Chat Forum
It is currently Fri May 29, 2020 1:28 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 331 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 5:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 11:33 am
Posts: 10935
Location: Stockholm
Please don't anyone mistake this is an apology for peadophiles or the Catholic church. To say I'm a fan of neither is a huge understatement and if he is guilty then his sentence is ridiculously light.

However in the interest of justice and honesty I must admit that:

i. When I first heard the story of what happened it struck me as very odd and unlikely.

ii. What evidence do they have but one person's word versus another's?

iii. The first jury was hung. What does the second know that the first did not?

This is obviously a very sensitive subject and I want to be clear they are genuine questions and I suspect he PROBABLY is guilty and deserves far worse than he got.

There's just the nagging question of how they could possibly prove it beyond reasonable doubt given the above and the time since the offences.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 6:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Posts: 36048
Location: Planet Rock
You know they couldn't prove his guilt so why ask


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 6:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:34 am
Posts: 18265
I do. Reason being he was accused of one incident in immediately after mass in the church. Where could've easily been caught. It's not your typical pedo case of systematic abused in a planned and well hidden manner.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 6:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3063
Good post. Key point in law for a jury to decide is guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Are court transcripts available yet? Does Oz publish the jury split guilty: not guilty? Sometimes we just have to take it on faith that the legal system is on the level. Otherwise many crimes would never result in a conviction - rape being a notoriously difficult example.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 6:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:34 am
Posts: 18265
My theory is that this is revenge for his inaction against abuse by priest under his management.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 6:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8111
CrazyIslander wrote:
My theory is that this is revenge for his inaction against abuse by priest under his management.


I'd be fairly comfortable with that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 6:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 50036
Location: Dirty Leeds
If he wasn't guilty his lawyer wouldn't have tried to spin the whole "it wasn't that bad, plain, vanilla sexual penetration" line but to maintain his innocence with a view to an appeal.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 6:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10143
What was wrong with the other thread on this?





CrazyIslander wrote:
I do. Reason being he was accused of one incident in immediately after mass in the church. Where could've easily been caught. It's not your typical pedo case of systematic abused in a planned and well hidden manner.

Well that's just the kind of justifying horseshit that ignores decades of abuse and what's "typical", as outlined in that article posted to the other thread.
guy smiley wrote:
Battle lines being drawn...
Guardian article
Spoiler: show
Quote:
What happens when the Australian establishment lines up behind a convicted paedophile?

“Supporting a convicted pedophile is morally wrong” was an uncontroversial statement in Australia a few days ago. It is no longer, and that change – really a tectonic one – has shifted the grounds of debate so far it is hard to know where to stand. It is a shift that began immediately as well: minutes after Cardinal George Pell’s conviction on child sexual assault charges, a former deputy prime minister was shaking his hand. Within hours, he had the character endorsement of one former prime minister, and the phoned-in counsel of another. That evening, the pages of our largest media organisation were being used to attack the courts, the jury system, and the rest of the press on his behalf.

Pinch yourself – that really is the same media organisation that harried a woman into exile after an insensitive Facebook post. The same prime ministers who thought the appropriate response to (false) Aboriginal child abuse claims, not convictions, was sending in the army.

But there will be no troops at St Patrick’s tomorrow.

There are so many monstrous hypocrisies in this display – the fulminating over law and order suddenly silent, the hysteria over paedophilia put into reverse, a “faith community” refusing to denounce its own criminal element – that detailing them is futile.

Pell’s defenders cannot be shamed by their inconsistencies. It is exactly that inconsistency that displays their power: the power to discriminate, the power to punish, and the power to protect. A man orally raped two 13-year-old boys, and now that power protects him.

For once, the ethical crudity of the shock jocks is clarifying, even welcome. Ray Hadley is almost alone among conservatives in backing the verdict reached by the jury, or at least respecting it.

“I think it would have been more prudent to allow justice to take its course before a public exhibition of their support for a now-convicted paedophile,” he said on Thursday morning. “It’s impossible to put ourselves in the position of the jury because they’re the only ones who heard that evidence.”

These statements of the bleeding obvious are suddenly refreshing, and right now the flimsy thing preventing the culture war becoming totalising.

