Australian Politics Forum

philperth2010

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21097
Perth
Gender: male

Re: Pell walks
Reply #330 - Apr 13^th, 2020 at 12:12pm

Aussie wrote on Apr 13^th, 2020 at 12:06pm:

Quote:

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!!!

Roll Eyes Roll Eyes

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.

How was I wrong mate....IMO Pell is guilty and I am entitled to that opinion just as you and Bolt never accepted his guilt....You were wrong about Pell facing his accusers in the court case or do you still maintain that is the case???

Huh

Back to top

If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them.
Isaac Asimov (1920 - 1992)

IP Logged

NorthOfNorth

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 17258
Gender: male

Re: Pell walks
Reply #331 - Apr 13^th, 2020 at 12:15pm

philperth2010 wrote on Apr 13^th, 2020 at 12:12pm:

Aussie wrote on Apr 13^th, 2020 at 12:06pm:

Quote:

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!!!

Roll Eyes Roll Eyes

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.

How was I wrong mate....IMO Pell is guilty and I am entitled to that opinion just as you and Bolt never accepted his guilt....You were wrong about Pell facing his accusers in the court case or do you still maintain that is the case???

Huh

Not sure how it works... But isn't accusing someone of a crime for which he's been acquitted more than just an opinion? Isn't it defamatory?

Back to top

Conviction is the art of being certain

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 39466
Gender: male

Re: Pell walks
Reply #332 - Apr 13^th, 2020 at 12:23pm

Quote:

How was I wrong mate....IMO Pell is guilty and I am entitled to that opinion just as you and Bolt never accepted his guilt....You were wrong about Pell facing his accusers in the court case or do you still maintain that is the case???

Huh Huh

He faced those who were accusing him at the RC and at two Trials. Or are you saying that the accuser never ever faced Pell?

And Phil....the High Court has declared your opinion to be wrong. That's it....all over red rover.

Back to top

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 39466
Gender: male

Re: Pell walks
Reply #333 - Apr 13^th, 2020 at 12:28pm

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 13^th, 2020 at 12:15pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Apr 13^th, 2020 at 12:12pm:

Aussie wrote on Apr 13^th, 2020 at 12:06pm:

Quote:

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!!!

Roll Eyes Roll Eyes

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.

How was I wrong mate....IMO Pell is guilty and I am entitled to that opinion just as you and Bolt never accepted his guilt....You were wrong about Pell facing his accusers in the court case or do you still maintain that is the case???

Huh

Not sure how it works... But isn't accusing someone of a crime for which he's been acquitted more than just an opinion? Isn't it defamatory?

One would need to take care.

Back to top

IP Logged

philperth2010

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21097
Perth
Gender: male

Re: Pell walks
Reply #334 - Apr 13^th, 2020 at 12:36pm

Aussie wrote on Apr 13^th, 2020 at 12:23pm:

Quote:

How was I wrong mate....IMO Pell is guilty and I am entitled to that opinion just as you and Bolt never accepted his guilt....You were wrong about Pell facing his accusers in the court case or do you still maintain that is the case???

Huh Huh

He faced those who were accusing him at the RC and at two Trials. Or are you saying that the accuser never ever faced Pell?

And Phil....the High Court has declared your opinion to be wrong. That's it....all over red rover.

Get stuffed....In the court of public opinion I like others who question Pell's innocence are entitled to weigh all the evidence and accusations against Pell to form our opinions and are not constrained by the law to only accept evidence presented in his court case to form our unbiased opinions....You on the other hand ignore all the accusations against Pell and declare him innocent which is your choice to stick your head in the sand....Your claim he has faced his accuser in his trial by claiming he was cross examined in the RC is bullshit and you either know it or are being deliberately deceiving....Pell was never cross examined over the accusations made in his criminal trial and I call you a liar for attempting to make that assertion you fake lawyer!!!

