up child sexual abuse they have lost all credibility and use religion to hide behind!!!

Pell is part of an organisation that is a criminal cartel....The Catholic Church is evil incarnate and Pell is it's pin up paedophile!!!

[smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

Such evil deeds could religion prompt.
Lucretius (96 BC - 55 BC), De Rerum Natura


Phil, i know your post is days old but Seatanta has instructed that if i';m to have any integrity at all i must venture to comment upon what you said.

While i agree that the powers behind the church are about as far from altruistic as it is possible to get, there are a great many wonderful Catholic priests and followers who devote themselves to the greater good.

I was raised Catholic and whilst i have turned on the church, i;'ve not turned on all of it's teachiongs ... and some of the finest people i know are Catholic.

Please don;t fall into the bigot's trap of labelling the all with the few.

Happy now, Setanta?


Yes.
I'm not religious at all in any way but I believe if you are going to pay out on any you must pay out on all. If you defend any you must defend all. Personally I would have them all gone, they are a blight on mankind. Some more than others.


And one must never miss an opportunity to impress their ethical standpoint on each and every comment, even if they don't see it.

Should one not see it, it may be held against one in other threads days after the event.


;D Go for it. I don't know how you'll pull it off though. Ethics do not need religion and religion bypasses ethics.



I'm sad for you how far from the point you are.


Perhaps you should graph the point at which you think you stand.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by mothra on Aug 18th, 2019 at 12:20am

Setanta wrote on Aug 18th, 2019 at 12:18am:

mothra wrote on Aug 18th, 2019 at 12:16am:

Setanta wrote on Aug 18th, 2019 at 12:14am:

mothra wrote on Aug 18th, 2019 at 12:10am:

Setanta wrote on Aug 17th, 2019 at 11:58pm:

mothra wrote on Aug 17th, 2019 at 10:53pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 16th, 2019 at 6:09pm:
When a priest rapes a child does anyone think they really believe in God???

When a church covers up child sexual abuse they have lost all credibility and use religion to hide behind!!!

Pell is part of an organisation that is a criminal cartel....The Catholic Church is evil incarnate and Pell is it's pin up paedophile!!!

[smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

Such evil deeds could religion prompt.
Lucretius (96 BC - 55 BC), De Rerum Natura


Phil, i know your post is days old but Seatanta has instructed that if i';m to have any integrity at all i must venture to comment upon what you said.

While i agree that the powers behind the church are about as far from altruistic as it is possible to get, there are a great many wonderful Catholic priests and followers who devote themselves to the greater good.

I was raised Catholic and whilst i have turned on the church, i;'ve not turned on all of it's teachiongs ... and some of the finest people i know are Catholic.

Please don;t fall into the bigot's trap of labelling the all with the few.

Happy now, Setanta?


Yes.
I'm not religious at all in any way but I believe if you are going to pay out on any you must pay out on all. If you defend any you must defend all. Personally I would have them all gone, they are a blight on mankind. Some more than others.


And one must never miss an opportunity to impress their ethical standpoint on each and every comment, even if they don't see it.

Should one not see it, it may be held against one in other threads days after the event.


;D Go for it. I don't know how you'll pull it off though. Ethics do not need religion and religion bypasses ethics.



I'm sad for you how far from the point you are.


Perhaps you should graph the point at which you think you stand.



Or you could just reread what's actually been written and work it out.

I know you can.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Setanta on Aug 18th, 2019 at 12:26am

mothra wrote on Aug 18th, 2019 at 12:20am:

Setanta wrote on Aug 18th, 2019 at 12:18am:

mothra wrote on Aug 18th, 2019 at 12:16am:

Setanta wrote on Aug 18th, 2019 at 12:14am:

mothra wrote on Aug 18th, 2019 at 12:10am:

Setanta wrote on Aug 17th, 2019 at 11:58pm:

mothra wrote on Aug 17th, 2019 at 10:53pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 16th, 2019 at 6:09pm:
When a priest rapes a child does anyone think they really believe in God???

When a church covers up child sexual abuse they have lost all credibility and use religion to hide behind!!!

Pell is part of an organisation that is a criminal cartel....The Catholic Church is evil incarnate and Pell is it's pin up paedophile!!!

[smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

Such evil deeds could religion prompt.
Lucretius (96 BC - 55 BC), De Rerum Natura


Phil, i know your post is days old but Seatanta has instructed that if i';m to have any integrity at all i must venture to comment upon what you said.

While i agree that the powers behind the church are about as far from altruistic as it is possible to get, there are a great many wonderful Catholic priests and followers who devote themselves to the greater good.

I was raised Catholic and whilst i have turned on the church, i;'ve not turned on all of it's teachiongs ... and some of the finest people i know are Catholic.

Please don;t fall into the bigot's trap of labelling the all with the few.

Happy now, Setanta?


Yes.
I'm not religious at all in any way but I believe if you are going to pay out on any you must pay out on all. If you defend any you must defend all. Personally I would have them all gone, they are a blight on mankind. Some more than others.


And one must never miss an opportunity to impress their ethical standpoint on each and every comment, even if they don't see it.

Should one not see it, it may be held against one in other threads days after the event.


;D Go for it. I don't know how you'll pull it off though. Ethics do not need religion and religion bypasses ethics.



I'm sad for you how far from the point you are.


Perhaps you should graph the point at which you think you stand.



Or you could just reread what's actually been written and work it out.

I know you can.


Perhaps. It is bed time, I know I said this before but as I passed through the kitchen and saw the leftovers, guilt struck me. Think of the starving Biafrans I said to myself, so I had to eat it. Now I know the food wasn't wasted, bed time. Punkin day tomorrow.




Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by cods on Aug 18th, 2019 at 9:53am

Ye Grappler wrote on Aug 17th, 2019 at 8:40pm:
It's what I expected - I'm no Catholic and no adherent to any religion, but I thought the entire premise on which the conviction was made was flawed.

As I've said - he may have been guilty of not blasting bastards for abuse and not acting, but he wasn't  on trial for that.




His trial wasnt fair or correct  imo...hes paying for all the Churches flaws and mistakes over centuries..

I think that is why he has put himself through this...

the sacrifice if you like

I think most on here know how I feel about paedophiles   it isnt a secret   but for the life of me  I cannot see  this man doing what is claimed in this case......as a by stander the evidence didnt stack up...

yes he is and was judged on the cover ups of the past and so he should be....his allegiance was to the church rather than the children....a huge mistake...

but I would rather he spent time in jail with fact and truth.....rather than a miserable judgement that is flawed...

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by cods on Aug 18th, 2019 at 9:55am

Setanta wrote on Aug 18th, 2019 at 12:26am:

mothra wrote on Aug 18th, 2019 at 12:20am:

Setanta wrote on Aug 18th, 2019 at 12:18am:

mothra wrote on Aug 18th, 2019 at 12:16am:

Setanta wrote on Aug 18th, 2019 at 12:14am:

mothra wrote on Aug 18th, 2019 at 12:10am:

Setanta wrote on Aug 17th, 2019 at 11:58pm:

mothra wrote on Aug 17th, 2019 at 10:53pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 16th, 2019 at 6:09pm:
When a priest rapes a child does anyone think they really believe in God???

When a church covers up child sexual abuse they have lost all credibility and use religion to hide behind!!!

Pell is part of an organisation that is a criminal cartel....The Catholic Church is evil incarnate and Pell is it's pin up paedophile!!!

[smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

Such evil deeds could religion prompt.
Lucretius (96 BC - 55 BC), De Rerum Natura


Phil, i know your post is days old but Seatanta has instructed that if i';m to have any integrity at all i must venture to comment upon what you said.

While i agree that the powers behind the church are about as far from altruistic as it is possible to get, there are a great many wonderful Catholic priests and followers who devote themselves to the greater good.

I was raised Catholic and whilst i have turned on the church, i;'ve not turned on all of it's teachiongs ... and some of the finest people i know are Catholic.

Please don;t fall into the bigot's trap of labelling the all with the few.

Happy now, Setanta?


Yes.
I'm not religious at all in any way but I believe if you are going to pay out on any you must pay out on all. If you defend any you must defend all. Personally I would have them all gone, they are a blight on mankind. Some more than others.


And one must never miss an opportunity to impress their ethical standpoint on each and every comment, even if they don't see it.

Should one not see it, it may be held against one in other threads days after the event.


;D Go for it. I don't know how you'll pull it off though. Ethics do not need religion and religion bypasses ethics.



I'm sad for you how far from the point you are.


Perhaps you should graph the point at which you think you stand.



Or you could just reread what's actually been written and work it out.

I know you can.


Perhaps. It is bed time, I know I said this before but as I passed through the kitchen and saw the leftovers, guilt struck me. Think of the starving Biafrans I said to myself, so I had to eat it. Now I know the food wasn't wasted, bed time. Punkin day tomorrow.



think of IN FILL set....and what you are doing to save our wonderful planet.....

we are all going to be buried in WASTE...

it will outdo Climate Change to finish off this planet.. ;) ;) it will be one big PILE OF CRAP.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by John Smith on Aug 18th, 2019 at 10:00am
even if Pell didn't partake, he covered up for those that did. For that he should rot in a cell forever.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by cods on Aug 18th, 2019 at 10:10am

John Smith wrote on Aug 18th, 2019 at 10:00am:
even if Pell didn't partake, he covered up for those that did. For that he should rot in a cell forever.



was he the only one???.. what about all the POPES....

he was guided by the Church...and he chose them above the children....he has to live with that..jail wont give him penance..

he will suffer to his grave

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Gnads on Aug 18th, 2019 at 1:20pm

cods wrote on Aug 18th, 2019 at 10:10am:

John Smith wrote on Aug 18th, 2019 at 10:00am:
even if Pell didn't partake, he covered up for those that did. For that he should rot in a cell forever.



was he the only one???.. what about all the POPES....

he was guided by the Church...and he chose them above the children....he has to live with that..jail wont give him penance..

he will suffer to his grave


That's a fairly ordinary excuse.

Just because others did it?

He knowingly aided & abetted paedohile child abusing priests under his jurisdiction.....

He should have been the better Christian and reported them.

He deserves a criminal conviction for that alone.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by John Smith on Aug 18th, 2019 at 2:09pm

cods wrote on Aug 18th, 2019 at 10:10am:

John Smith wrote on Aug 18th, 2019 at 10:00am:
even if Pell didn't partake, he covered up for those that did. For that he should rot in a cell forever.



was he the only one???.. what about all the POPES....

he was guided by the Church...and he chose them above the children....he has to live with that..jail wont give him penance..

he will suffer to his grave



Aren't you the one who's always pretending to care about the children? Lock them them all up for all I care. From the pope right down to the cleaners in your local parish.  If they knew and tried to hide it, they all deserve to rot in jail.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Aussie on Aug 18th, 2019 at 2:19pm

Gnads wrote on Aug 18th, 2019 at 1:20pm:

cods wrote on Aug 18th, 2019 at 10:10am:

John Smith wrote on Aug 18th, 2019 at 10:00am:
even if Pell didn't partake, he covered up for those that did. For that he should rot in a cell forever.



was he the only one???.. what about all the POPES....

he was guided by the Church...and he chose them above the children....he has to live with that..jail wont give him penance..

he will suffer to his grave


That's a fairly ordinary excuse.

Just because others did it?

He knowingly aided & abetted paedohile child abusing priests under his jurisdiction.....

He should have been the better Christian and reported them.

He deserves a criminal conviction for that alone.


Okay...so prosecute him for that.  It is entirely irrelevant to this Thread and the offences for which pell was convicted.

What say ye Gonads...what will the Appeal Court find?

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Bobby. on Aug 18th, 2019 at 2:30pm
This court case has now taken  on messianic dimensions:



Cardinal George Pell compares plight
with that of Jesus


https://www.sentinelassam.com/international/cardinal-george-pell-compares-plight-with-that-of-jesus/

August 12, 2019 1:30 am



Canberra: Australian Cardinal George Pell, who was recently sentenced to six years in prison for sexually abusing two children more than 20 years ago, has compared his suffering to that of Jesus Christ. Pell, in a missive believed to be signed by him and posted on social media on Saturday by a support group, claimed that faith was the source of his strength and suffering gave him purpose and direction, reports Efe news. “The knowledge that my small suffering can be used for good purposes through being joined to Jesus’ suffering gives me purpose and direction,” said the former third-ranking Vatican official in a two-page letter dated August 1 from his prison in Melbourne. In the message, he also expressed gratitude to the people who supported and believed in him, adding that he was waiting to find out the result of his appeal against the sentence. Cardinal George Pell was convicted in March after a jury found him guilty on five counts of paedophilia for sexually abusing two choir-boys at St Patrick’s Cathedral in Melbourne between 1996-97.(IANS)

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Ye Grappler on Aug 18th, 2019 at 2:44pm

cods wrote on Aug 18th, 2019 at 9:53am:

Ye Grappler wrote on Aug 17th, 2019 at 8:40pm:
It's what I expected - I'm no Catholic and no adherent to any religion, but I thought the entire premise on which the conviction was made was flawed.

As I've said - he may have been guilty of not blasting bastards for abuse and not acting, but he wasn't  on trial for that.




His trial wasnt fair or correct  imo...hes paying for all the Churches flaws and mistakes over centuries..

I think that is why he has put himself through this...

the sacrifice if you like

I think most on here know how I feel about paedophiles   it isnt a secret   but for the life of me  I cannot see  this man doing what is claimed in this case......as a by stander the evidence didnt stack up...

yes he is and was judged on the cover ups of the past and so he should be....his allegiance was to the church rather than the children....a huge mistake...

but I would rather he spent time in jail with fact and truth.....rather than a miserable judgement that is flawed...


Yes - by all means try him for facilitating with depraved indifference or whatever - but not on the specific instances themselves... unless he was directly and personally involved.

It is always dangerous to accept one point of view in the affirmative in a court, as opposed to the right to innocence pending proof beyond a reasonable doubt etc... and even the word of two people in concert is deemed insufficient for a conviction these days - at least in the United States.

I see no reason why the following judgement should not be permitted to hold sway here:-

'Whenever you hear two different versions of the same events, and those two different versions are the same in every detail, you know you are listening to a lie'.

Sidney Schreiber - New Jersey State Supreme Court Judge.

How many 'convictions' are made on the basis of two witnesses in absolute synch saying the exact same thing?

I believe Justice Schreiber made that decision in relation to ex-culpatory verbal evidence given by witnesses - but it applies across the board, for obvious reasons.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Aussie on Aug 18th, 2019 at 3:02pm

Quote:
'Whenever you hear two different versions of the same events, and those two different versions are the same in every detail, you know you are listening to a lie'.
Sidney Schreiber - New Jersey State Supreme Court Judge.


Literally, that makes zero sense.  It is a nonsense.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by cods on Aug 18th, 2019 at 3:16pm

John Smith wrote on Aug 18th, 2019 at 2:09pm:

cods wrote on Aug 18th, 2019 at 10:10am:

John Smith wrote on Aug 18th, 2019 at 10:00am:
even if Pell didn't partake, he covered up for those that did. For that he should rot in a cell forever.



was he the only one???.. what about all the POPES....

he was guided by the Church...and he chose them above the children....he has to live with that..jail wont give him penance..

he will suffer to his grave



Aren't you the one who's always pretending to care about the children? Lock them them all up for all I care. From the pope right down to the cleaners in your local parish.  If they knew and tried to hide it, they all deserve to rot in jail.



yesI am but I do not condone jailing someone who isnt guilty just because some  on here see every Catholic Priest  as a paedophile....\

this is about Pells APPEAL..do I think he got an honest trial...no I dont...

thats the reason for my comment....its about the trial   some here claim he is guilty no matter what! and therefore leave the sentence as is...

they thinks its aussie justice...  not in my book..

btw I do not pretend about my convictions on Paedophiles...  they will never change.

if he is honestly guilty ..[which from the trial I found hard to believe]   then justice has been served.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Aussie on Aug 18th, 2019 at 3:20pm

Quote:
btw I do not pretend about my convictions on Paedophiles...  they will never change.


Why do you insist on posting this virtue signalling continually?  Is there anyone here who supports what paedos get up to?  No-one here is any different to you on that issue.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by John Smith on Aug 18th, 2019 at 3:30pm

cods wrote on Aug 18th, 2019 at 3:16pm:
btw I do not pretend about my convictions on Paedophiles...  they will never change.



and yet your first response to was



Quote:
was he the only one???.. what about all the POPES.


you were excusing him for his actions cods.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by philperth2010 on Aug 18th, 2019 at 9:45pm

Setanta wrote on Aug 17th, 2019 at 11:58pm:

mothra wrote on Aug 17th, 2019 at 10:53pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 16th, 2019 at 6:09pm:
When a priest rapes a child does anyone think they really believe in God???

When a church covers up child sexual abuse they have lost all credibility and use religion to hide behind!!!

Pell is part of an organisation that is a criminal cartel....The Catholic Church is evil incarnate and Pell is it's pin up paedophile!!!

[smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

Such evil deeds could religion prompt.
Lucretius (96 BC - 55 BC), De Rerum Natura


Phil, i know your post is days old but Seatanta has instructed that if i';m to have any integrity at all i must venture to comment upon what you said.

While i agree that the powers behind the church are about as far from altruistic as it is possible to get, there are a great many wonderful Catholic priests and followers who devote themselves to the greater good.

I was raised Catholic and whilst i have turned on the church, i;'ve not turned on all of it's teachings ... and some of the finest people i know are Catholic.

Please don;t fall into the bigot's trap of labelling the all with the few.

Happy now, Setanta?


Yes.
I'm not religious at all in any way but I believe if you are going to pay out on any you must pay out on all. If you defend any you must defend all. Personally I would have them all gone, they are a blight on mankind. Some more than others.


Islam has nothing to be proud of and I will not defend any religious institution that covers up child sexual abuse (most religions qualify)....However this thread is about Pell and the Catholic Church not Islam (not surprised Set want's to conflate the two)....If religion cannot abide by it's own standards then they deserve to be de-registered as a charity organisation....Threaten to take their free funding away and they will start caring more about the children than their damaged image???

:-? :-? :-?

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Steven Weinberg (1933 - ), quoted in The New York Times, April 20, 1999

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Setanta on Aug 18th, 2019 at 10:05pm

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 18th, 2019 at 9:45pm:

Setanta wrote on Aug 17th, 2019 at 11:58pm:

mothra wrote on Aug 17th, 2019 at 10:53pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 16th, 2019 at 6:09pm:
When a priest rapes a child does anyone think they really believe in God???

When a church covers up child sexual abuse they have lost all credibility and use religion to hide behind!!!

Pell is part of an organisation that is a criminal cartel....The Catholic Church is evil incarnate and Pell is it's pin up paedophile!!!

[smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

Such evil deeds could religion prompt.
Lucretius (96 BC - 55 BC), De Rerum Natura


Phil, i know your post is days old but Seatanta has instructed that if i';m to have any integrity at all i must venture to comment upon what you said.

While i agree that the powers behind the church are about as far from altruistic as it is possible to get, there are a great many wonderful Catholic priests and followers who devote themselves to the greater good.

I was raised Catholic and whilst i have turned on the church, i;'ve not turned on all of it's teachings ... and some of the finest people i know are Catholic.

Please don;t fall into the bigot's trap of labelling the all with the few.

Happy now, Setanta?


Yes.
I'm not religious at all in any way but I believe if you are going to pay out on any you must pay out on all. If you defend any you must defend all. Personally I would have them all gone, they are a blight on mankind. Some more than others.


Islam has nothing to be proud of and I will not defend any religious institution that covers up child sexual abuse (most religions qualify)....However this thread is about Pell and the Catholic Church not Islam (not surprised Set want's to conflate the two)....If religion cannot abide by it's own standards then they deserve to be de-registered as a charity organisation....Threaten to take their free funding away and they will start caring more about the children than their damaged image???

:-? :-? :-?

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Steven Weinberg (1933 - ), quoted in The New York Times, April 20, 1999


My point is Phil, those who want to hang the Catholic church seem unable to condemn the same in other religions. You did make a very telling comment last night about the evil that is the Catholic church. Are you able to say the same about another religion? Will you make that same comment about Islam? Or is that a bridge too far?


Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by philperth2010 on Aug 18th, 2019 at 11:24pm

Setanta wrote on Aug 18th, 2019 at 10:05pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 18th, 2019 at 9:45pm:

Setanta wrote on Aug 17th, 2019 at 11:58pm:

mothra wrote on Aug 17th, 2019 at 10:53pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 16th, 2019 at 6:09pm:
When a priest rapes a child does anyone think they really believe in God???

When a church covers up child sexual abuse they have lost all credibility and use religion to hide behind!!!

Pell is part of an organisation that is a criminal cartel....The Catholic Church is evil incarnate and Pell is it's pin up paedophile!!!

[smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

Such evil deeds could religion prompt.
Lucretius (96 BC - 55 BC), De Rerum Natura


Phil, i know your post is days old but Seatanta has instructed that if i';m to have any integrity at all i must venture to comment upon what you said.

While i agree that the powers behind the church are about as far from altruistic as it is possible to get, there are a great many wonderful Catholic priests and followers who devote themselves to the greater good.

I was raised Catholic and whilst i have turned on the church, i;'ve not turned on all of it's teachings ... and some of the finest people i know are Catholic.

Please don;t fall into the bigot's trap of labelling the all with the few.

Happy now, Setanta?


Yes.
I'm not religious at all in any way but I believe if you are going to pay out on any you must pay out on all. If you defend any you must defend all. Personally I would have them all gone, they are a blight on mankind. Some more than others.


Islam has nothing to be proud of and I will not defend any religious institution that covers up child sexual abuse (most religions qualify)....However this thread is about Pell and the Catholic Church not Islam (not surprised Set want's to conflate the two)....If religion cannot abide by it's own standards then they deserve to be de-registered as a charity organisation....Threaten to take their free funding away and they will start caring more about the children than their damaged image???

:-? :-? :-?

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Steven Weinberg (1933 - ), quoted in The New York Times, April 20, 1999


My point is Phil, those who want to hang the Catholic church seem unable to condemn the same in other religions. You did make a very telling comment last night about the evil that is the Catholic church. Are you able to say the same about another religion? Will you make that same comment about Islam? Or is that a bridge too far?


Done already Set....The Catholic Church has a history of covering up child sexual abuse....If you post anything relating to Islam doing the same I have no problem condemning them as I have already....Does bringing Islam into the topic absolve the Catholic Church in any way what so ever???

:-? :-? :-?

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Setanta on Aug 18th, 2019 at 11:43pm

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 18th, 2019 at 11:24pm:

Setanta wrote on Aug 18th, 2019 at 10:05pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 18th, 2019 at 9:45pm:

Setanta wrote on Aug 17th, 2019 at 11:58pm:

mothra wrote on Aug 17th, 2019 at 10:53pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 16th, 2019 at 6:09pm:
When a priest rapes a child does anyone think they really believe in God???

When a church covers up child sexual abuse they have lost all credibility and use religion to hide behind!!!

Pell is part of an organisation that is a criminal cartel....The Catholic Church is evil incarnate and Pell is it's pin up paedophile!!!

[smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

Such evil deeds could religion prompt.
Lucretius (96 BC - 55 BC), De Rerum Natura


Phil, i know your post is days old but Seatanta has instructed that if i';m to have any integrity at all i must venture to comment upon what you said.

While i agree that the powers behind the church are about as far from altruistic as it is possible to get, there are a great many wonderful Catholic priests and followers who devote themselves to the greater good.

I was raised Catholic and whilst i have turned on the church, i;'ve not turned on all of it's teachings ... and some of the finest people i know are Catholic.

Please don;t fall into the bigot's trap of labelling the all with the few.

Happy now, Setanta?


Yes.
I'm not religious at all in any way but I believe if you are going to pay out on any you must pay out on all. If you defend any you must defend all. Personally I would have them all gone, they are a blight on mankind. Some more than others.


Islam has nothing to be proud of and I will not defend any religious institution that covers up child sexual abuse (most religions qualify)....However this thread is about Pell and the Catholic Church not Islam (not surprised Set want's to conflate the two)....If religion cannot abide by it's own standards then they deserve to be de-registered as a charity organisation....Threaten to take their free funding away and they will start caring more about the children than their damaged image???

:-? :-? :-?

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Steven Weinberg (1933 - ), quoted in The New York Times, April 20, 1999


My point is Phil, those who want to hang the Catholic church seem unable to condemn the same in other religions. You did make a very telling comment last night about the evil that is the Catholic church. Are you able to say the same about another religion? Will you make that same comment about Islam? Or is that a bridge too far?


Done already Set....The Catholic Church has a history of covering up child sexual abuse....If you post anything relating to Islam doing the same I have no problem condemning them as I have already....Does bringing Islam into the topic absolve the Catholic Church in any way what so ever???

:-? :-? :-?


Not at all Phil, I think they are all a pox on man. I've made that pretty clear. I'm not a friend of religion. We have problems of fiddling in all faiths, let's not exclude Judaism here either. There is no point saying the catholic church are evil in isolation, label them all.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by philperth2010 on Aug 18th, 2019 at 11:56pm

Setanta wrote on Aug 18th, 2019 at 11:43pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 18th, 2019 at 11:24pm:

Setanta wrote on Aug 18th, 2019 at 10:05pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 18th, 2019 at 9:45pm:

Setanta wrote on Aug 17th, 2019 at 11:58pm:

mothra wrote on Aug 17th, 2019 at 10:53pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 16th, 2019 at 6:09pm:
When a priest rapes a child does anyone think they really believe in God???

When a church covers up child sexual abuse they have lost all credibility and use religion to hide behind!!!

Pell is part of an organisation that is a criminal cartel....The Catholic Church is evil incarnate and Pell is it's pin up paedophile!!!

[smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

Such evil deeds could religion prompt.
Lucretius (96 BC - 55 BC), De Rerum Natura


Phil, i know your post is days old but Seatanta has instructed that if i';m to have any integrity at all i must venture to comment upon what you said.

While i agree that the powers behind the church are about as far from altruistic as it is possible to get, there are a great many wonderful Catholic priests and followers who devote themselves to the greater good.

I was raised Catholic and whilst i have turned on the church, i;'ve not turned on all of it's teachings ... and some of the finest people i know are Catholic.

Please don;t fall into the bigot's trap of labelling the all with the few.

Happy now, Setanta?


Yes.
I'm not religious at all in any way but I believe if you are going to pay out on any you must pay out on all. If you defend any you must defend all. Personally I would have them all gone, they are a blight on mankind. Some more than others.


Islam has nothing to be proud of and I will not defend any religious institution that covers up child sexual abuse (most religions qualify)....However this thread is about Pell and the Catholic Church not Islam (not surprised Set want's to conflate the two)....If religion cannot abide by it's own standards then they deserve to be de-registered as a charity organisation....Threaten to take their free funding away and they will start caring more about the children than their damaged image???

:-? :-? :-?

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Steven Weinberg (1933 - ), quoted in The New York Times, April 20, 1999


My point is Phil, those who want to hang the Catholic church seem unable to condemn the same in other religions. You did make a very telling comment last night about the evil that is the Catholic church. Are you able to say the same about another religion? Will you make that same comment about Islam? Or is that a bridge too far?


Done already Set....The Catholic Church has a history of covering up child sexual abuse....If you post anything relating to Islam doing the same I have no problem condemning them as I have already....Does bringing Islam into the topic absolve the Catholic Church in any way what so ever???

:-? :-? :-?


Not at all Phil, I think they are all a pox on man. I've made that pretty clear. I'm not a friend of religion. We have problems of fiddling in all faiths, let's not exclude Judaism here either. There is no point saying the catholic church are evil in isolation, label them all.


Already done Set (See highlighted)???

::) ::) ::)

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Setanta on Aug 18th, 2019 at 11:58pm

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 18th, 2019 at 11:56pm:

Setanta wrote on Aug 18th, 2019 at 11:43pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 18th, 2019 at 11:24pm:

Setanta wrote on Aug 18th, 2019 at 10:05pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 18th, 2019 at 9:45pm:

Setanta wrote on Aug 17th, 2019 at 11:58pm:

mothra wrote on Aug 17th, 2019 at 10:53pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 16th, 2019 at 6:09pm:
When a priest rapes a child does anyone think they really believe in God???

When a church covers up child sexual abuse they have lost all credibility and use religion to hide behind!!!

Pell is part of an organisation that is a criminal cartel....The Catholic Church is evil incarnate and Pell is it's pin up paedophile!!!

[smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

Such evil deeds could religion prompt.
Lucretius (96 BC - 55 BC), De Rerum Natura


Phil, i know your post is days old but Seatanta has instructed that if i';m to have any integrity at all i must venture to comment upon what you said.

While i agree that the powers behind the church are about as far from altruistic as it is possible to get, there are a great many wonderful Catholic priests and followers who devote themselves to the greater good.

I was raised Catholic and whilst i have turned on the church, i;'ve not turned on all of it's teachings ... and some of the finest people i know are Catholic.

Please don;t fall into the bigot's trap of labelling the all with the few.

Happy now, Setanta?


Yes.
I'm not religious at all in any way but I believe if you are going to pay out on any you must pay out on all. If you defend any you must defend all. Personally I would have them all gone, they are a blight on mankind. Some more than others.


Islam has nothing to be proud of and I will not defend any religious institution that covers up child sexual abuse (most religions qualify)....However this thread is about Pell and the Catholic Church not Islam (not surprised Set want's to conflate the two)....If religion cannot abide by it's own standards then they deserve to be de-registered as a charity organisation....Threaten to take their free funding away and they will start caring more about the children than their damaged image???

:-? :-? :-?

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Steven Weinberg (1933 - ), quoted in The New York Times, April 20, 1999


My point is Phil, those who want to hang the Catholic church seem unable to condemn the same in other religions. You did make a very telling comment last night about the evil that is the Catholic church. Are you able to say the same about another religion? Will you make that same comment about Islam? Or is that a bridge too far?


Done already Set....The Catholic Church has a history of covering up child sexual abuse....If you post anything relating to Islam doing the same I have no problem condemning them as I have already....Does bringing Islam into the topic absolve the Catholic Church in any way what so ever???

:-? :-? :-?


Not at all Phil, I think they are all a pox on man. I've made that pretty clear. I'm not a friend of religion. We have problems of fiddling in all faiths, let's not exclude Judaism here either. There is no point saying the catholic church are evil in isolation, label them all.


Already done Set (See highlighted)???

::) ::) ::)


Kind of timid compared to what you said about the Catholic church but somewhat acceptable. Not the damnation you poured on Catholics though.


Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by philperth2010 on Aug 19th, 2019 at 12:08am

Setanta wrote on Aug 18th, 2019 at 11:58pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 18th, 2019 at 11:56pm:

Setanta wrote on Aug 18th, 2019 at 11:43pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 18th, 2019 at 11:24pm:

Setanta wrote on Aug 18th, 2019 at 10:05pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 18th, 2019 at 9:45pm:

Setanta wrote on Aug 17th, 2019 at 11:58pm:

mothra wrote on Aug 17th, 2019 at 10:53pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 16th, 2019 at 6:09pm:
When a priest rapes a child does anyone think they really believe in God???

When a church covers up child sexual abuse they have lost all credibility and use religion to hide behind!!!

Pell is part of an organisation that is a criminal cartel....The Catholic Church is evil incarnate and Pell is it's pin up paedophile!!!

[smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

Such evil deeds could religion prompt.
Lucretius (96 BC - 55 BC), De Rerum Natura


Phil, i know your post is days old but Seatanta has instructed that if i';m to have any integrity at all i must venture to comment upon what you said.

While i agree that the powers behind the church are about as far from altruistic as it is possible to get, there are a great many wonderful Catholic priests and followers who devote themselves to the greater good.

I was raised Catholic and whilst i have turned on the church, i;'ve not turned on all of it's teachings ... and some of the finest people i know are Catholic.

Please don;t fall into the bigot's trap of labelling the all with the few.

Happy now, Setanta?


Yes.
I'm not religious at all in any way but I believe if you are going to pay out on any you must pay out on all. If you defend any you must defend all. Personally I would have them all gone, they are a blight on mankind. Some more than others.


Islam has nothing to be proud of and I will not defend any religious institution that covers up child sexual abuse (most religions qualify)....However this thread is about Pell and the Catholic Church not Islam (not surprised Set want's to conflate the two)....If religion cannot abide by it's own standards then they deserve to be de-registered as a charity organisation....Threaten to take their free funding away and they will start caring more about the children than their damaged image???

:-? :-? :-?

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Steven Weinberg (1933 - ), quoted in The New York Times, April 20, 1999


My point is Phil, those who want to hang the Catholic church seem unable to condemn the same in other religions. You did make a very telling comment last night about the evil that is the Catholic church. Are you able to say the same about another religion? Will you make that same comment about Islam? Or is that a bridge too far?


Done already Set....The Catholic Church has a history of covering up child sexual abuse....If you post anything relating to Islam doing the same I have no problem condemning them as I have already....Does bringing Islam into the topic absolve the Catholic Church in any way what so ever???

:-? :-? :-?


Not at all Phil, I think they are all a pox on man. I've made that pretty clear. I'm not a friend of religion. We have problems of fiddling in all faiths, let's not exclude Judaism here either. There is no point saying the catholic church are evil in isolation, label them all.


Already done Set (See highlighted)???

::) ::) ::)


Kind of timid compared to what you said about the Catholic church but somewhat acceptable. Not the damnation you poured on Catholics though.


That would have something to do with the topic mate would't it....I was not under the impression I had to condemn all religions (although I did) to make my point about the Catholic Church and George Pell....I might ask why do you find it necessary to drag Islam (or any other religion) into a topic about the Catholic Church and George Pell???

:-? :-? :-?


Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Setanta on Aug 19th, 2019 at 12:14am
It was the root of all evil kinda thing you did, Phil. That's why I made a point. Sure this thread is about Pell and the Catholic church but you went above and beyond in describing the evils of Catholicism.. You made it more than a case of dirty priests, you labelled a whole religion and the people that subscribe to it. I hope you can see what I'm saying.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by mothra on Aug 19th, 2019 at 12:45am

Setanta wrote on Aug 19th, 2019 at 12:14am:
It was the root of all evil kinda thing you did, Phil. That's why I made a point. Sure this thread is about Pell and the Catholic church but you went above and beyond in describing the evils of Catholicism.. You made it more than a case of dirty priests, you labelled a whole religion and the people that subscribe to it. I hope you can see what I'm saying.


And you are holding him (as you did me and Aussie) to account for every time someone has attempted to counter an Islamophobic rant, of which there are obsessive amounts daily on here.

It's unfair.

And your point isn't strong enough to labour to the lengths you have. You've omitted the very real and significant variable of criticism of an intimately known establishment with pervasive roots through the society from which the person criticising exists versus the ignorant rants against a poorly understood minority.

Apples with oranges.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by philperth2010 on Aug 19th, 2019 at 2:05am

Setanta wrote on Aug 19th, 2019 at 12:14am:
It was the root of all evil kinda thing you did, Phil. That's why I made a point. Sure this thread is about Pell and the Catholic church but you went above and beyond in describing the evils of Catholicism.. You made it more than a case of dirty priests, you labelled a whole religion and the people that subscribe to it. I hope you can see what I'm saying.


Bullshit....Look at what I wrote....Where have I levelled any accusations against the people who subscribe to Catholicism mate....I condemned the faith not the faithful!!!


Quote:
When a priest rapes a child does anyone think they really believe in God???

When a church covers up child sexual abuse they have lost all credibility and use religion to hide behind!!!

Pell is part of an organisation that is a criminal cartel....The Catholic Church is evil incarnate and Pell is it's pin up paedophile!!!

:-? :-? :-?

Such evil deeds could religion prompt.
Lucretius (96 BC - 55 BC), De Rerum Natura


You are making up crap to justify your apparent belief that I am not allowed to criticise Catholicism without criticising other religions (Islam) which I did....Now you are accusing me of labelling all Catholics what ever that means....I hope you can see what I'm saying???

::) ::) ::)

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by philperth2010 on Aug 19th, 2019 at 2:08am

mothra wrote on Aug 19th, 2019 at 12:45am:

Setanta wrote on Aug 19th, 2019 at 12:14am:
It was the root of all evil kinda thing you did, Phil. That's why I made a point. Sure this thread is about Pell and the Catholic church but you went above and beyond in describing the evils of Catholicism.. You made it more than a case of dirty priests, you labelled a whole religion and the people that subscribe to it. I hope you can see what I'm saying.


And you are holding him (as you did me and Aussie) to account for every time someone has attempted to counter an Islamophobic rant, of which there are obsessive amounts daily on here.

It's unfair.

And your point isn't strong enough to labour to the lengths you have. You've omitted the very real and significant variable of criticism of an intimately known establishment with pervasive roots through the society from which the person criticising exists versus the ignorant rants against a poorly understood minority.

Apples with oranges.


Na he is just peddling his Islamophobic bullshit....I never made any comment about those who follow Catholicism and he knows it....Not worth the effort trying to debate bigots!!!

::) ::) ::)

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Gnads on Aug 19th, 2019 at 9:01am

Aussie wrote on Aug 18th, 2019 at 2:19pm:

Gnads wrote on Aug 18th, 2019 at 1:20pm:

cods wrote on Aug 18th, 2019 at 10:10am:

John Smith wrote on Aug 18th, 2019 at 10:00am:
even if Pell didn't partake, he covered up for those that did. For that he should rot in a cell forever.



was he the only one???.. what about all the POPES....

he was guided by the Church...and he chose them above the children....he has to live with that..jail wont give him penance..

he will suffer to his grave


That's a fairly ordinary excuse.