The law is complex, and an appeals process is still to take place. But Pell’s defenders have not decided on his guiltlessness after a careful review of the evidence. They do not know what that evidence is. They have not sat in on the trial, or reviewed its transcripts. It seems they did not – and this is damning – even take the time or have any inclination to read unsuppressed media reports before weighing in.

The options of saying nothing, or waiting for more information, were available to them, but they did not take them. Instead, they began with Pell’s position, and his politics, and reverse engineered his innocence from there. I would like to believe this is not merely a partisan exercise but I keep coming undone on a single word and its synonyms: unthinkable.

Because apparently these crimes are unthinkable. How would a man of such seniority, and such faith (whom they had met!) commit such acts? Why would he act so publicly and so spontaneously? Why had his victims taken so long to come forward?

Here’s my question: where have these people been?


Did these past decades of institutional child abuse never happen? Were they looking away the whole time? Has everything we learned – painfully – about the damage it does, and its shame, been unlearned? Can it be still unrecognised that abusers groom whole communities as well as individual children? Of all the implausible excuses available, surely “but how could a priest do this?” must rank close to the top.


The jury did not buy Robert Richter’s very expensive defence, but for Pell’s defenders it has become an article of faith. And that faith needs miracles: cloth that is immovable, slits that are at the same time not an “opening”, schoolboys incapable of dodging authority, rope that cannot be untied, abuse that is either reported in an instant or never existed.

When this is the response even to a conviction, you know why victims fear they will be disbelieved and discredited. That fear is correct, warranted and will be made stronger than ever before by this disgrace.

On top of this straw-clutching is a layer of active disinformation, lying and irrelevance. It is not true that priests rarely abuse their victims without grooming. It may be true that Pell is a “lively conversationalist” but he is not on trial for being a bad raconteur. As for the man of high office, the man that I knew, the man who is so privately charitable, the man who would never … These words already appear in tens of thousands of case files. How many more are needed?


Those files also find priests who raped children not just in the sacristy but at the altar. They molested children not only in public but in front of their own family members, sometimes in the same moving car. They raped them while wearing vestments, not only orally but anally as well. That same untieable cincture has been used to bind the hands of a 16-year-old boy, who was then raped so viciously he needed corrective surgery. Opportunistic priests have acted in windows of time not just after mass, but on school excursions in public toilets. They have snuck into a hospital to rape a seven-year-old girl. They have molested every daughter in a five-daughter family.

So what about Pell’s case is implausible, or even unusual? For anyone willing to look, it is almost humdrum, once compared to the vast, prolific compendium of international crime his institution has compiled.

Unthinkable? What his defenders really mean is that they cannot bear thinking about it.

Quote:
Those files also find priests who raped children not just in the sacristy but at the altar. They molested children not only in public but in front of their own family members, sometimes in the same moving car. They raped them while wearing vestments, not only orally but anally as well. That same untieable cincture has been used to bind the hands of a 16-year-old boy, who was then raped so viciously he needed corrective surgery. Opportunistic priests have acted in windows of time not just after mass, but on school excursions in public toilets. They have snuck into a hospital to rape a seven-year-old girl. They have molested every daughter in a five-daughter family.

So what about Pell’s case is implausible, or even unusual? For anyone willing to look, it is almost humdrum, once compared to the vast, prolific compendium of international crime his institution has compiled.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 6:54 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 10:18 pm
Posts: 14968
As long as he has been contrite and confessed in the confessional he is already forgiven in the eyes of the catholic church


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 7:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 32559
Location: in transit
LeinsterLion wrote:
What was wrong with the other thread on this?


Yes.



And, no.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 7:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 8:57 pm
Posts: 11092
I generally have faith (no pun intended) in western judicial systems - certainly once all appeals are completed. I don't know enough about this case to deviate from that opinion.

In any case, isn't he the cunt who protected known child abusers. If he is, fuck him.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 7:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2016 11:46 pm
Posts: 1122
A5D5E5 wrote:
I generally have faith (no pun intended) in western judicial systems - certainly once all appeals are completed. I don't know enough about this case to deviate from that opinion.

In any case, isn't he the cunt who protected known child abusers. If he is, fuck him.


Sounds about right.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 8:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6477
Location: Darkest deepest northwest
Winnie wrote:
As long as he has been contrite and confessed in the confessional he is already forgiven in the eyes of the catholic church


Much easier to claim to be born again in Christ, and any old prod sect will give you a free pass. No admission of guilt required.


