|
greggerypeccary
|
Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Mar 5 th, 2019 at 1:26pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 5 th, 2019 at 1:21pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Mar 5 th, 2019 at 1:16pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 5 th, 2019 at 1:13pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Mar 5 th, 2019 at 1:08pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 5 th, 2019 at 1:07pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Mar 5 th, 2019 at 1:00pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 5 th, 2019 at 10:45am: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Mar 5 th, 2019 at 10:38am: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 5 th, 2019 at 10:36am: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Mar 5 th, 2019 at 10:29am: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 5 th, 2019 at 10:09am: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Mar 5 th, 2019 at 10:05am: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 5 th, 2019 at 10:03am: I don't buy the ego/ignorance thing.
How many people, knowing that they're guilty of a crime in another country, would return to face the charges even if they were under no legal obligation to do so?
Very few, if any, I'd suggest. Maybe again his ego thought he could get off it. I don't buy it. Why would anyone risk it? Argument from incredulity, just because you don't buy it doesn't mean it couldnt happen. I'm not saying it couldn't happen - I'm saying it's extremely unlikely. I've looked at this objectively, and with an open mind, all along. I remove the names, genders, and locations. I just look at the raw facts: - A teenager says an adult sexually assaulted him - The adult says he did no such thing - No independent witnesses - No forensic science - The adult was living happily in another country, and was under no legal obligation to face the court in the country where the allegations have been made, but did so willingly - Adult is found guilty. Thats a extremely brief summary, not covering the details. Again, just because you don't believe it, doesn't mean it didnt happen. It covers the facts though, doesn't it? And again, I'm not saying it didn't happen. NO it actually doesn't it only covers rewally whats been allowed to be reported. But they are all facts, yes? Its like 10 pieces of a bigger jigsaw puzzle. I get the feeling the jury didn't have the box lid when they were putting it together. I like feelings, completely bloody subjective. Well, you should remain objective like I am. I'm just looking at the facts. Teenager said adult did something - adult said he didn't. No material evidence, and no independent witnesses. Still, adult is found guilty. Something doesn't add up. Was the Catholic Church on trial, or was Cardinal Pell? You do realise you arent being objective though right when you use the term I get the feeling? And Something doesnt addup. Those are subjective measures. I'm being objective when considering the verdict. I also remain completely open-minded. At this stage, I'm not convinced of his guilt. And this is despite me not liking pedophiles, Pell, his religion, his Chrurch, Abbott, Howard, Bolt, and Devine. Juries, and our legal system in general, get it wrong way too often. I was right when I said the Chamberlains were wrongfully convicted, and I could be right about this too (although I'm not saying it's a wrongful conviction at this stage). We probably won't find out for many years, though.
|
Forum
Pages: 