Just because others did it?

He knowingly aided & abetted paedohile child abusing priests under his jurisdiction.....

He should have been the better Christian and reported them.

He deserves a criminal conviction for that alone.


Okay...so prosecute him for that.  It is entirely irrelevant to this Thread and the offences for which pell was convicted.

What say ye Gonads...what will the Appeal Court find?


Well I thought he did face charges for aiding & abetting ... and then these charges came on top or after that?

But seeings nothing came of that ..... my guess is he will get off these charges.

Insufficient evidence?

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Aussie on Aug 19th, 2019 at 11:14am
No, there were never any charges of aiding and abetting against Pell.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Ye Grappler on Aug 19th, 2019 at 11:37am

Aussie wrote on Aug 18th, 2019 at 3:02pm:

Quote:
'Whenever you hear two different versions of the same events, and those two different versions are the same in every detail, you know you are listening to a lie'.
Sidney Schreiber - New Jersey State Supreme Court Judge.


Literally, that makes zero sense.  It is a nonsense.


Think again, Grasshopper.... no two witnesses see an occurrence in precisely the same way... ergo, if their 'evidence' is precisely the same, they have colluded - collusion says 'lie' instantly.  If you need to collude on your evidence as an eyewitness, you obviously are not telling the truth that you saw.

You should know that, counsellor... you've seen it time and time again.... surely ... again - how many 'convictions' are made based on the absolutely same 'evidence' given verbally by two witnesses?

Come on, counsellor, don't be coy ....

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by cods on Aug 19th, 2019 at 11:56am

John Smith wrote on Aug 18th, 2019 at 3:30pm:

cods wrote on Aug 18th, 2019 at 3:16pm:
btw I do not pretend about my convictions on Paedophiles...  they will never change.



and yet your first response to was



Quote:
was he the only one???.. what about all the POPES.


you were excusing him for his actions cods.

\

in your tiny min... I am commenting on the quality of the the trial.... you are commenting on the person.. as per usual...

and selective questioning....

I will leave you with your low thoughts  as nothing I say will change them...

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Aussie on Aug 19th, 2019 at 2:06pm

Ye Grappler wrote on Aug 19th, 2019 at 11:37am:

Aussie wrote on Aug 18th, 2019 at 3:02pm:

Quote:
'Whenever you hear two different versions of the same events, and those two different versions are the same in every detail, you know you are listening to a lie'.
Sidney Schreiber - New Jersey State Supreme Court Judge.


Literally, that makes zero sense.  It is a nonsense.


Think again, Grasshopper.... no two witnesses see an occurrence in precisely the same way... ergo, if their 'evidence' is precisely the same, they have colluded - collusion says 'lie' instantly.  If you need to collude on your evidence as an eyewitness, you obviously are not telling the truth that you saw.

You should know that, counsellor... you've seen it time and time again.... surely ... again - how many 'convictions' are made based on the absolutely same 'evidence' given verbally by two witnesses?

Come on, counsellor, don't be coy ....


It would make sense if it was "If two different people give you exactly the same version of an event, you know someone is lying."  I would have changed that to'............you know BOTH are lying.'

It used to happen every day back in the day whenever two Coppers gave their version of an event....always identical.  The Bench always accepted it as gospel despite the obvious submission made over and over each and every day, to the contrary.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Ye Grappler on Aug 19th, 2019 at 3:49pm

Aussie wrote on Aug 19th, 2019 at 2:06pm:

Ye Grappler wrote on Aug 19th, 2019 at 11:37am:

Aussie wrote on Aug 18th, 2019 at 3:02pm:

Quote:
'Whenever you hear two different versions of the same events, and those two different versions are the same in every detail, you know you are listening to a lie'.
Sidney Schreiber - New Jersey State Supreme Court Judge.


Literally, that makes zero sense.  It is a nonsense.


Think again, Grasshopper.... no two witnesses see an occurrence in precisely the same way... ergo, if their 'evidence' is precisely the same, they have colluded - collusion says 'lie' instantly.  If you need to collude on your evidence as an eyewitness, you obviously are not telling the truth that you saw.

You should know that, counsellor... you've seen it time and time again.... surely ... again - how many 'convictions' are made based on the absolutely same 'evidence' given verbally by two witnesses?

Come on, counsellor, don't be coy ....


It would make sense if it was "If two different people give you exactly the same version of an event, you know someone is lying."  I would have changed that to'............you know BOTH are lying.'

It used to happen every day back in the day whenever two Coppers gave their version of an event....always identical.  The Bench always accepted it as gospel despite the obvious submission made over and over each and every day, to the contrary.


It's also astounding that they would even need to 'refer to their notes' - something the defendant can't do... meaning they can't properly recall what actually happened...  if I, for instance, were claiming that someone punched me - I'd recall it ...

Talk about weighted against the defendant... always was, always will be unless we enforce major changes... just part of the portfolio/manifesto...

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Ye Grappler on Aug 19th, 2019 at 3:50pm

cods wrote on Aug 19th, 2019 at 11:56am:

John Smith wrote on Aug 18th, 2019 at 3:30pm:

cods wrote on Aug 18th, 2019 at 3:16pm:
btw I do not pretend about my convictions on Paedophiles...  they will never change.



and yet your first response to was



Quote:
was he the only one???.. what about all the POPES.


you were excusing him for his actions cods.

\

in your tiny min... I am commenting on the quality of the the trial.... you are commenting on the person.. as per usual...

and selective questioning....

I will leave you with your low thoughts  as nothing I say will change them...


Signore Romano has a tendency to do that - comment on the man, I mean - and has little to no understanding of the issues... too deep for the Eyetie mind ....

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Aussie on Aug 19th, 2019 at 4:20pm

Quote:
It's also astounding that they would even need to 'refer to their notes' - something the defendant can't do... meaning they can't properly recall what actually happened...  if I, for instance, were claiming that someone punched me - I'd recall it ...


It was always a laugh. The Coppers would get in the box and rattle off, parrot like, "Your Worship, I seek permission to refer to my notes made at the time and which have been confirmed as accurate by my Corroborating Office Blogs."  Permission was always given as the Law allowed for.  The farce was that on many occasions, the notes were a complete fabrication.

If a Defendant also made contemporaneous notes, or within a reasonably short time after the event, they too may refer to them.  Of course, they never had any capacity to do that, as the Coppers were not about to let them do it, or they were in a Watch House cell with no access to pen and paper.


Quote:
Talk about weighted against the defendant... always was, always will be unless we enforce major changes... just part of the portfolio/manifesto...


Well, it is a massive advance that Police Interviews are now recored visually and orally.  That is not flawless, but much better than back in the day.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Ayn Marx on Aug 19th, 2019 at 5:03pm
I haven’t read every post on this thread plus I find the formatting of this forum confusing to say the least so forgive me if I’m covering well troden ground.
Discussions concerning Christianity in it’s many forms, unless conducted in a theology specific environment, tends to avoid something I suggest is central to this entire priestly child abuse  nightmare. That is the central role of worshiping a father who tortures his own son to redeem sins he knowingly made possible in the first place. Then we have the imigary of an almost naked Christ crucified impressional children are exposed to from a very vulnerable age. And we wonder why so many who are attracted to the priesthood act as they do.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by AaronCRescue on Aug 19th, 2019 at 5:12pm

Ye Grappler wrote on Aug 19th, 2019 at 3:49pm:
It's also astounding that they would even need to 'refer to their notes' - something the defendant can't do... meaning they can't properly recall what actually happened...  if I, for instance, were claiming that someone punched me - I'd recall it ...


Has it occurred to you that the Cops deal with many "defendants" and rather than make a mistake, prefer to "refer to their notes" about that particular case?

You, as the "defendant" can surely remember what you have done - without "your notes".  ::)

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Setanta on Aug 19th, 2019 at 6:20pm

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 19th, 2019 at 2:05am:

Setanta wrote on Aug 19th, 2019 at 12:14am:
It was the root of all evil kinda thing you did, Phil. That's why I made a point. Sure this thread is about Pell and the Catholic church but you went above and beyond in describing the evils of Catholicism.. You made it more than a case of dirty priests, you labelled a whole religion and the people that subscribe to it. I hope you can see what I'm saying.


Bullshit....Look at what I wrote....Where have I levelled any accusations against the people who subscribe to Catholicism mate....I condemned the faith not the faithful!!!


Quote:
When a priest rapes a child does anyone think they really believe in God???

When a church covers up child sexual abuse they have lost all credibility and use religion to hide behind!!!

Pell is part of an organisation that is a criminal cartel....The Catholic Church is evil incarnate and Pell is it's pin up paedophile!!!

:-? :-? :-?

Such evil deeds could religion prompt.
Lucretius (96 BC - 55 BC), De Rerum Natura


You are making up crap to justify your apparent belief that I am not allowed to criticise Catholicism without criticising other religions (Islam) which I did....Now you are accusing me of labelling all Catholics what ever that means....I hope you can see what I'm saying???

::) ::) ::)


You're right, I apologise.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by John Smith on Aug 19th, 2019 at 6:28pm

cods wrote on Aug 19th, 2019 at 11:56am:

John Smith wrote on Aug 18th, 2019 at 3:30pm:

cods wrote on Aug 18th, 2019 at 3:16pm:
btw I do not pretend about my convictions on Paedophiles...  they will never change.



and yet your first response to was



Quote:
was he the only one???.. what about all the POPES.


you were excusing him for his actions cods.

\

in your tiny min... I am commenting on the quality of the the trial.... you are commenting on the person.. as per usual...

and selective questioning....

I will leave you with your low thoughts  as nothing I say will change them...


really? what did the pope have to do with the trial? :D :D

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by John Smith on Aug 19th, 2019 at 6:30pm

Ye Grappler wrote on Aug 19th, 2019 at 3:50pm:
Signore Romano has a tendency to do that - comment on the man, I mean - and has little to no understanding of the issues... too deep for the Eyetie mind ....



god forbid we talk about pell in a thread about pell :D :D :D ... you moron

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Aussie on Aug 19th, 2019 at 6:53pm

John Smith wrote on Aug 19th, 2019 at 6:28pm:

cods wrote on Aug 19th, 2019 at 11:56am:

John Smith wrote on Aug 18th, 2019 at 3:30pm:

cods wrote on Aug 18th, 2019 at 3:16pm:
btw I do not pretend about my convictions on Paedophiles...  they will never change.



and yet your first response to was



Quote:
was he the only one???.. what about all the POPES.


you were excusing him for his actions cods.

\

in your tiny min... I am commenting on the quality of the the trial.... you are commenting on the person.. as per usual...

and selective questioning....

I will leave you with your low thoughts  as nothing I say will change them...


really? what did the pope have to do with the trial? :D :D


Nothing......but the only thing I can think of which led the Jury to convict was that is chose Pell as the scape-goat for what the "Popes" (ie The Church) did.

So, in that indirect way...it is a relevant comment but I doubt it will feature in any of the Judgements due Wednesday.  They don't have to explain why the Jury might have made a decision of Guilt when the evidence in support of conviction was so suggestive, even demanding, of an acquittal. 

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by John Smith on Aug 19th, 2019 at 6:59pm
clutching at straws there aussie. Pope had nothing to do with pells conviction.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Aussie on Aug 19th, 2019 at 7:04pm

John Smith wrote on Aug 19th, 2019 at 6:59pm:
clutching at straws there aussie. Pope had nothing to do with pells conviction.


"Popes" (ie The Church) ........ etc.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by greggerypeccary on Aug 19th, 2019 at 7:23pm

John Smith wrote on Aug 19th, 2019 at 6:59pm:
clutching at straws there aussie. Pope had nothing to do with pells conviction.


He had nothing to do with Smurf's death either.


Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by greggerypeccary on Aug 19th, 2019 at 7:38pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 19th, 2019 at 7:23pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 19th, 2019 at 6:59pm:
clutching at straws there aussie. Pope had nothing to do with pells conviction.


He had nothing to do with Smurf's death either.



Pope loved his mom   :'(

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Captain Caveman on Aug 19th, 2019 at 7:43pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 19th, 2019 at 7:38pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 19th, 2019 at 7:23pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 19th, 2019 at 6:59pm:
clutching at straws there aussie. Pope had nothing to do with pells conviction.


He had nothing to do with Smurf's death either.



Pope loved his mom   :'(



Man she lost her shyte. I felt so sorry for pope in that circumstance. I nearly shed a tear for him.


Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by greggerypeccary on Aug 19th, 2019 at 7:48pm

Captain Caveman wrote on Aug 19th, 2019 at 7:43pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 19th, 2019 at 7:38pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 19th, 2019 at 7:23pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 19th, 2019 at 6:59pm:
clutching at straws there aussie. Pope had nothing to do with pells conviction.


He had nothing to do with Smurf's death either.



Pope loved his mom   :'(



Man she lost her shyte. I felt so sorry for pope in that circumstance. I nearly shed a tear for him.


So did I.

Poor bugger   :'(


Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by John Smith on Aug 19th, 2019 at 7:48pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 19th, 2019 at 7:23pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 19th, 2019 at 6:59pm:
clutching at straws there aussie. Pope had nothing to do with pells conviction.


He had nothing to do with Smurf's death either.




for once. ;D ;D

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by philperth2010 on Aug 19th, 2019 at 9:21pm

Setanta wrote on Aug 19th, 2019 at 6:20pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 19th, 2019 at 2:05am:

Setanta wrote on Aug 19th, 2019 at 12:14am:
It was the root of all evil kinda thing you did, Phil. That's why I made a point. Sure this thread is about Pell and the Catholic church but you went above and beyond in describing the evils of Catholicism.. You made it more than a case of dirty priests, you labelled a whole religion and the people that subscribe to it. I hope you can see what I'm saying.


Bullshit....Look at what I wrote....Where have I levelled any accusations against the people who subscribe to Catholicism mate....I condemned the faith not the faithful!!!


Quote:
When a priest rapes a child does anyone think they really believe in God???

When a church covers up child sexual abuse they have lost all credibility and use religion to hide behind!!!

Pell is part of an organisation that is a criminal cartel....The Catholic Church is evil incarnate and Pell is it's pin up paedophile!!!

:-? :-? :-?

Such evil deeds could religion prompt.
Lucretius (96 BC - 55 BC), De Rerum Natura


You are making up crap to justify your apparent belief that I am not allowed to criticise Catholicism without criticising other religions (Islam) which I did....Now you are accusing me of labelling all Catholics what ever that means....I hope you can see what I'm saying???

::) ::) ::)


You're right, I apologise.


Thank's Set....In all honesty I think we actually agree with each other on this topic???

:-? :-? :-?

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Bobby. on Aug 21st, 2019 at 7:49am
Pell to be judged today.
I'll hear it live on the radio.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by xeej on Aug 21st, 2019 at 9:01am
Pell would be doing some serious praying right now.

He will either die in a hell or live the rest of his life out in luxury.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Bobby. on Aug 21st, 2019 at 9:10am

xeej wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 9:01am:
Pell would be doing some serious praying right now.

He will either die in a hell or live the rest of his life out in luxury.



It will be such an exciting day.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by xeej on Aug 21st, 2019 at 9:14am

Bobby. wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 9:10am:

xeej wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 9:01am:
Pell would be doing some serious praying right now.

He will either die in a hell or live the rest of his life out in luxury.



It will be such an exciting day.

I have a fresh batch of popcorn ready to go in the microwave oven.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Aussie on Aug 21st, 2019 at 9:37am
Appeal dismissed.  2-1 split decision.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Aussie on Aug 21st, 2019 at 9:40am
Has to be taken to the High Court.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by cods on Aug 21st, 2019 at 9:56am
I cant help but feel he is paying the price for every child that was sexually abused during those awful years..

we have strange ideas of what justice is all about...


Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by greggerypeccary on Aug 21st, 2019 at 9:59am

cods wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 9:56am:
I cant help but feel he is paying the price for every child that was sexually abused during those awful years..

we have strange ideas of what justice is all about...


I can't help but feel you're right.

Cue BOBBY & CLINT.


Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Captain Nemo on Aug 21st, 2019 at 10:05am
A pleasing decision.  8-)

Pell to serve out the remainder of his sentence.


Very interesting that the complainant was found by the appeal judges to be not a liar and not a fantasist.


Also ... very interesting and handy decision that video link presence of the jury panel was equal to physical presence.

It would have opened a massive can of worms if it had been found that actual physical presence is required at an arraignment.  :o

This may have spilled over into the area of other forms of video link in court cases.

Phew!  :)






Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Gnads on Aug 21st, 2019 at 10:06am
Do the appeals judges have to give a reason for the basis of their decisions?

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Captain Nemo on Aug 21st, 2019 at 10:07am

Gnads wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 10:06am:
Do the appeals judges have to give a reason for the basis of their decisions?



Yes, and they did.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Bobby. on Aug 21st, 2019 at 10:13am

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 9:59am:

cods wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 9:56am:
I cant help but feel he is paying the price for every child that was sexually abused during those awful years..

we have strange ideas of what justice is all about...


I can't help but feel you're right.

Cue BOBBY & CLINT.



Where's some rope?


Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Gnads on Aug 21st, 2019 at 10:21am

Captain Nemo wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 10:07am:

Gnads wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 10:06am:
Do the appeals judges have to give a reason for the basis of their decisions?



Yes, and they did.


Have they been published?


Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by philperth2010 on Aug 21st, 2019 at 10:23am

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 15th, 2019 at 5:38pm:
I never thought he would be convicted....The jury believed the victims over Pell so go figure....The bloke is finished even if he is released on a technicality???

:-? :-? :-?


Looks like the appeal court judges believed the witness as well....Pell only went to a jury trial because juries are easier to sway with with his queens council bullshit lawyer spin....Good on the judges for upholding the jury decision....Pell deserves everything he gets IMO!!!

:) :) :)

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Captain Nemo on Aug 21st, 2019 at 10:24am

Gnads wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 10:21am:

Captain Nemo wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 10:07am:

Gnads wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 10:06am:
Do the appeals judges have to give a reason for the basis of their decisions?



Yes, and they did.


Have they been published?



Google it.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Ye Grappler on Aug 21st, 2019 at 10:28am
It's still dodgy - he said/he said .... and no substantial corroborating evidence...

I argued coupla days ago about the need for SUBSTANTIAL corroborating evidence... and simply saying the witness came across as honest is not enough.. that's like saying this man looks dishonest...

Would you buy a used car from this man?
bc.jpg (35 KB | 12 )

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by greggerypeccary on Aug 21st, 2019 at 10:32am

Aussie wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 9:40am:
Has to be taken to the High Court.


I'm assuming it will be.

They have 28 days to decide.


Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Captain Nemo on Aug 21st, 2019 at 10:38am

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 10:32am:

Aussie wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 9:40am:
Has to be taken to the High Court.


I'm assuming it will be.

They have 28 days to decide.


Probably wil be.

But it is not a case of "must" go to the High Court.

The Catholic Church is likely to go there in order to exhaust all avenues of appeal.

Hopefully, the conviction will stand even after that.  8-)

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by greggerypeccary on Aug 21st, 2019 at 10:41am

Captain Nemo wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 10:38am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 10:32am:

Aussie wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 9:40am:
Has to be taken to the High Court.


I'm assuming it will be.

They have 28 days to decide.


Probably wil be.

But it is not a case of "must" go to the High Court.

The Catholic Church is likely to go there in order to exhaust all avenues of appeal.

Hopefully, the conviction will stand even after that.  8-)


That's right.

They have 28 days to decide if they go to the High Court or not.

I can't see why they wouldn't, though.


Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Captain Nemo on Aug 21st, 2019 at 10:54am
Only if they reckon they have little chance of overturning the original and now - appeals court decisions ... it is very, very expensive to take it to the High Court.  :o


Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by philperth2010 on Aug 21st, 2019 at 10:56am

Captain Nemo wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 10:54am:
Only if they reckon they have little chance of overturning the original and now - appeals court decisions ... it is very, very expensive to take it to the High Court.  :o


The Catholic Church is not short of a quid....Doing Gods work and all!!!

::) ::) ::)

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Captain Nemo on Aug 21st, 2019 at 10:59am
Yes, I kinda hope they do waste more dosh going to the High Court.  ;D

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by greggerypeccary on Aug 21st, 2019 at 11:01am

Captain Nemo wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 10:54am:
Only if they reckon they have little chance of overturning the original and now - appeals court decisions ... it is very, very expensive to take it to the High Court.  :o


The appeal decision wasn't unanimous.

I'd take it to the High Court if it was me.


Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by philperth2010 on Aug 21st, 2019 at 11:05am

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 11:01am:

Captain Nemo wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 10:54am:
Only if they reckon they have little chance of overturning the original and now - appeals court decisions ... it is very, very expensive to take it to the High Court.  :o


The appeal decision wasn't unanimous.

I'd take it to the High Court if it was me.


Here is a link to different opinions!!!

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2019/aug/21/cardinal-george-pell-appeal-sexual-assault-conviction


Quote:
You might be wondering what happens next. For now, as I said earlier, Pell will remain in prison until at least October 2022, the length of his non-parole period in prison. But his lawyers are almost certain to make an application to appeal to the high court.

That isn’t straightforward, however. The high court would have to decide there is sufficient reason to hear the appeal.

The High Court grants leave to appeal where a case: raises new points of law; is of high public importance; is likely to involve many future cases; where lower courts have been inconsistent; and/or the case involves the interests of the administration of justice.


:-? :-? :-?

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Captain Nemo on Aug 21st, 2019 at 11:07am

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 11:01am:

Captain Nemo wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 10:54am:
Only if they reckon they have little chance of overturning the original and now - appeals court decisions ... it is very, very expensive to take it to the High Court.  :o


The appeal decision wasn't unanimous.

I'd take it to the High Court if it was me.


Sure, and they probably will appeal to the High Court.

After that, hopefully, Pell will finally be thrown out of Rome.

Good riddance to the nasty bum.  >:(

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Bojack Horseman on Aug 21st, 2019 at 11:08am

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 11:05am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 11:01am:

Captain Nemo wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 10:54am:
Only if they reckon they have little chance of overturning the original and now - appeals court decisions ... it is very, very expensive to take it to the High Court.  :o


The appeal decision wasn't unanimous.

I'd take it to the High Court if it was me.


Here is a link to different opinions!!!

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2019/aug/21/cardinal-george-pell-appeal-sexual-assault-conviction


Quote:
You might be wondering what happens next. For now, as I said earlier, Pell will remain in prison until at least October 2022, the length of his non-parole period in prison. But his lawyers are almost certain to make an application to appeal to the high court.

That isn’t straightforward, however. The high court would have to decide there is sufficient reason to hear the appeal.

The High Court grants leave to appeal where a case: raises new points of law; is of high public importance; is likely to involve many future cases; where lower courts have been inconsistent; and/or the case involves the interests of the administration of justice.


:-? :-? :-?




He has a good constitutional lawyer on his side.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Bojack Horseman on Aug 21st, 2019 at 11:09am

Ye Grappler wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 10:28am:
It's still dodgy - he said/he said .... and no substantial corroborating evidence...

I argued coupla days ago about the need for SUBSTANTIAL corroborating evidence... and simply saying the witness came across as honest is not enough.. that's like saying this man looks dishonest...

Would you buy a used car from this man?



And yet somehow 2 judges thought it was substantial having seen all the evidence, vs yourself whohas not.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by capitosinora on Aug 21st, 2019 at 11:17am
Bear in mind that, unlike USA, British colony Australia doesn't have independent judiciary system
which is under strong influence of British government and MI6 intelligence services.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by cods on Aug 21st, 2019 at 11:20am

Bobby. wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 10:13am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 9:59am:

cods wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 9:56am:
I cant help but feel he is paying the price for every child that was sexually abused during those awful years..

we have strange ideas of what justice is all about...


I can't help but feel you're right.

Cue BOBBY & CLINT.



Where's some rope?



would you have provided the nails at the crucifiction bobs???...

you are the first to condemn, and issue the death penalty.....

have you never been wrong?


Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by cods on Aug 21st, 2019 at 11:22am

capitosinora wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 11:17am:
Bear in mind that, unlike USA, British colony Australia doesn't have independent judiciary system
which is   under strong influence of British government and MI6 intelligence services.



::) ::)


since when?...

would you prefer Sharia Law instead.  :-/

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Bobby. on Aug 21st, 2019 at 11:50am

cods wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 11:20am:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 10:13am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 9:59am:

cods wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 9:56am:
I cant help but feel he is paying the price for every child that was sexually abused during those awful years..

we have strange ideas of what justice is all about...


I can't help but feel you're right.

Cue BOBBY & CLINT.



Where's some rope?



would you have provided the nails at the crucifiction bobs???...

you are the first to condemn, and issue the death penalty.....

have you never been wrong?



I was only joking.
I actually think the evidence is weak -
it's too long ago and the 2 boys
should have said something at the time.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Bojack Horseman on Aug 21st, 2019 at 11:51am

Bobby. wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 11:50am:

cods wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 11:20am:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 10:13am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 9:59am:

cods wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 9:56am:
I cant help but feel he is paying the price for every child that was sexually abused during those awful years..

we have strange ideas of what justice is all about...


I can't help but feel you're right.

Cue BOBBY & CLINT.



Where's some rope?



would you have provided the nails at the crucifiction bobs???...

you are the first to condemn, and issue the death penalty.....

have you never been wrong?



I was only joking.
I actually think the evidence is weak -
it's too long ago and the 2 boys
should have said something at the time.



Yes, teenager boys speak up against a man of power in a culture where noone believes them


Yep, they should have spoken up.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Bojack Horseman on Aug 21st, 2019 at 11:53am
Andrew Bolt apparently doubts the decision. Thereefore, the decision is correct.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by philperth2010 on Aug 21st, 2019 at 12:12pm
Another link....

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/feb/26/five-times-guilty-how-george-pells-child-abusing-past-caught-up-with-him-in-courtroom-43


Quote:
Despite the cardinal’s assertions that the charges against him were a series of “deranged falsehoods”, despite having brought together a formidable defence team led by the high-profile and expensive barrister Robert Richter QC, and with the crux of the prosecution’s case hinging on the evidence of just one complainant, the jury was unanimous.

They believed the complainant’s account that some time in December 1996, after presiding over Sunday solemn mass at St Patrick’s Cathedral as archbishop of Melbourne, Pell forced his penis into the mouth of two 13-year-old boys. He masturbated himself while masturbating them. About one month later, as he passed one of the boys in a corridor of the church, Pell pushed the boy against a wall and forcefully squeezed his genitals.

The allegations had been the prosecution’s to prove. Many of the witnesses called were now elderly. Former choirboys who gave evidence struggled to remember details about the choir procession and the church layout more than two decades after the fact. To convict Pell, the jury had to believe without doubt that the complainant was reliable and honest.

Cardinal George Pell was guilty. On every count.



::) ::) ::)

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Bobby. on Aug 21st, 2019 at 12:25pm

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 11:51am:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 11:50am:

cods wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 11:20am:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 10:13am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 9:59am:

cods wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 9:56am:
I cant help but feel he is paying the price for every child that was sexually abused during those awful years..

we have strange ideas of what justice is all about...


I can't help but feel you're right.

Cue BOBBY & CLINT.



Where's some rope?



would you have provided the nails at the crucifiction bobs???...

you are the first to condemn, and issue the death penalty.....

have you never been wrong?



I was only joking.
I actually think the evidence is weak -
it's too long ago and the 2 boys
should have said something at the time.



Yes, teenager boys speak up against a man of power in a culture where noone believes them


Yep, they should have spoken up.


Some deep teeth marks on Pell's private member
would have been more compelling evidence.
Why didn't they bite hard to leave evidence?


Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by cods on Aug 21st, 2019 at 12:35pm

Bobby. wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 11:50am:

cods wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 11:20am:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 10:13am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 9:59am:

cods wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 9:56am:
I cant help but feel he is paying the price for every child that was sexually abused during those awful years..

we have strange ideas of what justice is all about...


I can't help but feel you're right.

Cue BOBBY & CLINT.



Where's some rope?



would you have provided the nails at the crucifiction bobs???...

you are the first to condemn, and issue the death penalty.....

have you never been wrong?



I was only joking.
I actually think the evidence is weak -
it's too long ago and the 2 boys
should have said something at the time.


no you dont joke about something this serious

or tragic.....these people who were abused. :'( can you have any idea at all how their lives have panned out?

and you want to joke about the verdict.... seriously bobby think before you post...

these people are in so much pain and they need someone to hold responsible....it isnt their fault  they want to hole him to account...how the hell do we know what goes through the mind of a young boy who is being sexually abused by a man he trusts ....how could anyone comprehend that :( :(

in hindsight I am sure he thinks the same! "why.".. why didnt I speak up then..

I agree about the evidence  weak as hell.....and to be honest I thought that is what the appeal was about.....

but it appears not....

does this mean he has been condemned a second time?.....

I dont know how this works......

I would have gone for another trial  I dont think he had a good defence team at all... but that isnt the abused fault....

I am not and was not convinced by the trial he is guilty

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by greggerypeccary on Aug 21st, 2019 at 12:38pm

cods wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 12:35pm:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 11:50am:

cods wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 11:20am:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 10:13am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 9:59am:

cods wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 9:56am:
I cant help but feel he is paying the price for every child that was sexually abused during those awful years..

we have strange ideas of what justice is all about...


I can't help but feel you're right.

Cue BOBBY & CLINT.



Where's some rope?



would you have provided the nails at the crucifiction bobs???...

you are the first to condemn, and issue the death penalty.....

have you never been wrong?



I was only joking.
I actually think the evidence is weak -
it's too long ago and the 2 boys
should have said something at the time.


no you dont joke about something this serious

or tragic.....these people who were abused. :'( can you have any idea at all how their lives have panned out?

and you want to joke about the verdict.... seriously bobby think before you post...

these people are in so much pain and they need someone to hold responsible....it isnt their fault  they want to hole him to account...how the hell do we know what goes through the mind of a young boy who is being sexually abused by a man he trusts ....how could anyone comprehend that :( :(

in hindsight I am sure he thinks the same! "why.".. why didnt I speak up then..

I agree about the evidence  weak as hell.....and to be honest I thought that is what the appeal was about.....

but it appears not....

does this mean he has been condemned a second time?.....

I dont know how this works......

I would have gone for another trial  I dont think he had a good defence team at all... but that isnt the abused fault....

I am not and was not convinced by the trial he is guilty


The appeal decision wasn't unanimous, so I'm guessing he'll go the the High Court next.

However, he'll probably be out on parole before he gets a decision from there.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Bobby. on Aug 21st, 2019 at 12:38pm
I agree Cods.
This case has divided our community.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by greggerypeccary on Aug 21st, 2019 at 12:52pm

Bobby. wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 12:38pm:
I agree Cods.
This case has divided our community.


Not the usual divide, though.

I'm not Catholic, in fact I'm an atheist, but this case still doesn't sit right with me.

I accept the decision, and I'm not saying he's innocent.

But ... well, anyway ... we weren't there so none of us can say.



Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Raven on Aug 21st, 2019 at 1:03pm
A 2-1 split. Chief Justice Anne Ferguson and Justice Chris Maxwell found that: "Nothing in the tables of evidence which we have analysed in this part of our reasons leads us to the conclusion that the jury must have had a doubt about whether there was a realistic opportunity for the offending to occur, nor a doubt that the particular sexual conduct occurred. That is so whether each table is considered in isolation or in the context of the other evidence. Taking the evidence as a whole, it was open to the jury to be satisfied of Cardinal Pell’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

"We would refuse leave to appeal in respect of grounds 2 and 3. We would grant leave to appeal in respect of ground 1 (the unreasonableness ground) but, for the reasons we have given, would dismiss the appeal."

Justice Mark Weinberg found that: "Having had regard to the whole of the evidence led at trial, and having deliberated long and hard over this matter, I find myself in the position of having a genuine doubt as to the applicant’s guilt.

In accordance with the principles laid down by the High Court in M, my doubt is a doubt which the jury ought also to have had. That is not because I am necessarily to be regarded as being better able to evaluate factual issues of the kind raised in this trial. It is rather because the High Court has said definitively that ordinarily, my doubt is a doubt that the jury ought to have had.

I would grant leave to appeal against conviction on Ground 1. I would order that the appeal be treated as having been heard instanter, and that it be allowed. I would set aside each of the convictions sustained below, and the sentences passed thereon. I would further order that there be entered judgment and verdicts of acquittal on each charge. I would refuse leave to appeal on both Grounds 2 and 3."

Full decision here

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by cods on Aug 21st, 2019 at 1:43pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 12:52pm:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 12:38pm:
I agree Cods.
This case has divided our community.


Not the usual divide, though.

I'm not Catholic, in fact I'm an atheist, but this case still doesn't sit right with me.

I accept the decision, and I'm not saying he's innocent.

But ... well, anyway ... we weren't there so none of us can say.



I am judging him on the trial he had...

to me nothing was proved...

like everyone else I was only able to go by what I read in the media...

to many BIG questions without a clear answer....

this is a bright intelligent man who had not liong been given a huge honor by the church he loved...


seriously I cannot see him doing what is claimed of him....in such a place with such arrogance...

he has never struck me as being  a person who sees himself above all  others...



Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Bojack Horseman on Aug 21st, 2019 at 2:06pm

cods wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 1:43pm:
to me nothing was proved...

like everyone else I was only able to go by what I read in the media...

to many BIG questions without a clear answer....




And thats the thing that irks me. We didn't get anywhere near the full amount of evidence in the media, so I understand why people say they have doubt, but its only on evidence reported not evidence submitted.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by cods on Aug 21st, 2019 at 2:24pm

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 2:06pm:

cods wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 1:43pm:
to me nothing was proved...

like everyone else I was only able to go by what I read in the media...

to many BIG questions without a clear answer....




And thats the thing that irks me. We didn't get anywhere near the full amount of evidence in the media, so I understand why people say they have doubt, but its only on evidence reported not evidence submitted.



I guess! who would have a trans script of the case?...


although did you read what the judge who voted for "acquittal" said???

its pretty much on the lines we have read

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Bojack Horseman on Aug 21st, 2019 at 2:26pm

cods wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 2:24pm:

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 2:06pm:

cods wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 1:43pm:
to me nothing was proved...

like everyone else I was only able to go by what I read in the media...

to many BIG questions without a clear answer....




And thats the thing that irks me. We didn't get anywhere near the full amount of evidence in the media, so I understand why people say they have doubt, but its only on evidence reported not evidence submitted.



I guess! who would have a trans script of the case?...


although did you read what the judge who voted for "acquittal" said???

its pretty much on the lines we have read




And yet still dismissed the appeal.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by greggerypeccary on Aug 21st, 2019 at 2:28pm

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 2:06pm:

cods wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 1:43pm:
to me nothing was proved...

like everyone else I was only able to go by what I read in the media...

to many BIG questions without a clear answer....




And thats the thing that irks me. We didn't get anywhere near the full amount of evidence in the media, so I understand why people say they have doubt, but its only on evidence reported not evidence submitted.


Justice Mark Weinberg has seen all the evidence, and he says:

"Having had regard to the whole of the evidence led at trial, and having deliberated long and hard over this matter, I find myself in the position of having a genuine doubt as to the applicant’s guilt."

He has 20 years experience as a Judge, and he's seen all the evidence, and he has doubts about Pell's guilt.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Bojack Horseman on Aug 21st, 2019 at 2:36pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 2:28pm:

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 2:06pm:

cods wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 1:43pm:
to me nothing was proved...

like everyone else I was only able to go by what I read in the media...

to many BIG questions without a clear answer....




And thats the thing that irks me. We didn't get anywhere near the full amount of evidence in the media, so I understand why people say they have doubt, but its only on evidence reported not evidence submitted.


Justice Mark Weinberg has seen all the evidence, and he says:

"Having had regard to the whole of the evidence led at trial, and having deliberated long and hard over this matter, I find myself in the position of having a genuine doubt as to the applicant’s guilt."

He has 20 years experience as a Judge, and he's seen all the evidence, and he has doubts about Pell's guilt.




And yet  the other 2 didn't.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Gnads on Aug 21st, 2019 at 2:45pm

capitosinora wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 11:17am:
Bear in mind that, unlike USA, British colony Australia doesn't have independent judiciary system
which is   under strong influence of British government and MI6 intelligence services.


;D Your judiciary & govt agencies have been more bent(corrupt) than a bunch of bananas.
FBI/CIA ring any bells Numpty?

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by greggerypeccary on Aug 21st, 2019 at 2:50pm

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 2:36pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 2:28pm:

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 2:06pm:

cods wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 1:43pm:
to me nothing was proved...

like everyone else I was only able to go by what I read in the media...

to many BIG questions without a clear answer....




And thats the thing that irks me. We didn't get anywhere near the full amount of evidence in the media, so I understand why people say they have doubt, but its only on evidence reported not evidence submitted.


Justice Mark Weinberg has seen all the evidence, and he says:

"Having had regard to the whole of the evidence led at trial, and having deliberated long and hard over this matter, I find myself in the position of having a genuine doubt as to the applicant’s guilt."

He has 20 years experience as a Judge, and he's seen all the evidence, and he has doubts about Pell's guilt.