See how easy it is to be a bigoted dickhead Winnie. :roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 8:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Posts: 36048
Location: Planet Rock
earl the beaver wrote:
If he wasn't guilty his lawyer wouldn't have tried to spin the whole "it wasn't that bad, plain, vanilla sexual penetration" line but to maintain his innocence with a view to an appeal.

Proof that he is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 8:21 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3678
Lenny wrote:
Winnie wrote:
As long as he has been contrite and confessed in the confessional he is already forgiven in the eyes of the catholic church


Much easier to claim to be born again in Christ, and any old prod sect will give you a free pass. No admission of guilt required.


See how easy it is to be a bigoted dickhead Winnie. :roll:


Winnie, nice stereotype of confession.

Reconciliation would require, just for starters, further confession to the appropriate authorities.

Looks like that's just not been happening and that there is an endemic problem in the Church, sure.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 8:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Posts: 36048
Location: Planet Rock
Fenman wrote:
Good post. Key point in law for a jury to decide is guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Are court transcripts available yet? Does Oz publish the jury split guilty: not guilty? Sometimes we just have to take it on faith that the legal system is on the level. Otherwise many crimes would never result in a conviction - rape being a notoriously difficult example.

While I believe the vast majority of women who are prepared to go to court and accuse someone of rape are telling the truth it's still like any other crime and has to be proved. It really does not bother me that most accusations don't and up in a conviction.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 8:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:34 am
Posts: 18265
Pell has no other accusations before this case and none after. Sure it may yet come out but he has a clean record on a very well documented and investigated issue.

My point is the action which Pell is accused of is the action of a serial molester. By chance he caught the victims in the church drinking and his first reaction is to commit a sexual act. That doesn't sound like the action of someone who's doing it for the first and only time. That's implausible.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 9:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 8:57 pm
Posts: 11092
CrazyIslander wrote:
Pell has no other accusations before this case and none after. Sure it may yet come out but he has a clean record on a very well documented and investigated issue.

My point is the action which Pell is accused of is the action of a serial molester. By chance he caught the victims in the church drinking and his first reaction is to commit a sexual act. That doesn't sound like the action of someone who's doing it for the first and only time. That's implausible.


You should write to his defense lawyers as they probably didn't think of that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 9:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5770
I actually do. Although your thread will be misinterpreted despite your opening sentence.

How do you prove guilt of he said/he said 30 years ago?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 9:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 32559
Location: in transit
CrazyIslander wrote:
Pell has no other accusations before this case and none after. Sure it may yet come out but he has a clean record on a very well documented and investigated issue.

My point is the action which Pell is accused of is the action of a serial molester. By chance he caught the victims in the church drinking and his first reaction is to commit a sexual act. That doesn't sound like the action of someone who's doing it for the first and only time. That's implausible.


You should do some research, as usual. He has faced other accusations, there may well be more as victims previously intimidated about coming forward are reportedly discussing it now and the actions described within the judge’s sentencing summary are exacltly in line with typical predatory behaviour.

He fits the profile perfectly.

As for the other comments about the defence lawyer’s comments regarding the vanilla sex act, apparently that is standard defence language that relates to the assumption the guilty verdict is correct and isn’t an admission of guilt. Important difference.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 9:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16573
Location: STRAYA PLUM
CI is Andrew Bolt I see.

None of us were there to hear the testimony but it swayed the jury. Equally the jury would have been advised by the judge on what guilty means re reasonable doubt.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 9:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1789
Location: The Shipwreck Coast
A5D5E5 wrote:
I generally have faith (no pun intended) in western judicial systems - certainly once all appeals are completed. I don't know enough about this case to deviate from that opinion.

In any case, isn't he the cunt who protected known child abusers. If he is, fuck him.


:thumbup:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 9:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:34 am
Posts: 18265
Apparently the other victim who died told his mum that he wasn't abused.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 9:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1789
Location: The Shipwreck Coast
guy smiley wrote:
CrazyIslander wrote:
Pell has no other accusations before this case and none after. Sure it may yet come out but he has a clean record on a very well documented and investigated issue.

My point is the action which Pell is accused of is the action of a serial molester. By chance he caught the victims in the church drinking and his first reaction is to commit a sexual act. That doesn't sound like the action of someone who's doing it for the first and only time. That's implausible.


