cods wrote on Apr 12^th, 2020 at 6:42pm:

I think I read somewhere that recognised states have sovereign immunity...

But, anyway, how do you put a state on the stand? Can the Commonwealth of Australia be 'charged' with child abuse for any state-governed institutional abuse?

cods wrote on Apr 13^th, 2020 at 8:54am:


Follow the money cods.  Where did the money come from?

Gnads wrote on Apr 12^th, 2020 at 4:39pm:


Same here mate....Pell had his chance to defend himself in court but refused because he would be cross examined and obviously believed he was better off remaining silent....He should maintain that silence and and stop playing the victim....The bloke is a fraud who had his chance to face his accuser in a court of law and refused!!!

Quote:


He faced his accusers many times.  First at the Royal Commission where he was cross-examined (and no-one laid a glove on him in that process,) and then at two Trials.

There are many occasions where you look at the Crown case when it has concluded, and you talk to the client about giving evidence.  First, it is a fundamental right of an accused person not to give evidence and no adverse conclusion can be drawn against them if they exercise that right.  So, start there.  Then, you know that your client's case has already been presented to the Jury via the evidence of the investigating Coppers who interviewed Pell.  He fully co-operated with them and gave them answers to all questions asked of him.  So, what can be gained by him telling the same story in the box other than he avoids comment like the one you have made.  Then, you evaluate how well the Crown case has gone.  We all know now (because the High Court has said so) that there was no case upon which Pell could be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt.  So, not getting in the Box was a very sound decision.  That does not prevent him from calling other relevant witnesses as did happen in Pell's two Trials.

Less emotion Phil, and more objective clinical thinking.

Aussie wrote on Apr 13^th, 2020 at 10:53am:


Just as you would not accept his guilt I have doubt on his innocence....Pell refused to be cross examined by his accuser in either trial and his testimony from the Royal Commission was irrelevant as you know (and heavily redacted because of the court case) so I call your claim bullshit....I have every right to question his innocence just as you have the right to question his guilt....Claiming Pell has already faced his accuser is bullshit and I can draw what ever adverse conclusions I want as I am not bound by the court or jury system to ignore his refusal to testify in his own defence....The weight of evidence against Pell is greater than what was presented in one criminal proceeding....When the civil proceedings start you will regret defending this scum bag mate!!!

philperth2010 wrote on Apr 13^th, 2020 at 11:03am:


ok so what evidence  do you know  that the rest of us dont have???>>.


dont you understand    we are not defending him....no one knows what went on that day........its one person against another......what evidence havent we seen or heard of already??...as far as I know there wasnt any evidence at the trial...

and I am all for seeing and believing in the evidence.


all aussie is saying is look at the big picture.....there are many holes in his court case....it was weak...the jury believed the victim.....


is there a civil case to look forward too who is bringing it?

Quote:


Yes, I have always maintained that the case against Pell could not possibly lead to a conviction which would hold.  I was right Phil, you are wrong.

He may well be a 'scum bag' but he was not charged with being a 'scum bag.'  I am not defending him for one second...I am standing on legal grounds endorsing the High Court decision, one I always maintained would be the case.