And yet  the other 2 didn't.


That's right.

Does that mean his assessment is worthless, though?


Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Bojack Horseman on Aug 21st, 2019 at 2:59pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 2:50pm:

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 2:36pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 2:28pm:

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 2:06pm:

cods wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 1:43pm:
to me nothing was proved...

like everyone else I was only able to go by what I read in the media...

to many BIG questions without a clear answer....




And thats the thing that irks me. We didn't get anywhere near the full amount of evidence in the media, so I understand why people say they have doubt, but its only on evidence reported not evidence submitted.


Justice Mark Weinberg has seen all the evidence, and he says:

"Having had regard to the whole of the evidence led at trial, and having deliberated long and hard over this matter, I find myself in the position of having a genuine doubt as to the applicant’s guilt."

He has 20 years experience as a Judge, and he's seen all the evidence, and he has doubts about Pell's guilt.




And yet  the other 2 didn't.


That's right.

Does that mean his assessment is worthless, though?


Worth less than the combined view of the other 2. Thus guilty, move on.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by greggerypeccary on Aug 21st, 2019 at 3:03pm

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 2:59pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 2:50pm:

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 2:36pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 2:28pm:

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 2:06pm:

cods wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 1:43pm:
to me nothing was proved...

like everyone else I was only able to go by what I read in the media...

to many BIG questions without a clear answer....




And thats the thing that irks me. We didn't get anywhere near the full amount of evidence in the media, so I understand why people say they have doubt, but its only on evidence reported not evidence submitted.


Justice Mark Weinberg has seen all the evidence, and he says:

"Having had regard to the whole of the evidence led at trial, and having deliberated long and hard over this matter, I find myself in the position of having a genuine doubt as to the applicant’s guilt."

He has 20 years experience as a Judge, and he's seen all the evidence, and he has doubts about Pell's guilt.




And yet  the other 2 didn't.


That's right.

Does that mean his assessment is worthless, though?


Worth less than the combined view of the other 2. Thus guilty, move on.


An experienced Judge, who has seen all the evidence,  believes there's a genuine chance an innocent man is sitting in a prison cell.

This can't be overlooked.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Bojack Horseman on Aug 21st, 2019 at 3:09pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 3:03pm:

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 2:59pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 2:50pm:

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 2:36pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 2:28pm:

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 2:06pm:

cods wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 1:43pm:
to me nothing was proved...

like everyone else I was only able to go by what I read in the media...

to many BIG questions without a clear answer....




And thats the thing that irks me. We didn't get anywhere near the full amount of evidence in the media, so I understand why people say they have doubt, but its only on evidence reported not evidence submitted.


Justice Mark Weinberg has seen all the evidence, and he says:

"Having had regard to the whole of the evidence led at trial, and having deliberated long and hard over this matter, I find myself in the position of having a genuine doubt as to the applicant’s guilt."

He has 20 years experience as a Judge, and he's seen all the evidence, and he has doubts about Pell's guilt.




And yet  the other 2 didn't.


That's right.

Does that mean his assessment is worthless, though?


Worth less than the combined view of the other 2. Thus guilty, move on.


An experienced Judge, who has seen all the evidence,  believes there's a genuine chance an innocent man is sitting in a prison cell.

This can't be overlooked.




And yet 2 more experienced judges, who have seen all the evidence, believe a guilty man is sitting in a prison cell. Not to mention jurors who saw all the evidence, unanimously thought he was guilty.

This can't be overlooked.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by greggerypeccary on Aug 21st, 2019 at 3:16pm

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 3:09pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 3:03pm:

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 2:59pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 2:50pm:

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 2:36pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 2:28pm:

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 2:06pm:

cods wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 1:43pm:
to me nothing was proved...

like everyone else I was only able to go by what I read in the media...

to many BIG questions without a clear answer....




And thats the thing that irks me. We didn't get anywhere near the full amount of evidence in the media, so I understand why people say they have doubt, but its only on evidence reported not evidence submitted.


Justice Mark Weinberg has seen all the evidence, and he says:

"Having had regard to the whole of the evidence led at trial, and having deliberated long and hard over this matter, I find myself in the position of having a genuine doubt as to the applicant’s guilt."

He has 20 years experience as a Judge, and he's seen all the evidence, and he has doubts about Pell's guilt.




And yet  the other 2 didn't.


That's right.

Does that mean his assessment is worthless, though?


Worth less than the combined view of the other 2. Thus guilty, move on.


An experienced Judge, who has seen all the evidence,  believes there's a genuine chance an innocent man is sitting in a prison cell.

This can't be overlooked.




And yet 2 more experienced judges, who have seen all the evidence, believe a guilty man is sitting in a prison cell. Not to mention jurors who saw all the evidence, unanimously thought he was guilty.

This can't be overlooked.


It's not being overlooked.

Moreover, juries get it wrong all the time.

If I was in Pell's position - believing he's innocent, and having a Judge on his side - I'd be going straight to the High Court as fast as I could.



Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Bojack Horseman on Aug 21st, 2019 at 3:28pm
I just don't see though how on this basis the High Court appeal could actuallyt work. All they can do is essentially say whether it was impossible for the jury not to have a reasonable doubt., like this court did.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by cods on Aug 21st, 2019 at 3:37pm

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 3:09pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 3:03pm:

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 2:59pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 2:50pm:

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 2:36pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 2:28pm:

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 2:06pm:

cods wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 1:43pm:
to me nothing was proved...

like everyone else I was only able to go by what I read in the media...

to many BIG questions without a clear answer....




And thats the thing that irks me. We didn't get anywhere near the full amount of evidence in the media, so I understand why people say they have doubt, but its only on evidence reported not evidence submitted.


Justice Mark Weinberg has seen all the evidence, and he says:

"Having had regard to the whole of the evidence led at trial, and having deliberated long and hard over this matter, I find myself in the position of having a genuine doubt as to the applicant’s guilt."

He has 20 years experience as a Judge, and he's seen all the evidence, and he has doubts about Pell's guilt.




And yet  the other 2 didn't.


That's right.

Does that mean his assessment is worthless, though?


Worth less than the combined view of the other 2. Thus guilty, move on.


An experienced Judge, who has seen all the evidence,  believes there's a genuine chance an innocent man is sitting in a prison cell.

This can't be overlooked.




And yet 2 more experienced judges, who have seen all the evidence, believe a guilty man is sitting in a prison cell. Not to mention jurors who saw all the evidence, unanimously thought he was guilty.

This can't be overlooked.



it isnt!


he staying in jail....a lot of people have been jailed for years and then suddenly found innocent.....

this wasnt about the LEGALS it was about the interpretation of the evidence.... they had no trouble believing the the man who claims he was abused....yet  what he claims doesnt add up..I am not for one moment saying he wasnt abused......but I cant accept it happened the way he claims...

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Bojack Horseman on Aug 21st, 2019 at 3:39pm

cods wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 3:37pm:

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 3:09pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 3:03pm:

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 2:59pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 2:50pm:

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 2:36pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 2:28pm:

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 2:06pm:

cods wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 1:43pm:
to me nothing was proved...

like everyone else I was only able to go by what I read in the media...

to many BIG questions without a clear answer....




And thats the thing that irks me. We didn't get anywhere near the full amount of evidence in the media, so I understand why people say they have doubt, but its only on evidence reported not evidence submitted.


Justice Mark Weinberg has seen all the evidence, and he says:

"Having had regard to the whole of the evidence led at trial, and having deliberated long and hard over this matter, I find myself in the position of having a genuine doubt as to the applicant’s guilt."

He has 20 years experience as a Judge, and he's seen all the evidence, and he has doubts about Pell's guilt.




And yet  the other 2 didn't.


That's right.

Does that mean his assessment is worthless, though?


Worth less than the combined view of the other 2. Thus guilty, move on.


An experienced Judge, who has seen all the evidence,  believes there's a genuine chance an innocent man is sitting in a prison cell.

This can't be overlooked.




And yet 2 more experienced judges, who have seen all the evidence, believe a guilty man is sitting in a prison cell. Not to mention jurors who saw all the evidence, unanimously thought he was guilty.

This can't be overlooked.



it isnt!


he staying in jail....a lot of people have been jailed for years and then suddenly found innocent.....

this wasnt about the LEGALS it was about the interpretation of the evidence.... they had no trouble believing the the man who claims he was abused....yet  what he claims doesnt add up..I am not for one moment saying he wasnt abused......but I cant accept it happened the way he claims...



And as even the dissenting judge noted the decision of the jury wasn't just based on the man who claims he was abused alone. So your concerns aren't really a concern.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Bojack Horseman on Aug 21st, 2019 at 3:42pm

cods wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 3:37pm:
und innocent.....

this wasnt about the LEGALS it was about the interpretation of the evidence.... they had no trouble believing the the man who claims he was abused....yet  what he claims doesnt add up..I am not for one moment saying he wasnt abused......but I cant accept it happened the way he claims...



Argument from incredulity cognitive bias on display here.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Aussie on Aug 21st, 2019 at 3:43pm
Well......I was wrong and I was right.  Two Juries, the first seems shrouded in mystery, the second Jury convicts on the totally uncorroborated evidence of the complainant.  An appeal to three Judges.  Two say the Jury decision was open, the third says it was not reasonably open.

This is most unsatisfactory. The High Court needs to deal with it. Make this less of an art, far more clearly and far more sharply define the position.

One-third of an appeal court disagrees on how the Law ought be applied.  Nah.

This is a mess.

I was at my Golf Club, not one person was unhappy that the appeal failed, and their sole justification was that Pell was guilty of something, maybe not these charges, but something....so the outcome is acceptable to them.

Nah.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by cods on Aug 21st, 2019 at 3:53pm

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 3:39pm:
And as even the dissenting judge noted the decision of the jury wasn't just based on the man who claims he was abused alone. So your concerns aren't really a concern.



what other evidence was produced.. the second boy is dead and his mother claims he said he wasnt abused.......

so in reality there is one mans word against another.....

if it is proven beyond doubt he is a paedophile I am happy to see him rot in jail....

I am just not convinced by his trial...



Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by cods on Aug 21st, 2019 at 3:58pm

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 3:42pm:

cods wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 3:37pm:
und innocent.....

this wasnt about the LEGALS it was about the interpretation of the evidence.... they had no trouble believing the the man who claims he was abused....yet  what he claims doesnt add up..I am not for one moment saying he wasnt abused......but I cant accept it happened the way he claims...



Argument from incredulity cognitive bias on display here.



so was the 3rd judge biased also????>..

I am not asking you or anyone to agree with me 

I am just say  the evidence didnt stack up....give me the evidence that does stack up..

from those I have seen and what I have read all those in favour of him being in jail..

were never in fact abused by him...... they want someone to PAY...

and I get that..

but our courts are not meant to be biased or prejudiced  are they?..

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by greggerypeccary on Aug 21st, 2019 at 4:02pm

Aussie wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 3:43pm:
Well......I was wrong and I was right.  Two Juries, the first seems shrouded in mystery, the second Jury convicts on the totally uncorroborated evidence of the complainant.  An appeal to three Judges.  Two say the Jury decision was open, the third says it was not reasonably open.

This is most unsatisfactory. The High Court needs to deal with it. Make this less of an art, far more clearly and far more sharply define the position.

One-third of an appeal court disagrees on how the Law ought be applied.  Nah.

This is a mess.

I was at my Golf Club, not one person was unhappy that the appeal failed, and their sole justification was that Pell was guilty of something, maybe not these charges, but something....so the outcome is acceptable to them.

Nah.


I agree 100%, and with cods too.


cods wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 3:53pm:
what other evidence was produced.. the second boy is dead and his mother claims he said he wasnt abused.......

so in reality there is one mans word against another.....

if it is proven beyond doubt he is a paedophile I am happy to see him rot in jail....

I am just not convinced by his trial...



Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by philperth2010 on Aug 21st, 2019 at 4:17pm
The Catholic Church has a history of covering up abuse and denying accountability all over the world!!!

Edited....

Quote:
Cardinal George Pell has been accused of ignoring abuse and even bribing one victim to keep quiet in a wide-ranging Australian inquiry into paedophilia

The commission has heard harrowing allegations of child abuse involving places of worship, orphanages, community groups and schools.

The hearings this week have focused on shocking abuse in the 1970s in the regional town of Ballarat.

It heard that every male child aged between 10 and 16 at the St Alipius primary school, where Ridsdale and other paedophile priests worked, was thought to have been molested.

One survivor held up a photograph of his class of 33 boys and said 12 of them had committed suicide.


>:( >:( >:(

http://www.brokenrites.org.au/drupal/node/280

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/11620000/Pope-Francis-finance-chief-denies-trying-to-bribe-child-sexual-abuse-victim.html

https://www.thecourier.com.au/story/2866695/george-pell-ignored-pleas-of-ballarat-sex-abuse-victim-court-told/

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by cods on Aug 21st, 2019 at 5:31pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 4:02pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 3:43pm:
Well......I was wrong and I was right.  Two Juries, the first seems shrouded in mystery, the second Jury convicts on the totally uncorroborated evidence of the complainant.  An appeal to three Judges.  Two say the Jury decision was open, the third says it was not reasonably open.

This is most unsatisfactory. The High Court needs to deal with it. Make this less of an art, far more clearly and far more sharply define the position.

One-third of an appeal court disagrees on how the Law ought be applied.  Nah.

This is a mess.

I was at my Golf Club, not one person was unhappy that the appeal failed, and their sole justification was that Pell was guilty of something, maybe not these charges, but something....so the outcome is acceptable to them.

Nah.


I agree 100%, and with cods too.


cods wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 3:53pm:
what other evidence was produced.. the second boy is dead and his mother claims he said he wasnt abused.......

so in reality there is one mans word against another.....

if it is proven beyond doubt he is a paedophile I am happy to see him rot in jail....

I am just not convinced by his trial...





judging by the cheering and happy faces    he is being punished for every mistake the CHurch has made...

is it a witch hunt? a trial by media.?

as I am not a victim I cannot say for sure..

but whatever I do not feel is his getting a fair trial...

too many ? marks....and now 2 against 1 verdict...

we have to be better than this....





Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by capitosinora on Aug 21st, 2019 at 5:35pm

Gnads wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 2:45pm:

capitosinora wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 11:17am:
Bear in mind that, unlike USA, British colony Australia doesn't have independent judiciary system
which is   under strong influence of British government and MI6 intelligence services.


;D Your judiciary & govt agencies have been more bent(corrupt) than a bunch of bananas.
FBI/CIA ring any bells Numpty?


Pedophilia and eutanasia are legal in Australia.
Cardinal Pell wasn't sentenced for pedophila but for abuse of power.


Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by John Smith on Aug 21st, 2019 at 5:42pm
hang the bastard

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Swagman on Aug 21st, 2019 at 5:53pm

John Smith wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 5:42pm:
hang the bastard


.....without physical evidence  & no independent witnesses?

Back to the NAZI sham trials.






Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by John Smith on Aug 21st, 2019 at 6:00pm

Swagman wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 5:53pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 5:42pm:
hang the bastard


.....without physical evidence  & no independent witnesses?

Back to the NAZI sham trials.

were you hoping to find his dna still up the boys arse 50 yrs later?



Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by philperth2010 on Aug 21st, 2019 at 6:02pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 4:02pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 3:43pm:
Well......I was wrong and I was right.  Two Juries, the first seems shrouded in mystery, the second Jury convicts on the totally uncorroborated evidence of the complainant.  An appeal to three Judges.  Two say the Jury decision was open, the third says it was not reasonably open.

This is most unsatisfactory. The High Court needs to deal with it. Make this less of an art, far more clearly and far more sharply define the position.

One-third of an appeal court disagrees on how the Law ought be applied.  Nah.

This is a mess.

I was at my Golf Club, not one person was unhappy that the appeal failed, and their sole justification was that Pell was guilty of something, maybe not these charges, but something....so the outcome is acceptable to them.

Nah.


I agree 100%, and with cods too.


cods wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 3:53pm:
what other evidence was produced.. the second boy is dead and his mother claims he said he wasnt abused.......

so in reality there is one mans word against another.....

if it is proven beyond doubt he is a paedophile I am happy to see him rot in jail....

I am just not convinced by his trial...


There is more than one accuser against George Pell....Pell was convicted in a court of law....Yet you have no problem finding Donald Trump guilty on the unsubstantiated claims of woman that have never been tested in court....I find your position somewhat hypocritical Greg???


Quote:
A victim preyed on by a Christian brother who was part of a notorious pedophile ring involving the clergy in the Victorian town of Ballarat claimed George Pell, the former Archbishop of Sydney, ignored his pleas to stop the abuse, a court has heard.


:-? :-? :-?

https://www.thecourier.com.au/story/2866695/george-pell-ignored-pleas-of-ballarat-sex-abuse-victim-court-told/

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Aussie on Aug 21st, 2019 at 6:12pm
Phil:


Quote:
Yet you have no problem finding Donald Trump guilty on the unsubstantiated claims of woman that have never been tested in court....I find your position somewhat hypocritical Greg???


I have never seen Peccerry say that Trump was guilty.  He has often said that that Trump has been accused.......exactly like you have said that Pell has been accused (but Pell has not even charged/tried on the accusation.)

At least with Trump, the accuser has filed sworn material in a US Court.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by philperth2010 on Aug 21st, 2019 at 6:33pm

Aussie wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 6:12pm:
Phil:


Quote:
Yet you have no problem finding Donald Trump guilty on the unsubstantiated claims of woman that have never been tested in court....I find your position somewhat hypocritical Greg???


I have never seen Peccerry say that Trump was guilty.  He has often said that that Trump has been accused.......exactly like you have said that Pell has been accused (but Pell has not even charged/tried on the accusation.)

At least with Trump, the accuser has filed sworn material in a US Court.


Pell's accuser took him to court and won???

So you have never seen Greg call Trump a paedophile and claim he is guilty of rape....Pell was in charge of the Ballarat parish were paedophile priests were convicted of abusing multiple victims....Why are these victims who they claim told Pell of the abuse any less believable than Trumps accusers???


Quote:
David Ridsdale, who was abused from age 11 by his uncle Gerald Ridsdale, a notorious paedophile priest now in jail, told the commission on Wednesday that he confided in family friend Cardinal Pell about the sex assaults in 1993.

He alleged that Cardinal Pell, who was appointed by Pope Francis in February 2014 to make the Vatican's finances more transparent, went on to ask what it would cost to buy his silence.

The cardinal was also accused of helping to move the disgraced priest between parishes


:-? :-? :-?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/11620000/Pope-Francis-finance-chief-denies-trying-to-bribe-child-sexual-abuse-victim.html

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Aussie on Aug 21st, 2019 at 6:42pm

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 6:33pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 6:12pm:
Phil:


Quote:
Yet you have no problem finding Donald Trump guilty on the unsubstantiated claims of woman that have never been tested in court....I find your position somewhat hypocritical Greg???


I have never seen Peccerry say that Trump was guilty.  He has often said that that Trump has been accused.......exactly like you have said that Pell has been accused (but Pell has not even charged/tried on the accusation.)

At least with Trump, the accuser has filed sworn material in a US Court.


Pell's accuser took him to court and won???


Yes.....but you said:


Quote:
There is more than one accuser against George Pell..


No other accuser has successfully taken him to Court.


Quote:
So you have never seen Greg call Trump a paedophile and claim he is guilty of rape....


Yes......Peccerry has aleays said that Trump has been accused.......


Quote:
Pell was in charge of the Ballarat parish were paedophile priests were convicted of abusing multiple victims....Why are these victims who they claim told Pell of the abuse any less believable than Trumps accusers???


But, that is not what Pell has been convicted for.


Quote:
David Ridsdale, who was abused from age 11 by his uncle Gerald Ridsdale, a notorious paedophile priest now in jail, told the commission on Wednesday that he confided in family friend Cardinal Pell about the sex assaults in 1993.

He alleged that Cardinal Pell, who was appointed by Pope Francis in February 2014 to make the Vatican's finances more transparent, went on to ask what it would cost to buy his silence.

The cardinal was also accused of helping to move the disgraced priest between parishes


:-? :-? :-?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/11620000/Pope-Francis-finance-chief-denies-trying-to-bribe-child-sexual-abuse-victim.html[/quote]

Yes....all of the above.  But........No conviction.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Gordon on Aug 21st, 2019 at 6:55pm
I never bought the defense that his robes were too heavy for him to access his penis and commit the offense. Reminds me of that stupid old joke,

Confucius say, " rape impossible, woman with dress up run faster than man with pants down."

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Gordon on Aug 21st, 2019 at 6:57pm
As I said before, I reckon it's a line ball call but he deserves the time for the covering up for other pedos.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by cods on Aug 21st, 2019 at 7:01pm
was there also  the claim he was hanging on to one of the boys at the same time he held the other boys head  in place...

not sure what happened to the robes.,.so many ???

all the while the door was wide open..and and and... ::)




Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by cods on Aug 21st, 2019 at 7:02pm

Gordon wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 6:57pm:
As I said before, I reckon it's a line ball call but he deserves the time for the covering up for other pedos.



perhaps! but is that what our courts should be  about????.. :(

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Gordon on Aug 21st, 2019 at 7:03pm

cods wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 7:01pm:
was there also  the claim he was hanging on to one of the boys at the same time he held the other boys head  in place...

not sure what happened to the robes.,.so many ???

all the while the door was wide open..and and and... ::)


If he's innocent of the actual abuse, do you feel he more or less deserves the jail  time for covering for pedos? That's obviously form a moral/karmic position rather than legal.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Bobby. on Aug 21st, 2019 at 7:09pm

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 3:28pm:
I just don't see though how on this basis the High Court appeal could actuallyt work. All they can do is essentially say whether it was impossible for the jury not to have a reasonable doubt., like this court did.



According to ABC 2 TV news tonight -
the High Court can only deal with an error in the law.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Gordon on Aug 21st, 2019 at 7:11pm
I dedicate this to George

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wBDDAZkNtk

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Aussie on Aug 21st, 2019 at 7:13pm

Gordon wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 7:03pm:

cods wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 7:01pm:
was there also  the claim he was hanging on to one of the boys at the same time he held the other boys head  in place...

not sure what happened to the robes.,.so many ???

all the while the door was wide open..and and and... ::)


If he's innocent of the actual abuse, do you feel he more or less deserves the jail  time for covering for pedos? That's obviously form a moral/karmic position rather than legal.



Bloody hell.  What crap is that? I'll tell you...it is the very crap on which that Jury convicted him.  If the Jury had acquitted him......you can bet that each of the three Court of Appeal Judges would have readily agreed with their decision.  (Caveat.....the Crown cannot appeal an acquittal.)

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Aussie on Aug 21st, 2019 at 7:14pm

Bobby. wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 7:09pm:

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 3:28pm:
I just don't see though how on this basis the High Court appeal could actuallyt work. All they can do is essentially say whether it was impossible for the jury not to have a reasonable doubt., like this court did.



According to ABC 2 TV news tonight -
the High Court can only deal with an error in the law.


Yes, I saw that.  It is not technically correct.  A simple Google will be enough.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Gordon on Aug 21st, 2019 at 7:15pm

Aussie wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 7:13pm:

Gordon wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 7:03pm:

cods wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 7:01pm:
was there also  the claim he was hanging on to one of the boys at the same time he held the other boys head  in place...

not sure what happened to the robes.,.so many ???

all the while the door was wide open..and and and... ::)


If he's innocent of the actual abuse, do you feel he more or less deserves the jail  time for covering for pedos? That's obviously form a moral/karmic position rather than legal.



Bloody hell.  What crap is that? I'll tell you...it is the very crap on which that Jury convicted him.  If the Jury had acquitted him......you can bet that each of the three Court of Appeal Judges would have readily agreed with their decision.  (Caveat.....the Crown cannot appeal an acquittal.)


Yet the judges were very clear the conviction had nothing to do with the wider culture of abuse within the church and he wasn't being made a scapegoat.

We can only take them at their word.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Bobby. on Aug 21st, 2019 at 7:16pm

Aussie wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 7:14pm:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 7:09pm:

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 3:28pm:
I just don't see though how on this basis the High Court appeal could actuallyt work. All they can do is essentially say whether it was impossible for the jury not to have a reasonable doubt., like this court did.



According to ABC 2 TV news tonight -
the High Court can only deal with an error in the law.


Yes, I saw that.  It is not technically correct.  A simple Google will be enough.



You're a lawyer so please explain it in layman's terms?

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Aussie on Aug 21st, 2019 at 7:25pm

Bobby. wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 7:16pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 7:14pm:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 7:09pm:

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 3:28pm:
I just don't see though how on this basis the High Court appeal could actuallyt work. All they can do is essentially say whether it was impossible for the jury not to have a reasonable doubt., like this court did.



According to ABC 2 TV news tonight -
the High Court can only deal with an error in the law.


Yes, I saw that.  It is not technically correct.  A simple Google will be enough.



You're a lawyer so please explain it in layman's terms?


No.  I have often said that I am not here to provide legal advice.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by John Smith on Aug 21st, 2019 at 7:25pm

cods wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 7:02pm:

Gordon wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 6:57pm:
As I said before, I reckon it's a line ball call but he deserves the time for the covering up for other pedos.



perhaps! but is that what our courts should be  about????.. :(



god forbid the courts are actually used to get justice every now and then. :D :D

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Bobby. on Aug 21st, 2019 at 7:27pm

Aussie wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 7:25pm:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 7:16pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 7:14pm:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 7:09pm:

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 3:28pm:
I just don't see though how on this basis the High Court appeal could actuallyt work. All they can do is essentially say whether it was impossible for the jury not to have a reasonable doubt., like this court did.



According to ABC 2 TV news tonight -
the High Court can only deal with an error in the law.


Yes, I saw that.  It is not technically correct.  A simple Google will be enough.



You're a lawyer so please explain it in layman's terms?


No.  I have often said that I am not here to provide legal advice.



But you've already given me legal advice that I've relied on.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Aussie on Aug 21st, 2019 at 7:29pm
And I'll bet I was right.  A simple Google Bobby:


Quote:
  .  the matter involves a question of law of public importance, or
  . the matter involves a question of law requiring final resolution,
and
  .  the interests of the administration of justice require consideration of the matter by the High Court.


Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Aussie on Aug 21st, 2019 at 7:31pm

John Smith wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 7:25pm:

cods wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 7:02pm:

Gordon wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 6:57pm:
As I said before, I reckon it's a line ball call but he deserves the time for the covering up for other pedos.



perhaps! but is that what our courts should be  about????.. :(



god forbid the courts are actually used to get justice every now and then. :D :D


What was your posted opinion before the decision was given today?

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by John Smith on Aug 21st, 2019 at 7:33pm

Aussie wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 7:31pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 7:25pm:

cods wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 7:02pm:

Gordon wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 6:57pm:
As I said before, I reckon it's a line ball call but he deserves the time for the covering up for other pedos.



perhaps! but is that what our courts should be  about????.. :(



god forbid the courts are actually used to get justice every now and then. :D :D


What was your posted opinion before the decision was given today?



John Smith wrote on Aug 18th, 2019 at 10:00am:
even if Pell didn't partake, he covered up for those that did. For that he should rot in a cell forever.



Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Gordon on Aug 21st, 2019 at 7:36pm

Aussie wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 7:25pm:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 7:16pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 7:14pm:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 7:09pm:

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 3:28pm:
I just don't see though how on this basis the High Court appeal could actuallyt work. All they can do is essentially say whether it was impossible for the jury not to have a reasonable doubt., like this court did.



According to ABC 2 TV news tonight -
the High Court can only deal with an error in the law.


Yes, I saw that.  It is not technically correct.  A simple Google will be enough.



You're a lawyer so please explain it in layman's terms?


No.  I have often said that I am not here to provide legal advice.


Do you mean legal explanation rather than legal advice?

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Aussie on Aug 21st, 2019 at 7:37pm
Both.  I am here to post what I want to post.  I retired years ago.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by SerialBrain9 on Aug 21st, 2019 at 7:52pm
What an astounding decision.

This was a pure "witch hunt" and those with their pitchforks and torches have gotten their way - a Conviction of a man where there was no evidence apart from "hearsay"

Just incredible.

and I could not believe my ears when the Judge was reading out at how the "witness" (the alleged accuser) was a credible witness and that they believed he was honest and not a liar.

How in the **** would they know if he was a liar or not?

Can they read his mind?

Do they have a crystal ball?

and the "Robe" decision.

They decided that you could easily whip out your penis whilst in this Robe.

Well bugger me, I hope I never get accused of rape and come up against these judges as they will find me guilty because I was wearing a pair of Jeans which had a zipper in them and that I could "easily" whip out my Penis.

Staggering Decision. 


Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Gordon on Aug 21st, 2019 at 7:53pm

Aussie wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 7:37pm:
Both.  I am here to post what I want to post.  I retired years ago.


So why reply to Bobby saying you won't give him legal advice? That has the implication he needs legal advice on such a matter.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Aussie on Aug 21st, 2019 at 7:56pm

Gordon wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 7:53pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 7:37pm:
Both.  I am here to post what I want to post.  I retired years ago.


So why reply to Bobby saying you won't give him legal advice? That has the implication he needs legal advice on such a matter.


Get fuqqed.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Gordon on Aug 21st, 2019 at 7:59pm

Aussie wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 7:56pm:

Gordon wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 7:53pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 7:37pm:
Both.  I am here to post what I want to post.  I retired years ago.


So why reply to Bobby saying you won't give him legal advice? That has the implication he needs legal advice on such a matter.


Get fuqqed.


Geez what put you in such a bad mood today, did you burn your papadams or something?

Bobby asked for a legal interpretation and you said you're not going to give him legal advice. Why?




You're a lawyer so please explain it in layman's terms?

No.  I have often said that I am not here to provide legal advice.



Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Bobby. on Aug 21st, 2019 at 8:04pm

Gordon wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 7:59pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 7:56pm:

Gordon wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 7:53pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 7:37pm:
Both.  I am here to post what I want to post.  I retired years ago.


So why reply to Bobby saying you won't give him legal advice? That has the implication he needs legal advice on such a matter.


Get fuqqed.


Geez what put you in such a bad mood today, did you burn your papadams or something?

Bobby asked for a legal interpretation and you said you're not going to give him legal advice. Why?




You're a lawyer so please explain it in layman's terms?

No.  I have often said that I am not here to provide legal advice.




What's the point of claiming you're a lawyer & then not giving your legal opinion?

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Aussie on Aug 21st, 2019 at 8:07pm
I give my opinion/comment always.  I do not have a Lawyer's hat on when I do it.

/End.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by John Smith on Aug 21st, 2019 at 8:40pm

Bobby. wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 8:04pm:

Gordon wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 7:59pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 7:56pm:

Gordon wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 7:53pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 7:37pm:
Both.  I am here to post what I want to post.  I retired years ago.


So why reply to Bobby saying you won't give him legal advice? That has the implication he needs legal advice on such a matter.


Get fuqqed.


Geez what put you in such a bad mood today, did you burn your papadams or something?

Bobby asked for a legal interpretation and you said you're not going to give him legal advice. Why?




You're a lawyer so please explain it in layman's terms?

No.  I have often said that I am not here to provide legal advice.




What's the point of claiming you're a lawyer & then not giving your legal opinion?


when you pay him $500 an hour you can ask for his legal advice. Until then you're stuck with him opinions.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Bobby. on Aug 21st, 2019 at 8:45pm

John Smith wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 8:40pm:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 8:04pm:

Gordon wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 7:59pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 7:56pm:

Gordon wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 7:53pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 7:37pm:
Both.  I am here to post what I want to post.  I retired years ago.


So why reply to Bobby saying you won't give him legal advice? That has the implication he needs legal advice on such a matter.


Get fuqqed.


Geez what put you in such a bad mood today, did you burn your papadams or something?

Bobby asked for a legal interpretation and you said you're not going to give him legal advice. Why?




You're a lawyer so please explain it in layman's terms?

No.  I have often said that I am not here to provide legal advice.




What's the point of claiming you're a lawyer & then not giving your legal opinion?


when you pay him $500 an hour you can ask for his legal advice. Until then you're stuck with his opinions.



I expect pro bono work from a fellow poster.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by John Smith on Aug 21st, 2019 at 8:46pm

Bobby. wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 8:45pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 8:40pm:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 8:04pm:

Gordon wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 7:59pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 7:56pm:

Gordon wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 7:53pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 7:37pm:
Both.  I am here to post what I want to post.  I retired years ago.


So why reply to Bobby saying you won't give him legal advice? That has the implication he needs legal advice on such a matter.


Get fuqqed.


Geez what put you in such a bad mood today, did you burn your papadams or something?

Bobby asked for a legal interpretation and you said you're not going to give him legal advice. Why?




You're a lawyer so please explain it in layman's terms?

No.  I have often said that I am not here to provide legal advice.




What's the point of claiming you're a lawyer & then not giving your legal opinion?


when you pay him $500 an hour you can ask for his legal advice. Until then you're stuck with his opinions.



I expect pro bono work from a fellow poster.



your expectations are your problem, no one else's

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by philperth2010 on Aug 21st, 2019 at 9:11pm
Here you go Bobby....Hope this helps!!!


Quote:
What was the Court of Appeal required to do when considering this argument?

The law is complex, and whether a verdict is "unreasonable" depends on legal technicalities, not intuitive instincts. Four legal principles need to be understood here.

First, and most important, there is a very high threshold for a court to overturn a jury's guilty verdict for being unreasonable (see, for example, M or Baden-Clay). This is because, in Australian law, the jury is the constitutional tribunal of fact responsible for deciding guilt or innocence. A verdict will only be overturned in exceptional circumstances showing a clear miscarriage of justice.

Second, the test is whether, on the evidence, it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt the accused was guilty.

To win the appeal, the appellant must show the guilty verdict was not open to the jury. It is not sufficient for the court to find a jury might have had reasonable doubt. The evidence must mean no reasonable jury could have returned a guilty verdict; it must have "obliged" them to reach a not guilty verdict.

Third, the appeal court does not retry the case — again, because the jury is the tribunal of fact. The court must independently assess the evidence, but to determine whether the guilty verdict was open to the jury; not simply whether the court itself has a doubt.

Fourth, if a complainant is credible and reliable and the account is detailed, consistent and plausible, it is difficult for an appeal to succeed. On plausibility, courts have accepted that sexual offending can be brazen, influenced by the abuser's arrogance, power and belief the child will not make a complaint.


I predict the High Court will uphold the guilty verdict if they hear the appeal at all???

:-? :-? :-?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08-21/george-pell-has-lost-his-appeal-what-happens-next/11434216

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by .JaSin. on Aug 21st, 2019 at 9:31pm
Pell is just trying to delay the inevitable in the hope that God takes his life before he is 'sentenced' as 'Guilty' for if he was - he would never be able to go to Heaven (for the Church would be forced to denounce him in disgrace!).

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Bojack Horseman on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 7:23am

SerialBrain9 wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 7:52pm:
What an astounding decision.

This was a pure "witch hunt" and those with their pitchforks and torches have gotten their way - a Conviction of a man where there was no evidence apart from "hearsay"




I view this post in the same way I view Andrew Bolts rant. If Serial and Bolt say he's innocent, it means he's guilty.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Bobby. on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 7:28am

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 9:11pm:
Here you go Bobby....Hope this helps!!!


Quote:
What was the Court of Appeal required to do when considering this argument?

The law is complex, and whether a verdict is "unreasonable" depends on legal technicalities, not intuitive instincts. Four legal principles need to be understood here.

First, and most important, there is a very high threshold for a court to overturn a jury's guilty verdict for being unreasonable (see, for example, M or Baden-Clay). This is because, in Australian law, the jury is the constitutional tribunal of fact responsible for deciding guilt or innocence. A verdict will only be overturned in exceptional circumstances showing a clear miscarriage of justice.

Second, the test is whether, on the evidence, it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt the accused was guilty.

To win the appeal, the appellant must show the guilty verdict was not open to the jury. It is not sufficient for the court to find a jury might have had reasonable doubt. The evidence must mean no reasonable jury could have returned a guilty verdict; it must have "obliged" them to reach a not guilty verdict.

Third, the appeal court does not retry the case — again, because the jury is the tribunal of fact. The court must independently assess the evidence, but to determine whether the guilty verdict was open to the jury; not simply whether the court itself has a doubt.

Fourth, if a complainant is credible and reliable and the account is detailed, consistent and plausible, it is difficult for an appeal to succeed. On plausibility, courts have accepted that sexual offending can be brazen, influenced by the abuser's arrogance, power and belief the child will not make a complaint.


I predict the High Court will uphold the guilty verdict if they hear the appeal at all???

:-? :-? :-?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08-21/george-pell-has-lost-his-appeal-what-happens-next/11434216


Thanks Phil.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Sir Spot of Borg on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 7:44am

SerialBrain9 wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 7:52pm:
What an astounding decision.

This was a pure "witch hunt" and those with their pitchforks and torches have gotten their way - a Conviction of a man where there was no evidence apart from "hearsay"

Just incredible.

and I could not believe my ears when the Judge was reading out at how the "witness" (the alleged accuser) was a credible witness and that they believed he was honest and not a liar.

How in the **** would they know if he was a liar or not?

Can they read his mind?

Do they have a crystal ball?

and the "Robe" decision.

They decided that you could easily whip out your penis whilst in this Robe.

