Aussie wrote on Feb 28^th, 2019 at 2:44pm:


I can find nothing that definitively answers your question Aussie. I was myself surprised to read it across several websites. I'd only be guessing but reckon it was discussion in open court between the Judge and Foreperson of the jury following a week's deliberation without unanimity, eg Would an 11 to 1 majority assist the jury? .....and it flowed from there ......but it doesn't really explain why anything about acquittal was mentioned (if in fact it was).  Too many questions to which I cannot find answers.........yet.

Bobby. wrote on Feb 28^th, 2019 at 5:43pm:


That's because you're not civilised.

Alinta wrote on Feb 28^th, 2019 at 11:03am:



very interesting alinta thank you for that....

because I have no idea what goes on  in the course of Mass or celebrations of the kind in a Catholic church   can we say... they are almost always run in the same fashion....or order may be a better way of saying it....

for instance Pell was newly ordained as an Archbishop.....it would have been a great honor for him I am sure.. why would he not do what he has always done and greet his adoring parishioners , instead  just return alone to to sacristan  where he happened upon two boys whom no one had missed......

and still to this day no one had any idea they apparently left the full choir....and also returned again all without notice.... .

to me a large choir men and boys....someone would have  seen two boys sneaking off....the victim has said he was terrified of pell.....and yet he says he sneaked behind his back and went to a place that was not open to boys at any time....

I would at least expect one person to have seen something...the boys were dressed in their choir tunics   and were still wearing them when its claimed they returned to the group...all un noticed by anyone....even their choir master didnt miss two boys under his care.......I find it odd.

Alinta wrote on Feb 28^th, 2019 at 5:44pm:



EDIT: Vote count in the mistrial is an unconfirmed rumour....no credible source. 

My apology for misleading the discussion.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/mar/02/cardinal-george-pells-con...

t has been rumoured that the jurors in the mistrial were split 10-to-two in favour of Pell. Is this right?
This is an unverified rumour with no credible source. There have been plenty of other rumours about the split in the mistrial, including that it was more even. The weight of the split makes no difference. The law requires a unanimous or 11-to-one verdict, and anything else results in a mistrial. The chief judge is not told of the split and he made it clear he did not want to know. Any juror who reveals the split breaks the law.

Advertisement

The mistrial split is also irrelevant in the appeal court. In the retrial, both parties may learn from their mistakes, change their approach and refine their arguments. It would be unfair to then judge the verdict in a retrial against the verdict in the mistrial. In Pell’s retrial, witnesses were dropped by mutual agreement of both parties, and Richter added a power point presentation to his defence. One new witness was added. It was similar, but not the same, as the first.

cartoons are a bit low..

a lot of people who were abused but not by the Catholic Church are also reliving their ordeals because of the high profile of this..

why do people have a need to draw cartoons of it...???

and even worse publish them

Pell deserves at least 30 years prison, what he had done in his position of power is blatantly evil.

Should have been a brief trial and the jury form a lynching party.

cods wrote on Mar 4^th, 2019 at 4:39pm:


-wallop.