Roll Eyes

Back to top

If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them.
Isaac Asimov (1920 - 1992)

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 39466
Gender: male

Re: Pell walks
Reply #335 - Apr 13^th, 2020 at 1:19pm

Quote:

Get stuffed....In the court of public opinion I like others who question Pell's innocence are entitled to weigh all the evidence and accusations against Pell to form our opinions and are not constrained by the law to only accept evidence presented in his court case to form our unbiased opinions....You on the other hand ignore all the accusations against Pell and declare him innocent which is your choice to stick your head in the sand....Your claim he has faced his accuser in his trial by claiming he was cross examined in the RC is bullshit and you either know it or are being deliberately deceiving....Pell was never cross examined over the accusations made in his criminal trial and I call you a liar for attempting to make that assertion you fake lawyer!!!

Roll Eyes Roll Eyes

Well, I guess, as cods has been saying, you have some evidence against Pell that the RC and the Courts have not seen. Perhaps you can tell me what that evidence is and why it was not presented at the two Trials?

I say he faced his accuser by travelling voluntarily from The Vatican to the RC. Was his accuser not there facing him Phil? I say he faced his accuser/s at the two Trials. That is just so elementary. it is self-evident. Are you saying his accuser was not willing to face Pell at those two Trials?

'Facing an accuser' means attending at the same place at the same time, does it not Phil? Since when does 'facing an accuser' include being cross-examined when one has the right not to be?

Back to top

IP Logged

philperth2010

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21097
Perth
Gender: male

Re: Pell walks
Reply #336 - Apr 13^th, 2020 at 1:20pm

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 13^th, 2020 at 12:15pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Apr 13^th, 2020 at 12:12pm:

Aussie wrote on Apr 13^th, 2020 at 12:06pm:

Quote:

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!!!

Roll Eyes Roll Eyes

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.

How was I wrong mate....IMO Pell is guilty and I am entitled to that opinion just as you and Bolt never accepted his guilt....You were wrong about Pell facing his accusers in the court case or do you still maintain that is the case???

Huh

Not sure how it works... But isn't accusing someone of a crime for which he's been acquitted more than just an opinion? Isn't it defamatory?

No....Believing someone who has made accusations against someone is not defamatory....I did not make any accusations against George Pell but I believe those who have, which is my right....Just as Aussie and Bolt never accepted Pell's guilt or considered other accusations in forming their opinion, I am not constrained by courts or blind faith to ignore all the evidence against the scum bag and believe he is guilty???

Roll Eyes

Back to top

If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them.
Isaac Asimov (1920 - 1992)

IP Logged

cods

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 88048

Re: Pell walks
Reply #337 - Apr 13^th, 2020 at 1:20pm

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 13^th, 2020 at 11:37am:

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

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 13^th, 2020 at 12:07am:

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

Aussie wrote on Apr 12^th, 2020 at 5:36pm:

Cods.....the defence that "I did what my Boss asked me to," does not work.

Nuremberg.

thats why I am saying WHY ISNT THE VATICAN ON TRIAL..

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?

well in a way they were......the govt of the days that happened have long gone.....but it sent a message dont ever go that way again...

The government of the day is not the Commonwealth of Australia...

Otherwise you'd be suggesting charging the dead John Paul II, John Paul I, Paul VI, John XXIII....

daft and you know it......the point being the WRONG was carried forward by Pope after Pope...dont you see its the position that matters.....a small group usually very small make up the rules....a they make sure they are followed through with...

Back to top

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 39466
Gender: male

Re: Pell walks
Reply #338 - Apr 13^th, 2020 at 1:23pm

Quote:

No....Believing someone who has made accusations against someone is not defamatory....I did not make any accusations against George Pell but I believe those who have, which is my right....Just as Aussie and Bolt never accepted Pell's guilt or considered other accusations in forming their opinion, I am not constrained by courts or blind faith to ignore all the evidence against the scum bag and believe he is guilty???

Roll Eyes Roll Eyes

What do you assert he is guilty of, Phil. Be specific. "Being a scum bag" is not an offence known to Law.