Well bugger me, I hope I never get accused of rape and come up against these judges as they will find me guilty because I was wearing a pair of Jeans which had a zipper in them and that I could "easily" whip out my Penis.

Staggering Decision. 


Australia is famous for its kangaroo courts. remember lindy chamberlain? the whole system is corrupt. its just how it is here.

Spot

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Bojack Horseman on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 7:47am
https://www.news.com.au/national/victoria/courts-law/the-evidence-that-saw-george-pells-appeal-dismissed/news-story/48c971d3a96ed3e01a85bd23175d129b


I have to admit hadn't thought of this but it has the sense of feeling realistic to me
The crucial question was whether the court found the complainant believable enough that the jury could be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the events had occurred.

The jury were asked to consider whether the complainant was a reliable witness and whether he seemed honest, or whether he appeared to be a dishonest witness who was exaggerating or putting a positive spin on things.

The defence tried to paint the complainant as a liar, or someone who was recounting a fantasy he had come to believe was true. However, no motive was given as to why the complainant would do this.

Pell’s team also argued the complainant, known as “A”, had made up or invented new pieces of evidence but the appeal judges didn’t agree.

“We saw nothing in A’s answers under cross-examination to suggest that he had been caught out or had tripped himself up,” the judgment states.

“Where his responses involved any alteration of — or addition to — what he had said previously, the changes seemed to us to be typical of what occurs when a person is questioned on successive occasions, by different people, about events from the distant past.”

One example was that the complainant mistakenly thought that he had started grade 7 in 1997 when the correct date was 1996. He also couldn’t remember whether Pell was leading the mass at the time of the assault or just contributing as part of the clergy.

The judgment noted it was understandable for A to have a hazy recollection of the timing and the surrounding circumstances.

RELATED: Pell’s accuser was not a ‘liar’ or ‘fantasist’

RELATED: Pell’s 13 excuses torn to shreds

A plan of St Patrick's Cathedral, Melbourne where George Pell sexually abused two choirboys. Source: Supreme Court of Victoria.
A plan of St Patrick's Cathedral, Melbourne where George Pell sexually abused two choirboys. Source: Supreme Court of Victoria.Source:Supplied

In fact the judges believe the complainant’s uncertainty about some details actually added to his credibility.

He has said he couldn’t remember whether the door was closed the first time Pell assaulted him, but if he was liar or fantasist he could just assert that it was.

The complainant was also able to correctly describe the layout and furnishing of the alcove where he and his friend was discovered by Pell and remembered where the wine area was, which has since moved.

It was also “striking” that the complainant identified the priests’ sacristy as the setting for the abuse because Pell would usually have disrobed in the archbishop’s sacristy, which was temporarily unavailable at the end of 1996 because its furniture was under repair.

The judges found there was nothing in his account that was so “inherently improbable” for the jury to entertain a doubt.

“Throughout his evidence, A came across as someone who was telling the truth.”

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by cods on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 7:58am

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 7:44am:

SerialBrain9 wrote on Aug 21st, 2019 at 7:52pm:
What an astounding decision.

This was a pure "witch hunt" and those with their pitchforks and torches have gotten their way - a Conviction of a man where there was no evidence apart from "hearsay"

Just incredible.

and I could not believe my ears when the Judge was reading out at how the "witness" (the alleged accuser) was a credible witness and that they believed he was honest and not a liar.

How in the **** would they know if he was a liar or not?

Can they read his mind?

Do they have a crystal ball?

and the "Robe" decision.

They decided that you could easily whip out your penis whilst in this Robe.

Well bugger me, I hope I never get accused of rape and come up against these judges as they will find me guilty because I was wearing a pair of Jeans which had a zipper in them and that I could "easily" whip out my Penis.

Staggering Decision. 


Australia is famous for its kangaroo courts. remember lindy chamberlain? the whole system is corrupt. its just how it is here.

Spot




at the end of the day it all comes down to interpretation   you can read every post on this thread and each and every one of us see it in a different way..

it is the same with humans everywhere...our courts are no different..

a judge believes every word Mr A said...

the defence does its best to make it doubtful... the judges chooses to believe Mr A...

does the judge have to explain why he believes him??????.... not that I know of...is it a gut feeling...is it sympathy...what is it that makes a judge believe one man over another?...

look at OJ...so much outside influence

dont tell me it doesnt affect the verdict. :(

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by philperth2010 on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 8:06am
A jury found Pell guilty and the appeals court judges found on a 2-1 majority the verdict was sound....That is 14 to 1 (12 jurors and 2 judges who found Pell guilty)....Claiming that the verdict was swayed by outside influences or was compromised is bullshit....Pell is guilty so live with it!!!

::) ::) ::)

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by cods on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 8:23am

Quote:
The judgment noted it was understandable for A to have a hazy recollection of the timing and the surrounding circumstances.




Quote:
In fact the judges believe the complainant’s uncertainty about some details actually added to his credibility.



Quote:
The judges found there was nothing in his account that was so “inherently improbable” for the jury to entertain a doubt.
::)



but one judge didnt agree.....is that a red flag?....

Lindy Chamberlain spent 3 years in jail...

she too was tried by the same infallible system.


Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by red baron on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 8:37am
Too bad, so sad...eat it George!

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by greggerypeccary on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 8:38am

cods wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 8:23am:
but one judge didnt agree.....is that a red flag?....


Yes. Yes it is.

And not just any old Judge either - a very experienced, very knowledgeable, and very well-respected Judge.


Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Gnads on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 8:51am

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 8:38am:

cods wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 8:23am:
but one judge didnt agree.....is that a red flag?....


Yes. Yes it is.

And not just any old Judge either - a very experienced, very knowledgeable, and very well-respected Judge.


What are you saying about the other two ... that they're not?

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by philperth2010 on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 9:02am
The witness could not remember certain details because it was so long ago and there were things he did not pay attention to because he was being abused by a priest....The defense however contends they knew were every person was every minute of that day and produced evidence the court rejected such as the robes being too heavy....Who remembers were they were on a certain day decades ago....C'mon???

::) ::) ::)

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by greggerypeccary on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 9:12am

Gnads wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 8:51am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 8:38am:

cods wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 8:23am:
but one judge didnt agree.....is that a red flag?....


Yes. Yes it is.

And not just any old Judge either - a very experienced, very knowledgeable, and very well-respected Judge.


What are you saying about the other two ... that they're not?


I'm saying nothing about the other two.

I'm saying that a very experienced, very knowledgeable, and very well-respected Judge has genuine doubts about Pell's guilt.

That's a cause for concern.


Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Captain Nemo on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 9:24am

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Aussie on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 9:30am

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 9:02am:
The witness could not remember certain details because it was so long ago and there were things he did not pay attention to because he was being abused by a priest....The defense however contends they knew were every person was every minute of that day and produced evidence the court rejected such as the robes being too heavy....Who remembers were they were on a certain day decades ago....C'mon???

::) ::) ::)


If I was being molested in the way described, I'd recall the event vividly forever.  Unless of course such an event was a matter of daily routine then details would blur into mundanity.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by philperth2010 on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 9:38am

Aussie wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 9:30am:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 9:02am:
The witness could not remember certain details because it was so long ago and there were things he did not pay attention to because he was being abused by a priest....The defense however contends they knew were every person was every minute of that day and produced evidence the court rejected such as the robes being too heavy....Who remembers were they were on a certain day decades ago....C'mon???

::) ::) ::)


If I was being molested in the way described, I'd recall the event vividly forever.  Unless of course such an event was a matter of daily routine then details would blur into mundanity.


Bullshit....What witness remembers every detail not pertaining to the abuse decades later such as whether a door was open or closed ect....The defense claims they knew were every person was on that day and you believe that....Pell is guilty!!!

::) ::) ::)

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Captain Nemo on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 9:41am
I can't remember in detail where I was 2 weeks ago!  ;D



Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by philperth2010 on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 9:52am

Captain Nemo wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 9:41am:
I can't remember in detail where I was 2 weeks ago!  ;D




Claiming a young boy would remember irrelevant details decades after he had tried to forget the abuse is bullshit....Not to mention the boys admitted taking alcohol and were traumatized by the abuse....A lawyer would know that a witness recollection decades later can and will be sketchy....However the defense claims they knew were everybody was on that day and the lawyer believes that....Pell is guilty!!!

::) ::) ::)

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by greggerypeccary on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 9:56am

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 9:52am:
....Not to mention the boys admitted taking alcohol and were traumatized by the abuse...


Boy.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Sir Spot of Borg on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:05am

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 9:52am:

Captain Nemo wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 9:41am:
I can't remember in detail where I was 2 weeks ago!  ;D




Claiming a young boy would remember irrelevant details decades after he had tried to forget the abuse is bullshit....Not to mention the boys admitted taking alcohol and were traumatized by the abuse....A lawyer would know that a witness recollection decades later can and will be sketchy....However the defense claims they knew were everybody was on that day and the lawyer believes that....Pell is guilty!!!

::) ::) ::)


Yeah well . . .  I remember in great detail something that happened to me when I was 8. Seriously traumatic incidents stick with you.

Spot

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Gnads on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:10am

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 9:12am:

Gnads wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 8:51am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 8:38am:

cods wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 8:23am:
but one judge didnt agree.....is that a red flag?....


Yes. Yes it is.

And not just any old Judge either - a very experienced, very knowledgeable, and very well-respected Judge.


What are you saying about the other two ... that they're not?


I'm saying nothing about the other two.

I'm saying that a very experienced, very knowledgeable, and very well-respected Judge has genuine doubts about Pell's guilt.

That's a cause for concern.


Well if his doubts were all that was needed there wouldn't be 3 judges in the appellate court. 

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by cods on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:10am

Captain Nemo wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 9:41am:
I can't remember in detail where I was 2 weeks ago!  ;D





what about 23 years ago?...

I sadly believe this man believes he is telling it as it happened...

I have memories from my childhood  [not happy] nothing like this...but I still blocked it all out until I was reminded about 30 years ago...I can picture certain things about the house I was in....but do they tell a story of what went on there.. I dont think so..and yes I have blocked most of that out as I was desperately unhappy.. I dont want to go there obviously... the mind is so capable of getting us through life   I think its wonderful really   who wants to relive our deepest traumas over and over.....

I hope all those who were cheering at the news  find some peace from it...and can now move on with their lives...

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by cods on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:14am

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:05am:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 9:52am:

Captain Nemo wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 9:41am:
I can't remember in detail where I was 2 weeks ago!  ;D




Claiming a young boy would remember irrelevant details decades after he had tried to forget the abuse is bullshit....Not to mention the boys admitted taking alcohol and were traumatized by the abuse....A lawyer would know that a witness recollection decades later can and will be sketchy....However the defense claims they knew were everybody was on that day and the lawyer believes that....Pell is guilty!!!

::) ::) ::)


Yeah well . . .  I remember in great detail something that happened to me when I was 8. Seriously traumatic incidents stick with you.

Spot




sorry to hear that spot..  but tell me how do you know  every detail you remember is correct?....short of hypnosis [if that works]  I cant see how we can recall every detail as it happened..

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by greggerypeccary on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:14am

Gnads wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:10am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 9:12am:

Gnads wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 8:51am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 8:38am:

cods wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 8:23am:
but one judge didnt agree.....is that a red flag?....


Yes. Yes it is.

And not just any old Judge either - a very experienced, very knowledgeable, and very well-respected Judge.


What are you saying about the other two ... that they're not?


I'm saying nothing about the other two.

I'm saying that a very experienced, very knowledgeable, and very well-respected Judge has genuine doubts about Pell's guilt.

That's a cause for concern.


Well if his doubts were all that was needed there wouldn't be 3 judges in the appellate court. 


His doubts aren't all that's needed.

However, he has genuine doubt, and that's a major cause for concern.


Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Captain Nemo on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:17am
There are only two people alive today who know the truth about what happened.

I tend to believe the boy ... based on my assessment of the appalling attitude of Pell. There are other events in Pell's history which lead me to think he is guilty.




Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by philperth2010 on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:19am

Captain Nemo wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:17am:
There are only two people alive today who know the truth about what happened.

I tend to believe the boy ... based on my assessment of the appalling attitude of Pell. There are other events in Pell's history which lead me to think he is guilty.


Well we know one is a liar and it is not the accuser....Pell is guilty and it has now been confirmed twice???

::) ::) ::)


Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by philperth2010 on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:19am

Gnads wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:10am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 9:12am:

Gnads wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 8:51am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 8:38am:

cods wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 8:23am:
but one judge didnt agree.....is that a red flag?....


Yes. Yes it is.

And not just any old Judge either - a very experienced, very knowledgeable, and very well-respected Judge.


What are you saying about the other two ... that they're not?


I'm saying nothing about the other two.

I'm saying that a very experienced, very knowledgeable, and very well-respected Judge has genuine doubts about Pell's guilt.

That's a cause for concern.


Well if his doubts were all that was needed there wouldn't be 3 judges in the appellate court. 


[smiley=thumbsup.gif] [smiley=thumbsup.gif]  [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Gnads on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:26am

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:14am:

Gnads wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:10am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 9:12am:

Gnads wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 8:51am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 8:38am:

cods wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 8:23am:
but one judge didnt agree.....is that a red flag?....


Yes. Yes it is.

And not just any old Judge either - a very experienced, very knowledgeable, and very well-respected Judge.


What are you saying about the other two ... that they're not?


I'm saying nothing about the other two.

I'm saying that a very experienced, very knowledgeable, and very well-respected Judge has genuine doubts about Pell's guilt.

That's a cause for concern.


Well if his doubts were all that was needed there wouldn't be 3 judges in the appellate court. 


His doubts aren't all that's needed.

However, he has genuine doubt, and that's a major cause for concern.


It may well be ... so you're saying the 3 should concur 100%?

If so why do the have 3 on it?

So the majority decision gives a result ...no?

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Captain Nemo on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:28am

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:19am:

Captain Nemo wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:17am:
There are only two people alive today who know the truth about what happened.

I tend to believe the boy ... based on my assessment of the appalling attitude of Pell. There are other events in Pell's history which lead me to think he is guilty.


Well we know one is a liar and it is not the accuser....Pell is guilty and it has now been confirmed twice???

::) ::) ::)


Quite correct.

I'm torn between Pell going to the High Court to be told again that his conviction stands, or the High Court simply saying he has no valid grounds for a further appeal.

I suppose if he does get an appeal hearing and it goes against him, that would finally force the Vatican to defrock the bum.

However, it would be terrible if the High Court ruled in his favour.

I feel that the Victorian appeals court did a pretty good job of definitively supporting the claimant.  It is a bit of a shame that one of the three thought that if he had been on the jury, he would not have found Pell guilty.

Good thing that he wasn't on the jury!  ;)

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by cods on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:29am

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:14am:

Gnads wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:10am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 9:12am:

Gnads wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 8:51am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 8:38am:

cods wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 8:23am:
but one judge didnt agree.....is that a red flag?....


Yes. Yes it is.

And not just any old Judge either - a very experienced, very knowledgeable, and very well-respected Judge.


What are you saying about the other two ... that they're not?


I'm saying nothing about the other two.

I'm saying that a very experienced, very knowledgeable, and very well-respected Judge has genuine doubts about Pell's guilt.

That's a cause for concern.


Well if his doubts were all that was needed there wouldn't be 3 judges in the appellate court. 


His doubts aren't all that's needed.

However, he has genuine doubt, and that's a major cause for concern.



he probably looked at it the same way we do.. ::)

lets figure out how this could happen in reality 

lets reenact it?..... in moderation of course...

lets see how it could be possible....

if someone is shot.. forensics works out every little detail as to how it happened...they know if it was self inflicted....its impossible to lie about it...

this reminds me of the same thing....it just isnt creditable   we are talking about  two 13 yr old boys....

not 7 or 8 yr olds.


Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by greggerypeccary on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:30am

Gnads wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:26am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:14am:

Gnads wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:10am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 9:12am:

Gnads wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 8:51am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 8:38am:

cods wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 8:23am:
but one judge didnt agree.....is that a red flag?....


Yes. Yes it is.

And not just any old Judge either - a very experienced, very knowledgeable, and very well-respected Judge.


What are you saying about the other two ... that they're not?


I'm saying nothing about the other two.

I'm saying that a very experienced, very knowledgeable, and very well-respected Judge has genuine doubts about Pell's guilt.

That's a cause for concern.


Well if his doubts were all that was needed there wouldn't be 3 judges in the appellate court. 


His doubts aren't all that's needed.

However, he has genuine doubt, and that's a major cause for concern.


It may well be ... so you're saying the 3 should concur 100%?

If so why do the have 3 on it?

So the majority decision gives a result ...no?


I'm saying the decision should be unanimous.

The most experienced Judge of the three has genuine doubts about Pell's guilt.

That's very concerning.

"Ain't bad" isn't good enough.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5hWWe-ts2s


Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by cods on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:32am

Captain Nemo wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:28am:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:19am:

Captain Nemo wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:17am:
There are only two people alive today who know the truth about what happened.

I tend to believe the boy ... based on my assessment of the appalling attitude of Pell. There are other events in Pell's history which lead me to think he is guilty.


Well we know one is a liar and it is not the accuser....Pell is guilty and it has now been confirmed twice???

::) ::) ::)


Quite correct.

I'm torn between Pell going to the High Court to be told again that his conviction stands, or the High Court simply saying he has no valid grounds for a further appeal.

I suppose if he does get an appeal hearing and it goes against him, that would finally force the Vatican to defrock the bum.

However, it would be terrible if the High Court ruled in his favour.

I feel that the Victorian appeals court did a pretty good job of definitively supporting the claimant.  It is a bit of a shame that one of the three thought that if he had been on the jury, he would not have found Pell guilty.

Good thing that he wasn't on the jury!  ;)



why would it be terrible if the high court find in his favour?????..


it sounds like you only agree with our Legal  system if it goes the way you want it too???...

gosh I trust they never call you for jury duty...

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Captain Nemo on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:34am

cods wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:32am:

Captain Nemo wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:28am:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:19am:

Captain Nemo wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:17am:
There are only two people alive today who know the truth about what happened.

I tend to believe the boy ... based on my assessment of the appalling attitude of Pell. There are other events in Pell's history which lead me to think he is guilty.


Well we know one is a liar and it is not the accuser....Pell is guilty and it has now been confirmed twice???

::) ::) ::)


Quite correct.

I'm torn between Pell going to the High Court to be told again that his conviction stands, or the High Court simply saying he has no valid grounds for a further appeal.

I suppose if he does get an appeal hearing and it goes against him, that would finally force the Vatican to defrock the bum.

However, it would be terrible if the High Court ruled in his favour.

I feel that the Victorian appeals court did a pretty good job of definitively supporting the claimant.  It is a bit of a shame that one of the three thought that if he had been on the jury, he would not have found Pell guilty.

Good thing that he wasn't on the jury!  ;)



why would it be terrible if the high court find in his favour?????..


it sounds like you only agree with our Legal  system if it goes the way you want it too???...

gosh I trust they never call you for jury duty...


It would be terrible if a jury decision having heard all the evidence is overturned ... especially in this case - because that would discourage other victims from coming forward in the future.



Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by greggerypeccary on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:36am

Captain Nemo wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:34am:

cods wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:32am:

Captain Nemo wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:28am:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:19am:

Captain Nemo wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:17am:
There are only two people alive today who know the truth about what happened.

I tend to believe the boy ... based on my assessment of the appalling attitude of Pell. There are other events in Pell's history which lead me to think he is guilty.


Well we know one is a liar and it is not the accuser....Pell is guilty and it has now been confirmed twice???

::) ::) ::)


Quite correct.

I'm torn between Pell going to the High Court to be told again that his conviction stands, or the High Court simply saying he has no valid grounds for a further appeal.

I suppose if he does get an appeal hearing and it goes against him, that would finally force the Vatican to defrock the bum.

However, it would be terrible if the High Court ruled in his favour.

I feel that the Victorian appeals court did a pretty good job of definitively supporting the claimant.  It is a bit of a shame that one of the three thought that if he had been on the jury, he would not have found Pell guilty.

Good thing that he wasn't on the jury!  ;)



why would it be terrible if the high court find in his favour?????..


it sounds like you only agree with our Legal  system if it goes the way you want it too???...

gosh I trust they never call you for jury duty...


It would be terrible if a jury decision having heard all the evidence is overturned ... especially in this case - because that would discourage other victims from coming forward in the future.


Juries get it wrong all the time.


Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by cods on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:36am

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:30am:

Gnads wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:26am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:14am:

Gnads wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:10am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 9:12am:

Gnads wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 8:51am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 8:38am:

cods wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 8:23am:
but one judge didnt agree.....is that a red flag?....


Yes. Yes it is.

And not just any old Judge either - a very experienced, very knowledgeable, and very well-respected Judge.


What are you saying about the other two ... that they're not?


I'm saying nothing about the other two.

I'm saying that a very experienced, very knowledgeable, and very well-respected Judge has genuine doubts about Pell's guilt.

That's a cause for concern.


Well if his doubts were all that was needed there wouldn't be 3 judges in the appellate court. 


His doubts aren't all that's needed.

However, he has genuine doubt, and that's a major cause for concern.


It may well be ... so you're saying the 3 should concur 100%?

If so why do the have 3 on it?

So the majority decision gives a result ...no?


I'm saying the decision should be unanimous.

The most experienced Judge of the three has genuine doubts about Pell's guilt.

That's very concerning.

"Ain't bad" isn't good enough.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5hWWe-ts2s



exactly!    something is wrong with that trial...

just for one moment imagine we had the death penalty over this crime..


shouldnt someone say  WHY is that judge concerned enough to vote otherwise

why did he see something the others didnt?..or why did he see it different...

the more I read the more ???? I have...

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Sir Spot of Borg on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:37am

cods wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:14am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:05am:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 9:52am:

Captain Nemo wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 9:41am:
I can't remember in detail where I was 2 weeks ago!  ;D




Claiming a young boy would remember irrelevant details decades after he had tried to forget the abuse is bullshit....Not to mention the boys admitted taking alcohol and were traumatized by the abuse....A lawyer would know that a witness recollection decades later can and will be sketchy....However the defense claims they knew were everybody was on that day and the lawyer believes that....Pell is guilty!!!

::) ::) ::)


Yeah well . . .  I remember in great detail something that happened to me when I was 8. Seriously traumatic incidents stick with you.

Spot




sorry to hear that spot..  but tell me how do you know  every detail you remember is correct?....short of hypnosis [if that works]  I cant see how we can recall every detail as it happened..


Well i didnt "block it out" for one thing. some ppl have good memories.

On the other hand I prolly couldnt identify any ppl that were there because i didnt know who they were at the time.

Spot

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Captain Nemo on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:38am

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:36am:

Captain Nemo wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:34am:

cods wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:32am:

Captain Nemo wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:28am:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:19am:

Captain Nemo wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:17am:
There are only two people alive today who know the truth about what happened.

I tend to believe the boy ... based on my assessment of the appalling attitude of Pell. There are other events in Pell's history which lead me to think he is guilty.


Well we know one is a liar and it is not the accuser....Pell is guilty and it has now been confirmed twice???

::) ::) ::)


Quite correct.

I'm torn between Pell going to the High Court to be told again that his conviction stands, or the High Court simply saying he has no valid grounds for a further appeal.

I suppose if he does get an appeal hearing and it goes against him, that would finally force the Vatican to defrock the bum.

However, it would be terrible if the High Court ruled in his favour.

I feel that the Victorian appeals court did a pretty good job of definitively supporting the claimant.  It is a bit of a shame that one of the three thought that if he had been on the jury, he would not have found Pell guilty.

Good thing that he wasn't on the jury!  ;)



why would it be terrible if the high court find in his favour?????..


it sounds like you only agree with our Legal  system if it goes the way you want it too???...

gosh I trust they never call you for jury duty...


It would be terrible if a jury decision having heard all the evidence is overturned ... especially in this case - because that would discourage other victims from coming forward in the future.


Juries get it wrong all the time.



Peadophile priests get away with it all the time.  >:(

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by greggerypeccary on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:43am

Captain Nemo wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:38am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:36am:

Captain Nemo wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:34am:

cods wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:32am:

Captain Nemo wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:28am:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:19am:

Captain Nemo wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:17am:
There are only two people alive today who know the truth about what happened.

I tend to believe the boy ... based on my assessment of the appalling attitude of Pell. There are other events in Pell's history which lead me to think he is guilty.


Well we know one is a liar and it is not the accuser....Pell is guilty and it has now been confirmed twice???

::) ::) ::)


Quite correct.

I'm torn between Pell going to the High Court to be told again that his conviction stands, or the High Court simply saying he has no valid grounds for a further appeal.

I suppose if he does get an appeal hearing and it goes against him, that would finally force the Vatican to defrock the bum.

However, it would be terrible if the High Court ruled in his favour.

I feel that the Victorian appeals court did a pretty good job of definitively supporting the claimant.  It is a bit of a shame that one of the three thought that if he had been on the jury, he would not have found Pell guilty.

Good thing that he wasn't on the jury!  ;)



why would it be terrible if the high court find in his favour?????..


it sounds like you only agree with our Legal  system if it goes the way you want it too???...

gosh I trust they never call you for jury duty...


It would be terrible if a jury decision having heard all the evidence is overturned ... especially in this case - because that would discourage other victims from coming forward in the future.


Juries get it wrong all the time.



Peadophile priests get away with it all the time.  >:(


Allegedly.

However, we know for a fact that juries get it wrong some times.


Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by cods on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:43am

Captain Nemo wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:34am:

cods wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:32am:

Captain Nemo wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:28am:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:19am:

Captain Nemo wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:17am:
There are only two people alive today who know the truth about what happened.

I tend to believe the boy ... based on my assessment of the appalling attitude of Pell. There are other events in Pell's history which lead me to think he is guilty.


Well we know one is a liar and it is not the accuser....Pell is guilty and it has now been confirmed twice???

::) ::) ::)


Quite correct.

I'm torn between Pell going to the High Court to be told again that his conviction stands, or the High Court simply saying he has no valid grounds for a further appeal.

I suppose if he does get an appeal hearing and it goes against him, that would finally force the Vatican to defrock the bum.

However, it would be terrible if the High Court ruled in his favour.

I feel that the Victorian appeals court did a pretty good job of definitively supporting the claimant.  It is a bit of a shame that one of the three thought that if he had been on the jury, he would not have found Pell guilty.

Good thing that he wasn't on the jury!  ;)



why would it be terrible if the high court find in his favour?????..


it sounds like you only agree with our Legal  system if it goes the way you want it too???...

gosh I trust they never call you for jury duty...


It would be terrible if a jury decision having heard all the evidence is overturned ... especially in this case - because that would discourage other victims from coming forward in the future.



mate thats tosh......we have had far too many cases overturned....

we dont read about them because lets face this is the only system we have...but to think it doesnt make mistakes.... OMG.. you must live in another country....

〈〉
Australian flag
Wrongful Convictions in Australia
BY ▪︎ UGUR NEDIM ▪︎ 12/06/2015

Our criminal justice system has been centuries in the making.

Generation after generation has taken pride in the safeguards that our system provides to minimise the chance of innocent people being convicted of crimes, with English jurist William Blackstone famously declaring in 1765 that it is “better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent suffer.”

But unfortunately, our justice system does get it wrong, and innocent people spend lengthy periods in prison as a result, or worse.

With safeguards like the ‘right to silence’ and ‘presumption of innocence’ being eroded in recent years – and given the dangers posed by laws that prevent the defence from accessing evidence in certain types of cases (eg terrorism and sexual assault cases) and in light of the dangers posed by civil incursions like the new meta-data laws – we can expect there to be many more wrongful convictions in the future.

Here are five of the most famous examples of wrongful convictions in Australia.

1. Ronald Ryan

Ronald Ryan was the last person to be executed in Australia.

He had a troubled childhood, and his run-ins with the law ultimately landed him behind bars.

On the fateful day of December 19, 1965 Ryan and his fellow inmate Peter John Walker attempted to escape from prison.

It was during the attempt that prison guard George Hodgson was shot and killed.

Over a dozen witnesses swore at Ryan’s trial that they saw him fire the fatal shot – and he was found guilty and sentenced to death. Ryan was hanged in Pentridge Prison, Victoria on 3 February 1967.

There was always doubt about the identity of the person who shot the hapless prison guard. Two other guards admitted firing several shots, and in 2007, fellow escapee Walker admitted that it would have been impossible for Ryan to have shot the guard because his rifle had jammed.

Ryan’s death was the turning point in Australian attitudes towards the death penalty.

2. Andrew Mallard

Imagine spending 12 years in prison for a crime you did not commit.

This was the reality for Andrew Mallard, who was convicted of killing Perth woman Pamela Lawrence.

Ms Lawrence was violently bludgeoned to death in 1994 in her Mosman Park jewellery shop.

Mallard quickly became a police suspect – but it was later shown that police had withheld vital evidence from Mallard’s criminal defence lawyers during the trial, and that he had in fact been framed for the crime.

During a thorough investigation into the mishandling of the investigation, multiple adverse findings were handed-down against two of Western Australia’s most prominent police officers.

Journalist Colleen Egan had been closely following the trial when it occurred, and came to the view that it was obvious that a miscarriage of justice had occurred.

Her persistence eventually convinced Shadow Attorney General John Quigley to push for the conviction to be challenged, and the analysis of forensic evidence linked the crime to a man who was serving time in prison for the murder of his girlfriend.

Mallard’s convictions was ultimately quashed in 2006.

Mallard should never have been behind bars in the first place, and he still suffers from the torment of being wrongfully convicted and spending 12 years incarcerated.

Understandably, he says that he will never fully recover from the ordeal.

[url]https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/b

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by cods on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:46am

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:37am:

cods wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:14am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:05am:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 9:52am:

Captain Nemo wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 9:41am:
I can't remember in detail where I was 2 weeks ago!  ;D




Claiming a young boy would remember irrelevant details decades after he had tried to forget the abuse is bullshit....Not to mention the boys admitted taking alcohol and were traumatized by the abuse....A lawyer would know that a witness recollection decades later can and will be sketchy....However the defense claims they knew were everybody was on that day and the lawyer believes that....Pell is guilty!!!

::) ::) ::)


Yeah well . . .  I remember in great detail something that happened to me when I was 8. Seriously traumatic incidents stick with you.

Spot




sorry to hear that spot..  but tell me how do you know  every detail you remember is correct?....short of hypnosis [if that works]  I cant see how we can recall every detail as it happened..


Well i didnt "block it out" for one thing. some ppl have good memories.

On the other hand I prolly couldnt identify any ppl that were there because i didnt know who they were at the time.

Spot



but you could describe them or one or two of them....

someone to corroborate your memory of what happened..

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Bojack Horseman on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:02am

Aussie wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 9:30am:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 9:02am:
The witness could not remember certain details because it was so long ago and there were things he did not pay attention to because he was being abused by a priest....The defense however contends they knew were every person was every minute of that day and produced evidence the court rejected such as the robes being too heavy....Who remembers were they were on a certain day decades ago....C'mon???

::) ::) ::)


If I was being molested in the way described, I'd recall the event vividly forever.  Unless of course such an event was a matter of daily routine then details would blur into mundanity.



Not everyone is you.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Bojack Horseman on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:02am

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:43am:

Captain Nemo wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:38am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:36am:

Captain Nemo wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:34am:

cods wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:32am:

Captain Nemo wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:28am:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:19am:

Captain Nemo wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:17am:
There are only two people alive today who know the truth about what happened.

I tend to believe the boy ... based on my assessment of the appalling attitude of Pell. There are other events in Pell's history which lead me to think he is guilty.


Well we know one is a liar and it is not the accuser....Pell is guilty and it has now been confirmed twice???

::) ::) ::)


Quite correct.

I'm torn between Pell going to the High Court to be told again that his conviction stands, or the High Court simply saying he has no valid grounds for a further appeal.

I suppose if he does get an appeal hearing and it goes against him, that would finally force the Vatican to defrock the bum.

However, it would be terrible if the High Court ruled in his favour.

I feel that the Victorian appeals court did a pretty good job of definitively supporting the claimant.  It is a bit of a shame that one of the three thought that if he had been on the jury, he would not have found Pell guilty.

Good thing that he wasn't on the jury!  ;)



why would it be terrible if the high court find in his favour?????..


it sounds like you only agree with our Legal  system if it goes the way you want it too???...

gosh I trust they never call you for jury duty...


It would be terrible if a jury decision having heard all the evidence is overturned ... especially in this case - because that would discourage other victims from coming forward in the future.


Juries get it wrong all the time.



Peadophile priests get away with it all the time.  >:(


Allegedly.

However, we know for a fact that juries get it wrong some times.



ANd get it right most times. Which a 2-1 with 3 experienced judges shows.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Captain Nemo on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:03am

cods wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:43am:

Captain Nemo wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:34am:

cods wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:32am:

Captain Nemo wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:28am:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:19am:

Captain Nemo wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:17am:
There are only two people alive today who know the truth about what happened.

I tend to believe the boy ... based on my assessment of the appalling attitude of Pell. There are other events in Pell's history which lead me to think he is guilty.


Well we know one is a liar and it is not the accuser....Pell is guilty and it has now been confirmed twice???

::) ::) ::)


Quite correct.

I'm torn between Pell going to the High Court to be told again that his conviction stands, or the High Court simply saying he has no valid grounds for a further appeal.

I suppose if he does get an appeal hearing and it goes against him, that would finally force the Vatican to defrock the bum.

However, it would be terrible if the High Court ruled in his favour.

I feel that the Victorian appeals court did a pretty good job of definitively supporting the claimant.  It is a bit of a shame that one of the three thought that if he had been on the jury, he would not have found Pell guilty.

Good thing that he wasn't on the jury!  ;)



why would it be terrible if the high court find in his favour?????..


it sounds like you only agree with our Legal  system if it goes the way you want it too???...

gosh I trust they never call you for jury duty...


It would be terrible if a jury decision having heard all the evidence is overturned ... especially in this case - because that would discourage other victims from coming forward in the future.



mate thats tosh......we have had far too many cases overturned....

we dont read about them because lets face this is the only system we have...but to think it doesnt make mistakes.... OMG.. you must live in another country....

...


What if ....

The jury got it right in the Pell case?

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Bojack Horseman on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:05am

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:05am:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 9:52am:

Captain Nemo wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 9:41am:
I can't remember in detail where I was 2 weeks ago!  ;D




Claiming a young boy would remember irrelevant details decades after he had tried to forget the abuse is bullshit....Not to mention the boys admitted taking alcohol and were traumatized by the abuse....A lawyer would know that a witness recollection decades later can and will be sketchy....However the defense claims they knew were everybody was on that day and the lawyer believes that....Pell is guilty!!!

::) ::) ::)


Yeah well . . .  I remember in great detail something that happened to me when I was 8. Seriously traumatic incidents stick with you.

Spot


I had a seriously traumatic incident happen to me when I was 11, I don't remember every detail.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by greggerypeccary on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:06am

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:02am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:43am:

Captain Nemo wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:38am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:36am:

Captain Nemo wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:34am:

cods wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:32am:

Captain Nemo wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:28am:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:19am:

Captain Nemo wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:17am:
There are only two people alive today who know the truth about what happened.

I tend to believe the boy ... based on my assessment of the appalling attitude of Pell. There are other events in Pell's history which lead me to think he is guilty.


Well we know one is a liar and it is not the accuser....Pell is guilty and it has now been confirmed twice???

::) ::) ::)


Quite correct.

I'm torn between Pell going to the High Court to be told again that his conviction stands, or the High Court simply saying he has no valid grounds for a further appeal.

I suppose if he does get an appeal hearing and it goes against him, that would finally force the Vatican to defrock the bum.

However, it would be terrible if the High Court ruled in his favour.

I feel that the Victorian appeals court did a pretty good job of definitively supporting the claimant.  It is a bit of a shame that one of the three thought that if he had been on the jury, he would not have found Pell guilty.

Good thing that he wasn't on the jury!  ;)



why would it be terrible if the high court find in his favour?????..


it sounds like you only agree with our Legal  system if it goes the way you want it too???...

gosh I trust they never call you for jury duty...


It would be terrible if a jury decision having heard all the evidence is overturned ... especially in this case - because that would discourage other victims from coming forward in the future.


Juries get it wrong all the time.



Peadophile priests get away with it all the time.  >:(


Allegedly.

However, we know for a fact that juries get it wrong some times.



ANd get it right most times. Which a 2-1 with 3 experienced judges shows.


Most isn't good enough.


Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Bojack Horseman on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:08am

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:06am:

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:02am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:43am:

Captain Nemo wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:38am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:36am:

Captain Nemo wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:34am:

cods wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:32am:

Captain Nemo wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:28am:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:19am:

Captain Nemo wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:17am:
There are only two people alive today who know the truth about what happened.

I tend to believe the boy ... based on my assessment of the appalling attitude of Pell. There are other events in Pell's history which lead me to think he is guilty.


Well we know one is a liar and it is not the accuser....Pell is guilty and it has now been confirmed twice???

::) ::) ::)


Quite correct.

I'm torn between Pell going to the High Court to be told again that his conviction stands, or the High Court simply saying he has no valid grounds for a further appeal.

I suppose if he does get an appeal hearing and it goes against him, that would finally force the Vatican to defrock the bum.

However, it would be terrible if the High Court ruled in his favour.

I feel that the Victorian appeals court did a pretty good job of definitively supporting the claimant.  It is a bit of a shame that one of the three thought that if he had been on the jury, he would not have found Pell guilty.