You should do some research, as usual. He has faced other accusations, there may well be more as victims previously intimidated about coming forward are reportedly discussing it now and the actions described within the judge’s sentencing summary are exacltly in line with typical predatory behaviour.

He fits the profile perfectly.

As for the other comments about the defence lawyer’s comments regarding the vanilla sex act, apparently that is standard defence language that relates to the assumption the guilty verdict is correct and isn’t an admission of guilt. Important difference.


Some may have also taken payments for silence.
Big bankroll that Church


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 9:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:34 am
Posts: 18265
guy smiley wrote:
CrazyIslander wrote:
Pell has no other accusations before this case and none after. Sure it may yet come out but he has a clean record on a very well documented and investigated issue.

My point is the action which Pell is accused of is the action of a serial molester. By chance he caught the victims in the church drinking and his first reaction is to commit a sexual act. That doesn't sound like the action of someone who's doing it for the first and only time. That's implausible.


You should do some research, as usual. He has faced other accusations, there may well be more as victims previously intimidated about coming forward are reportedly discussing it now and the actions described within the judge’s sentencing summary are exacltly in line with typical predatory behaviour.

He fits the profile perfectly.

As for the other comments about the defence lawyer’s comments regarding the vanilla sex act, apparently that is standard defence language that relates to the assumption the guilty verdict is correct and isn’t an admission of guilt. Important difference.

Why isnt he charged with those other accussations? Is it fair to use those accusations to portray he's a serial offender yet he's not given the chance to defend himself and refute it in court?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 9:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16161
Location: Haunting your dreams
I'd say, unless you've read the transcript, or even more importantly listened to the cross examination, you're not in a position to have an informed opinion.

There is something about witnessing an extremely expensive QC try for hours during cross examination to poke holes in the victims testimony that brings clarity to the minds of those in a courtroom.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 9:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 11:33 am
Posts: 10935
Location: Stockholm
I guess the truth is we're all speculating until/if ever the court records and evidence is made public.

Until then I will have a nagging doubt.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16161
Location: Haunting your dreams
CrazyIslander wrote:
guy smiley wrote:
CrazyIslander wrote:
Pell has no other accusations before this case and none after. Sure it may yet come out but he has a clean record on a very well documented and investigated issue.

My point is the action which Pell is accused of is the action of a serial molester. By chance he caught the victims in the church drinking and his first reaction is to commit a sexual act. That doesn't sound like the action of someone who's doing it for the first and only time. That's implausible.


You should do some research, as usual. He has faced other accusations, there may well be more as victims previously intimidated about coming forward are reportedly discussing it now and the actions described within the judge’s sentencing summary are exacltly in line with typical predatory behaviour.

He fits the profile perfectly.

As for the other comments about the defence lawyer’s comments regarding the vanilla sex act, apparently that is standard defence language that relates to the assumption the guilty verdict is correct and isn’t an admission of guilt. Important difference.

Why isnt he charged with those other accussations? Is it fair to use those accusations to portray he's a serial offender yet he's not given the chance to defend himself and refute it in court?


There is something called 'tendancy evidence' that was disallowed from the swimming pool trial, basically showing that this was a pattern of behaviour. Its somewhat controversial, and the prosecution wasn't comfortable taking the case to trial without it. I'd expect to see civil suits though.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9536
Location: Ultracrepidaria
Luckily we have courts and juries and not trial by twatter, so no nagging doubts.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16161
Location: Haunting your dreams
Mog The Almighty wrote:
I guess the truth is we're all speculating until/if ever the court records and evidence is made public.

Until then I will have a nagging doubt.


You're entitled to, and with respect, it's entirely irrelevant unless you're on the jury.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 11:33 am
Posts: 10935
Location: Stockholm
CrazyIslander wrote:
guy smiley wrote:
CrazyIslander wrote:
Pell has no other accusations before this case and none after. Sure it may yet come out but he has a clean record on a very well documented and investigated issue.

My point is the action which Pell is accused of is the action of a serial molester. By chance he caught the victims in the church drinking and his first reaction is to commit a sexual act. That doesn't sound like the action of someone who's doing it for the first and only time. That's implausible.


You should do some research, as usual. He has faced other accusations, there may well be more as victims previously intimidated about coming forward are reportedly discussing it now and the actions described within the judge’s sentencing summary are exacltly in line with typical predatory behaviour.