Back to top

IP Logged

philperth2010

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21097
Perth
Gender: male

Re: Pell walks
Reply #339 - Apr 13^th, 2020 at 1:23pm

Aussie wrote on Apr 13^th, 2020 at 1:19pm:

Quote:

Get stuffed....In the court of public opinion I like others who question Pell's innocence are entitled to weigh all the evidence and accusations against Pell to form our opinions and are not constrained by the law to only accept evidence presented in his court case to form our unbiased opinions....You on the other hand ignore all the accusations against Pell and declare him innocent which is your choice to stick your head in the sand....Your claim he has faced his accuser in his trial by claiming he was cross examined in the RC is bullshit and you either know it or are being deliberately deceiving....Pell was never cross examined over the accusations made in his criminal trial and I call you a liar for attempting to make that assertion you fake lawyer!!!

Roll Eyes Roll Eyes

Well, I guess, as cods has been saying, you have some evidence against Pell that the RC and the Courts have not seen. Perhaps you can tell me what that evidence is and why it was not presented at the two Trials?

I say he faced his accuser by travelling voluntarily from The Vatican to the RC. Was his accuser not there facing him Phil? I say he faced his accuser/s at the two Trials. That is just so elementary. it is self-evident. Are you saying his accuser was not willing to face Pell at those two Trials?

'Facing an accuser' means attending at the same place at the same time, does it not Phil? Since when does 'facing an accuser' include being cross-examined when one has the right not to be?

Watch revelations and there are many people who put there names to accusations against Pell....You are not a lawyer if you have to ask why evidence of these other accusations were not presented at his trial....Are you serious???

Huh

Back to top

If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them.
Isaac Asimov (1920 - 1992)

IP Logged

cods

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 88048

Re: Pell walks
Reply #340 - Apr 13^th, 2020 at 1:24pm

philperth2010 wrote on Apr 13^th, 2020 at 1:20pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 13^th, 2020 at 12:15pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Apr 13^th, 2020 at 12:12pm:

Aussie wrote on Apr 13^th, 2020 at 12:06pm:

Quote:

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!!!

Roll Eyes Roll Eyes

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.

How was I wrong mate....IMO Pell is guilty and I am entitled to that opinion just as you and Bolt never accepted his guilt....You were wrong about Pell facing his accusers in the court case or do you still maintain that is the case???

Huh

Not sure how it works... But isn't accusing someone of a crime for which he's been acquitted more than just an opinion? Isn't it defamatory?

No....Believing someone who has made accusations against someone is not defamatory....I did not make any accusations against George Pell but I believe those who have, which is my right....Just as Aussie and Bolt never accepted Pell's guilt or considered other accusations in forming their opinion, I am not constrained by courts or blind faith to ignore all the evidence against the scum bag and believe he is guilty???

Roll Eyes

what evidence phil/??

I dont recall any evidence against him...

it was all words.and memory ....which can be flawed..

Back to top

IP Logged

philperth2010

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21097
Perth
Gender: male

Re: Pell walks
Reply #341 - Apr 13^th, 2020 at 1:27pm

Aussie wrote on Apr 13^th, 2020 at 1:23pm:

Quote:

No....Believing someone who has made accusations against someone is not defamatory....I did not make any accusations against George Pell but I believe those who have, which is my right....Just as Aussie and Bolt never accepted Pell's guilt or considered other accusations in forming their opinion, I am not constrained by courts or blind faith to ignore all the evidence against the scum bag and believe he is guilty???

Roll Eyes Roll Eyes

What do you assert he is guilty of, Phil. Be specific. "Being a scum bag" is not an offence known to Law.

Are you trying to be a smart ass mate....I have already stated I believe those who made the accusations against Pell are telling the truth....Are you trying to claim I have no right to my beliefs and if so why is it you only uphold certain peoples right to their opinion???

Huh

Back to top

If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them.
Isaac Asimov (1920 - 1992)

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 39466
Gender: male

Re: Pell walks
Reply #342 - Apr 13^th, 2020 at 1:38pm

philperth2010 wrote on Apr 13^th, 2020 at 1:27pm:

Aussie wrote on Apr 13^th, 2020 at 1:23pm:

Quote:

No....Believing someone who has made accusations against someone is not defamatory....I did not make any accusations against George Pell but I believe those who have, which is my right....Just as Aussie and Bolt never accepted Pell's guilt or considered other accusations in forming their opinion, I am not constrained by courts or blind faith to ignore all the evidence against the scum bag and believe he is guilty???

