Australian Politics Forum

Mr Hammer

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 25212
Gender: male

Re: Pell walks
Reply #210 - Apr 8^th, 2020 at 12:34pm

John Smith wrote on Apr 8^th, 2020 at 12:30pm:

Johnnie wrote on Apr 8^th, 2020 at 12:26pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 8^th, 2020 at 12:20pm:

Johnnie wrote on Apr 8^th, 2020 at 11:51am:

Gnads wrote on Apr 8^th, 2020 at 11:25am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 8^th, 2020 at 11:20am:

Gnads wrote on Apr 8^th, 2020 at 11:10am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 7^th, 2020 at 9:31pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Apr 7^th, 2020 at 9:28pm:

Compensation? He was found guilty by a jury. Is Pell a victim of our justice system?

He's innocent.

Having you been paying attention?

Was he proven innocent or was the decision made on a technicality of law & a failure in the prosecutions case? Leaving no option but to dismiss/quash the decision?

I don't recall reading anything about innocence.

He doesn't need to be proven innocent. They need to prove him guilty.

Spot

Well that doesn't mean he's innocent either ..does it?

"The presumption of innocence is the legal principle that one is considered innocent until proven guilty.

'presumed innocent' is very different to 'proven innocent'

Roll Eyes

Well how about putting the accuser on trial to prove he has been abused.

are you vying for some sort of idiot award?

He'd have to settle for silver.

Back to top

IP Logged

Alinta Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 1470 Melbourne Gender:	Re: Pell walks Reply #211 - Apr 8^th, 2020 at 12:34pm Possibly the reference made earlier in this thread... https://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2015/s4368666.htm
Back to top	IP Logged

Johnnie

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 12485
Gender: male

Re: Pell walks
Reply #212 - Apr 8^th, 2020 at 12:40pm

John Smith wrote on Apr 8^th, 2020 at 12:30pm:

Johnnie wrote on Apr 8^th, 2020 at 12:26pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 8^th, 2020 at 12:20pm:

Johnnie wrote on Apr 8^th, 2020 at 11:51am:

Gnads wrote on Apr 8^th, 2020 at 11:25am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 8^th, 2020 at 11:20am:

Gnads wrote on Apr 8^th, 2020 at 11:10am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 7^th, 2020 at 9:31pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Apr 7^th, 2020 at 9:28pm:

Compensation? He was found guilty by a jury. Is Pell a victim of our justice system?

He's innocent.

Having you been paying attention?

Was he proven innocent or was the decision made on a technicality of law & a failure in the prosecutions case? Leaving no option but to dismiss/quash the decision?

I don't recall reading anything about innocence.

He doesn't need to be proven innocent. They need to prove him guilty.

Spot

Well that doesn't mean he's innocent either ..does it?

"The presumption of innocence is the legal principle that one is considered innocent until proven guilty.

'presumed innocent' is very different to 'proven innocent'

Roll Eyes

Well how about putting the accuser on trial to prove he has been abused.

are you vying for some sort of idiot award?

So you just automatically assume the accuser is not a big fat liar because you want the Church to pay.

Back to top

IP Logged

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 72502
Gender: male

Re: Pell walks
Reply #213 - Apr 8^th, 2020 at 12:46pm

Johnnie wrote on Apr 8^th, 2020 at 12:40pm:

[quote author=John_Smith link=1586218255/209#209 date=1586313043]
So you just automatically assume the accuser is not a big fat liar because you want the Church to pay.

no, i assume that the church, who it has been proven has lied about this for at least the last 50 years, is untrustworthy and they deserve whatever they get.

Back to top

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.

IP Logged

John Smith Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 72502 Gender:	Re: Pell walks Reply #214 - Apr 8^th, 2020 at 12:47pm Mr Hammer wrote on Apr 8^th, 2020 at 12:34pm: He'd have to settle for silver. you were never really worried about losing your first place were you?
Back to top	Our esteemed leader: I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus. IP Logged

cods

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 88048

Re: Pell walks
Reply #215 - Apr 8^th, 2020 at 1:12pm

Gnads wrote on Apr 8^th, 2020 at 11:10am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 7^th, 2020 at 9:31pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Apr 7^th, 2020 at 9:28pm:

Compensation? He was found guilty by a jury. Is Pell a victim of our justice system?

He's innocent.

