Australian Politics Forum - Pell Court of Appeal Decision

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 131547
Gender: male

Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Reply #375 - Aug 27^th, 2019 at 9:59am

cods wrote on Aug 27^th, 2019 at 9:53am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 27^th, 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.

Back to top

IP Logged

Sir Spot of Borg Gold Member Offline WE ARE BORG Posts: 26460 Australia	Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision Reply #376 - Aug 27^th, 2019 at 10:33am Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Aug 27^th, 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
Back to top	Whaaaaaah! I'm a Moron! - edited by some unethical admin - you think its funny? - its a slippery slope IP Logged

cods

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 88048

Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Reply #377 - Aug 27^th, 2019 at 11:53am

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 27^th, 2019 at 10:33am:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Aug 27^th, 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.

Back to top

IP Logged

Prime Minister for Canyons

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 26906
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Reply #378 - Aug 27^th, 2019 at 12:12pm

cods wrote on Aug 27^th, 2019 at 11:53am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 27^th, 2019 at 10:33am:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Aug 27^th, 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.

Back to top

In a time of universal deceit — telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

No evidence whatsoever it can be attributed to George Orwell or Eric Arthur Blair (in fact the same guy)

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 37678
Gender: male

Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Reply #379 - Aug 27^th, 2019 at 12:24pm

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 27^th, 2019 at 9:15am:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Aug 26^th, 2019 at 8:41pm:

Johnnie wrote on Aug 26^th, 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?

Back to top

IP Logged

Prime Minister for Canyons

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 26906
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Reply #380 - Aug 27^th, 2019 at 12:29pm

Aussie wrote on Aug 27^th, 2019 at 12:24pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 27^th, 2019 at 9:15am:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Aug 26^th, 2019 at 8:41pm:

Johnnie wrote on Aug 26^th, 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

Back to top

In a time of universal deceit — telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

No evidence whatsoever it can be attributed to George Orwell or Eric Arthur Blair (in fact the same guy)

IP Logged

Prime Minister for Canyons

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 26906
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Reply #381 - Aug 27^th, 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-de...

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.

Back to top

In a time of universal deceit — telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

No evidence whatsoever it can be attributed to George Orwell or Eric Arthur Blair (in fact the same guy)

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 131547
Gender: male

Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Reply #382 - Aug 27^th, 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".

Back to top

IP Logged

Prime Minister for Canyons

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 26906
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Reply #383 - Aug 27^th, 2019 at 12:46pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 27^th, 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?

Back to top

In a time of universal deceit — telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

No evidence whatsoever it can be attributed to George Orwell or Eric Arthur Blair (in fact the same guy)

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 131547
Gender: male

Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Reply #384 - Aug 27^th, 2019 at 12:50pm

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 27^th, 2019 at 12:46pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 27^th, 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.

Back to top

IP Logged

Prime Minister for Canyons Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 26906 Canberra Gender:	Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision Reply #385 - Aug 27^th, 2019 at 12:52pm Thats for the High court to decide.
Back to top	In a time of universal deceit — telling the truth is a revolutionary act. No evidence whatsoever it can be attributed to George Orwell or Eric Arthur Blair (in fact the same guy) IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 37678
Gender: male

Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Reply #386 - Aug 27^th, 2019 at 1:44pm

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 27^th, 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-de...

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.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Aug 27^th, 2019 at 1:56pm by Aussie »

IP Logged

Grappler Truth Teller Feller

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 80318
Proud pre-1850's NO Voter
Gender: male

Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Reply #387 - Aug 27^th, 2019 at 2:03pm

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 27^th, 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-de...

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)...

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

Grappler Truth Teller Feller

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 80318
Proud pre-1850's NO Voter
Gender: male

Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Reply #388 - Aug 27^th, 2019 at 2:10pm

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 27^th, 2019 at 12:29pm:

Aussie wrote on Aug 27^th, 2019 at 12:24pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 27^th, 2019 at 9:15am:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Aug 26^th, 2019 at 8:41pm:

Johnnie wrote on Aug 26^th, 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...

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

cods

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 88048

Re: Pell Court of Appeal Decision
Reply #389 - Aug 27^th, 2019 at 2:15pm

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 27^th, 2019 at 12:12pm:

cods wrote on Aug 27^th, 2019 at 11:53am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 27^th, 2019 at 10:33am:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Aug 27^th, 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.

Back to top

IP Logged

Poll
Question: Is Pell guilty?
* This poll has now closed *
Yes 7 (63.6%) No 4 (36.4%) Total votes: 11 « Created by: Bobby. on: Aug 26^th, 2019 at 12:38pm »