Roll Eyes Roll Eyes

What do you assert he is guilty of, Phil. Be specific. "Being a scum bag" is not an offence known to Law.

Are you trying to be a smart ass mate....I have already stated I believe those who made the accusations against Pell are telling the truth....Are you trying to claim I have no right to my beliefs and if so why is it you only uphold certain peoples right to their opinion???

Huh

They may well be telling the truth, as might Pell. The High Court has not found either to be honest or dishonest. It has found that, on the evidence presented, the Jury's decision of 'Guilty' was perverse.

Back to top

IP Logged

philperth2010

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21097
Perth
Gender: male

Re: Pell walks
Reply #343 - Apr 13^th, 2020 at 1:42pm

cods wrote on Apr 13^th, 2020 at 1:24pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Apr 13^th, 2020 at 1:20pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 13^th, 2020 at 12:15pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Apr 13^th, 2020 at 12:12pm:

Aussie wrote on Apr 13^th, 2020 at 12:06pm:

Quote:

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!!!

Roll Eyes Roll Eyes

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.

How was I wrong mate....IMO Pell is guilty and I am entitled to that opinion just as you and Bolt never accepted his guilt....You were wrong about Pell facing his accusers in the court case or do you still maintain that is the case???

Huh

Not sure how it works... But isn't accusing someone of a crime for which he's been acquitted more than just an opinion? Isn't it defamatory?

No....Believing someone who has made accusations against someone is not defamatory....I did not make any accusations against George Pell but I believe those who have, which is my right....Just as Aussie and Bolt never accepted Pell's guilt or considered other accusations in forming their opinion, I am not constrained by courts or blind faith to ignore all the evidence against the scum bag and believe he is guilty???

Roll Eyes

what evidence phil/??

I dont recall any evidence against him...

it was all words.and memory ....which can be flawed..

Testimony is evidence....If words and memory were no evidence how could you ever bring anyone to justice especially in sexual assault cases....There are multiple accusers against George Pell and I am inclined to believe those who had the courage to come forward and tell their story....I am also more than entitled to question any verdict I do not agree with including if I was one of those who never accepted Pell's guilt....The appeals court judges accepted to word on those who claim they knew where Pell was at certain times and places decades ago and rejected the testimony of the witness despite not being there in person to hear his account....It was all words.and memory which can be flawed however the memory of abuse is never forgotten???

Huh

Back to top

If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them.
Isaac Asimov (1920 - 1992)

IP Logged

philperth2010

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21097
Perth
Gender: male

Re: Pell walks
Reply #344 - Apr 13^th, 2020 at 1:49pm

Aussie wrote on Apr 13^th, 2020 at 1:38pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Apr 13^th, 2020 at 1:27pm:

Aussie wrote on Apr 13^th, 2020 at 1:23pm:

Quote:

No....Believing someone who has made accusations against someone is not defamatory....I did not make any accusations against George Pell but I believe those who have, which is my right....Just as Aussie and Bolt never accepted Pell's guilt or considered other accusations in forming their opinion, I am not constrained by courts or blind faith to ignore all the evidence against the scum bag and believe he is guilty???

Roll Eyes Roll Eyes

What do you assert he is guilty of, Phil. Be specific. "Being a scum bag" is not an offence known to Law.

Are you trying to be a smart ass mate....I have already stated I believe those who made the accusations against Pell are telling the truth....Are you trying to claim I have no right to my beliefs and if so why is it you only uphold certain peoples right to their opinion???

Huh

They may well be telling the truth, as might Pell. The High Court has not found either to be honest or dishonest. It has found that, on the evidence presented, the Jury's decision of 'Guilty' was perverse.

I accept the High Court found Pell's conviction unjust and overturned it based on the evidence presented in his trial....However in forming my own opinion I can weigh all the accusations and known history of George Pell to form my opinion (Or do you claim I am not entitled to form such an opinion based on all known facts)....Only a complete idiot would not have known about the abuse going on under his nose and Pell is not an idiot???

Roll Eyes

Back to top

If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them.
Isaac Asimov (1920 - 1992)

IP Logged