Good thing that he wasn't on the jury!  ;)



why would it be terrible if the high court find in his favour?????..


it sounds like you only agree with our Legal  system if it goes the way you want it too???...

gosh I trust they never call you for jury duty...


It would be terrible if a jury decision having heard all the evidence is overturned ... especially in this case - because that would discourage other victims from coming forward in the future.


Juries get it wrong all the time.



Peadophile priests get away with it all the time.  >:(


Allegedly.

However, we know for a fact that juries get it wrong some times.



ANd get it right most times. Which a 2-1 with 3 experienced judges shows.


Most isn't good enough.



Which is why the primacy of the Australian court system is in the jury and they were unanimous. All the appeal court was doing was backing it up.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by greggerypeccary on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:13am

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:08am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:06am:

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:02am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:43am:

Captain Nemo wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:38am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:36am:

Captain Nemo wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:34am:

cods wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:32am:

Captain Nemo wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:28am:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:19am:

Captain Nemo wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:17am:
There are only two people alive today who know the truth about what happened.

I tend to believe the boy ... based on my assessment of the appalling attitude of Pell. There are other events in Pell's history which lead me to think he is guilty.


Well we know one is a liar and it is not the accuser....Pell is guilty and it has now been confirmed twice???

::) ::) ::)


Quite correct.

I'm torn between Pell going to the High Court to be told again that his conviction stands, or the High Court simply saying he has no valid grounds for a further appeal.

I suppose if he does get an appeal hearing and it goes against him, that would finally force the Vatican to defrock the bum.

However, it would be terrible if the High Court ruled in his favour.

I feel that the Victorian appeals court did a pretty good job of definitively supporting the claimant.  It is a bit of a shame that one of the three thought that if he had been on the jury, he would not have found Pell guilty.

Good thing that he wasn't on the jury!  ;)



why would it be terrible if the high court find in his favour?????..


it sounds like you only agree with our Legal  system if it goes the way you want it too???...

gosh I trust they never call you for jury duty...


It would be terrible if a jury decision having heard all the evidence is overturned ... especially in this case - because that would discourage other victims from coming forward in the future.


Juries get it wrong all the time.



Peadophile priests get away with it all the time.  >:(


Allegedly.

However, we know for a fact that juries get it wrong some times.



ANd get it right most times. Which a 2-1 with 3 experienced judges shows.


Most isn't good enough.



Which is why the primacy of the Australian court system is in the jury and they were unanimous. All the appeal court was doing was backing it up.


Not unanimously, though.

The most experienced Judge has genuine doubt.

It's no coincidence that he used the same terminology as the Lindy Chamberlain case.


Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by philperth2010 on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:13am

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:30am:

Gnads wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:26am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:14am:

Gnads wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:10am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 9:12am:

Gnads wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 8:51am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 8:38am:

cods wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 8:23am:
but one judge didnt agree.....is that a red flag?....


Yes. Yes it is.

And not just any old Judge either - a very experienced, very knowledgeable, and very well-respected Judge.


What are you saying about the other two ... that they're not?


I'm saying nothing about the other two.

I'm saying that a very experienced, very knowledgeable, and very well-respected Judge has genuine doubts about Pell's guilt.

That's a cause for concern.


Well if his doubts were all that was needed there wouldn't be 3 judges in the appellate court. 


His doubts aren't all that's needed.

However, he has genuine doubt, and that's a major cause for concern.


It may well be ... so you're saying the 3 should concur 100%?

If so why do the have 3 on it?

So the majority decision gives a result ...no?


I'm saying the decision should be unanimous.

The most experienced Judge of the three has genuine doubts about Pell's guilt.

That's very concerning.

"Ain't bad" isn't good enough.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5hWWe-ts2s


Pell should have taking it too a judge only trial then instead of a jury who found him guilty unanimously 12 to 0???

:-? :-? :-?

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by philperth2010 on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:15am

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:05am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:05am:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 9:52am:

Captain Nemo wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 9:41am:
I can't remember in detail where I was 2 weeks ago!  ;D




Claiming a young boy would remember irrelevant details decades after he had tried to forget the abuse is bullshit....Not to mention the boys admitted taking alcohol and were traumatized by the abuse....A lawyer would know that a witness recollection decades later can and will be sketchy....However the defense claims they knew were everybody was on that day and the lawyer believes that....Pell is guilty!!!

::) ::) ::)


Yeah well . . .  I remember in great detail something that happened to me when I was 8. Seriously traumatic incidents stick with you.

Spot


I had a seriously traumatic incident happen to me when I was 11, I don't remember every detail.


Same her Spot....Myself and three brothers whom I am still friends with....Only one brother has ever spoken to me about it since....The other two are alcoholics and deny anything happened despite the fact I was there and witnessed the abuse.....One brother recruited boys for the pedophile ass hole!!!

:( :( :(

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Sir Spot of Borg on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:16am

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:05am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:05am:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 9:52am:

Captain Nemo wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 9:41am:
I can't remember in detail where I was 2 weeks ago!  ;D




Claiming a young boy would remember irrelevant details decades after he had tried to forget the abuse is bullshit....Not to mention the boys admitted taking alcohol and were traumatized by the abuse....A lawyer would know that a witness recollection decades later can and will be sketchy....However the defense claims they knew were everybody was on that day and the lawyer believes that....Pell is guilty!!!

::) ::) ::)


Yeah well . . .  I remember in great detail something that happened to me when I was 8. Seriously traumatic incidents stick with you.

Spot


I had a seriously traumatic incident happen to me when I was 11, I don't remember every detail.


I guess its different for everyone - I had a traumatic incident happen when i was 5 too but i dont remember details on that one.

Spot

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Bojack Horseman on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:19am

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:13am:

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:08am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:06am:

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:02am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:43am:

Captain Nemo wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:38am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:36am:

Captain Nemo wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:34am:

cods wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:32am:

Captain Nemo wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:28am:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:19am:

Captain Nemo wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:17am:
There are only two people alive today who know the truth about what happened.

I tend to believe the boy ... based on my assessment of the appalling attitude of Pell. There are other events in Pell's history which lead me to think he is guilty.


Well we know one is a liar and it is not the accuser....Pell is guilty and it has now been confirmed twice???

::) ::) ::)


Quite correct.

I'm torn between Pell going to the High Court to be told again that his conviction stands, or the High Court simply saying he has no valid grounds for a further appeal.

I suppose if he does get an appeal hearing and it goes against him, that would finally force the Vatican to defrock the bum.

However, it would be terrible if the High Court ruled in his favour.

I feel that the Victorian appeals court did a pretty good job of definitively supporting the claimant.  It is a bit of a shame that one of the three thought that if he had been on the jury, he would not have found Pell guilty.

Good thing that he wasn't on the jury!  ;)



why would it be terrible if the high court find in his favour?????..


it sounds like you only agree with our Legal  system if it goes the way you want it too???...

gosh I trust they never call you for jury duty...


It would be terrible if a jury decision having heard all the evidence is overturned ... especially in this case - because that would discourage other victims from coming forward in the future.


Juries get it wrong all the time.



Peadophile priests get away with it all the time.  >:(


Allegedly.

However, we know for a fact that juries get it wrong some times.



ANd get it right most times. Which a 2-1 with 3 experienced judges shows.


Most isn't good enough.



Which is why the primacy of the Australian court system is in the jury and they were unanimous. All the appeal court was doing was backing it up.


Not unanimously, though.

The most experienced Judge has genuine doubt.

It's no coincidence that he used the same terminology as the Lindy Chamberlain case.




He's the most experienced cause he s the oldest, he's actually retired and just called up as reserve, so you could just as easily argue he's old and slow about the case.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by greggerypeccary on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:24am

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:19am:
He's the most experienced cause he s the oldest, he's actually retired and just called up as reserve, so you could just as easily argue he's old and slow about the case.


He has more experience as a Judge.

Justice Weinberg, who served as a Federal Court judge from 1998 to 2008, sat on the Court of Appeal from 2008 until he retired in 2018 when he was named as a reserve judge of the Supreme Court. Born in Sweden, he was the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions from 1988 to 1991.


Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Bojack Horseman on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:36am

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:24am:

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:19am:
He's the most experienced cause he s the oldest, he's actually retired and just called up as reserve, so you could just as easily argue he's old and slow about the case.


He has more experience as a Judge.

Justice Weinberg, who served as a Federal Court judge from 1998 to 2008, sat on the Court of Appeal from 2008 until he retired in 2018 when he was named as a reserve judge of the Supreme Court. Born in Sweden, he was the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions from 1988 to 1991.





And yet retired, so entirely plausible he could be declining.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by greggerypeccary on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:40am

One of the three Court of Appeal judges who heard George Pell's appeal believes there is a "significant possibility" the cardinal did not commit the child sex crimes he's in jail for and would have acquitted him.

Justice Mark Weinberg said he was not convinced by the victim's evidence and could not exclude the possibility that some parts of the former choirboy's testimony were "concocted".



Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Bojack Horseman on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:42am
Justice Mark Weinberg said he was not convinced by the victim's evidence and could not exclude the possibility that some parts of the former choirboy's testimony were "concocted".


Which 1. doesn't negate the probability they weren't

2. Doesn't negate the other two judges not having the same thoughts. Experience or not.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by greggerypeccary on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:43am

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:40am:
One of the three Court of Appeal judges who heard George Pell's appeal believes there is a "significant possibility" the cardinal did not commit the child sex crimes he's in jail for and would have acquitted him.

Justice Mark Weinberg said he was not convinced by the victim's evidence and could not exclude the possibility that some parts of the former choirboy's testimony were "concocted".


Justice Weinberg, a former Federal Court judge who presided over the trial of Melbourne's Bourke Street killer James Gargasoulas last year, said there was a body of evidence that made it "impossible to accept" the victim's account.


Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Bojack Horseman on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:45am

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:43am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:40am:
One of the three Court of Appeal judges who heard George Pell's appeal believes there is a "significant possibility" the cardinal did not commit the child sex crimes he's in jail for and would have acquitted him.

Justice Mark Weinberg said he was not convinced by the victim's evidence and could not exclude the possibility that some parts of the former choirboy's testimony were "concocted".


Justice Weinberg, a former Federal Court judge who presided over the trial of Melbourne's Bourke Street killer James Gargasoulas last year, said there was a body of evidence that made it "impossible to accept" the victim's account.




And again the other 2 didn't.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Captain Nemo on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:45am

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:43am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:40am:
One of the three Court of Appeal judges who heard George Pell's appeal believes there is a "significant possibility" the cardinal did not commit the child sex crimes he's in jail for and would have acquitted him.

Justice Mark Weinberg said he was not convinced by the victim's evidence and could not exclude the possibility that some parts of the former choirboy's testimony were "concocted".


Justice Weinberg, a former Federal Court judge who presided over the trial of Melbourne's Bourke Street killer James Gargasoulas last year, said there was a body of evidence that made it "impossible to accept" the victim's account.


Clearly, he got that wrong. The jury found it possible to accept the victim's account.  ;)

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by greggerypeccary on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:46am

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:43am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:40am:
One of the three Court of Appeal judges who heard George Pell's appeal believes there is a "significant possibility" the cardinal did not commit the child sex crimes he's in jail for and would have acquitted him.

Justice Mark Weinberg said he was not convinced by the victim's evidence and could not exclude the possibility that some parts of the former choirboy's testimony were "concocted".


Justice Weinberg, a former Federal Court judge who presided over the trial of Melbourne's Bourke Street killer James Gargasoulas last year, said there was a body of evidence that made it "impossible to accept" the victim's account.


"From ... the complainant’s evidence, it can be seen that there was ample material upon which his account could be legitimately subject to criticism. There were inconsistencies, and discrepancies, and a number of his answers simply made no sense," Justice Weinberg wrote in his judgment released on Wednesday.

"An unusual feature of this case was that it depended entirely upon the complainant being accepted, beyond reasonable doubt, as a credible and reliable witness. Yet the jury were invited to accept his evidence without there being any independent support for it."

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Bojack Horseman on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:48am
And yet again the other 2 judges didn't accept that.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by greggerypeccary on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:48am

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:46am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:43am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:40am:
One of the three Court of Appeal judges who heard George Pell's appeal believes there is a "significant possibility" the cardinal did not commit the child sex crimes he's in jail for and would have acquitted him.

Justice Mark Weinberg said he was not convinced by the victim's evidence and could not exclude the possibility that some parts of the former choirboy's testimony were "concocted".


Justice Weinberg, a former Federal Court judge who presided over the trial of Melbourne's Bourke Street killer James Gargasoulas last year, said there was a body of evidence that made it "impossible to accept" the victim's account.


"From ... the complainant’s evidence, it can be seen that there was ample material upon which his account could be legitimately subject to criticism. There were inconsistencies, and discrepancies, and a number of his answers simply made no sense," Justice Weinberg wrote in his judgment released on Wednesday.

"An unusual feature of this case was that it depended entirely upon the complainant being accepted, beyond reasonable doubt, as a credible and reliable witness. Yet the jury were invited to accept his evidence without there being any independent support for it."


After assessing the evidence presented at Pell's County Court trial last year, Justice Weinberg said he would have quashed the cardinal's five convictions for child sex offences.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by greggerypeccary on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:51am

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:48am:
And yet again the other 2 judges didn't accept that.


"I am troubled by the fact that I find myself constrained to differ from two of my colleagues whose opinions I always respect greatly," he wrote.

"That has caused me to reflect even more carefully upon the proper outcome of this application. Having done so, however, I cannot, in good conscience, do other than to maintain my dissent."

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Bojack Horseman on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:51am

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:48am:
After assessing the evidence presented at Pell's County Court trial last year, Justice Weinberg said he would have quashed the cardinal's five convictions for child sex offences.




And after assessing it, the other 2 plus all the jurors said they wouldn't. I don't know why this guys view is worth any more or less weight than anyone elses view.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Captain Nemo on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:52am

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:48am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:46am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:43am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:40am:
One of the three Court of Appeal judges who heard George Pell's appeal believes there is a "significant possibility" the cardinal did not commit the child sex crimes he's in jail for and would have acquitted him.

Justice Mark Weinberg said he was not convinced by the victim's evidence and could not exclude the possibility that some parts of the former choirboy's testimony were "concocted".


Justice Weinberg, a former Federal Court judge who presided over the trial of Melbourne's Bourke Street killer James Gargasoulas last year, said there was a body of evidence that made it "impossible to accept" the victim's account.


"From ... the complainant’s evidence, it can be seen that there was ample material upon which his account could be legitimately subject to criticism. There were inconsistencies, and discrepancies, and a number of his answers simply made no sense," Justice Weinberg wrote in his judgment released on Wednesday.

"An unusual feature of this case was that it depended entirely upon the complainant being accepted, beyond reasonable doubt, as a credible and reliable witness. Yet the jury were invited to accept his evidence without there being any independent support for it."


After assessing the evidence presented at Pell's County Court trial last year, Justice Weinberg said he would have quashed the cardinal's five convictions for child sex offences.


That just proves that Justice Weinberg is in the minority.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Bojack Horseman on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:52am

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:51am:

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:48am:
And yet again the other 2 judges didn't accept that.


"I am troubled by the fact that I find myself constrained to differ from two of my colleagues whose opinions I always respect greatly," he wrote.

"That has caused me to reflect even more carefully upon the proper outcome of this application. Having done so, however, I cannot, in good conscience, do other than to maintain my dissent."




So the suggestion is the other two judges didn't carefully reflect?

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by greggerypeccary on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:54am

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:13am:
Pell should have taken it to a judge only trial then instead of a jury who found him guilty unanimously 12 to 0???


Judge-only trials aren't available in Victoria.


Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by cods on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:58am
does anyone know if Mr A  or for that matter either boy continued being choir boys after this???

most paedophiles are serial abusers.... thats the reason this crossed my mind...if the boys didnt report on this at the time...then the abuser would be more inclined to attack them again thinking he had got away with it.....

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by greggerypeccary on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:58am

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:54am:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:13am:
Pell should have taken it to a judge only trial then instead of a jury who found him guilty unanimously 12 to 0???


Judge-only trials aren't available in Victoria.


"Despite a number of high profile cases over the years, Victoria remains one of the few places where well-known defendants do not have the option of requesting that a judge alone oversee their criminal trial – unlike their counterparts in NSW, Queensland and Western Australia."

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by cods on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 12:00pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:58am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:54am:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:13am:
Pell should have taken it to a judge only trial then instead of a jury who found him guilty unanimously 12 to 0???


Judge-only trials aren't available in Victoria.


"Despite a number of high profile cases over the years, Victoria remains one of the few places where well-known defendants do not have the option of requesting that a judge alone oversee their criminal trial – unlike their counterparts in NSW, Queensland and Western Australia."





isnt that a bit odd?... ::)

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Captain Nemo on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 12:04pm

cods wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:58am:
does anyone know if Mr A  or for that matter either boy continued being choir boys after this???

most paedophiles are serial abusers.... thats the reason this crossed my mind...if the boys didnt report on this at the time...then the abuser would be more inclined to attack them again thinking he had got away with it.....


Well, the court found Pell guilty of a number of sex abuse charges, so yes, he did repeat offend in this case.

Let's remind ourselves of the 5 charges that Pell was found to be guilty of:

Cardinal George Pell has been found guilty of the following five charges.

Committing an indecent act with or in the presence of a child under 16: Guilty      The jury found Pell confronted two 13-year-old choirboys in the priests’ sacristy of St Patrick’s Cathedral in East Melbourne after a Sunday mass, exposed himself and pushed one of the boys so the boy’s head was close to his genitals.

Sexual penetration of a child under 16: Guilty      The jury found Pell moved to the second boy in the sacristy and put his penis in the boy’s mouth. Pell’s lawyer Robert Richter, QC, likened this to “oral rape”.

Committing an indecent act with or in the presence of a child under 16: Guilty      The jury found that while still in the sacristy, Pell had the second boy lower his pants and Pell sexually assaulted him.

Committing an indecent act with or in the presence of a child under 16: Guilty      The jury found that Pell masturbated himself while sexually assaulting the second boy.

Committing an indecent act with or in the presence of a child under 16: Guilty      The jury found that after a Sunday mass two months after the first incident, Pell pushed the second boy against a wall in St Patrick’s Cathedral and squeezed the boy’s genitals.





Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by greggerypeccary on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 12:05pm

cods wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 12:00pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:58am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:54am:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:13am:
Pell should have taken it to a judge only trial then instead of a jury who found him guilty unanimously 12 to 0???


Judge-only trials aren't available in Victoria.


"Despite a number of high profile cases over the years, Victoria remains one of the few places where well-known defendants do not have the option of requesting that a judge alone oversee their criminal trial – unlike their counterparts in NSW, Queensland and Western Australia."





isnt that a bit odd?... ::)


Indeed.

Australian Lawyers Alliance spokesman Greg Barns said that "in an era of saturation media, social media, and irresponsible reporting and campaigns run against people, I think it's unfair that certain people in Australia can elect to have a judge alone trial, but the rest of them are stuck with a jury system”.


Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by philperth2010 on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 12:09pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:58am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:54am:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:13am:
Pell should have taken it to a judge only trial then instead of a jury who found him guilty unanimously 12 to 0???


Judge-only trials aren't available in Victoria.


"Despite a number of high profile cases over the years, Victoria remains one of the few places where well-known defendants do not have the option of requesting that a judge alone oversee their criminal trial – unlike their counterparts in NSW, Queensland and Western Australia."


Thanks Greg....I did not know that....Very strange???

:o :o :o

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Captain Nemo on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 12:17pm
Let's not forget that Pell chose not to give evidence in the court.

If he was so convinced of his innocence, why not give evidence?

As the victim stated:

"...I am aware of a lot of public comment by people who are critical of my evidence. Regardless of the outcome of the appeal - a few facts will always remain.

I gave evidence for several days. I was cross-examined by Pell’s defence counsel. A jury has unanimously accepted the truth of my evidence.

Pell chose not to give evidence. The jury did not hear from him. He did not allow himself to be cross-examined.

I have played my part as best I can. I took the difficult step of reporting to police about a high-profile person, and I stood up to give my evidence.”



Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by greggerypeccary on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 12:19pm

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 12:09pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:58am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:54am:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:13am:
Pell should have taken it to a judge only trial then instead of a jury who found him guilty unanimously 12 to 0???


Judge-only trials aren't available in Victoria.


"Despite a number of high profile cases over the years, Victoria remains one of the few places where well-known defendants do not have the option of requesting that a judge alone oversee their criminal trial – unlike their counterparts in NSW, Queensland and Western Australia."


Thanks Greg....I did not know that....Very strange???

:o :o :o


Either did I.

It is strange.


Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Aussie on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 12:24pm

Quote:
Which is why the primacy of the Australian court system is in the jury and they were unanimous. All the appeal court was doing was backing it up.


It was a unanimous decision among my Golf Mates that Pell's conviction should stand because he was guilty of something, even if it not molesting those two boys.  That Jury is made of people just like my Golf Mates.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by philperth2010 on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 12:40pm

Aussie wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 12:24pm:

Quote:
Which is why the primacy of the Australian court system is in the jury and they were unanimous. All the appeal court was doing was backing it up.


It was a unanimous decision among my Golf Mates that Pell's conviction should stand because he was guilty of something, even if it not molesting those two boys.  That Jury is made of people just like my Golf Mates.


Yet the jury were able to hear the witness in person and determine his credibility....Your golf mates did not!!!

::) ::) ::)

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Aussie on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 12:48pm

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 12:40pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 12:24pm:

Quote:
Which is why the primacy of the Australian court system is in the jury and they were unanimous. All the appeal court was doing was backing it up.


It was a unanimous decision among my Golf Mates that Pell's conviction should stand because he was guilty of something, even if it not molesting those two boys.  That Jury is made of people just like my Golf Mates.


Yet the jury were able to hear the witness in person and determine his credibility....Your golf mates did not!!!

::) ::) ::)


Correct. But if you poke your nose out the door of your house and ask your neighbours if they agree with the dismissal of the appeal, I'll bet they say "Yes, he deserves to be in prison for all the cover-ups."

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by philperth2010 on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 12:56pm

Aussie wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 12:48pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 12:40pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 12:24pm:

Quote:
Which is why the primacy of the Australian court system is in the jury and they were unanimous. All the appeal court was doing was backing it up.


It was a unanimous decision among my Golf Mates that Pell's conviction should stand because he was guilty of something, even if it not molesting those two boys.  That Jury is made of people just like my Golf Mates.


Yet the jury were able to hear the witness in person and determine his credibility....Your golf mates did not!!!

::) ::) ::)


Correct. But if you poke your nose out the door of your house and ask your neighbours if they agree with the dismissal of the appeal, I'll bet they say "Yes, he deserves to be in prison for all the cover-ups."


I aked a truck driver today who is a real conspiracy nut what he thought about the decision....He said Pell uncovered corruption in the Vatican and was set up to keep him silent (go figure)....Whilst I accept your reservations some people go to extremes on either side of the debate....Beyond reasonable doubt does not mean beyond any doubt???

:-? :-? :-?

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Gnads on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 1:49pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 12:19pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 12:09pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:58am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:54am:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:13am:
Pell should have taken it to a judge only trial then instead of a jury who found him guilty unanimously 12 to 0???


Judge-only trials aren't available in Victoria.


"Despite a number of high profile cases over the years, Victoria remains one of the few places where well-known defendants do not have the option of requesting that a judge alone oversee their criminal trial – unlike their counterparts in NSW, Queensland and Western Australia."


Thanks Greg....I did not know that....Very strange???

:o :o :o


Either did I.

It is strange.


It's Victoria.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Bojack Horseman on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 2:04pm

Aussie wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 12:24pm:

Quote:
Which is why the primacy of the Australian court system is in the jury and they were unanimous. All the appeal court was doing was backing it up.


It was a unanimous decision among my Golf Mates that Pell's conviction should stand because he was guilty of something, even if it not molesting those two boys.  That Jury is made of people just like my Golf Mates.



My question would be how do you know the jurys thinking?

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Captain Nemo on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 2:58pm
OPINION
Like it or not, Pell judgment was demonstrably fair

By Stuart Webb
August 21, 2019 — 7.01 pm

Rarely does Melbourne stop for something happening in our courts. With a live stream broadcast of the sentence and appeal, the prosecution of George Pell has been the first case that has played out in full view of the public with the attention such a case deserves.

The attention has not just been local. The Victorian justice system has been under international scrutiny in the Pell committal, trial and appeal to the Court of Appeal, as Australia's most senior Catholic Church official appeared before the court on historical child sex charges.

The dismissal of the appeal in a 2-to-1 majority decision demonstrates that the judges' deliberative process is a robust activity where eminent legal minds can differ. The critical issue where there was a divergence in decision was on the appeal ground that no reasonable jury could have reached a finding that the charges were made out beyond reasonable doubt.

Chief Justice Anne Ferguson and Court of Appeal President Chris Maxwell both determined that it was reasonably open for the jury to convict Pell on the charges he faced and that they accepted the jury could reach the required decision on the evidence before them that the charges were made out beyond reasonable doubt. His Honour Mark Weinberg was not of this opinion, and based his judgment on what he described as the complainant’s embellishments, discrepancies, inadequacies and evidence lacking probative value. He formed the view that there was reasonable doubt that Pell was guilty of the charges. Accordingly he dissented from the majority decision.

All three judges were unanimous in their decision to dismiss the grounds of appeal based on the refusal to admit an animation during the defence summing up and the process for the arraigning of the jury, and provided cogent reasons for their decision on these grounds. It is unlikely that these grounds will provide much fertile material for appeal given the treatment of these grounds by all three judges.

While the community may have different views on the outcome handed down by the court on Wednesday, this experience demonstrates why we should have confidence in the independence and rigour of our legal system. The Court of Appeal has gone to great lengths to explain what it has done and why.

The live streaming of the summary judgment will have been watched by lawyers, academics, media, victims of sexual abuse and church authorities around the world. It is now open to anyone to read the judgment summary, or the full judgment at leisure and make up your own mind.

Fine legal minds will examine the over 300-page judgment for any potential grounds of appeal. But the judgment delivered in summary by Chief Justice Anne Ferguson passed the “pub test”. It was demonstrably fair to both the complainant and the prosecution.

The three presiding judges reviewed the full transcripts of the County Court trial, viewed the scene of the alleged offences and considered carefully the evidence of the complainant and other witnesses.

It is difficult to put yourself in the minds of judges, but this was as good an opportunity as most of the community is likely to get, short of attending every day of the trial and listening to all the evidence. This was not possible in this matter because the evidence given by the complainant that he was sexually assaulted by Pell was suppressed to protect the identity of the former choirboy.

Is this the end of this matter? It’s probably too soon to tell. Pell’s legal team is closely examining the full judgment to determine whether there are grounds to appeal to the High Court. The Court of Appeal reached a majority decision on the ground of reasonableness, one judge dissenting, so there is a difference of opinion that may provide a basis for an appeal.

It is not necessarily clear that a High Court appeal will proceed; the High Court needs to grant special leave to appeal and would need to be convinced that the matter involved either a question of law; was of public importance; whether it is necessary to resolve differences as to the state of the law or whether it was in the interests of the administration of justice. Questioning the reasonableness of the jury deliberation process, on the evidence before them, as has been confirmed by two eminent legal minds, may not provide the required grounds for appeal.

Whether or not there is another chapter to be written by the High Court, the Victorian justice system has spoken compellingly on the prosecution of George Pell.

Stuart Webb is president of the Law Institute of Victoria.

https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/like-it-or-not-pell-judgment-was-demonstrably-fair-20190821-p52jbm.html

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Redmond Neck on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 4:36pm

Aussie wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 12:24pm:

Quote:
Which is why the primacy of the Australian court system is in the jury and they were unanimous. All the appeal court was doing was backing it up.


It was a unanimous decision among my Golf Mates that Pell's conviction should stand because he was guilty of something, even if it not molesting those two boys.  That Jury is made of people just like my Golf Mates.


Mates?

Do dodgy lawyers have mates!

Sort of in the same category as a used car salesman I would have thought!

I dont suppose they are taking the piss out of you Aussie!   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D



Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Redmond Neck on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 4:38pm
Bump!

FFS fix this crap forum freediver!

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by philperth2010 on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 5:14pm
Lets not forget the police and DPP interviewed Pell and his accuser and determined the accuser was credible but Pell was not....They also believed there was enough evidence and a good prospect of a prosecution and they were correct....Pell is guilty!!!

::) ::) ::)

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by John Smith on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 5:25pm

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 12:56pm:
He said Pell uncovered corruption in the Vatican and was set up to keep him silent (go figure)....



;D ;D ;D ;D

typical

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Aussie on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 5:34pm

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 5:14pm:
Lets not forget the police and DPP interviewed Pell and his accuser and determined the accuser was credible but Pell was not....They also believed there was enough evidence and a good prospect of a prosecution and they were correct....Pell is guilty!!!

::) ::) ::)


The Police did.  I have never seen anything suggesting the DPP did.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Mary Black on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 5:36pm
Heaven awaits.  ;)

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by philperth2010 on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 5:48pm

Aussie wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 5:34pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 5:14pm:
Lets not forget the police and DPP interviewed Pell and his accuser and determined the accuser was credible but Pell was not....They also believed there was enough evidence and a good prospect of a prosecution and they were correct....Pell is guilty!!!

::) ::) ::)


The Police did.  I have never seen anything suggesting the DPP did.


The DPP are the one's who decide if there is enough evidence and probability of a conviction to send a defendant to trial....Even if they did not interview Pell they strongly believed there was enough evidence and believed the accuser to take a very powerful individual to trial....They were justified and Pell is guilty as charged!!!

::) ::) ::)

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Aussie on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 5:50pm
He has been found guilty as charged, no doubt about it.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by philperth2010 on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 6:08pm

Aussie wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 5:50pm:
He has been found guilty as charged, no doubt about it.


So do you think the appeal will happen Aussie and do you think Pell will be successful???

:-? :-? :-?

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Aussie on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 6:17pm

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 6:08pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 5:50pm:
He has been found guilty as charged, no doubt about it.


So do you think the appeal will happen Aussie and do you think Pell will be successful???

:-? :-? :-?


I doubt the High Court will grant leave, but my record to date on this is not good.  As far as I am concerned, this matter has put the legal system in a very bad light and a state of confusion.

I have never accepted that any mortal is capable of effectively determining who, in a one on one situation, is telling the truth.  The complainant may well have been as convincing as the majority two found, but, how does that trump Pell's equally convincing and indirectly supported denial?

Remember, proof must be established beyond a reasonable doubt, and I do not accept that can be achieved in the aforesaid one on one scenario, unless the version of one is palpably and inherently absurd.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by philperth2010 on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 6:25pm

Aussie wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 6:17pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 6:08pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 5:50pm:
He has been found guilty as charged, no doubt about it.


So do you think the appeal will happen Aussie and do you think Pell will be successful???

:-? :-? :-?


I doubt the High Court will grant leave, but my record to date on this is not good.  As far as I am concerned, this matter has put the legal system in a very bad light and a state of confusion.

I have never accepted that any mortal is capable of effectively determining who, in a one on one situation, is telling the truth.  The complainant may well have been as convincing as the majority two found, but, how does that trump Pell's equally convincing and indirectly supported denial?

Remember, proof must be established beyond a reasonable doubt, and I do not accept that can be achieved in the aforesaid one on one scenario, unless the version of one is palpably and inherently absurd.


Pell did not testify and was not cross examined....How could anyone judge his authenticity....His denials came from his high paid silks???

:-? :-? :-?

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Aussie on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 6:43pm
His denials (made during the Police interview) were seen by all on video.  All consistent, and no flaw exposed. The Cops questioned him.  He gave evidence at the Royal Commission as well and he was cross examined there.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by philperth2010 on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 7:00pm

Aussie wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 6:43pm:
His denials (made during the Police interview) were seen by all on video.  All consistent, and no flaw exposed. The Cops questioned him.  He gave evidence at the Royal Commission as well and he was cross examined there.


About the allegations he was found guilty of???

The cops interviewed him and referred the allegations to the DPP....Do you think the police believed him Aussie???

:-? :-? :-?

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Aussie on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 7:05pm

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 7:00pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 6:43pm:
His denials (made during the Police interview) were seen by all on video.  All consistent, and no flaw exposed. The Cops questioned him.  He gave evidence at the Royal Commission as well and he was cross examined there.


About the allegations he was found guilty of???


Of course.


Quote:
The cops interviewed him and referred the allegations to the DPP....Do you think the police believed him Aussie???

:-? :-? :-?


Do I 'think' they believed him?  I have no idea.  They did their job in interviewing him, and passed the ball on.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by philperth2010 on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 7:24pm

Aussie wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 7:05pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 7:00pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 6:43pm:
His denials (made during the Police interview) were seen by all on video.  All consistent, and no flaw exposed. The Cops questioned him.  He gave evidence at the Royal Commission as well and he was cross examined there.


About the allegations he was found guilty of???


Of course.


Quote:
The cops interviewed him and referred the allegations to the DPP....Do you think the police believed him Aussie???

:-? :-? :-?


Do I 'think' they believed him?  I have no idea.  They did their job in interviewing him, and passed the ball on.


However the police must have decided there was a prima facie case for Pell to answer....The DPP agreed???

:-? :-? :-?

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Aussie on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 7:31pm

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 7:24pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 7:05pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 7:00pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 6:43pm:
His denials (made during the Police interview) were seen by all on video.  All consistent, and no flaw exposed. The Cops questioned him.  He gave evidence at the Royal Commission as well and he was cross examined there.


About the allegations he was found guilty of???


Of course.


Quote:
The cops interviewed him and referred the allegations to the DPP....Do you think the police believed him Aussie???

:-? :-? :-?


Do I 'think' they believed him?  I have no idea.  They did their job in interviewing him, and passed the ball on.


However the police must have decided there was a prima facie case for Pell to answer....The DPP agreed???

:-? :-? :-?



I assume they kicked the can to the DPP to make that decision.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by philperth2010 on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 7:36pm

Aussie wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 7:31pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 7:24pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 7:05pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 7:00pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 6:43pm:
His denials (made during the Police interview) were seen by all on video.  All consistent, and no flaw exposed. The Cops questioned him.  He gave evidence at the Royal Commission as well and he was cross examined there.


About the allegations he was found guilty of???


Of course.


Quote:
The cops interviewed him and referred the allegations to the DPP....Do you think the police believed him Aussie???

:-? :-? :-?


Do I 'think' they believed him?  I have no idea.  They did their job in interviewing him, and passed the ball on.


However the police must have decided there was a prima facie case for Pell to answer....The DPP agreed???

:-? :-? :-?



I assume they kicked the can to the DPP to make that decision.


Yes and the DPP decided to prosecute and were successful....Obviously they had very little doubt of Pell's guilt???

:-? :-? :-?

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Aussie on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 7:41pm
If I was the DPP, given the notoriety of the matter, I too would tin plate my arse and kick the can into the Courts

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by xeej on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 7:58pm
The decision should have been unanimous, the doubts continue.

Looks like its off to the higher court, so says the Pope.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by philperth2010 on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 8:34pm

xeej wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 7:58pm:
The decision should have been unanimous, the doubts continue.

Looks like its off to the higher court, so says the Pope.


It is not up to the Pope to decide....The courts will decide if Pell's appeal will be heard by the High Court not the Vatican!!!

::) ::) ::)

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by xeej on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 8:37pm

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 8:34pm:

xeej wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 7:58pm:
The decision should have been unanimous, the doubts continue.

Looks like its off to the higher court, so says the Pope.


It is not up to the Pope to decide....The courts will decide if Pell's appeal will be heard by the High Court not the Vatican!!!

::) ::) ::)

He has given his endorsement and the courts really have no option, there is doubt.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Aussie on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 8:45pm

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 8:34pm:

xeej wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 7:58pm:
The decision should have been unanimous, the doubts continue.

Looks like its off to the higher court, so says the Pope.


It is not up to the Pope to decide....The courts will decide if Pell's appeal will be heard by the High Court not the Vatican!!!

::) ::) ::)


Phil, you are over reading posts.  I read the comments of xeej to mean that it is over to the Pope to decide if an appeal to the High Court is supported by the Vatican.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by xeej on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 8:51pm

Aussie wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 8:45pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 8:34pm:

xeej wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 7:58pm:
The decision should have been unanimous, the doubts continue.

Looks like its off to the higher court, so says the Pope.


It is not up to the Pope to decide....The courts will decide if Pell's appeal will be heard by the High Court not the Vatican!!!

::) ::) ::)


Phil, you are over reading posts.  I read the comments of xeej to mean that it is over to the Pope to decide if an appeal to the High Court is supported by the Vatican.

The Vatican supports it which I read the Pope supports it.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by philperth2010 on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 8:57pm

Aussie wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 8:45pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 8:34pm:

xeej wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 7:58pm:
The decision should have been unanimous, the doubts continue.

Looks like its off to the higher court, so says the Pope.


It is not up to the Pope to decide....The courts will decide if Pell's appeal will be heard by the High Court not the Vatican!!!

::) ::) ::)


Phil, you are over reading posts.  I read the comments of xeej to mean that it is over to the Pope to decide if an appeal to the High Court is supported by the Vatican.


Perhaps....However my statement is still correct is it not....Of course the Vatican will support an appeal and pay for it as well....This is not about Pell's guilt or innocence for the Vatican it is about saving face for the Church IMO???