Having you been paying attention?

Was he proven innocent or was the decision made on a technicality of law & a failure in the prosecutions case? Leaving no option but to dismiss/quash the decision?

I don't recall reading anything about innocence.

why didnt they have an option to a re trial???...

if he had had a new trial it would have been innocent or guilty over and done with..........this way its nothing really....it sure wont satisfy those who seek blood..

Back to top

IP Logged

John Smith Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 72502 Gender:	Re: Pell walks Reply #216 - Apr 8^th, 2020 at 1:15pm cods wrote on Apr 8^th, 2020 at 1:12pm: if he had had a new trial it would have been innocent or guilty over and done with trials don't find anyone innocent.
Back to top	Our esteemed leader: I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus. IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 37725
Gender: male

Re: Pell walks
Reply #217 - Apr 8^th, 2020 at 1:18pm

cods wrote on Apr 8^th, 2020 at 1:12pm:

Gnads wrote on Apr 8^th, 2020 at 11:10am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 7^th, 2020 at 9:31pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Apr 7^th, 2020 at 9:28pm:

Compensation? He was found guilty by a jury. Is Pell a victim of our justice system?

He's innocent.

Having you been paying attention?

Was he proven innocent or was the decision made on a technicality of law & a failure in the prosecutions case? Leaving no option but to dismiss/quash the decision?

I don't recall reading anything about innocence.

why didnt they have an option to a re trial???...

if he had had a new trial it would have been innocent or guilty over and done with..........this way its nothing really....it sure wont satisfy those who seek blood..

Wrong cods. The highest Court of this Land, made up of seven creme de la creme pre-eminent Lawyers, have acquitted Pell......UNANIMOUSLY. No new trial needed. The state of the evidence is such that no Jury, properly instructed on the Law, could reasonably conclude guilt.

Mr Smith, you need to get back to the basic principle. Until found guilty beyond reasonable doubt, an accused person is presumed to be an innocent person. Ergo, Pell is innocent.

Back to top

IP Logged

cods

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 88048

Re: Pell walks
Reply #218 - Apr 8^th, 2020 at 1:21pm

John Smith wrote on Apr 8^th, 2020 at 12:17pm:

cods wrote on Apr 8^th, 2020 at 9:28am:

sorry!

sins of the father... comes to mind thats all..

did he cover up anything????.. I dont know!

he moved a priest who had been complained about.......its all I know....and that wasnt a crime in the Church....

or in those days at all......

not reporting twhat he knew to police and moving a know pedo is covering it up.

It doesn't have to be a crime under the church, it's a crime under Australian Law.

would you have reported your masters,, in those days???..

today whistleblowers have a small amount of support... in those days nothing..

he was and is deeply involved with the Church we all know the church is a law unto itself... confession is a good one... Roll Eyes

,,,, people were still in awe of the church back then....to go against everything the church has taught him would have been a huge ask....

dont forget this wasnt even talked about back then...

where were the police during those times.. didnt one parent go to the police??????>..I dont know I am not a catholic..so was never exposed to anything like this...

as for paedos I never heard anyone talk about them....

seems to me Pell is being victimised for doing the churches biding.....of which he was one of many in hindsight most of us can see clearly! and would do something differently......its amazing what hindsight does..

Back to top

IP Logged

Mr Hammer

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 25212
Gender: male

Re: Pell walks
Reply #219 - Apr 8^th, 2020 at 1:21pm

Aussie wrote on Apr 8^th, 2020 at 1:18pm:

cods wrote on Apr 8^th, 2020 at 1:12pm:

Gnads wrote on Apr 8^th, 2020 at 11:10am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 7^th, 2020 at 9:31pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Apr 7^th, 2020 at 9:28pm:

Compensation? He was found guilty by a jury. Is Pell a victim of our justice system?

He's innocent.

Having you been paying attention?

Was he proven innocent or was the decision made on a technicality of law & a failure in the prosecutions case? Leaving no option but to dismiss/quash the decision?

I don't recall reading anything about innocence.

why didnt they have an option to a re trial???...

if he had had a new trial it would have been innocent or guilty over and done with..........this way its nothing really....it sure wont satisfy those who seek blood..

Wrong cods. The highest Court of this Land, made up of seven creme de la creme pre-eminent Lawyers, have acquitted Pell......UNANIMOUSLY. No new trial needed. The state of the evidence is such that no Jury, properly instructed on the Law, could reasonably conclude guilt.