He fits the profile perfectly.

As for the other comments about the defence lawyer’s comments regarding the vanilla sex act, apparently that is standard defence language that relates to the assumption the guilty verdict is correct and isn’t an admission of guilt. Important difference.

Why isnt he charged with those other accussations? Is it fair to use those accusations to portray he's a serial offender yet he's not given the chance to defend himself and refute it in court?


Exactly. Are they not just word against word also?

There must be something we don't know.

Maybe the victim knew something impossible to know if it didn't happen. Like he's got a birthmark, one nut or a 15 inch cock or something.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 32559
Location: in transit
Zakar wrote:
I'd say, unless you've read the transcript, or even more importantly listened to the cross examination, you're not in a position to have an informed opinion.

There is something about witnessing an extremely expensive QC try for hours during cross examination to poke holes in the victims testimony that brings clarity to the minds of those in a courtroom.


The victim spent hours in the witness box being cross examined by Pell’s defence team. The jury were obviously happy to believe his evidence.

People who weren’t there are trying to suggest he’s a liar. Untrustworthy.

Pell, on the other hand, chose not to be cross examined.

But nagging doubts.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:34 am
Posts: 18265
Zakar wrote:
CrazyIslander wrote:
guy smiley wrote:
CrazyIslander wrote:
Pell has no other accusations before this case and none after. Sure it may yet come out but he has a clean record on a very well documented and investigated issue.

My point is the action which Pell is accused of is the action of a serial molester. By chance he caught the victims in the church drinking and his first reaction is to commit a sexual act. That doesn't sound like the action of someone who's doing it for the first and only time. That's implausible.


You should do some research, as usual. He has faced other accusations, there may well be more as victims previously intimidated about coming forward are reportedly discussing it now and the actions described within the judge’s sentencing summary are exacltly in line with typical predatory behaviour.

He fits the profile perfectly.

As for the other comments about the defence lawyer’s comments regarding the vanilla sex act, apparently that is standard defence language that relates to the assumption the guilty verdict is correct and isn’t an admission of guilt. Important difference.

Why isnt he charged with those other accussations? Is it fair to use those accusations to portray he's a serial offender yet he's not given the chance to defend himself and refute it in court?


There is something called 'tendancy evidence' that was disallowed from the swimming pool trial, basically showing that this was a pattern of behaviour. Its somewhat controversial, and the prosecution wasn't comfortable taking the case to trial without it. I'd expect to see civil suits though.

Interesting


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17509
guy smiley wrote:
Zakar wrote:
I'd say, unless you've read the transcript, or even more importantly listened to the cross examination, you're not in a position to have an informed opinion.

There is something about witnessing an extremely expensive QC try for hours during cross examination to poke holes in the victims testimony that brings clarity to the minds of those in a courtroom.


The victim spent hours in the witness box being cross examined by Pell’s defence team. The jury were obviously happy to believe his evidence.

People who weren’t there are trying to suggest he’s a liar. Untrustworthy.

Pell, on the other hand, chose not to be cross examined.

But nagging doubts.


It’s like one of those TV cop/court shows where you’re convinced they’ve got the wrong guy

Except in this case, we can make that statement without actually watching the show.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17509
Mog The Almighty wrote:
CrazyIslander wrote:
guy smiley wrote:
CrazyIslander wrote:
Pell has no other accusations before this case and none after. Sure it may yet come out but he has a clean record on a very well documented and investigated issue.

My point is the action which Pell is accused of is the action of a serial molester. By chance he caught the victims in the church drinking and his first reaction is to commit a sexual act. That doesn't sound like the action of someone who's doing it for the first and only time. That's implausible.


You should do some research, as usual. He has faced other accusations, there may well be more as victims previously intimidated about coming forward are reportedly discussing it now and the actions described within the judge’s sentencing summary are exacltly in line with typical predatory behaviour.

He fits the profile perfectly.

As for the other comments about the defence lawyer’s comments regarding the vanilla sex act, apparently that is standard defence language that relates to the assumption the guilty verdict is correct and isn’t an admission of guilt. Important difference.

Why isnt he charged with those other accussations? Is it fair to use those accusations to portray he's a serial offender yet he's not given the chance to defend himself and refute it in court?