Quote:
A Church-commissioned report in 2004 said more than 4,000 US Roman Catholic priests had faced sexual abuse allegations in the last 50 years, in cases involving more than 10,000 children - mostly boys.

A five-year Australian inquiry in 2017 found that "tens of thousands of children" were sexually abused in Australian institutions over decades, including churches, schools and sports clubs.


:-? :-? :-?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-44209971

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Aussie on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 9:02pm

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 8:57pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 8:45pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 8:34pm:

xeej wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 7:58pm:
The decision should have been unanimous, the doubts continue.

Looks like its off to the higher court, so says the Pope.


It is not up to the Pope to decide....The courts will decide if Pell's appeal will be heard by the High Court not the Vatican!!!

::) ::) ::)


Phil, you are over reading posts.  I read the comments of xeej to mean that it is over to the Pope to decide if an appeal to the High Court is supported by the Vatican.


Perhaps....However my statement is still correct is it not....Of course the Vatican will support an appeal and pay for it as well....This is not about Pell's guilt or innocence for the Vatican it is about saving face for the Church IMO???

:-? :-? :-?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-44209971


And there....right there......is your concession that Pell's conviction is one which emerges because that Jury (and a very large percentage of the population) wanted blood, and Pell was their available sacrificial lamb.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by philperth2010 on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 9:09pm

Aussie wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 9:02pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 8:57pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 8:45pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 8:34pm:

xeej wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 7:58pm:
The decision should have been unanimous, the doubts continue.

Looks like its off to the higher court, so says the Pope.


It is not up to the Pope to decide....The courts will decide if Pell's appeal will be heard by the High Court not the Vatican!!!

::) ::) ::)


Phil, you are over reading posts.  I read the comments of xeej to mean that it is over to the Pope to decide if an appeal to the High Court is supported by the Vatican.


Perhaps....However my statement is still correct is it not....Of course the Vatican will support an appeal and pay for it as well....This is not about Pell's guilt or innocence for the Vatican it is about saving face for the Church IMO???

:-? :-? :-?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-44209971


And there....right there......is your concession that Pell's conviction is one which emerges because that Jury (and a very large percentage of the population) wanted blood, and Pell was their available sacrificial lamb.


Aussie, you are over reading posts.....It is my contention that the Church is not interested in Pell's guilt or innocence it is about saving face for the church....How did I concede the jury convicted Pell because they want blood....You have read something into my post I never conceded???

::) ::) ::)

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Aussie on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 9:11pm
Cute.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by philperth2010 on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 9:18pm

Aussie wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 9:11pm:
Cute.


But correct!!!

:) :) :)

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Aussie on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 9:33pm

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 9:18pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 9:11pm:
Cute.


But correct!!!

:) :) :)


Aping my phrasing is nothing more than 'cute' Phil.  Write your own script.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by greggerypeccary on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 9:38pm

xeej wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 7:58pm:
The decision should have been unanimous, the doubts continue.

Looks like its off to the higher court, so says the Pope.


Indeed.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by philperth2010 on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 9:50pm

Aussie wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 9:33pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 9:18pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 9:11pm:
Cute.


But correct!!!

:) :) :)


Aping my phrasing is nothing more than 'cute' Phil.  Write your own script.


What's wrong Aussie....Don't like me pointing out you were wrong about my post???

:'( :'( :'(

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Aussie on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:12pm

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 9:50pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 9:33pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 9:18pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 9:11pm:
Cute.


But correct!!!

:) :) :)


Aping my phrasing is nothing more than 'cute' Phil.  Write your own script.


What's wrong Aussie....Don't like me pointing out you were wrong about my post???

:'( :'( :'(


It matters not what I 'like.' 


Quote:
It is my contention that the Church is not interested in Pell's guilt or innocence it is about saving face for the church....


I suspect there are many people around the traps, including me, who are solely interested in whether Pell was innocent or not.  That is, after all, the only germane point.


Quote:
How did I concede the jury convicted Pell because they want blood....


By introducing, as you continue to do, your perception (which I share) that the Church is 'guilty.'

I am not in any way concerned about any vested interest the Church may have.  What I do strongly suspect is, just like you seem to be doing, a great vast group of people have taken the view that "because the Church has been condoning this conduct for years, here is Pell, we'll take him down, sacrificially."

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by xeej on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:21pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 9:38pm:

xeej wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 7:58pm:
The decision should have been unanimous, the doubts continue.

Looks like its off to the higher court, so says the Pope.


Indeed.

Why strike out the rest?

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by cods on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:03pm

xeej wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 7:58pm:
The decision should have been unanimous, the doubts continue.

Looks like its off to the higher court, so says the Pope.



nothing has been decided xeej he has 28 days to make a decision  and the Pope would be aware of that  of course he cannot comment until THE END.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by philperth2010 on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:11pm

Aussie wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:12pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 9:50pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 9:33pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 9:18pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 9:11pm:
Cute.


But correct!!!

:) :) :)


Aping my phrasing is nothing more than 'cute' Phil.  Write your own script.


What's wrong Aussie....Don't like me pointing out you were wrong about my post???

:'( :'( :'(


It matters not what I 'like.' 


Quote:
It is my contention that the Church is not interested in Pell's guilt or innocence it is about saving face for the church....


I suspect there are many people around the traps, including me, who are solely interested in whether Pell was innocent or not.  That is, after all, the only germane point.

[quote]How did I concede the jury convicted Pell because they want blood....


By introducing, as you continue to do, your perception (which I share) that the Church is 'guilty.'

I am not in any way concerned about any vested interest the Church may have.  What I do strongly suspect is, just like you seem to be doing, a great vast group of people have taken the view that "because the Church has been condoning this conduct for years, here is Pell, we'll take him down, sacrificially."
[/quote]

Bullshit....I have never contended that because the Church has condoned this behaviour Pell is the sacrificial lamb....How do you come to this conclusion from my post....You are reading something into my post I never said!!!

Philperth wrote....

Quote:
Perhaps....However my statement is still correct is it not....Of course the Vatican will support an appeal and pay for it as well....This is not about Pell's guilt or innocence for the Vatican it is about saving face for the Church IMO???


Aussie replied....

Quote:
And there....right there......is your concession that Pell's conviction is one which emerges because that Jury (and a very large percentage of the population) wanted blood, and Pell was their available sacrificial lamb.


::) ::) ::)

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by xeej on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:20pm

cods wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:03pm:

xeej wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 7:58pm:
The decision should have been unanimous, the doubts continue.

Looks like its off to the higher court, so says the Pope.



nothing has been decided xeej he has 28 days to make a decision  and the Pope would be aware of that  of course he cannot comment until THE END.

Odds on it will go to the next level with the Popes blessing, and rightly so given there is doubt and the doubt has to come into play in the decision to take it to the highest court.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by cods on Aug 23rd, 2019 at 7:38am

xeej wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:20pm:

cods wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:03pm:

xeej wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 7:58pm:
The decision should have been unanimous, the doubts continue.

Looks like its off to the higher court, so says the Pope.



nothing has been decided xeej he has 28 days to make a decision  and the Pope would be aware of that  of course he cannot comment until THE END.

Odds on it will go to the next level with the Popes blessing, and rightly so given there is doubt and the doubt has to come into play in the decision to take it to the highest court.





not sure what the Pope has to do with anything....

if as Pell claims this never happened he has every right to go to the High Court. just like you or I have

we all know our courts do NOT get them all right...


and when judges disagree     ::) ::) ::) there is a reason..

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by xeej on Aug 23rd, 2019 at 9:39am

cods wrote on Aug 23rd, 2019 at 7:38am:

xeej wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:20pm:

cods wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:03pm:

xeej wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 7:58pm:
The decision should have been unanimous, the doubts continue.

Looks like its off to the higher court, so says the Pope.



nothing has been decided xeej he has 28 days to make a decision  and the Pope would be aware of that  of course he cannot comment until THE END.

Odds on it will go to the next level with the Popes blessing, and rightly so given there is doubt and the doubt has to come into play in the decision to take it to the highest court.





not sure what the Pope has to do with anything....

if as Pell claims this never happened he has every right to go to the High Court. just like you or I have

we all know our courts do NOT get them all right...


and when judges disagree     ::) ::) ::) there is a reason..

I don't think its automatic that it can go to the high court at Pells request or any ones request , the high court has to decide if there is a good enough reason to do so and is then sort of invited to do so, in this case with one judge going against the other two that will probably do it.

I was just saying the Vatican/Pope has not given up on him just yet.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Bojack Horseman on Aug 23rd, 2019 at 9:48am

cods wrote on Aug 23rd, 2019 at 7:38am:

xeej wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:20pm:

cods wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 11:03pm:

xeej wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 7:58pm:
The decision should have been unanimous, the doubts continue.

Looks like its off to the higher court, so says the Pope.



nothing has been decided xeej he has 28 days to make a decision  and the Pope would be aware of that  of course he cannot comment until THE END.

Odds on it will go to the next level with the Popes blessing, and rightly so given there is doubt and the doubt has to come into play in the decision to take it to the highest court.





not sure what the Pope has to do with anything....

if as Pell claims this never happened he has every right to go to the High Court. just like you or I have

we all know our courts do NOT get them all right...


and when judges disagree     ::) ::) ::) there is a reason..




That all humans interpret things differently?

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Gnads on Aug 23rd, 2019 at 10:17am

xeej wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 10:21pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 9:38pm:

xeej wrote on Aug 22nd, 2019 at 7:58pm:
The decision should have been unanimous, the doubts continue.

Looks like its off to the higher court, so says the Pope.


Indeed.

Why strike out the rest?


Because that's what he does ...... or he just selectively edits by copying & pasting a few words that he thinks helps support his view ...

in that he's consistent.  ::)

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by greggerypeccary on Aug 23rd, 2019 at 11:00am

cods wrote on Aug 23rd, 2019 at 7:38am:
if as Pell claims this never happened he has every right to go to the High Court. just like you or I have


Actually, none of us do.

It's up to the High Court to decide which cases they hear.

If they say "no, we don't want your case in the High Court", it's tough titties.

:(

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by red baron on Aug 23rd, 2019 at 6:49pm
He's been found guilty

It was a 2 - 1 decision by the panel of Judges...so what

So have thousands of other cases by a majority decision

Have you ever heard of an outcry because 1 Judge dissented

No but of course that wasn't the sacrosanct Cardinal George Pell in the box

Get over it! He's guilty..He's a dirty lowdown scumbag paedophile, no different from those loathsome creeps loitering around kids' playgrounds

A predator of the first order and worse that your suburban lowlife because he used his sacred office to ply his dirty trade

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by xeej on Aug 23rd, 2019 at 6:55pm

red baron wrote on Aug 23rd, 2019 at 6:49pm:
He's been found guilty

It was a 2 - 1 decision by the panel of Judges...so what

So have thousands of other cases by a majority decision

Have you ever heard of an outcry because 1 Judge dissented

No but of course that wasn't the sacrosanct Cardinal George Pell in the box

Get over it! He's guilty..He's a dirty lowdown scumbag pedophile, no different from those loathsome creeps loitering around kids' playgrounds

A predator of the first order and worse that your suburban lowlife because he used his sacred office to ply his dirty trade

If it goes to the high court and it goes the other way would you accept that decision.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by philperth2010 on Aug 23rd, 2019 at 7:55pm

red baron wrote on Aug 23rd, 2019 at 6:49pm:
He's been found guilty

It was a 2 - 1 decision by the panel of Judges...so what

So have thousands of other cases by a majority decision

Have you ever heard of an outcry because 1 Judge dissented

No but of course that wasn't the sacrosanct Cardinal George Pell in the box

Get over it! He's guilty..He's a dirty lowdown scumbag paedophile, no different from those loathsome creeps loitering around kids' playgrounds

A predator of the first order and worse that your suburban lowlife because he used his sacred office to ply his dirty trade


[smiley=thumbsup.gif] [smiley=thumbsup.gif] [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

The police, DPP, 12 jurors and 2 out of 3 judges believed the accuser over George Pell....As none of us were able to see the witness testimony and judge his sincerity we should accept the decision of those who did....Pell never answered questions under cross examination or face any where near the scrutiny of the victim he molested....Pell is guilty IMO!!!

:-? :-? :-?


Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by xeej on Aug 23rd, 2019 at 8:24pm

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 23rd, 2019 at 7:55pm:

red baron wrote on Aug 23rd, 2019 at 6:49pm:
He's been found guilty

It was a 2 - 1 decision by the panel of Judges...so what

So have thousands of other cases by a majority decision

Have you ever heard of an outcry because 1 Judge dissented

No but of course that wasn't the sacrosanct Cardinal George Pell in the box

Get over it! He's guilty..He's a dirty lowdown scumbag paedophile, no different from those loathsome creeps loitering around kids' playgrounds

A predator of the first order and worse that your suburban lowlife because he used his sacred office to ply his dirty trade


[smiley=thumbsup.gif] [smiley=thumbsup.gif] [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

The police, DPP, 12 jurors and 2 out of 3 judges believed the accuser over George Pell....As none of us were able to see the witness testimony and judge his sincerity we should accept the decision of those who did....Pell never answered questions under cross examination or face any where near the scrutiny of the victim he molested....Pell is guilty IMO!!!

:-? :-? :-?

Its not over until the fat lady sings, if the high court rules in Pells favor would you accept that.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Captain Nemo on Aug 25th, 2019 at 12:08pm

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Bojack Horseman on Aug 26th, 2019 at 9:39am

xeej wrote on Aug 23rd, 2019 at 8:24pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 23rd, 2019 at 7:55pm:

red baron wrote on Aug 23rd, 2019 at 6:49pm:
He's been found guilty

It was a 2 - 1 decision by the panel of Judges...so what

So have thousands of other cases by a majority decision

Have you ever heard of an outcry because 1 Judge dissented

No but of course that wasn't the sacrosanct Cardinal George Pell in the box

Get over it! He's guilty..He's a dirty lowdown scumbag paedophile, no different from those loathsome creeps loitering around kids' playgrounds

A predator of the first order and worse that your suburban lowlife because he used his sacred office to ply his dirty trade


[smiley=thumbsup.gif] [smiley=thumbsup.gif] [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

The police, DPP, 12 jurors and 2 out of 3 judges believed the accuser over George Pell....As none of us were able to see the witness testimony and judge his sincerity we should accept the decision of those who did....Pell never answered questions under cross examination or face any where near the scrutiny of the victim he molested....Pell is guilty IMO!!!

:-? :-? :-?

Its not over until the fat lady sings, if the high court rules in Pells favor would you accept that.



Yep. If the high court doesn't will you accept he's a paedophile?

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Gnads on Aug 26th, 2019 at 9:49am

Captain Nemo wrote on Aug 25th, 2019 at 12:08pm:


[smiley=thumbup.gif] [smiley=thumbup.gif]

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Bobby. on Aug 26th, 2019 at 12:38pm
Added a poll.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by greggerypeccary on Aug 26th, 2019 at 1:13pm

Bobby. wrote on Aug 26th, 2019 at 12:38pm:
Added a poll.


Are you submitting the results to the High Court?



Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Captain Caveman on Aug 26th, 2019 at 1:45pm
Guilty.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Bobby. on Aug 26th, 2019 at 2:41pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 26th, 2019 at 1:13pm:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 26th, 2019 at 12:38pm:
Added a poll.


Are you submitting the results to the High Court?



I've decided that trial by media is the way forward.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by xeej on Aug 26th, 2019 at 4:14pm

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 26th, 2019 at 9:39am:

xeej wrote on Aug 23rd, 2019 at 8:24pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 23rd, 2019 at 7:55pm:

red baron wrote on Aug 23rd, 2019 at 6:49pm:
He's been found guilty

It was a 2 - 1 decision by the panel of Judges...so what

So have thousands of other cases by a majority decision

Have you ever heard of an outcry because 1 Judge dissented

No but of course that wasn't the sacrosanct Cardinal George Pell in the box

Get over it! He's guilty..He's a dirty lowdown scumbag paedophile, no different from those loathsome creeps loitering around kids' playgrounds

A predator of the first order and worse that your suburban lowlife because he used his sacred office to ply his dirty trade


[smiley=thumbsup.gif] [smiley=thumbsup.gif] [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

The police, DPP, 12 jurors and 2 out of 3 judges believed the accuser over George Pell....As none of us were able to see the witness testimony and judge his sincerity we should accept the decision of those who did....Pell never answered questions under cross examination or face any where near the scrutiny of the victim he molested....Pell is guilty IMO!!!

:-? :-? :-?

Its not over until the fat lady sings, if the high court rules in Pells favor would you accept that.



Yep. If the high court doesn't will you accept he's a paedophile?

Mob mentality is in play here.

He will probably die in jail before it gets to the high court, if it goes there.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Bojack Horseman on Aug 26th, 2019 at 4:22pm

xeej wrote on Aug 26th, 2019 at 4:14pm:

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 26th, 2019 at 9:39am:

xeej wrote on Aug 23rd, 2019 at 8:24pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 23rd, 2019 at 7:55pm:

red baron wrote on Aug 23rd, 2019 at 6:49pm:
He's been found guilty

It was a 2 - 1 decision by the panel of Judges...so what

So have thousands of other cases by a majority decision

Have you ever heard of an outcry because 1 Judge dissented

No but of course that wasn't the sacrosanct Cardinal George Pell in the box

Get over it! He's guilty..He's a dirty lowdown scumbag paedophile, no different from those loathsome creeps loitering around kids' playgrounds

A predator of the first order and worse that your suburban lowlife because he used his sacred office to ply his dirty trade


[smiley=thumbsup.gif] [smiley=thumbsup.gif] [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

The police, DPP, 12 jurors and 2 out of 3 judges believed the accuser over George Pell....As none of us were able to see the witness testimony and judge his sincerity we should accept the decision of those who did....Pell never answered questions under cross examination or face any where near the scrutiny of the victim he molested....Pell is guilty IMO!!!

:-? :-? :-?

Its not over until the fat lady sings, if the high court rules in Pells favor would you accept that.



Yep. If the high court doesn't will you accept he's a paedophile?

Mob mentality is in play here.

He will probably die in jail before it gets to the high court, if it goes there.



Failure to answer the question also is too.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by xeej on Aug 26th, 2019 at 4:32pm

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 26th, 2019 at 4:22pm:

xeej wrote on Aug 26th, 2019 at 4:14pm:

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 26th, 2019 at 9:39am:

xeej wrote on Aug 23rd, 2019 at 8:24pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 23rd, 2019 at 7:55pm:

red baron wrote on Aug 23rd, 2019 at 6:49pm:
He's been found guilty

It was a 2 - 1 decision by the panel of Judges...so what

So have thousands of other cases by a majority decision

Have you ever heard of an outcry because 1 Judge dissented

No but of course that wasn't the sacrosanct Cardinal George Pell in the box

Get over it! He's guilty..He's a dirty lowdown scumbag paedophile, no different from those loathsome creeps loitering around kids' playgrounds

A predator of the first order and worse that your suburban lowlife because he used his sacred office to ply his dirty trade


[smiley=thumbsup.gif] [smiley=thumbsup.gif] [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

The police, DPP, 12 jurors and 2 out of 3 judges believed the accuser over George Pell....As none of us were able to see the witness testimony and judge his sincerity we should accept the decision of those who did....Pell never answered questions under cross examination or face any where near the scrutiny of the victim he molested....Pell is guilty IMO!!!

:-? :-? :-?

Its not over until the fat lady sings, if the high court rules in Pells favor would you accept that.



Yep. If the high court doesn't will you accept he's a paedophile?

Mob mentality is in play here.

He will probably die in jail before it gets to the high court, if it goes there.



Failure to answer the question also is too.

After all that has gone down and then one of the three judges deliberating for three months calling it all BS I will always have doubts, I wouldn't like being the one throwing the switch on the electric chair.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Bojack Horseman on Aug 26th, 2019 at 4:33pm

xeej wrote on Aug 26th, 2019 at 4:32pm:

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 26th, 2019 at 4:22pm:

xeej wrote on Aug 26th, 2019 at 4:14pm:

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 26th, 2019 at 9:39am:

xeej wrote on Aug 23rd, 2019 at 8:24pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 23rd, 2019 at 7:55pm:

red baron wrote on Aug 23rd, 2019 at 6:49pm:
He's been found guilty

It was a 2 - 1 decision by the panel of Judges...so what

So have thousands of other cases by a majority decision

Have you ever heard of an outcry because 1 Judge dissented

No but of course that wasn't the sacrosanct Cardinal George Pell in the box

Get over it! He's guilty..He's a dirty lowdown scumbag paedophile, no different from those loathsome creeps loitering around kids' playgrounds

A predator of the first order and worse that your suburban lowlife because he used his sacred office to ply his dirty trade


[smiley=thumbsup.gif] [smiley=thumbsup.gif] [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

The police, DPP, 12 jurors and 2 out of 3 judges believed the accuser over George Pell....As none of us were able to see the witness testimony and judge his sincerity we should accept the decision of those who did....Pell never answered questions under cross examination or face any where near the scrutiny of the victim he molested....Pell is guilty IMO!!!

:-? :-? :-?

Its not over until the fat lady sings, if the high court rules in Pells favor would you accept that.



Yep. If the high court doesn't will you accept he's a paedophile?

Mob mentality is in play here.

He will probably die in jail before it gets to the high court, if it goes there.



Failure to answer the question also is too.

After all that has gone down and then one of the three judges deliberating for three months calling it all BS I will always have doubts, I wouldn't like being the one throwing the switch on the electric chair.




Its not a capital offense.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by xeej on Aug 26th, 2019 at 4:34pm

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 26th, 2019 at 4:33pm:

xeej wrote on Aug 26th, 2019 at 4:32pm:

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 26th, 2019 at 4:22pm:

xeej wrote on Aug 26th, 2019 at 4:14pm:

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 26th, 2019 at 9:39am:

xeej wrote on Aug 23rd, 2019 at 8:24pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 23rd, 2019 at 7:55pm:

red baron wrote on Aug 23rd, 2019 at 6:49pm:
He's been found guilty

It was a 2 - 1 decision by the panel of Judges...so what

So have thousands of other cases by a majority decision

Have you ever heard of an outcry because 1 Judge dissented

No but of course that wasn't the sacrosanct Cardinal George Pell in the box

Get over it! He's guilty..He's a dirty lowdown scumbag paedophile, no different from those loathsome creeps loitering around kids' playgrounds

A predator of the first order and worse that your suburban lowlife because he used his sacred office to ply his dirty trade


[smiley=thumbsup.gif] [smiley=thumbsup.gif] [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

The police, DPP, 12 jurors and 2 out of 3 judges believed the accuser over George Pell....As none of us were able to see the witness testimony and judge his sincerity we should accept the decision of those who did....Pell never answered questions under cross examination or face any where near the scrutiny of the victim he molested....Pell is guilty IMO!!!

:-? :-? :-?

Its not over until the fat lady sings, if the high court rules in Pells favor would you accept that.



Yep. If the high court doesn't will you accept he's a paedophile?

Mob mentality is in play here.

He will probably die in jail before it gets to the high court, if it goes there.



Failure to answer the question also is too.

After all that has gone down and then one of the three judges deliberating for three months calling it all BS I will always have doubts, I wouldn't like being the one throwing the switch on the electric chair.




Its not a capital offense.

Mob mentality would want it so.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Bojack Horseman on Aug 26th, 2019 at 4:37pm

xeej wrote on Aug 26th, 2019 at 4:34pm:

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 26th, 2019 at 4:33pm:

xeej wrote on Aug 26th, 2019 at 4:32pm:

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 26th, 2019 at 4:22pm:

xeej wrote on Aug 26th, 2019 at 4:14pm:

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 26th, 2019 at 9:39am:

xeej wrote on Aug 23rd, 2019 at 8:24pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 23rd, 2019 at 7:55pm:

red baron wrote on Aug 23rd, 2019 at 6:49pm:
He's been found guilty

It was a 2 - 1 decision by the panel of Judges...so what

So have thousands of other cases by a majority decision

Have you ever heard of an outcry because 1 Judge dissented

No but of course that wasn't the sacrosanct Cardinal George Pell in the box

Get over it! He's guilty..He's a dirty lowdown scumbag paedophile, no different from those loathsome creeps loitering around kids' playgrounds

A predator of the first order and worse that your suburban lowlife because he used his sacred office to ply his dirty trade


[smiley=thumbsup.gif] [smiley=thumbsup.gif] [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

The police, DPP, 12 jurors and 2 out of 3 judges believed the accuser over George Pell....As none of us were able to see the witness testimony and judge his sincerity we should accept the decision of those who did....Pell never answered questions under cross examination or face any where near the scrutiny of the victim he molested....Pell is guilty IMO!!!

:-? :-? :-?

Its not over until the fat lady sings, if the high court rules in Pells favor would you accept that.



Yep. If the high court doesn't will you accept he's a paedophile?

Mob mentality is in play here.

He will probably die in jail before it gets to the high court, if it goes there.



Failure to answer the question also is too.

After all that has gone down and then one of the three judges deliberating for three months calling it all BS I will always have doubts, I wouldn't like being the one throwing the switch on the electric chair.




Its not a capital offense.

Mob mentality would want it so.




I have see no one call for the death penalty in this case.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by xeej on Aug 26th, 2019 at 4:51pm

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 26th, 2019 at 4:37pm:

xeej wrote on Aug 26th, 2019 at 4:34pm:

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 26th, 2019 at 4:33pm:

xeej wrote on Aug 26th, 2019 at 4:32pm:

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 26th, 2019 at 4:22pm:

xeej wrote on Aug 26th, 2019 at 4:14pm:

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 26th, 2019 at 9:39am:

xeej wrote on Aug 23rd, 2019 at 8:24pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 23rd, 2019 at 7:55pm:

red baron wrote on Aug 23rd, 2019 at 6:49pm:
He's been found guilty

It was a 2 - 1 decision by the panel of Judges...so what

So have thousands of other cases by a majority decision

Have you ever heard of an outcry because 1 Judge dissented

No but of course that wasn't the sacrosanct Cardinal George Pell in the box

Get over it! He's guilty..He's a dirty lowdown scumbag paedophile, no different from those loathsome creeps loitering around kids' playgrounds

A predator of the first order and worse that your suburban lowlife because he used his sacred office to ply his dirty trade


[smiley=thumbsup.gif] [smiley=thumbsup.gif] [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

The police, DPP, 12 jurors and 2 out of 3 judges believed the accuser over George Pell....As none of us were able to see the witness testimony and judge his sincerity we should accept the decision of those who did....Pell never answered questions under cross examination or face any where near the scrutiny of the victim he molested....Pell is guilty IMO!!!

:-? :-? :-?

Its not over until the fat lady sings, if the high court rules in Pells favor would you accept that.



Yep. If the high court doesn't will you accept he's a paedophile?

Mob mentality is in play here.

He will probably die in jail before it gets to the high court, if it goes there.



Failure to answer the question also is too.

After all that has gone down and then one of the three judges deliberating for three months calling it all BS I will always have doubts, I wouldn't like being the one throwing the switch on the electric chair.




Its not a capital offense.

Mob mentality would want it so.




I have see no one call for the death penalty in this case.

Burn him at the stake.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Piggly Wiggly on Aug 26th, 2019 at 5:42pm

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 26th, 2019 at 4:37pm:
I have see no one call for the death penalty in this case.


:)

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Gnads on Aug 26th, 2019 at 6:11pm

xeej wrote on Aug 26th, 2019 at 4:34pm:

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 26th, 2019 at 4:33pm:

xeej wrote on Aug 26th, 2019 at 4:32pm:

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 26th, 2019 at 4:22pm:

xeej wrote on Aug 26th, 2019 at 4:14pm:

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 26th, 2019 at 9:39am:

xeej wrote on Aug 23rd, 2019 at 8:24pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 23rd, 2019 at 7:55pm:

red baron wrote on Aug 23rd, 2019 at 6:49pm:
He's been found guilty

It was a 2 - 1 decision by the panel of Judges...so what

So have thousands of other cases by a majority decision

Have you ever heard of an outcry because 1 Judge dissented

No but of course that wasn't the sacrosanct Cardinal George Pell in the box

Get over it! He's guilty..He's a dirty lowdown scumbag paedophile, no different from those loathsome creeps loitering around kids' playgrounds

A predator of the first order and worse that your suburban lowlife because he used his sacred office to ply his dirty trade


[smiley=thumbsup.gif] [smiley=thumbsup.gif] [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

The police, DPP, 12 jurors and 2 out of 3 judges believed the accuser over George Pell....As none of us were able to see the witness testimony and judge his sincerity we should accept the decision of those who did....Pell never answered questions under cross examination or face any where near the scrutiny of the victim he molested....Pell is guilty IMO!!!

:-? :-? :-?

Its not over until the fat lady sings, if the high court rules in Pells favor would you accept that.



Yep. If the high court doesn't will you accept he's a paedophile?

Mob mentality is in play here.

He will probably die in jail before it gets to the high court, if it goes there.



Failure to answer the question also is too.

After all that has gone down and then one of the three judges deliberating for three months calling it all BS I will always have doubts, I wouldn't like being the one throwing the switch on the electric chair.




Its not a capital offense.

Mob mentality would want it so.


Pell aside ... I think it should be so for serial & recidivist paedophiles.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by xeej on Aug 26th, 2019 at 6:50pm

Gnads wrote on Aug 26th, 2019 at 6:11pm:

xeej wrote on Aug 26th, 2019 at 4:34pm:

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 26th, 2019 at 4:33pm:

xeej wrote on Aug 26th, 2019 at 4:32pm:

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 26th, 2019 at 4:22pm:

xeej wrote on Aug 26th, 2019 at 4:14pm:

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 26th, 2019 at 9:39am:

xeej wrote on Aug 23rd, 2019 at 8:24pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Aug 23rd, 2019 at 7:55pm:

red baron wrote on Aug 23rd, 2019 at 6:49pm:
He's been found guilty

It was a 2 - 1 decision by the panel of Judges...so what

So have thousands of other cases by a majority decision

Have you ever heard of an outcry because 1 Judge dissented

No but of course that wasn't the sacrosanct Cardinal George Pell in the box

Get over it! He's guilty..He's a dirty lowdown scumbag paedophile, no different from those loathsome creeps loitering around kids' playgrounds

A predator of the first order and worse that your suburban lowlife because he used his sacred office to ply his dirty trade


[smiley=thumbsup.gif] [smiley=thumbsup.gif] [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

The police, DPP, 12 jurors and 2 out of 3 judges believed the accuser over George Pell....As none of us were able to see the witness testimony and judge his sincerity we should accept the decision of those who did....Pell never answered questions under cross examination or face any where near the scrutiny of the victim he molested....Pell is guilty IMO!!!

:-? :-? :-?

Its not over until the fat lady sings, if the high court rules in Pells favor would you accept that.



Yep. If the high court doesn't will you accept he's a paedophile?

Mob mentality is in play here.

He will probably die in jail before it gets to the high court, if it goes there.



Failure to answer the question also is too.

After all that has gone down and then one of the three judges deliberating for three months calling it all BS I will always have doubts, I wouldn't like being the one throwing the switch on the electric chair.




Its not a capital offense.

Mob mentality would want it so.


Pell aside ... I think it should be so for serial & recidivist paedophiles.

I agree. It has to be beyond any reasonable doubt though.

Pell probably should have walked until the high courts decision since reasonable doubt has been established.


Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Ye Grappler on Aug 26th, 2019 at 8:40pm
"The police, DPP, 12 jurors and 2 out of 3 judges believed the accuser"

The police believe what is convenient for them to believe and generally exclude any ex-culpatory evidence... actually it doesn't matter what they believe - they simply want to build a case.. any case, and are, like the DPP, afraid to appear to not 'act on behalf of a victim'.

The DPP has already been accused by a SC of putting frivolous matters before the courts out of fear of not appearing to 'protect the rights of the victim' - something that has taken far too much control over our judicial system, just like 'guilt by emotion' has become the norm.

12 jurors - obviously they did not grasp the concepts of 'he says - he says' and the vast lapse of time between alleged offence and testimony, which used to render such testimony obsolete and unusable.

2 out of 3 judges based their opinion on believing the credibility of the accuser over the defendant?  Where are the rights of the accused in all this?  Just an opinion on whether or not the single unsupported witness was credible?  How more credible than the defence?

Judgement by emotion.... as we have come to expect... any excuse to convict, as was always the norm in our courts - but now reinforced by this 'need' to not appear to be 'blaming the victim' - regardless that there is NO victim in THAT specific allegation** until a case is fully and properly proven beyond any doubt.


** the victim may well be a victim - just not necessarily in that case, and in that case not until the proper legal handling has taken place...which I believe has NOT taken place here.  Do try to see the difference.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Ye Grappler on Aug 26th, 2019 at 8:41pm

xeej wrote on Aug 26th, 2019 at 6:50pm:
I agree. It has to be beyond any reasonable doubt though.

Pell probably should have walked until the high courts decision since reasonable doubt has been established.


I think so, too.  Now let's see if the next court will do the same as the others.. and find on an assumption of the credibility of the alleged victim alone as sufficient.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Sir Spot of Borg on Aug 27th, 2019 at 8:01am
For the poll my answer is i dont know

Spot

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Ye Grappler on Aug 27th, 2019 at 9:13am
Voice of sense, borg - thing is - if you are on a jury and you don't KNOW, you cannot find guilty.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Bojack Horseman on Aug 27th, 2019 at 9:15am

Ye Grappler wrote on Aug 26th, 2019 at 8:41pm:

xeej wrote on Aug 26th, 2019 at 6:50pm:
I agree. It has to be beyond any reasonable doubt though.

Pell probably should have walked until the high courts decision since reasonable doubt has been established.


I think so, too.  Now let's see if the next court will do the same as the others.. and find on an assumption of the credibility of the alleged victim alone as sufficient.




I'm glad everyone here is commenting on the outside view of the trial. My understsanding is that it wasn't just based on the credibility of the victim.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by cods on Aug 27th, 2019 at 9:18am

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 8:01am:
For the poll my answer is i dont know

Spot



none of us were there at the time spot.. its a dumb poll..

it isnt up to us anyway...

if the question asked was it a fair trial I would say NO...to me if they were going to go to the lengths of showing the jury where it happened and his robes.. they should have re enacted  the whole thing....to me it doesnt sound in the least possible...from what I read   that is all the comment I can make..

he has as much right to go to the High Court as anyone else does...he like the rest of us  is in the hands of a few judges now....

we have no right to JUDGE HIM. imo.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by cods on Aug 27th, 2019 at 9:20am

Ye Grappler wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 9:13am:
Voice of sense, borg - thing is - if you are on a jury and you don't KNOW, you cannot find guilty.



that is true.....do we know what the judge told the jury before asking them to find a verdict?....

the judge has a lot of sway doesnt he?....

a lot of people had already made up their minds long ago,


Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by greggerypeccary on Aug 27th, 2019 at 9:25am

cods wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 9:18am:
he has as much right to go to the High Court as anyone else does...he like the rest of us  is in the hands of a few judges now....


Just to clarify, none of us actually have a right to go to the High Court.

We only have the right to ask them to hear our case - they're under no obligation to accommodate the request though.

But yes, if I was Pell, I'd be making the request as quickly and as loudly as I could.

The statement from the dissenting judge just can't be ignored.


Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by cods on Aug 27th, 2019 at 9:31am

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 9:25am:

cods wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 9:18am:
he has as much right to go to the High Court as anyone else does...he like the rest of us  is in the hands of a few judges now....


Just to clarify, none of us actually have a right to go to the High Court.

We only have the right to ask them to hear our case - they're under no obligation to accommodate the request though.

But yes, if I was Pell, I'd be making the request as quickly and as loudly as I could.

The statement from the dissenting judge just can't be ignored.




yes well I think most understand what I meant...the court system is there for everyone.... we all have to go through the same process....but we all can   is what I meant..

if the High Court snubs him I will be amazed.. even you and I can see the flaws in his trial...but I am not sure this appeal is about that?..

I am getting so confused


Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by greggerypeccary on Aug 27th, 2019 at 9:33am

cods wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 9:31am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 9:25am:

cods wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 9:18am:
he has as much right to go to the High Court as anyone else does...he like the rest of us  is in the hands of a few judges now....


Just to clarify, none of us actually have a right to go to the High Court.

We only have the right to ask them to hear our case - they're under no obligation to accommodate the request though.

But yes, if I was Pell, I'd be making the request as quickly and as loudly as I could.

The statement from the dissenting judge just can't be ignored.




yes well I think most understand what I meant...the court system is there for everyone.... we all have to go through the same process....but we all can   is what I meant..

if the High Court snubs him I will be amazed.. even you and I can see the flaws in his trial...but I am not sure this appeal is about that?..

I am getting so confused


Yes I know what you meant, I wasn't having a go at you - just clarifying for everyone.

I'd be surprised if they refuse his request too.

The dissenting judge is highly respected and very experienced - he can't be ignored.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Aussie on Aug 27th, 2019 at 9:34am

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 9:25am:

cods wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 9:18am:
he has as much right to go to the High Court as anyone else does...he like the rest of us  is in the hands of a few judges now....


Just to clarify, none of us actually have a right to go to the High Court.

We only have the right to ask them to hear our case - they're under no obligation to accommodate the request though.