Mr Smith, you need to get back to basic the basic principle. Until found guilty beyond reasonable doubt, an accused person is presumed to be an innocent person. Ergo, Pell is innocent.

Yet a jury did, F,W. A jury instructed by a creme de menthe judge. Jurispredence...who needs it?

Back to top

IP Logged

cods

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 88048

Re: Pell walks
Reply #220 - Apr 8^th, 2020 at 1:24pm

Aussie wrote on Apr 8^th, 2020 at 1:18pm:

cods wrote on Apr 8^th, 2020 at 1:12pm:

Gnads wrote on Apr 8^th, 2020 at 11:10am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 7^th, 2020 at 9:31pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Apr 7^th, 2020 at 9:28pm:

Compensation? He was found guilty by a jury. Is Pell a victim of our justice system?

He's innocent.

Having you been paying attention?

Was he proven innocent or was the decision made on a technicality of law & a failure in the prosecutions case? Leaving no option but to dismiss/quash the decision?

I don't recall reading anything about innocence.

why didnt they have an option to a re trial???...

if he had had a new trial it would have been innocent or guilty over and done with..........this way its nothing really....it sure wont satisfy those who seek blood..

Wrong cods. The highest Court of this Land, made up of seven creme de la creme pre-eminent Lawyers, have acquitted Pell......UNANIMOUSLY. No new trial needed. The state of the evidence is such that no Jury, properly instructed on the Law, could reasonably conclude guilt.

Mr Smith, you need to get back to the basic principle. Until found guilty beyond reasonable doubt, an accused person is presumed to be an innocent person. Ergo, Pell is innocent.

but as you can see ... no one accepts he is INNOCENT....

if a jury didnt receive proper instructions..

or evidence was or wasnt allowed...

wouldnt it be better a new trial...costly I know...but this is a huge issue a trial maybe judge only....at least it would all be out there no pressure just FACTS if the court found him not guilty wouldnt people be more acceptable to that finding?

Back to top

IP Logged

Sir Spot of Borg

Gold Member

Offline

WE ARE BORG

Posts: 26460
Australia

Re: Pell walks
Reply #221 - Apr 8^th, 2020 at 1:26pm

Mr Hammer wrote on Apr 8^th, 2020 at 1:21pm:

Aussie wrote on Apr 8^th, 2020 at 1:18pm:

cods wrote on Apr 8^th, 2020 at 1:12pm:

Gnads wrote on Apr 8^th, 2020 at 11:10am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 7^th, 2020 at 9:31pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Apr 7^th, 2020 at 9:28pm:

Compensation? He was found guilty by a jury. Is Pell a victim of our justice system?

He's innocent.

Having you been paying attention?

Was he proven innocent or was the decision made on a technicality of law & a failure in the prosecutions case? Leaving no option but to dismiss/quash the decision?

I don't recall reading anything about innocence.

why didnt they have an option to a re trial???...

if he had had a new trial it would have been innocent or guilty over and done with..........this way its nothing really....it sure wont satisfy those who seek blood..

Wrong cods. The highest Court of this Land, made up of seven creme de la creme pre-eminent Lawyers, have acquitted Pell......UNANIMOUSLY. No new trial needed. The state of the evidence is such that no Jury, properly instructed on the Law, could reasonably conclude guilt.

Mr Smith, you need to get back to basic the basic principle. Until found guilty beyond reasonable doubt, an accused person is presumed to be an innocent person. Ergo, Pell is innocent.

Yet a jury did, F,W. A jury instructed by a creme de menthe judge. Jurispredence...who needs it?

It was overturned because he was presumed guilty and was trying to prove his innocence instead of the other way around. how many times does it have to be said?

What is creme de menthe judge?

Spot

Back to top

Whaaaaaah!
I'm a
Moron!

- edited by some unethical admin - you think its funny? - its a slippery slope

IP Logged

Captain Nemo

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 8523
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: Pell walks
Reply #222 - Apr 8^th, 2020 at 1:28pm

Captain Nemo wrote on Apr 8^th, 2020 at 11:19am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 8^th, 2020 at 10:33am:

Captain Nemo wrote on Apr 8^th, 2020 at 10:28am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 8^th, 2020 at 10:19am:

Captain Nemo wrote on Apr 8^th, 2020 at 10:11am:

There only two people alive who know for sure what happened.