Exactly. Are they not just word against word also?

There must be something we don't know.

Maybe the victim knew something impossible to know if it didn't happen. Like he's got a birthmark, one nut or a 15 inch cock or something.


Or he breathes through his mouth. Or something


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 32559
Location: in transit
shanky wrote:
guy smiley wrote:
Zakar wrote:
I'd say, unless you've read the transcript, or even more importantly listened to the cross examination, you're not in a position to have an informed opinion.

There is something about witnessing an extremely expensive QC try for hours during cross examination to poke holes in the victims testimony that brings clarity to the minds of those in a courtroom.


The victim spent hours in the witness box being cross examined by Pell’s defence team. The jury were obviously happy to believe his evidence.

People who weren’t there are trying to suggest he’s a liar. Untrustworthy.

Pell, on the other hand, chose not to be cross examined.

But nagging doubts.


It’s like one of those TV cop/court shows where you’re convinced they’ve got the wrong guy

Except in this case, we can make that statement without actually watching the show.


MOG is Columbo and I claim my weatherbeaten old raincoat.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17509
Ahh but Columbo had personality.

Personality goes a long way...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 11:33 am
Posts: 10935
Location: Stockholm
shanky wrote:
guy smiley wrote:
Zakar wrote:
I'd say, unless you've read the transcript, or even more importantly listened to the cross examination, you're not in a position to have an informed opinion.

There is something about witnessing an extremely expensive QC try for hours during cross examination to poke holes in the victims testimony that brings clarity to the minds of those in a courtroom.


The victim spent hours in the witness box being cross examined by Pell’s defence team. The jury were obviously happy to believe his evidence.

People who weren’t there are trying to suggest he’s a liar. Untrustworthy.

Pell, on the other hand, chose not to be cross examined.

But nagging doubts.


It’s like one of those TV cop/court shows where you’re convinced they’ve got the wrong guy

Except in this case, we can make that statement without actually watching the show.


Who is making that statement?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17509
The guy with nagging doubts - without having looked at any evidence


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:34 am
Posts: 18265
Mog The Almighty wrote:
CrazyIslander wrote:
guy smiley wrote:
CrazyIslander wrote:
Pell has no other accusations before this case and none after. Sure it may yet come out but he has a clean record on a very well documented and investigated issue.

My point is the action which Pell is accused of is the action of a serial molester. By chance he caught the victims in the church drinking and his first reaction is to commit a sexual act. That doesn't sound like the action of someone who's doing it for the first and only time. That's implausible.


You should do some research, as usual. He has faced other accusations, there may well be more as victims previously intimidated about coming forward are reportedly discussing it now and the actions described within the judge’s sentencing summary are exacltly in line with typical predatory behaviour.

He fits the profile perfectly.

As for the other comments about the defence lawyer’s comments regarding the vanilla sex act, apparently that is standard defence language that relates to the assumption the guilty verdict is correct and isn’t an admission of guilt. Important difference.

Why isnt he charged with those other accussations? Is it fair to use those accusations to portray he's a serial offender yet he's not given the chance to defend himself and refute it in court?


Exactly. Are they not just word against word also?

There must be something we don't know.

Maybe the victim knew something impossible to know if it didn't happen. Like he's got a birthmark, one nut or a 15 inch cock or something.

If this is the strongest case against Pell then how weak are the other accusations? What i find difficult to believe is if he is indeed a pedo this is his worst crime or his most affected victim. His biggest victim was in an opportunistic circumstance. Rather than planned preying on a vulnerable victim.
Also, there's a big jump from vague accussations in the 70s to this in 1996. Nothing in the 80s. It is unusual for a pedo to stop for near two decades. And without some serious repeated abuse on the same victims.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 331 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: alliswell, Big Nipper, bimboman, Bing [Bot], Bokkom, camroc1, DeDoc, eldanielfire, EverReady, FidesEtRobur, franch fan, Gavin Duffy, Google [Bot], handyman, johnstrac, julian, KnuckleDragger, mdaclarke, Mick Mannock, Mr Mike, openclashXX, PCPhil, penguin, piquant, Podge, quarter2four, redderneck, Risteard, Saint, Sards, shereblue, sonic_attack, Still Not Playing, tc27, The Man Without Fear, The Sun God, Ulsters Red Hand and 109 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group