But yes, if I was Pell, I'd be making the request as quickly and as loudly as I could.

The statement from the dissenting judge just can't be ignored.


The whole history of the matter demonstrates how unsatisfactory the position is.  First Jury could not arrive at a verdict.  Second Jury convicts.  2-1 split Court of Appeal.  A conviction based on the totally uncorroborated evidence of one witness purporting to speak of events which allegedly occurred decades ago.

My record on this case is not flash.....but, given those circumstances I reckon the High Court will grant leave to appeal.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by cods on Aug 27th, 2019 at 9:53am

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 9:33am:
The dissenting judge is highly respected and very experienced - he can't be ignored.



I know nothing about judges..so will take your word for it..he appears to be the most vocal I see that as favorable to Pell...

lets face it  he will always be guilty as far as some are concerned..  and I am sure he is well aware of that...

I want to believe he is innocent... seriously  I cannot comprehend it..   but thats being selfish  no I am not a Catholic  but I try to have a little faith..

and so help me I havent got any faith in our legal system/

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by greggerypeccary on Aug 27th, 2019 at 9:59am

cods wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 9:53am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 9:33am:
The dissenting judge is highly respected and very experienced - he can't be ignored.



I know nothing about judges..so will take your word for it..he appears to be the most vocal I see that as favorable to Pell...

lets face it  he will always be guilty as far as some are concerned..  and I am sure he is well aware of that...

I want to believe he is innocent... seriously  I cannot comprehend it..   but thats being selfish  no I am not a Catholic  but I try to have a little faith..

and so help me I havent got any faith in our legal system/


From 1984 to 1985, Weinberg was Dean of the Faculty of Law at the University of Melbourne, having previously served as Acting Dean and Deputy Dean.

In 1986, Weinberg was appointed Queen's Counsel.

From 1988 until 1991, he was Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.

After being appointed to the Federal Court in 1998, Weinberg also held appointments as Deputy President of the Federal Police Disciplinary Tribunal, non-resident Judge of the Supreme Court of Fiji, additional Judge of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Norfolk Island.

He resigned from the Federal Court and his other appointments in 2008 in order to take up office as a judge of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria.

In 2017, Justice Weinberg was appointed an Officer of the Order of Australia for distinguished service to the judiciary and to the law, particularly through reforms to criminal law and procedure, to legal education in Victoria, and to the administration of justice in Fiji and Norfolk Island.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Sir Spot of Borg on Aug 27th, 2019 at 10:33am

Ye Grappler wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 9:13am:
Voice of sense, borg - thing is - if you are on a jury and you don't KNOW, you cannot find guilty.


Thats a good thing IMO - i wouldn't want to find guilty if i dont know

Spot

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by cods on Aug 27th, 2019 at 11:53am

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 10:33am:

Ye Grappler wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 9:13am:
Voice of sense, borg - thing is - if you are on a jury and you don't KNOW, you cannot find guilty.


Thats a good thing IMO - i wouldn't want to find guilty if i dont know

Spot




we have a tall poppy being charged with sexual abuse....about 23 years ago.....one mans memory against another mans...

at the end of the day     its all about who you believe...

truly this man was condemned before his trial.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Bojack Horseman on Aug 27th, 2019 at 12:12pm

cods wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 11:53am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 10:33am:

Ye Grappler wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 9:13am:
Voice of sense, borg - thing is - if you are on a jury and you don't KNOW, you cannot find guilty.


Thats a good thing IMO - i wouldn't want to find guilty if i dont know

Spot




we have a tall poppy being charged with sexual abuse....about 23 years ago.....one mans memory against another mans...

at the end of the day     its all about who you believe...

truly this man was condemned before his trial.



No, its not, theres more.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Aussie on Aug 27th, 2019 at 12:24pm

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 9:15am:

Ye Grappler wrote on Aug 26th, 2019 at 8:41pm:

xeej wrote on Aug 26th, 2019 at 6:50pm:
I agree. It has to be beyond any reasonable doubt though.

Pell probably should have walked until the high courts decision since reasonable doubt has been established.


I think so, too.  Now let's see if the next court will do the same as the others.. and find on an assumption of the credibility of the alleged victim alone as sufficient.




I'm glad everyone here is commenting on the outside view of the trial. My understsanding is that it wasn't just based on the credibility of the victim.


What else was it based on?

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Bojack Horseman on Aug 27th, 2019 at 12:29pm

Aussie wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 12:24pm:

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 9:15am:

Ye Grappler wrote on Aug 26th, 2019 at 8:41pm:

xeej wrote on Aug 26th, 2019 at 6:50pm:
I agree. It has to be beyond any reasonable doubt though.

Pell probably should have walked until the high courts decision since reasonable doubt has been established.


I think so, too.  Now let's see if the next court will do the same as the others.. and find on an assumption of the credibility of the alleged victim alone as sufficient.




I'm glad everyone here is commenting on the outside view of the trial. My understsanding is that it wasn't just based on the credibility of the victim.


What else was it based on?



There was also some supporting witnesses, examination of evidence etc so I am led to believe. at least on the journos I follow on Twitter like Louise Milligan who actually went to the trial

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Bojack Horseman on Aug 27th, 2019 at 12:32pm
Having said that my impression was the credibility of the victim was the main thing the jury based their statement on,


but from this link http://theconversation.com/george-pell-has-lost-his-appeal-what-did-the-court-decide-and-what-happens-now-118054

Is it a problem that the prosecution relied on the complainant’s evidence?
No. Child sexual abuse typically is inflicted in secret, without other evidence, so prosecutions often depend heavily on complainant testimony.  The law recognises this: evidence does not have to be corroborated, and the judge must not warn the jury it is dangerous to act on uncorroborated evidence.

Juries make judgments based on the complainant account’s credibility, consistency, detail and truthfulness, and responses and demeanour in cross-examination.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by greggerypeccary on Aug 27th, 2019 at 12:38pm

Justice Weinberg, who served as a Federal Court judge from 1998 to 2008, sat on the Court of Appeal from 2008 until he retired in 2018 when he was named as a reserve judge of the Supreme Court.

He says there is a "significant possibility" the cardinal did not commit the child sex crimes he's in jail for and would have acquitted him.

Justice Mark Weinberg said he was not convinced by the victim's evidence and could not exclude the possibility that some parts of the former choirboy's testimony were "concocted".


Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Bojack Horseman on Aug 27th, 2019 at 12:46pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 12:38pm:
Justice Weinberg, who served as a Federal Court judge from 1998 to 2008, sat on the Court of Appeal from 2008 until he retired in 2018 when he was named as a reserve judge of the Supreme Court.

He says there is a "significant possibility" the cardinal did not commit the child sex crimes he's in jail for and would have acquitted him.

Justice Mark Weinberg said he was not convinced by the victim's evidence and could not exclude the possibility that some parts of the former choirboy's testimony were "concocted".



Cheers for repetition, should I repeat that all jurors and 2 judges didnt have the same doubt?

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by greggerypeccary on Aug 27th, 2019 at 12:50pm

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 12:46pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 12:38pm:
Justice Weinberg, who served as a Federal Court judge from 1998 to 2008, sat on the Court of Appeal from 2008 until he retired in 2018 when he was named as a reserve judge of the Supreme Court.

He says there is a "significant possibility" the cardinal did not commit the child sex crimes he's in jail for and would have acquitted him.

Justice Mark Weinberg said he was not convinced by the victim's evidence and could not exclude the possibility that some parts of the former choirboy's testimony were "concocted".



Cheers for repetition, should I repeat that all jurors and 2 judges didnt have the same doubt?


It's an important point that shouldn't be overlooked.

Your point, by the way, isn't being overlooked.

If it was, Pell wouldn't be in a prison cell right now.

The most experienced Judge at the appeal has serious doubts about Pell's guilt and the boy's testimony.

Moreover, Pell maintains his innocence.

This needs further investigation - it needs to go to the High Court.


Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Bojack Horseman on Aug 27th, 2019 at 12:52pm
Thats for the High court to decide.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Aussie on Aug 27th, 2019 at 1:44pm

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 12:32pm:
Having said that my impression was the credibility of the victim was the main thing the jury based their statement on,


but from this link http://theconversation.com/george-pell-has-lost-his-appeal-what-did-the-court-decide-and-what-happens-now-118054

Is it a problem that the prosecution relied on the complainant’s evidence?
No. Child sexual abuse typically is inflicted in secret, without other evidence, so prosecutions often depend heavily on complainant testimony.  The law recognises this: evidence does not have to be corroborated, and the judge must not warn the jury it is dangerous to act on uncorroborated evidence.

Juries make judgments based on the complainant account’s credibility, consistency, detail and truthfulness, and responses and demeanour in cross-examination.


Nah.

Link.

Maybe Victoria is different.

Queensland:


Quote:
Queensland Consolidated Acts
[Index] [Table] [Search] [Search this Act] [Notes] [Noteup] [Previous] [Next] [Download] [Help]
CRIMINAL CODE 1899 - SECT 632
Corroboration
632 Corroboration

    (1) A person may be convicted of an offence on the uncorroborated testimony of 1 witness, unless this Code expressly provides to the contrary.

        Example—

            See sections 52 (Sedition), 125 (Evidence on charge of perjury) and 195 (Evidence).

    (2) On the trial of a person for an offence, a judge is not required by any rule of law or practice to warn the jury that it is unsafe to convict the accused on the uncorroborated testimony of 1 witness.

    (3) Subsection (1) or (2) does not prevent a judge from making a comment on the evidence given in the trial that it is appropriate to make in the interests of justice, but the judge must not warn or suggest in any way to the jury that the law regards any class of persons as unreliable witnesses.


Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Ye Grappler on Aug 27th, 2019 at 2:03pm

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 12:32pm:
Having said that my impression was the credibility of the victim was the main thing the jury based their statement on,


but from this link http://theconversation.com/george-pell-has-lost-his-appeal-what-did-the-court-decide-and-what-happens-now-118054

Is it a problem that the prosecution relied on the complainant’s evidence?
No. Child sexual abuse typically is inflicted in secret, without other evidence, so prosecutions often depend heavily on complainant testimony.  The law recognises this: evidence does not have to be corroborated, and the judge must not warn the jury it is dangerous to act on uncorroborated evidence.

Juries make judgments based on the complainant account’s credibility, consistency, detail and truthfulness, and responses and demeanour in cross-examination.


Thank you for calling out the collapse of values in our legal/judicial system, with all favour going to the accuser and not the defendant, and the increasing proclivity to find on unsupported bases.... clearly there is a dire need to restore the value of the judicial process, and to install a mandatory requirement for corroboration of some kind.

It is not outside the realm of probability that over years a person may have enhanced a story, and by repetition, have had it become 'their' reality .....

I've met some convincing liars over the years..... including, sadly, an old digger mate of mine who appropriated other stories for his own and sold it whole to the shrinks to get TPI.  Academy Award stuff... but not that hard to do given the propensity of DVA  to allocate PTSD as a reason when other factors are actually involved, such as poisoning from medical compounds (more PTSD payouts from East Timor and Bougainville than Iraq and Afghanistan)...

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Ye Grappler on Aug 27th, 2019 at 2:10pm

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 12:29pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 12:24pm:

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 9:15am:

Ye Grappler wrote on Aug 26th, 2019 at 8:41pm:

xeej wrote on Aug 26th, 2019 at 6:50pm:
I agree. It has to be beyond any reasonable doubt though.

Pell probably should have walked until the high courts decision since reasonable doubt has been established.


I think so, too.  Now let's see if the next court will do the same as the others.. and find on an assumption of the credibility of the alleged victim alone as sufficient.




I'm glad everyone here is commenting on the outside view of the trial. My understsanding is that it wasn't just based on the credibility of the victim.


What else was it based on?



There was also some supporting witnesses, examination of evidence etc so I am led to believe. at least on the journos I follow on Twitter like Louise Milligan who actually went to the trial


What kind of supporting witnesses?  I heard of a man who heard of a man who says ????

I thought the only corroborating witness had died....... kind of convenient both ways, eh?

You're talking here to a man who, with the ex, was accused of being mean to her lapsing into dementia mother-in-law shortly before she was put into a home - and the 'witness' was the lady who came in to clean her house the day after....

Um.... yes ..... yes... this nonsense could have lead to blows being exchanged .... and I still await my apology... of course, the fact that the accuser was a beneficiary in the old lady's will and later said:- "the longer we keep nanny alive, the more money it means to us" to his siblings - who now do not speak to him.

"err.. I've got a witness..." .. and when I tried to speak up for my ex, who was also accused, I had offers of violence that could have lead to the offerer being smashed through a wall... do not laugh... do not anger a nice guy...

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by cods on Aug 27th, 2019 at 2:15pm

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 12:12pm:

cods wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 11:53am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 10:33am:

Ye Grappler wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 9:13am:
Voice of sense, borg - thing is - if you are on a jury and you don't KNOW, you cannot find guilty.


Thats a good thing IMO - i wouldn't want to find guilty if i dont know

Spot




we have a tall poppy being charged with sexual abuse....about 23 years ago.....one mans memory against another mans...

at the end of the day     its all about who you believe...

truly this man was condemned before his trial.



No, its not, theres more.



thats correct  he is being punished because they cannot punish the CATHOLIC CHURCH.

they meaning those who were abused... all of them..

cannot put the catholic church in jail....no matter what they do or say or claim the Catholic Church will remain   and like the inquisitions  the accusations will become folklore...

this way they get a head  a very tall poppy head indeed.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by greggerypeccary on Aug 27th, 2019 at 2:21pm

Ye Grappler wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 2:10pm:
I thought the only corroborating witness had died....... kind of convenient both ways, eh?


He died, but he wasn't a corroborating witness.

He never made a complaint to the police.

In fact, I'm pretty sure he told his family that it never happened.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Aussie on Aug 27th, 2019 at 2:26pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 2:21pm:

Ye Grappler wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 2:10pm:
I thought the only corroborating witness had died....... kind of convenient both ways, eh?


He died, but he wasn't a corroborating witness.

He never made a complaint to the police.

In fact, I'm pretty sure he told his family that it never happened.



He was asked by his Mother if he had ever been molested and he said that he hadn't.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by greggerypeccary on Aug 27th, 2019 at 2:31pm

Aussie wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 2:26pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 2:21pm:

Ye Grappler wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 2:10pm:
I thought the only corroborating witness had died....... kind of convenient both ways, eh?


He died, but he wasn't a corroborating witness.

He never made a complaint to the police.

In fact, I'm pretty sure he told his family that it never happened.



He was asked by his Mother if he had ever been molested and he said that he hadn't.


Extraordinary.


Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by greggerypeccary on Aug 27th, 2019 at 2:36pm

Ye Grappler wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 2:03pm:
It is not outside the realm of probability that over years a person may have enhanced a story, and by repetition, have had it become 'their' reality .....


^ This

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Bojack Horseman on Aug 27th, 2019 at 2:44pm

Aussie wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 2:26pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 2:21pm:

Ye Grappler wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 2:10pm:
I thought the only corroborating witness had died....... kind of convenient both ways, eh?


He died, but he wasn't a corroborating witness.

He never made a complaint to the police.

In fact, I'm pretty sure he told his family that it never happened.



He was asked by his Mother if he had ever been molested and he said that he hadn't.




That doesn't prove much either way, its long been shown that some victims of molestation dont tell family or friends

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by greggerypeccary on Aug 27th, 2019 at 2:47pm

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 2:44pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 2:26pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 2:21pm:

Ye Grappler wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 2:10pm:
I thought the only corroborating witness had died....... kind of convenient both ways, eh?


He died, but he wasn't a corroborating witness.

He never made a complaint to the police.

In fact, I'm pretty sure he told his family that it never happened.



He was asked by his Mother if he had ever been molested and he said that he hadn't.




That doesn't prove much either way, its long been shown that some victims of molestation dont tell family or friends


It's not that he didn't tell.

It's the fact that he was specifically asked, and said 'no'.


Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Bojack Horseman on Aug 27th, 2019 at 2:54pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 2:47pm:

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 2:44pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 2:26pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 2:21pm:

Ye Grappler wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 2:10pm:
I thought the only corroborating witness had died....... kind of convenient both ways, eh?


He died, but he wasn't a corroborating witness.

He never made a complaint to the police.

In fact, I'm pretty sure he told his family that it never happened.



He was asked by his Mother if he had ever been molested and he said that he hadn't.




That doesn't prove much either way, its long been shown that some victims of molestation dont tell family or friends


It's not that he didn't tell.

It's the fact that he was specifically asked, and said 'no'.



I don't see how that negates anything. He still could have been too afraid to tell.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Aussie on Aug 27th, 2019 at 2:56pm
Afraid to tell his Mother?

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Bojack Horseman on Aug 27th, 2019 at 2:59pm

Aussie wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 2:56pm:
Afraid to tell his Mother?



Yep, plenty of people do it on the basis they may be ostracised from their family. My key take home point is that telling/not telling someone is individual and not for us to judge.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Aussie on Aug 27th, 2019 at 3:05pm

Aussie wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 2:56pm:
Afraid to tell his Mother?


Link.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by greggerypeccary on Aug 27th, 2019 at 3:08pm

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 2:54pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 2:47pm:

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 2:44pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 2:26pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 2:21pm:

Ye Grappler wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 2:10pm:
I thought the only corroborating witness had died....... kind of convenient both ways, eh?


He died, but he wasn't a corroborating witness.

He never made a complaint to the police.

In fact, I'm pretty sure he told his family that it never happened.



He was asked by his Mother if he had ever been molested and he said that he hadn't.




That doesn't prove much either way, its long been shown that some victims of molestation dont tell family or friends


It's not that he didn't tell.

It's the fact that he was specifically asked, and said 'no'.



I don't see how that negates anything. He still could have been too afraid to tell.


Yep.

He could have been telling the truth too.

It seems a bit harsh to assume he was lying when he said 'no'.


Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Bojack Horseman on Aug 27th, 2019 at 3:11pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 3:08pm:

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 2:54pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 2:47pm:

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 2:44pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 2:26pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 2:21pm:

Ye Grappler wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 2:10pm:
I thought the only corroborating witness had died....... kind of convenient both ways, eh?


He died, but he wasn't a corroborating witness.

He never made a complaint to the police.

In fact, I'm pretty sure he told his family that it never happened.



He was asked by his Mother if he had ever been molested and he said that he hadn't.




That doesn't prove much either way, its long been shown that some victims of molestation dont tell family or friends


It's not that he didn't tell.

It's the fact that he was specifically asked, and said 'no'.



I don't see how that negates anything. He still could have been too afraid to tell.


Yep.

He could have been telling the truth too.

It seems a bit harsh to assume he was lying when he said 'no'.



I don't think its cruel, I just think it's irrelevant.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by cods on Aug 27th, 2019 at 3:12pm

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 2:59pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 2:56pm:
Afraid to tell his Mother?



Yep, plenty of people do it on the basis they may be ostracised from their family. My key take home point is that telling/not telling someone is individual and not for us to judge.



that surely is an excuse for the way you believe things happened.....

many sexualy abused kids have told a parent what happened.... and not been believed....its the parent who got it wrong in the end....

ask yourself why would a mother LIE about something that serious?.....

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by greggerypeccary on Aug 27th, 2019 at 3:12pm

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 3:11pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 3:08pm:

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 2:54pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 2:47pm:

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 2:44pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 2:26pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 2:21pm:

Ye Grappler wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 2:10pm:
I thought the only corroborating witness had died....... kind of convenient both ways, eh?


He died, but he wasn't a corroborating witness.

He never made a complaint to the police.

In fact, I'm pretty sure he told his family that it never happened.



He was asked by his Mother if he had ever been molested and he said that he hadn't.




That doesn't prove much either way, its long been shown that some victims of molestation dont tell family or friends


It's not that he didn't tell.

It's the fact that he was specifically asked, and said 'no'.



I don't see how that negates anything. He still could have been too afraid to tell.


Yep.

He could have been telling the truth too.

It seems a bit harsh to assume he was lying when he said 'no'.



I don't think its cruel, I just think it's irrelevant.


A guy you've never met, and you automatically assume he's a liar?   :-/

Seems harsh to me.


Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Bojack Horseman on Aug 27th, 2019 at 3:18pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 3:12pm:

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 3:11pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 3:08pm:

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 2:54pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 2:47pm:

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 2:44pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 2:26pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 2:21pm:

Ye Grappler wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 2:10pm:
I thought the only corroborating witness had died....... kind of convenient both ways, eh?


He died, but he wasn't a corroborating witness.

He never made a complaint to the police.

In fact, I'm pretty sure he told his family that it never happened.



He was asked by his Mother if he had ever been molested and he said that he hadn't.




That doesn't prove much either way, its long been shown that some victims of molestation dont tell family or friends


It's not that he didn't tell.

It's the fact that he was specifically asked, and said 'no'.



I don't see how that negates anything. He still could have been too afraid to tell.


Yep.

He could have been telling the truth too.

It seems a bit harsh to assume he was lying when he said 'no'.



I don't think its cruel, I just think it's irrelevant.


A guy you've never met, and you automatically assume he's a liar?   :-/

Seems harsh to me.



Seems idiotic you'd reach that conclusion.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Aussie on Aug 27th, 2019 at 3:20pm
Whatever.....it is just another element which adds to the level of dissatisfaction I have with the position.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Bojack Horseman on Aug 27th, 2019 at 3:22pm

cods wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 3:12pm:

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 2:59pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 2:56pm:
Afraid to tell his Mother?



Yep, plenty of people do it on the basis they may be ostracised from their family. My key take home point is that telling/not telling someone is individual and not for us to judge.



that surely is an excuse for the way you believe things happened.....

many sexualy abused kids have told a parent what happened.... and not been believed....its the parent who got it wrong in the end....

ask yourself why would a mother LIE about something that serious?.....



Umm, try rereading, I'm saying that some people choose to speak up about their abuse, others don't.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Bojack Horseman on Aug 27th, 2019 at 3:22pm

Aussie wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 3:20pm:
Whatever.....it is just another element which adds to the level of dissatisfaction I have with the position.



Good lawyers argument that one.....whatever.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Aussie on Aug 27th, 2019 at 3:25pm

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 3:22pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 3:20pm:
Whatever.....it is just another element which adds to the level of dissatisfaction I have with the position.



Good lawyers argument that one.....whatever.


I don't reckon it is going anywhere to double guess why he denied any molestation when his Mother asked him when he was a 'teenager.'  Fact is...she asked, and he said 'No.'

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Bojack Horseman on Aug 27th, 2019 at 3:26pm

Aussie wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 3:25pm:

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 3:22pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 3:20pm:
Whatever.....it is just another element which adds to the level of dissatisfaction I have with the position.



Good lawyers argument that one.....whatever.


I don't reckon it is going anywhere to double guess why he denied any molestation when his Mother asked him when he was a 'teenager.'  Fact is...she asked, and he said 'No.'




I'm not the ne double guessing, everyone here seems to suggest it includes doubt, and I'm saying it doesn't on the basis its irrelevant.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Aussie on Aug 27th, 2019 at 3:28pm
It occurred.  It is germane.  It is directly relevant.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Bojack Horseman on Aug 27th, 2019 at 3:30pm

Aussie wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 3:28pm:
It occurred.  It is germane.  It is directly relevant.



And the fact that we know that some victims of abuse don't admit the abuse to me shows no relevancy to the existence of the abuse. And thus the 12 jurors, two judges didn't think it was relevant.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by greggerypeccary on Aug 27th, 2019 at 3:39pm

Aussie wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 3:28pm:
It occurred.  It is germane.  It is directly relevant.


Absolutely.

It couldn't be more relevant.


Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Bojack Horseman on Aug 27th, 2019 at 3:41pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 3:39pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 3:28pm:
It occurred.  It is germane.  It is directly relevant.


Absolutely.

It couldn't be more relevant.



Given that it hasn't been relevant to cases in the past, its not relevant now. But hey, I risk getting into gregs MO so I'm leaving this thread until the high court decision is reached

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by greggerypeccary on Aug 27th, 2019 at 3:58pm

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 3:41pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 3:39pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 3:28pm:
It occurred.  It is germane.  It is directly relevant.


Absolutely.

It couldn't be more relevant.



Given that it hasn't been relevant to cases in the past, its not relevant now. But hey, I risk getting into gregs MO so I'm leaving this thread until the high court decision is reached


:-/

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Sir Spot of Borg on Aug 27th, 2019 at 4:14pm

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 12:12pm:

cods wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 11:53am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 10:33am:

Ye Grappler wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 9:13am:
Voice of sense, borg - thing is - if you are on a jury and you don't KNOW, you cannot find guilty.


Thats a good thing IMO - i wouldn't want to find guilty if i dont know

Spot




we have a tall poppy being charged with sexual abuse....about 23 years ago.....one mans memory against another mans...

at the end of the day     its all about who you believe...

truly this man was condemned before his trial.



No, its not, theres more.


What?

Spot

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Sir Spot of Borg on Aug 27th, 2019 at 4:20pm

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 3:22pm:

cods wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 3:12pm:

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 2:59pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 2:56pm:
Afraid to tell his Mother?



Yep, plenty of people do it on the basis they may be ostracised from their family. My key take home point is that telling/not telling someone is individual and not for us to judge.



that surely is an excuse for the way you believe things happened.....

many sexualy abused kids have told a parent what happened.... and not been believed....its the parent who got it wrong in the end....

ask yourself why would a mother LIE about something that serious?.....



Umm, try rereading, I'm saying that some people choose to speak up about their abuse, others don't.


You and there are usually good reasons for both positions

Spot

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Ye Grappler on Aug 28th, 2019 at 12:27am

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 3:12pm:

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 3:11pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 3:08pm:

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 2:54pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 2:47pm:

Bojack Horseman wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 2:44pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 2:26pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 2:21pm:

Ye Grappler wrote on Aug 27th, 2019 at 2:10pm:
I thought the only corroborating witness had died....... kind of convenient both ways, eh?


He died, but he wasn't a corroborating witness.

He never made a complaint to the police.

In fact, I'm pretty sure he told his family that it never happened.



He was asked by his Mother if he had ever been molested and he said that he hadn't.




That doesn't prove much either way, its long been shown that some victims of molestation dont tell family or friends


It's not that he didn't tell.

It's the fact that he was specifically asked, and said 'no'.



I don't see how that negates anything. He still could have been too afraid to tell.


Yep.

He could have been telling the truth too.

It seems a bit harsh to assume he was lying when he said 'no'.



I don't think its cruel, I just think it's irrelevant.


A guy you've never met, and you automatically assume he's a liar?   :-/

Seems harsh to me.


We're talking about the deceased guy who said it never happened?

Right - what reason would he have to lie?  In the current climate he had a lot to gain in many ways.... 'closure', revenge, and monetary compensation...

Jeez - I might have to put in a claim of abuse from the time my 'mother' dumped my brother and I in a Catholic orphanage....... you really have to read the book when it comes out.... my sister says - "Mother?  she just gave birth to us" .... the other sister's husband once told 'mum' she wasn't a mother's arsehole.... he's a Koon, BTW..... he knows which way is up and which down....

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Captain Nemo on Aug 28th, 2019 at 10:13am
The OzPol verdict is in.

6 -> 4 Guilty.

Orf with his head!   :P

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by philperth2010 on Aug 28th, 2019 at 10:19am
Appeal will be rejected and Pell will remain guilty IMO!!!

::) ::) ::)

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Aussie on Sep 12th, 2019 at 12:09pm
This should give Pell some cheer.

Link.


Quote:
A JUNK mail deliverer found guilty of murdering Macleay Island grandmother Liselotte Watson will be released from prison after the High Court quashed his conviction.

Steven Fennell will be released immediately, having spent nearly seven years in jail, after Australia’s highest court found his conviction was unreasonable and unsupported by evidence.


Seven bloody years!!!!!


Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Aussie on Sep 17th, 2019 at 4:58pm
So.......Pell is (unsurprisingly) off to the High Court.  I reckon the High Court will grant leave to appeal.....not sure after that......because this issue of being convicted on the totally uncorroborated evidence of a complainant when there is a total denial and questions about surroundings circumstances needs definition.

Link.


Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Aussie on Sep 26th, 2019 at 2:13pm
Inspector Jacques Clouseau-Bolt.  Interesting analysis:

Link.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by greggerypeccary on Sep 26th, 2019 at 2:15pm

Aussie wrote on Sep 26th, 2019 at 2:13pm:
Inspector Jacques Clouseau-Bolt.  Interesting analysis:

Link.



Pay wall   :(

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Aussie on Sep 26th, 2019 at 2:40pm
That's odd.  I could access it.  Anyway:


Quote:
Last Sunday, I walked the route a man says he took as a 13-year-old choirboy before he was raped by Cardinal George Pell. I timed it. And I am stunned.

Did Victoria’s most senior judges make a terrible mistake in their maths when they ruled against Pell last month?

Did they keep an innocent man in jail, convicted of sexual assaults he could not possibly have done?

Pell is now asking the High Court for leave to appeal against the two-to-one finding last month of Victoria’s Court of Appeal, which decided the jury verdict against Pell was not unreasonable.

Pell’s 12-page application makes a powerful case that Chief Justice Anne Ferguson and Court of Appeal president Chris Maxwell set an impossibly high hurdle — and a legally mistaken one — by effectively making Pell prove his innocence.

The two judges in effect ruled that as long as it was possible Pell did one highly unlikely thing after another, it was open to a jury to declare him guilty beyond reasonable doubt — even though taken together the unlikely may seem impossible.

So the jury could reasonably believe Pell slipped away from his procession after Mass, didn’t stay to talk to parishioners as usual, escaped the MC who always accompanied him, found and raped two boys he didn’t know and raped them in the normally busy sacristy with the door open.
George Pell arrives at Melbourne Magistrates’ Court. Picture: AP
George Pell arrives at Melbourne Magistrates’ Court. Picture: AP

Oh and he did this when one of the boys, now dead, told his mother he didn’t.

But it was something else that got me walking the route that Pell’s sole accuser said he took — a line in Pell’s application quoting what the two judges themselves said must have happened if the accusations against Pell were true.

They said the only time Pell could have assaulted the two boys in the sacristy was in the five or six minutes of “private prayer time” immediately after Mass finished.

After that, the servers would be going in and out, bringing back things used in the Mass and stored in the sacristy.

The two judges had also said that “quiet time” started when the choir (including Pell’s accuser) formed a procession, led by five servers dressed in black, and “processed” to the Cathedral’s front door.

To be precise, the evidence was the quiet time started as the procession walked up the central aisle.
A map of St Patrick’s Cathedral.
A map of St Patrick’s Cathedral.

The judges said the procession then walked around the Cathedral to a gate near the back, opening to a corridor inside.

The servers would then turn left, to walk just 8m to the sacristy, where they’d store their cross and start the clean up. The choir would turn right and go to their room.

It was at that moment, the accuser told the court, that he and the second alleged victim decided to sneak off.

They doubled back to enter a side door of the cathedral, and turned back again to go to the sacristy. There Pell found them and raped them over some five minutes.

But can you see the obviously impossible?

Where were the servers? When the boys supposedly escaped the procession, the servers at the front were just 8m from the sacristy themselves.

They must have reached it before the two boys got there from the other side. There was zero chance then of Pell then finding five minutes to rape the boys without being seen.

How was this not stark-staring obvious?

But I mentioned my walk. Remember, the judges said the boys must have been raped in the five or six minutes of private prayer time after the Mass, or they could not have been raped at all.

So I walked the route Pell’s accuser said he took after that Mass and I timed it.

Up the centre aisle with the procession: one minute.

Around the Cathedral with the procession to the gate at the back: 2½ minutes.

Back to the Cathedral’s side door, running much of the way: 40 seconds.

Walking to the sacristy: 20 seconds.

“Poking” around, opening a cupboard, finding altar wine and taking a “few swigs”: one minute.

BLOG WITH ANDREW BOLT

MORE ANDREW BOLT

Do the maths: that adds up to five minutes and 30 seconds — all that “quiet time” of “five or six minutes”.

That leaves just 30 secs at most for Pell to allegedly find the boys, rape one, abuse the other, fondle himself, dress and leave — an assault the prosecution agreed must have taken about five minutes.

That’s the maths. And it adds up to this: this rape could not possibly have happened.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Aussie on Sep 26th, 2019 at 2:46pm
Here is the diagram:




Pell_Bolt_Map.PNG (220 KB | 15 )

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Aussie on Nov 13th, 2019 at 12:36pm

Aussie wrote on Sep 17th, 2019 at 4:58pm:
So.......Pell is (unsurprisingly) off to the High Court.  I reckon the High Court will grant leave to appeal.....not sure after that......because this issue of being convicted on the totally uncorroborated evidence of a complainant when there is a total denial and questions about surroundings circumstances needs definition.

Link.


I got this one right.  Pell granted leave to Appeal.

Link.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Pedro Curevo on Nov 13th, 2019 at 1:05pm
Bolt is on the side of Pell.....it is no wonder he would find evidence that suggest Pell innocent, he is biased and a liar and a paid influencer ..whether Pell is guilty or not, all he has so far is an appeal to the court, he is certainly complicit in covering up sex crimes in the church....the real crime is celibacy that attracts evil priest.

By all account Pell is not that well and not long before he will likely kick the bucket and meet his maker who will judge his innocence or guilt...

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by greggerypeccary on Nov 13th, 2019 at 1:17pm

Pedro Curevo wrote on Nov 13th, 2019 at 1:05pm:
Bolt is on the side of Pell.....it is no wonder he would find evidence that suggest Pell innocent, he is biased and a liar and a paid influencer ..whether Pell is guilty or not, all he has so far is an appeal to the court, he is certainly complicit in covering up sex crimes in the church....the real crime is celibacy that attracts evil priest.

By all account Pell is not that well and not long before he will likely kick the bucket and meet his maker who will judge his innocence or guilt...


I don't care that much for Pell, and Bolt is just a filthy little gossip columnist who shouldn't even be given the time of day.

However, I'm on the side of justice, and I honestly can't see how Pell was convicted.


Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by cods on Nov 13th, 2019 at 2:35pm

Pedro Curevo wrote on Nov 13th, 2019 at 1:05pm:
Bolt is on the side of Pell.....it is no wonder he would find evidence that suggest Pell innocent, he is biased and a liar and a paid influencer ..whether Pell is guilty or not, all he has so far is an appeal to the court, he is certainly complicit in covering up sex crimes in the church....the real crime is celibacy that attracts evil priest.

By all account Pell is not that well and not long before he will likely kick the bucket and meet his maker who will judge his innocence or guilt...




can you produced the knowledge you have about that?   thank you..

I too happen to believe he should be allowed an appeal......I thought his trial was flawed ....and a little more than BIASED... >:( >:(.

if as you claim he is close to meeting his maker...

that also makes me wonder about his guilt..

like it or not  this man has dedicated his life to God. he believes in all the teachings of the church.....

and repenting on ones death bed is one of them..

he would need to confess his sins.....imo....

he is being punished  since this first came to light...he did return to clear his name....he has been destroyed   

what else can happen to him should he now confess??????????....how much worse can it get?.

I dont know if he is or isnt guilty.....all I do know is  I had no faith in that being a fair  trial.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Bobby. on Nov 13th, 2019 at 2:43pm

cods wrote on Nov 13th, 2019 at 2:35pm:

Pedro Curevo wrote on Nov 13th, 2019 at 1:05pm:
Bolt is on the side of Pell.....it is no wonder he would find evidence that suggest Pell innocent, he is biased and a liar and a paid influencer ..whether Pell is guilty or not, all he has so far is an appeal to the court, he is certainly complicit in covering up sex crimes in the church....the real crime is celibacy that attracts evil priest.

By all account Pell is not that well and not long before he will likely kick the bucket and meet his maker who will judge his innocence or guilt...




can you produced the knowledge you have about that?   thank you..

I too happen to believe he should be allowed an appeal......I thought his trial was flawed ....and a little more than BIASED... >:( >:(.

if as you claim he is close to meeting his maker...

that also makes me wonder about his guilt..

like it or not  this man has dedicated his life to God. he believes in all the teachings of the church.....

and repenting on ones death bed is one of them..

he would need to confess his sins.....imo....

he is being punished  since this first came to light...he did return to clear his name....he has been destroyed   

what else can happen to him should he now confess??????????....how much worse can it get?.

I dont know if he is or isnt guilty.....all I do know is  I had no faith in that being a fair  trial.



But did Pell do it or not?
I don't know what to think in this case.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by cods on Nov 13th, 2019 at 2:47pm

Bobby. wrote on Nov 13th, 2019 at 2:43pm:
ods wrote Today at 2:35pm:
Pedro Curevo wrote Today at 1:05pm:
Bolt is on the side of Pell.....it is no wonder he would find evidence that suggest Pell innocent, he is biased and a liar and a paid influencer ..whether Pell is guilty or not, all he has so far is an appeal to the court, he is certainly complicit in covering up sex crimes in the church....the real crime is celibacy that attracts evil priest.

By all account Pell is not that well and not long before he will likely kick the bucket and meet his maker who will judge his innocence or guilt...




can you produced the knowledge you have about that?   thank you..

I too happen to believe he should be allowed an appeal......I thought his trial was flawed ....and a little more than BIASED...  .

if as you claim he is close to meeting his maker...

that also makes me wonder about his guilt..

like it or not  this man has dedicated his life to God. he believes in all the teachings of the church.....

and repenting on ones death bed is one of them..

he would need to confess his sins.....imo....

he is being punished  since this first came to light...he did return to clear his name....he has been destroyed   

what else can happen to him should he now confess??????????....how much worse can it get?.