Each has a very different view of the events.

As for Pell generally? I think he is a vile man who covered up systemic child abuse for decades.

I dont mean to defend him but can you imagine what would have happened - back in the 70s and 80s if he had tried to violate the catholic thing and come forward? What could he (or any other priest) do?

Yeah imo those ppl shouldn't have been moved but kicked out. He may not have had that power back then though.

Spot

Yes, they should have been kicked out. I'm not sure what powers the administrator for the Ballarat district had back then?

There are other accusations about Pell and he is reported to have made "jokes" about priests buggering boys ... not a very nice person.

By whom?

I can't find the exact quote but it was in relation to Risdale I think ... where Pell was accused of saying : "What? has he been buggering boys again?" or words to that effect.

Might have been a piece referenced by David Marr?

I'll try to find the reference ...

Found the reference ...

The term was actually "rooting" not buggering ...

From the Royal Commission hearings regarding Ballarat ...

Mr Timothy Green was recalled to give further evidence about a conversation he alleges he had as a 12-year old with Bishop Pell at a swimming pool in Ballarat in which he told George Pell about abuse at St Patrick’s College in Ballarat.

In Mr Green’s statement he says George Pell said ‘don’t be so ridiculous’ and that he dismissed the allegations.

In his statement Mr Green says two other boys were with him in the change rooms when he had the conversation. In a statement from one of the boys named by Mr Green, BWF, as being present, BWF says he has no recollection of the conversation.

After lunch BWE, a retired soldier, gave evidence about a conversation he claims to have overheard in the sacristy of the Ballarat Cathedral between Fr Pell and Fr Frank Madden when BWE was an altar boy at a funeral mass in September 1983.

BWE told the Commission:

After they had exchanged pleasantries Fr Madden said ‘how’s things down your way?’ or words to that effect. George Pell responded by saying ‘…I think Gerry’s been rooting boys again’.

http://www.tjhcouncil.org.au/royal-commission/case-study-28-ballarat,-may-2015,-...

Back to top

The 2025 election could be a shocker.

IP Logged

Mr Hammer Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 25212 Gender:	Re: Pell walks Reply #223 - Apr 8^th, 2020 at 1:32pm I don't care if Pell's guilty or not. I'm neither a Catholic nor a moral rights crusader. I'm more interested in changes to the judicial system; changes that neither I nor the rest of the crumpled herd had a single fricken say in.
Back to top	IP Logged

Mr Hammer

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 25212
Gender: male

Re: Pell walks
Reply #224 - Apr 8^th, 2020 at 1:34pm

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 8^th, 2020 at 1:26pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Apr 8^th, 2020 at 1:21pm:

Aussie wrote on Apr 8^th, 2020 at 1:18pm:

cods wrote on Apr 8^th, 2020 at 1:12pm:

Gnads wrote on Apr 8^th, 2020 at 11:10am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 7^th, 2020 at 9:31pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Apr 7^th, 2020 at 9:28pm:

Compensation? He was found guilty by a jury. Is Pell a victim of our justice system?

He's innocent.

Having you been paying attention?

Was he proven innocent or was the decision made on a technicality of law & a failure in the prosecutions case? Leaving no option but to dismiss/quash the decision?

I don't recall reading anything about innocence.

why didnt they have an option to a re trial???...

if he had had a new trial it would have been innocent or guilty over and done with..........this way its nothing really....it sure wont satisfy those who seek blood..

Wrong cods. The highest Court of this Land, made up of seven creme de la creme pre-eminent Lawyers, have acquitted Pell......UNANIMOUSLY. No new trial needed. The state of the evidence is such that no Jury, properly instructed on the Law, could reasonably conclude guilt.

Mr Smith, you need to get back to basic the basic principle. Until found guilty beyond reasonable doubt, an accused person is presumed to be an innocent person. Ergo, Pell is innocent.

Yet a jury did, F,W. A jury instructed by a creme de menthe judge. Jurispredence...who needs it?

It was overturned because he was presumed guilty and was trying to prove his innocence instead of the other way around. how many times does it have to be said?

What is creme de menthe judge?

Spot

It's called a joke. (Obviously not a good one given the explanation).

Back to top

IP Logged