Reply With QuoteWell put it this way if he gets OFF at a appeal question will be ask what about the other 4500+ in the last 20 years that have been convicted with hear say only.
Zero Chance
They just have nothing to lose and heaps of money to spend
If u want to go on an expedition get a Land Rover, if u want to come home from an expedition get a Landcruiser!
Well put it this way if he gets OFF at a appeal question will be ask what about the other 4500+ in the last 20 years that have been convicted with hear say only.
Name 5 then....Originally Posted by Mr 672A
If u want to go on an expedition get a Land Rover, if u want to come home from an expedition get a Landcruiser!
enf (02-03-19)
I love my new Notebook as I can watch the Tv and Post. No its not HP
In 99% 0f indicative cases the defendant never gives evidence.
I dont give a rats ars.e about Pell but what i'm worried about is in any indicative case (Murder) the case are drawn by REAL evidence not hear say like child sex cases from only one person so by this you can see in any Child Sex cases the rule of Law goes out of the window.
Could you image you as a Juror?. You will find the person guilty before the case starts.
Is that one of your 5?
If u want to go on an expedition get a Land Rover, if u want to come home from an expedition get a Landcruiser!
Well my stoke ridden head knows about 6 to 8 so I will give 5 as you ask for 5 but you must know a Solicitor/Barrister will know a lot more a lot more.
1/ The verdict was unreasonable
2/ The verdict couldn't be supported by the evidence
3/ The verdict judge made an error of law
4/ The verdict where was there was a miscarriage of justice on any grounds. SAY it AGAIN ON ANY GROUNDS!!!
5/ The verdict on grounds of unreasonable because of the weakness of the evidence.
irritant (03-03-19)
Time to watch telle See ya.
I thought you were going to give us "30 more" like you said.
Not use my 2 reasons said 5 different ways :-)
If u want to go on an expedition get a Land Rover, if u want to come home from an expedition get a Landcruiser!
If they lock Pell up, they should lock up the parents too.
They're the idiots that forcibly dragged the children there in the first place, to be conditioned and brainwashed.
I'm so sick and tired of hearing about "the poor innocent little children" anyways. Everyone uses them as an excuse/pawn nowadays.
Women use them to control men. Refos use them to trigger the "bend over backwards and accommodate mode" of the bleeding heart brigade.
If you can't raise them properly and protect them, then stop f*cking/use a rubber.
Last edited by irritant; 03-03-19 at 01:51 AM.
Jma (03-03-19)
I a man that has a Stroke and I can still remember some of them and yes they are all different and they are plenty of variants of them too.
We will just talk about a Drug LORD or a big drugoo that sells millions of dollars in drugs. Do you think he can be found GUILTY from hears say only one or two person and no concrete evidence NO
We will just talk about a Murderer, do you think this person can be found guilty only because one or two person said so. NO
We will just talk about Child Sex cases do you think that one person HEAR SAY can send you to jail. YES
Since this is the case, Some wrong with the Law.
It is a lot more than that
For a start, you would have to go to Police with your story and would have to be of significance to even go further
Then be looked at by Police Serious Crimes detectives and prepared for the OPP.
Then be examined by the OPP to consider whether the case had enough evidence to not be thrown out in court and whether it is worth continuing
Send VicPol members to Italy to interview Pell (working out of their jurisdiction)
Then on the defendants side:
Much testing and examination took place
Locations, Apparel and Descriptions given by the accuser were checked and visited by the Jury
The Accusers' life was totally investigated
And in the end it was a Jury that found Pell guilty... and it was 100% unanimous
And that is with the states best defence QC trying to lead them and turn the story around "Vanilla Sexual Penetration".... FFS
You would have to be a very good "Hear Say" teller to get this far without being discredited
Not much will escape Justice Kidds court room
It will be an impressive appeal to find fault in his work.
At the end of the retrial the jury did not rush to judgement. If they really wanted to "get Pell" as some have claimed, as soon as the evidence was completed they could gathered in the jury room, counted to ten, marched back into court and delivered their verdict.