I dont know if he is or isnt guilty.....all I do know is  I had no faith in that being a fair  trial.



But did Pell do it or not?
I don't know what to think in this case.



I just told you bobby?.....to me the evidence didnt stack up...

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Bobby. on Nov 13th, 2019 at 2:49pm

cods wrote on Nov 13th, 2019 at 2:47pm:

Bobby. wrote on Nov 13th, 2019 at 2:43pm:
ods wrote Today at 2:35pm:
Pedro Curevo wrote Today at 1:05pm:
Bolt is on the side of Pell.....it is no wonder he would find evidence that suggest Pell innocent, he is biased and a liar and a paid influencer ..whether Pell is guilty or not, all he has so far is an appeal to the court, he is certainly complicit in covering up sex crimes in the church....the real crime is celibacy that attracts evil priest.

By all account Pell is not that well and not long before he will likely kick the bucket and meet his maker who will judge his innocence or guilt...




can you produced the knowledge you have about that?   thank you..

I too happen to believe he should be allowed an appeal......I thought his trial was flawed ....and a little more than BIASED...  .

if as you claim he is close to meeting his maker...

that also makes me wonder about his guilt..

like it or not  this man has dedicated his life to God. he believes in all the teachings of the church.....

and repenting on ones death bed is one of them..

he would need to confess his sins.....imo....

he is being punished  since this first came to light...he did return to clear his name....he has been destroyed   

what else can happen to him should he now confess??????????....how much worse can it get?.

I dont know if he is or isnt guilty.....all I do know is  I had no faith in that being a fair  trial.



But did Pell do it or not?
I don't know what to think in this case.



I just told you bobby?.....to me the evidence didnt stack up...



And why didn't at least one of those young boys try to bite Pell's cock off?
At least there would have been some evidence.
That point was never mentioned anywhere.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by cods on Nov 13th, 2019 at 2:53pm
bobby get real... you are talking about 13 yr olds...they wouldnt know what the hell was going to happen ... if it happened.....no good dragging all that up again....

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Bobby. on Nov 13th, 2019 at 2:56pm

cods wrote on Nov 13th, 2019 at 2:53pm:
bobby get real... you are talking about 13 yr olds...they wouldnt know what the hell was going to happen ... if it happened.....no good dragging all that up again....



But it's a good point -
that wasn't a very safe place for Pell's cock during a sex attack.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by greggerypeccary on Nov 13th, 2019 at 3:07pm

Bobby. wrote on Nov 13th, 2019 at 2:49pm:

cods wrote on Nov 13th, 2019 at 2:47pm:

Bobby. wrote on Nov 13th, 2019 at 2:43pm:
ods wrote Today at 2:35pm:
Pedro Curevo wrote Today at 1:05pm:
Bolt is on the side of Pell.....it is no wonder he would find evidence that suggest Pell innocent, he is biased and a liar and a paid influencer ..whether Pell is guilty or not, all he has so far is an appeal to the court, he is certainly complicit in covering up sex crimes in the church....the real crime is celibacy that attracts evil priest.

By all account Pell is not that well and not long before he will likely kick the bucket and meet his maker who will judge his innocence or guilt...




can you produced the knowledge you have about that?   thank you..

I too happen to believe he should be allowed an appeal......I thought his trial was flawed ....and a little more than BIASED...  .

if as you claim he is close to meeting his maker...

that also makes me wonder about his guilt..

like it or not  this man has dedicated his life to God. he believes in all the teachings of the church.....

and repenting on ones death bed is one of them..

he would need to confess his sins.....imo....

he is being punished  since this first came to light...he did return to clear his name....he has been destroyed   

what else can happen to him should he now confess??????????....how much worse can it get?.

I dont know if he is or isnt guilty.....all I do know is  I had no faith in that being a fair  trial.



But did Pell do it or not?
I don't know what to think in this case.



I just told you bobby?.....to me the evidence didnt stack up...



And why didn't at least one of those young boys try to bite Pell's cock off?
At least there would have been some evidence.
That point was never mentioned anywhere.


That's a bit hard to swallow, Bobby.


Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by xeej on Nov 13th, 2019 at 6:10pm
There is an element of doubt so its off to the high court.

At least the high supreme court will sort this out.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Bobby. on Nov 13th, 2019 at 6:21pm

xeej wrote on Nov 13th, 2019 at 6:10pm:
There is an element of doubt so its off to the high court.

At least the high supreme court will sort this out.



Just like Lindy Chamberlain.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Pedro Curevo on Nov 14th, 2019 at 6:27am
Pell had a history on being complicit with pedophiles in the church....he lived with known priest pedo's, and one doesn't live with people and not know what they are like, he was also known as a kiddy groper in sports activities and in the showers after.

The two men who made the complaint against Pell that landed him in the clink knew exactly who he was, no mistaking as that Church in Melbourne was Pell's.

With Bolt there is amongst the RW in supporting pedophila...heres one of Bolts mates Milo Yiannopoulos has to say..."Milo, 33, went on to describe sexual relations between young boys (he mentioned the age of 13) and older men as "some of the most important, enriching, incredibly life-affirming" and "hugely positive experiences."

"Some of those relationships between younger boys and older men, the sort of coming-of-age relationships, the relationships in which those older men help those young boys discover who they are and give them security and safety and provide them with love and a reliable kind of a rock where they can't speak to their parents…" This is not pedophilia, Yiannopoulos argues, because the (hypothetical) 13-year-olds have (hypothetically) reached puberty."

Crikey....So what is Bolt doing supporting a convicted pedophile..??...supporting people who advocate pedophilia...??...I can recall back in the 80's there was a call in the media by people to make pedophilia legal....there was such public outrage it went quite...underground...protected in the church...consider also Pell has not found a calling he found a career or a profession in the church...and has no guilty feelings about pedophilia.

And the RW that support Pell and such ilk just shows the RW are not right in the head...basically.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by greggerypeccary on Nov 14th, 2019 at 6:47am

Pedro Curevo wrote on Nov 14th, 2019 at 6:27am:
Pell had a history on being complicit with pedophiles in the church....he lived with known priest pedo's, and one doesn't live with people and not know what they are like, he was also known as a kiddy groper in sports activities and in the showers after.

The two men who made the complaint against Pell that landed him in the clink ...


Two men?

Only one man made a complaint.

Let's stick to the facts.


Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Sir Spot of Borg on Nov 14th, 2019 at 7:52am

Pedro Curevo wrote on Nov 14th, 2019 at 6:27am:
Pell had a history on being complicit with pedophiles in the church....he lived with known priest pedo's, and one doesn't live with people and not know what they are like, he was also known as a kiddy groper in sports activities and in the showers after.

The two men who made the complaint against Pell that landed him in the clink knew exactly who he was, no mistaking as that Church in Melbourne was Pell's.

With Bolt there is amongst the RW in supporting pedophila...heres one of Bolts mates Milo Yiannopoulos has to say..."Milo, 33, went on to describe sexual relations between young boys (he mentioned the age of 13) and older men as "some of the most important, enriching, incredibly life-affirming" and "hugely positive experiences."

"Some of those relationships between younger boys and older men, the sort of coming-of-age relationships, the relationships in which those older men help those young boys discover who they are and give them security and safety and provide them with love and a reliable kind of a rock where they can't speak to their parents…" This is not pedophilia, Yiannopoulos argues, because the (hypothetical) 13-year-olds have (hypothetically) reached puberty."

Crikey....So what is Bolt doing supporting a convicted pedophile..??...supporting people who advocate pedophilia...??...I can recall back in the 80's there was a call in the media by people to make pedophilia legal....there was such public outrage it went quite...underground...protected in the church...consider also Pell has not found a calling he found a career or a profession in the church...and has no guilty feelings about pedophilia.

And the RW that support Pell and such ilk just shows the RW are not right in the head...basically.


Sometimes ppl can live with ppl and not know what they are like. Many serial killers for example. Okay Ivan prolly an exception but many of them nobody knows. Especially when they keep it a secret. Go figger.

Spot

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by cods on Nov 14th, 2019 at 8:40am

Pedro Curevo wrote on Nov 14th, 2019 at 6:27am:
Pell had a history on being complicit with pedophiles in the church....he lived with known priest pedo's, and one doesn't live with people and not know what they are like, he was also known as a kiddy groper in sports activities and in the showers after.

The two men who made the complaint against Pell that landed him in the clink knew exactly who he was, no mistaking as that Church in Melbourne was Pell's.

With Bolt there is amongst the RW in supporting pedophila...heres one of Bolts mates Milo Yiannopoulos has to say..."Milo, 33, went on to describe sexual relations between young boys (he mentioned the age of 13) and older men as "some of the most important, enriching, incredibly life-affirming" and "hugely positive experiences."

"Some of those relationships between younger boys and older men, the sort of coming-of-age relationships, the relationships in which those older men help those young boys discover who they are and give them security and safety and provide them with love and a reliable kind of a rock where they can't speak to their parents…" This is not pedophilia, Yiannopoulos argues, because the (hypothetical) 13-year-olds have (hypothetically) reached puberty."

Crikey....So what is Bolt doing supporting a convicted pedophile..??...supporting people who advocate pedophilia...??...I can recall back in the 80's there was a call in the media by people to make pedophilia legal....there was such public outrage it went quite...underground...protected in the church...consider also Pell has not found a calling he found a career or a profession in the church...and has no guilty feelings about pedophilia.

And the RW that support Pell and such ilk just shows the RW are not right in the head...basically.



you dont get it do you?


he isnt supporting Pell.. any more than we are......it was the trial... I cannot see how YOU cannot see the flaws in that trial...

they are screaming out for an appeal......

he could very well be guilty as hell.... but that isnt the point.....there is no evidence of the crime its one mans word against another.......it comes down to COULD IT HAVE HAPPENED the way the victim said....

and thats what hes been found guilty on....and there are serious flaws in what the victim claims.....

or imo   there was reasonable doubt it could have happened the way described .  at least an appeal will put that to rest,....one way or another.. 

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by greggerypeccary on Nov 14th, 2019 at 8:45am

cods wrote on Nov 14th, 2019 at 8:40am:

Pedro Curevo wrote on Nov 14th, 2019 at 6:27am:
Pell had a history on being complicit with pedophiles in the church....he lived with known priest pedo's, and one doesn't live with people and not know what they are like, he was also known as a kiddy groper in sports activities and in the showers after.

The two men who made the complaint against Pell that landed him in the clink knew exactly who he was, no mistaking as that Church in Melbourne was Pell's.

With Bolt there is amongst the RW in supporting pedophila...heres one of Bolts mates Milo Yiannopoulos has to say..."Milo, 33, went on to describe sexual relations between young boys (he mentioned the age of 13) and older men as "some of the most important, enriching, incredibly life-affirming" and "hugely positive experiences."

"Some of those relationships between younger boys and older men, the sort of coming-of-age relationships, the relationships in which those older men help those young boys discover who they are and give them security and safety and provide them with love and a reliable kind of a rock where they can't speak to their parents…" This is not pedophilia, Yiannopoulos argues, because the (hypothetical) 13-year-olds have (hypothetically) reached puberty."

Crikey....So what is Bolt doing supporting a convicted pedophile..??...supporting people who advocate pedophilia...??...I can recall back in the 80's there was a call in the media by people to make pedophilia legal....there was such public outrage it went quite...underground...protected in the church...consider also Pell has not found a calling he found a career or a profession in the church...and has no guilty feelings about pedophilia.

And the RW that support Pell and such ilk just shows the RW are not right in the head...basically.



you dont get it do you?


he isnt supporting Pell.. any more than we are......it was the trial... I cannot see how YOU cannot see the flaws in that trial...

they are screaming out for an appeal......

he could very well be guilty as hell.... but that isnt the point.....there is no evidence of the crime its one mans word against another.......it comes down to COULD IT HAVE HAPPENED the way the victim said....

and thats what hes been found guilty on....and there are serious flaws in what the victim claims.....

or imo   there was reasonable doubt it could have happened the way described .  at least an appeal will put that to rest,....one way or another.. 


Exactly.

Looking at it objectively, and ignoring who the accused is, the evidence just doesn't stack up.


Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by cods on Nov 14th, 2019 at 8:55am
imo he was guilty before the trial...

personally I wonder what has he got to lose now if guilty he just confessed.....wouldnt it be a load off him to own it....he cant pay any more .. thats if he is really guilty..

:( :(

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by greggerypeccary on Dec 3rd, 2019 at 9:42am

cods wrote on Nov 14th, 2019 at 8:55am:
imo he was guilty before the trial...

personally I wonder what has he got to lose now if guilty he just confessed.....wouldnt it be a load off him to own it....he cant pay any more .. thats if he is really guilty..

:( :(


Pardon the pun.

Meanwhile, ex-PM visits convicted child sex offender.



Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by cods on Dec 3rd, 2019 at 9:47am

greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 3rd, 2019 at 9:42am:

cods wrote on Nov 14th, 2019 at 8:55am:
imo he was guilty before the trial...

personally I wonder what has he got to lose now if guilty he just confessed.....wouldnt it be a load off him to own it....he cant pay any more .. thats if he is really guilty..

:( :(


Pardon the pun.

Meanwhile, ex-PM visits convicted child sex offender.






ahhhh I wondered when a leftywould jump on that one..

as far as I am concerned hes a private citz now....its nothing to do with anyone who he visits...

he still believes in Pell....presumably and yes a lot of others do also......

last I heard it wasnt a crime to believe in someone...

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by greggerypeccary on Dec 3rd, 2019 at 10:00am

cods wrote on Dec 3rd, 2019 at 9:47am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 3rd, 2019 at 9:42am:

cods wrote on Nov 14th, 2019 at 8:55am:
imo he was guilty before the trial...

personally I wonder what has he got to lose now if guilty he just confessed.....wouldnt it be a load off him to own it....he cant pay any more .. thats if he is really guilty..

:( :(


Pardon the pun.

Meanwhile, ex-PM visits convicted child sex offender.






ahhhh I wondered when a leftywould jump on that one..

as far as I am concerned hes a private citz now....its nothing to do with anyone who he visits...

he still believes in Pell....presumably and yes a lot of others do also......

last I heard it wasnt a crime to believe in someone...


Yes, I know you have an open mind cods.

And if Bill Shorten visited Rolf Harris in prison, you'd think nothing of it.


Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by greggerypeccary on Dec 3rd, 2019 at 10:31am

cods wrote on Dec 3rd, 2019 at 9:47am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 3rd, 2019 at 9:42am:

cods wrote on Nov 14th, 2019 at 8:55am:
imo he was guilty before the trial...

personally I wonder what has he got to lose now if guilty he just confessed.....wouldnt it be a load off him to own it....he cant pay any more .. thats if he is really guilty..

:( :(


Pardon the pun.

Meanwhile, ex-PM visits convicted child sex offender.






ahhhh I wondered when a leftywould jump on that one..

as far as I am concerned hes a private citz now....its nothing to do with anyone who he visits...

he still believes in Pell....presumably and yes a lot of others do also......

last I heard it wasnt a crime to believe in someone...


I'm looking at this objectively, cods.

Just like you, I have serious doubts about Pell's guilt - if you held a gun to my head, and made me choose, I'd say he's innocent.

However, the facts of the matter as they are right now are:

- Pell is a convicted child sex offender.

- Tony Abbott visited him in prison.

It's not a good look.

Can you imagine the uproar in the US if Bill Clinton visited Jeffrey Epstein while he was in prison?



Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by cods on Dec 3rd, 2019 at 10:33am

greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 3rd, 2019 at 10:00am:
ds wrote Today at 9:47am:
greggerypeccary wrote Today at 9:42am:
cods wrote on Nov 14th, 2019 at 8:55am:
imo he was guilty before the trial...

personally I wonder what has he got to lose now if guilty he just confessed.....wouldnt it be a load off him to own it....he cant pay any more .. thats if he is really guilty..




Pardon the pun.

Meanwhile, ex-PM visits convicted child sex offender.


https://1v1d1e1lmiki1lgcvx32p49h8fe-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2...




ahhhh I wondered when a leftywould jump on that one..

as far as I am concerned hes a private citz now....its nothing to do with anyone who he visits...

he still believes in Pell....presumably and yes a lot of others do also......

last I heard it wasnt a crime to believe in someone...


Yes, I know you have an open mind cods.

And if Bill Shorten visited Rolf Harris in prison, you'd think nothing of it.





I am not sure......its too much of a hypothetical  I cant image shortarse putting himself in that position   of criticism to be honest.......he doesnt have a good record when it comes to 'friends"...

I do have an open mind on this one....even you do not believe he was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt....

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by cods on Dec 3rd, 2019 at 10:37am

greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 3rd, 2019 at 10:31am:

cods wrote on Dec 3rd, 2019 at 9:47am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 3rd, 2019 at 9:42am:

cods wrote on Nov 14th, 2019 at 8:55am:
imo he was guilty before the trial...

personally I wonder what has he got to lose now if guilty he just confessed.....wouldnt it be a load off him to own it....he cant pay any more .. thats if he is really guilty..

:( :(


Pardon the pun.

Meanwhile, ex-PM visits convicted child sex offender.






ahhhh I wondered when a leftywould jump on that one..

as far as I am concerned hes a private citz now....its nothing to do with anyone who he visits...

he still believes in Pell....presumably and yes a lot of others do also......

last I heard it wasnt a crime to believe in someone...


I'm looking at this objectively, cods.

Just like you, I have serious doubts about Pell's guilt - if you held a gun to my head, and made me choose, I'd say he's innocent.

However, the facts of the matter as they are right now are:

- Pell is a convicted child sex offender. WITH AN APPEAL WHICH COULD MEAN THE CASE THROWN OUT

- Tony Abbott visited him in prison.

It's not a good look...WHY NOT?... HES A PRIVATE CITZ!

Can you imagine the uproar in the US if Bill Clinton visited Jeffrey Epstein while he was in prison?
YOU DONT KNOW HE DIDNT.......


Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by greggerypeccary on Dec 3rd, 2019 at 10:38am

cods wrote on Dec 3rd, 2019 at 10:33am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 3rd, 2019 at 10:00am:
ds wrote Today at 9:47am:
greggerypeccary wrote Today at 9:42am:
cods wrote on Nov 14th, 2019 at 8:55am:
imo he was guilty before the trial...

personally I wonder what has he got to lose now if guilty he just confessed.....wouldnt it be a load off him to own it....he cant pay any more .. thats if he is really guilty..




Pardon the pun.

Meanwhile, ex-PM visits convicted child sex offender.


https://1v1d1e1lmiki1lgcvx32p49h8fe-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2...




ahhhh I wondered when a leftywould jump on that one..

as far as I am concerned hes a private citz now....its nothing to do with anyone who he visits...

he still believes in Pell....presumably and yes a lot of others do also......

last I heard it wasnt a crime to believe in someone...


Yes, I know you have an open mind cods.

And if Bill Shorten visited Rolf Harris in prison, you'd think nothing of it.





I am not sure......its too much of a hypothetical  I cant image shortarse putting himself in that position   of criticism to be honest.......he doesnt have a good record when it comes to 'friends"...

I do have an open mind on this one....even you do not believe he was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt....


That's right, I don't.

However, looking at this objectively, he is a convicted child sex offender and he was visited by an ex-PM.

Imagine the uproar if Julia Gillard visited the guy from Hey Dad in prison.

Believe it not, as much as I don't like Abbott, I'm not criticising him for what he did - I'm just highlighting how bad it's gonna look to the average Joe.




Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by greggerypeccary on Dec 3rd, 2019 at 10:40am

cods wrote on Dec 3rd, 2019 at 10:37am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 3rd, 2019 at 10:31am:

cods wrote on Dec 3rd, 2019 at 9:47am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 3rd, 2019 at 9:42am:

cods wrote on Nov 14th, 2019 at 8:55am:
imo he was guilty before the trial...

personally I wonder what has he got to lose now if guilty he just confessed.....wouldnt it be a load off him to own it....he cant pay any more .. thats if he is really guilty..

:( :(


Pardon the pun.

Meanwhile, ex-PM visits convicted child sex offender.






ahhhh I wondered when a leftywould jump on that one..

as far as I am concerned hes a private citz now....its nothing to do with anyone who he visits...

he still believes in Pell....presumably and yes a lot of others do also......

last I heard it wasnt a crime to believe in someone...


I'm looking at this objectively, cods.

Just like you, I have serious doubts about Pell's guilt - if you held a gun to my head, and made me choose, I'd say he's innocent.

However, the facts of the matter as they are right now are:

- Pell is a convicted child sex offender. WITH AN APPEAL WHICH COULD MEAN THE CASE THROWN OUT

- Tony Abbott visited him in prison.

It's not a good look...WHY NOT?... HES A PRIVATE CITZ!

Can you imagine the uproar in the US if Bill Clinton visited Jeffrey Epstein while he was in prison?

YOU DONT KNOW HE DIDNT.......


That's right - I don't.

But if he did, there's nothing wrong with it, right?

"as far as I am concerned hes a private citz now....its nothing to do with anyone who he visits..."

Yeah?

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Ye Grappler on Dec 3rd, 2019 at 11:02am
Once upon a time, an old school friend of mine was serving time for conspiracy to traffic drugs - I went to visit him in prison - does that make me a drug trafficker or a co-conspirator or even a supporter of his alleged crime?

All this emotionalism - now wonder someone invented Law to govern issues and not unreason... mass hysteria...

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Ye Grappler on Dec 3rd, 2019 at 11:03am
I'm no fan of Abbott nor am I a Catholic etc - but give it a rest...

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by philperth2010 on Dec 3rd, 2019 at 12:12pm

Ye Grappler wrote on Dec 3rd, 2019 at 11:03am:
I'm no fan of Abbott nor am I a Catholic etc - but give it a rest...


Why....Pell covered up for paedophiles in the church and moved offenders on to other parishes where they continued to abuse children....IMO that is enough proof to condemn the ass hole and all those who support his corrupt behaviour....The fact he is in jail is a bonus and well deserved for someone who is responsible for ruining the lives of so many innocent children....Why is Abbott above criticism for his actions in supporting a convicted sex offender!!!

>:( >:( >:(

 

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Ye Grappler on Dec 3rd, 2019 at 12:37pm

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 3rd, 2019 at 12:12pm:

Ye Grappler wrote on Dec 3rd, 2019 at 11:03am:
I'm no fan of Abbott nor am I a Catholic etc - but give it a rest...


Why....Pell covered up for paedophiles in the church and moved offenders on to other parishes where they continued to abuse children....IMO that is enough proof to condemn the ass hole and all those who support his corrupt behaviour....The fact he is in jail is a bonus and well deserved for someone who is responsible for ruining the lives of so many innocent children....Why is Abbott above criticism for his actions in supporting a convicted sex offender!!!

>:( >:( >:(

 


None of which makes him a paedophile - he was not charged with covering up... he was charged and convicted over allegations of sexual abuse - if that were truly the case - why would it be restricted to just two boys, one of whom is now dead?  If he was a paedophile, he would surely prey on more than that.

Simply doesn't add up on the basis of one word against another...

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by philperth2010 on Dec 3rd, 2019 at 12:49pm

Ye Grappler wrote on Dec 3rd, 2019 at 12:37pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 3rd, 2019 at 12:12pm:

Ye Grappler wrote on Dec 3rd, 2019 at 11:03am:
I'm no fan of Abbott nor am I a Catholic etc - but give it a rest...


Why....Pell covered up for paedophiles in the church and moved offenders on to other parishes where they continued to abuse children....IMO that is enough proof to condemn the ass hole and all those who support his corrupt behaviour....The fact he is in jail is a bonus and well deserved for someone who is responsible for ruining the lives of so many innocent children....Why is Abbott above criticism for his actions in supporting a convicted sex offender!!!

>:( >:( >:(

 


None of which makes him a paedophile - he was not charged with covering up... he was charged and convicted over allegations of sexual abuse - if that were truly the case - why would it be restricted to just two boys, one of whom is now dead?  If he was a paedophile, he would surely prey on more than that.

Simply doesn't add up on the basis of one word against another...


Yes he was charged and convicted over allegations of sexual abuse....He has not been exonerated because an appeal has been granted....He is guilty as charged as a paedophile and is also condemned in the court of public opinion over his past cover ups for paedophile priests....Abbott is not above criticism for associating with convicted criminals!!!

::) ::) ::)

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by cods on Dec 3rd, 2019 at 1:17pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 3rd, 2019 at 10:40am:

cods wrote on Dec 3rd, 2019 at 10:37am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 3rd, 2019 at 10:31am:

cods wrote on Dec 3rd, 2019 at 9:47am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 3rd, 2019 at 9:42am:

cods wrote on Nov 14th, 2019 at 8:55am:
imo he was guilty before the trial...

personally I wonder what has he got to lose now if guilty he just confessed.....wouldnt it be a load off him to own it....he cant pay any more .. thats if he is really guilty..

:( :(


Pardon the pun.

Meanwhile, ex-PM visits convicted child sex offender.






ahhhh I wondered when a leftywould jump on that one..

as far as I am concerned hes a private citz now....its nothing to do with anyone who he visits...

he still believes in Pell....presumably and yes a lot of others do also......

last I heard it wasnt a crime to believe in someone...


I'm looking at this objectively, cods.

Just like you, I have serious doubts about Pell's guilt - if you held a gun to my head, and made me choose, I'd say he's innocent.

However, the facts of the matter as they are right now are:

- Pell is a convicted child sex offender. WITH AN APPEAL WHICH COULD MEAN THE CASE THROWN OUT

- Tony Abbott visited him in prison.

It's not a good look...WHY NOT?... HES A PRIVATE CITZ!

Can you imagine the uproar in the US if Bill Clinton visited Jeffrey Epstein while he was in prison?

YOU DONT KNOW HE DIDNT.......


That's right - I don't.

But if he did, there's nothing wrong with it, right?

"as far as I am concerned hes a private citz now....its nothing to do with anyone who he visits..."

Yeah?




goodness me did you work that all out for yourself??..

oh I forget you belong to the church of NONFORGIVING    thats right isnt it?..

you would walk away from even a lifelong friend in his darkest hour..

I get that...btw which church did Epstein belong too?


Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by cods on Dec 3rd, 2019 at 1:26pm

Ye Grappler wrote on Dec 3rd, 2019 at 11:02am:
Once upon a time, an old school friend of mine was serving time for conspiracy to traffic drugs - I went to visit him in prison - does that make me a drug trafficker or a co-conspirator or even a supporter of his alleged crime?

All this emotionalism - now wonder someone invented Law to govern issues and not unreason... mass hysteria...




maybe in the eyes of some ozpol members grap.. ::) ::)

they obviously would drop their closest mates in it rather than be a good friend...my husbands best friend when he was growing up got 18 months for stealing.. it was an awful shock when we found out  because we were in OZ by then all he could do was write to him which he did once a month..his mate wasnt allowed to write back. but when released he said how grateful he was for the support he was full of remorse for his actions  and of course lost many friends because of it......but we werent one of them.....I think Tony has been friends with Pell for many years and as we can see tony hasnt condemned him perhaps hes trying to understand and maybe he wants to believe a man he has had such faith in....

it is the ones who stand by you in your darkest hours that help us never to give up...


Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Ye Grappler on Dec 3rd, 2019 at 1:43pm
The conviction is in limbo pending an appeal.... that is the way of it... Pell is not technically in prison for the conviction - he is being held in safe custody with the zero presumption of bail  ... until the appeal is heard and resolved.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by greggerypeccary on Dec 3rd, 2019 at 2:39pm

Ye Grappler wrote on Dec 3rd, 2019 at 12:37pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 3rd, 2019 at 12:12pm:

Ye Grappler wrote on Dec 3rd, 2019 at 11:03am:
I'm no fan of Abbott nor am I a Catholic etc - but give it a rest...


Why....Pell covered up for paedophiles in the church and moved offenders on to other parishes where they continued to abuse children....IMO that is enough proof to condemn the ass hole and all those who support his corrupt behaviour....The fact he is in jail is a bonus and well deserved for someone who is responsible for ruining the lives of so many innocent children....Why is Abbott above criticism for his actions in supporting a convicted sex offender!!!

>:( >:( >:(

 


None of which makes him a paedophile - he was not charged with covering up... he was charged and convicted over allegations of sexual abuse - if that were truly the case - why would it be restricted to just two boys, one of whom is now dead?  If he was a paedophile, he would surely prey on more than that.

Simply doesn't add up on the basis of one word against another...


I don't think it adds up either.

The fact is though, he's a convicted child sex offender and Abbott visited him in prison.

Would you, and cods, be okay with Bill Clinton visiting Epstein or Cosby in prison?


Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by cods on Dec 3rd, 2019 at 4:18pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 3rd, 2019 at 2:39pm:
I don't think it adds up either.

The fact is though, he's a convicted child sex offender and Abbott visited him in prison.

Would you, and cods, be okay with Bill Clinton visiting Epstein or Cosby in prison?




ye gods your obsession with all thing AMERIKAN  is a bit tiresome  I have already answered that... >:( >:(

like grap I am for sticking by someone you were mates with.........just because they are charged and convicted doesnt mean you should drop them , like you obviously would... >:(...not everyone is like you...

just because he visited him doesnt mean he thinks he is innocent or guilty... if the man was in hospital he would visit him as a friend.......it seriously has nothing to do with anyone else.......like grap says   it doesnt make Tony a child molester...and neither it should...

maybe you need to open your mind a little bit   you are so hell bent on getting AMERIKANS  who do not think along the same lines as yourself......you have now become confused...



Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Aussie on Dec 3rd, 2019 at 5:30pm
Would you, and cods, be okay with Bill Clinton visiting Epstein or Cosby in prison?  You have done everything except answer that simple question.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Redmond Neck on Dec 3rd, 2019 at 5:38pm

Aussie wrote on Dec 3rd, 2019 at 5:30pm:
Would you, and cods, be okay with Bill Clinton visiting Epstein or Cosby in prison?  You have done everything except answer that simple question.


Would you be OK to print out all of your dodgy history as a lawyer ?



Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Bobby. on Dec 3rd, 2019 at 5:40pm

Aussie wrote on Dec 3rd, 2019 at 5:30pm:
Would you, and cods, be okay with Bill Clinton visiting Epstein or Cosby in prison?  You have done everything except answer that simple question.



Aussie - don't feed Greggy's obsession.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Aussie on Dec 3rd, 2019 at 5:56pm
It is a simple question.

Cods.....


Quote:
Would you, and cods, be okay with Bill Clinton visiting Epstein or Cosby in prison?  You have done everything except answer that simple question.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by Ye Grappler on Dec 3rd, 2019 at 5:59pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 3rd, 2019 at 2:39pm:

Ye Grappler wrote on Dec 3rd, 2019 at 12:37pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 3rd, 2019 at 12:12pm:

Ye Grappler wrote on Dec 3rd, 2019 at 11:03am:
I'm no fan of Abbott nor am I a Catholic etc - but give it a rest...


Why....Pell covered up for paedophiles in the church and moved offenders on to other parishes where they continued to abuse children....IMO that is enough proof to condemn the ass hole and all those who support his corrupt behaviour....The fact he is in jail is a bonus and well deserved for someone who is responsible for ruining the lives of so many innocent children....Why is Abbott above criticism for his actions in supporting a convicted sex offender!!!

>:( >:( >:(

 


None of which makes him a paedophile - he was not charged with covering up... he was charged and convicted over allegations of sexual abuse - if that were truly the case - why would it be restricted to just two boys, one of whom is now dead?  If he was a paedophile, he would surely prey on more than that.

Simply doesn't add up on the basis of one word against another...


I don't think it adds up either.

The fact is though, he's a convicted child sex offender and Abbott visited him in prison.

Would you, and cods, be okay with Bill Clinton visiting Epstein or Cosby in prison?


Why not?  Even convicts deserve to be treated as human beings, don't they?  I mean - we treat Mad Mussos pretty good ... and whining Koonies ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RitnM9n0jTY

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by greggerypeccary on Dec 3rd, 2019 at 6:28pm

cods wrote on Dec 3rd, 2019 at 4:18pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 3rd, 2019 at 2:39pm:
I don't think it adds up either.

The fact is though, he's a convicted child sex offender and Abbott visited him in prison.

Would you, and cods, be okay with Bill Clinton visiting Epstein or Cosby in prison?




ye gods your obsession with all thing AMERIKAN  is a bit tiresome  I have already answered that... >:( >:(

like grap I am for sticking by someone you were mates with.........just because they are charged and convicted doesnt mean you should drop them , like you obviously would... >:(...not everyone is like you...

just because he visited him doesnt mean he thinks he is innocent or guilty... if the man was in hospital he would visit him as a friend.......it seriously has nothing to do with anyone else.......like grap says   it doesnt make Tony a child molester...and neither it should...

maybe you need to open your mind a little bit   you are so hell bent on getting AMERIKANS  who do not think along the same lines as yourself......you have now become confused...


What part of this don't you understand, cods?

"Believe it not, as much as I don't like Abbott, I'm not criticising him for what he did ..."

Do you know what 'objective' means?



Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by cods on Dec 3rd, 2019 at 6:40pm

Aussie wrote on Dec 3rd, 2019 at 5:56pm:
It is a simple question.

Cods.....


Quote:
Would you, and cods, be okay with Bill Clinton visiting Epstein or Cosby in prison?  You have done everything except answer that simple question.



its none of my business   what Americans do in Amerika....I am not interested in anything AMERIKAN.......if it whets your appetite  good luck with that......all I know is Tony has been friends with Pell for many years......he looks like he is a loyal friend

I do not see anything wrong with that.......

you would I presume dump on anyone you called a friend the moment they do something wrong or presumed to have done..


you sir of course have never done anything wrong have you??????/....

to be honest with you some of the things you have told us you have done in the course of your career    have astonished me..and no I havent approved of them or you..


does that tell you anything?????

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by cods on Dec 3rd, 2019 at 6:49pm
LET HE WHO IS WITHOUT SIN CAST THE FIRST STONE...


if you are so..


Quote:
Do you know what 'objective' means?



why the questioning on clinton... ::) ::) ::)


thats not my idea of being objective..



Quote:
undistorted by emotion or personal bias


not in your case I presume?   ::)

to actually bring  your fetish with all things  AMERIKAN    into this thread is bizarre. ::) ::)

I guess you cant help yourself anymore than aussie can.

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by greggerypeccary on Dec 3rd, 2019 at 8:28pm

cods wrote on Dec 3rd, 2019 at 6:40pm:

Aussie wrote on Dec 3rd, 2019 at 5:56pm:
It is a simple question.

Cods.....


Quote:
Would you, and cods, be okay with Bill Clinton visiting Epstein or Cosby in prison?  You have done everything except answer that simple question.



its none of my business   what Americans do in Amerika....I am not interested in anything AMERIKAN.......if it whets your appetite  good luck with that......all I know is Tony has been friends with Pell for many years......he looks like he is a loyal friend

I do not see anything wrong with that.......


Hypothetical:

Let's say that Bill Shorten is good friends with that guy from Hey Dad convicted of child sex offences, and he goes to visit him in prison.

Do you see anything wrong with that?

Title: Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Post by PZ547 on Dec 6th, 2019 at 12:41pm
Haven't seen any photos of Abbott fighting the fires.  Used to see that sort of photo in the news quite regularly a few years ago.  Who knows, maybe he has been

A few years ago I read somewhere that Alan Jones shock-jock had long been in contact with Anita Cobby's killers.  True or not, who can say.  But when I read it, I wondered what Jones and the killers could have in common to support a long term communication.  Not a good look, was my opinion at the time

As regards Abbott and Pell, once again, who knows.  Wouldn't sit well with many if Pell succeeds in scuttling out of prison

Some might say from Abbott's perspective, who cares how it looks.  We're keeping him in comfort and will be for decades, so not as if he need care what people might draw from his odd loyalty to Pell.  Not as if Abbott's going to re-enter politics.  Or -- maybe he will, who knows

In Abbott's shoes, I think my concern would lie with the victims … all those now-adult kids who've never told, never come forward for whatever of dozens of reasons.  If I were swinging around with loads of time/money and still some influence, I might, in Abbott's case, devote some of that largesse to survivors and just as importantly, to potential victims

but instead, Abbott chooses to visit Pell who still has a hope or two of release (and SO many who're intent he should be released).  And a letter or two to Pell of support obviously was considered by Abbott to be insufficient to convey whatever it is he feels with regard to Pell.  And just as obviously, Abbott doesn't give a rats how it might look.  Or perhaps he hoped that public knowledge of his visit (plural ?) to Pell might influence some people to follow his lead or at least take note that a former Prime Minister thinks highly enough of Pell that only a personal visit (plural?) could adequately express the esteem in which he holds Pell? 

I've never seen how Abbott's visit/s to Pell became public knowledge.  Did Abbott tip off the media himself or via a reputable source, for example?

Would Abbott have visited Pell if Abbott were still actively in politics?  I doubt it, in fact I doubt it very much.  Or, should add, Abbott -- if still active in politics -- may well have still chosen to visit Pell, but the visit/s would have been shrouded in secrecy, imo.  It would have been very much considered to be 'not a good look' then.  That being my belief, I regard Abbott as a slug for his purported loyalty to Pell at this stage of the game

Australian Politics Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2020. All Rights Reserved.