Instead they took three and a half days to deliberate. Hardly a rush to judgement. And all 12 of them found him guilty on all charges.
Last edited by ol' boy; 03-03-19 at 01:08 PM.
If u want to go on an expedition get a Land Rover, if u want to come home from an expedition get a Landcruiser!
Looks like George is just making up the numbers in the Catholic Church of Australia and Ballarat is very over represented.
George Pell has been charged with historical sexual assault offences that date back to his time at Ballarat in the 1970s.[52] Pell has pleaded not guilty[53] and the Court set a date for his committal hearing to commence on 5 March 2018 which is expected to last four weeks.[54] The cardinal, the third most senior official in the Vatican,[55][56] is the most senior Catholic cleric in the world to face such charges.[57][58]
Gerald Ridsdale, who pleaded guilty to indecently assaulting a total of 53 children by 2006.[59] and is faced further charges of sexually abusing another 12 children being found guilty on both cases being committed to a total of 33 years in prison.[60][61] Ridsdale's nephew, David Ridsdale, gave evidence before the commission that his uncle had sexually abused him from the age of 11 to 15[62][63]
Robert Charles Best, a Christian Brother, was sentenced in the Victorian County Court for 27 offences involving the sexual abuse of 11 boys.[64][65]
Stephen Frances Farrell, a Christian Brother, sentenced in 2013 for indecently assaulting a boy while teaching at St Alipius School in Ballarat in the mid 1970s. This conviction followed a 1997 conviction on nine charges of indecently assaulting two brothers at St Alipius around the same period.[66][67]
Paul David Ryan, jailed in 2006 for 18 months after admitting three charges of indecent assault against one victim between 1990 and 1991.[68][69]
Edward Dowlan (Ted Bales) pleaded guilty to 33 counts of indecently assaulting boys under the age of 16 and one count of gross indecency between 1971 and 1986.[70] The judge found that he had preyed on vulnerable boys as young as eight years old over a 14-year period at six different schools from the first year he became a Christian Brother in 1971. Dowlan has been jailed twice first in 1996 for six-and-a-half years and then again in 2015.[71]
Peter Toomey, a Christian Brother who admitted to sexually assaulting 10 students at a Catholic high school in Melbourne in 1970s.[72][73][74]
Sydney Morey.[75][76]
Terrence Pidoto was sentenced to seven years and three months being found guilty of 11 charges including rape and indecently assaulting a child under 16.[75][77] He died before facing a second trial with new charges only a year into his first sentence.[78]
Bryan Desmond Coffey, a priest, pleaded not guilty to charges in February 1999. He was found guilty of 12 counts of indecent assault involving eight boys and one count involving a girl, aged between six and 11 years. He was given a three-year suspended jail sentence.[79]
Leslie Sheahan, a parish priest, pleaded guilty in September 2015 to unlawful/indecent assault of a girl.[80][81]
Robert Patrick Claffey, a priest, pleaded guilty in 1998 to indecently assault of two boys aged 12 and 13 after their sister died in a road accident in 1978.[82] In 2014, he was also charged with 16 counts of indecent assault and one count of buggery against about seven child victims between 1970 and 1992.[83] In October, 2016, he pleaded guilty to the offences and was jailed for 18 years.[84]
John Day, has been described as Australia's most prolific paedophile with more than 100 complaints about the monsignor to the church's Towards Healing program, set up to deal with allegations of abuse by the clergy. He targeted both boys and girls. The police found that he had "misconducted himself" but did not charge him and the police officer, Denis Ryan, who collected statements of abuse lost his job.[85] The police were involved in a cover up which have been described as the "Catholic Mafia".[86][87][88][89] The Day case was recently detailed by Casefile True Crime Podcast - Case 34: The Catholic Mafia, aired on 24 September 2016.[90]
Leonard Monk.[69][91][92]
Peter Colley. Father Peter James Colley pleaded guilty in 1993 to two charges—one indecent assault of an adult male in a public toilet at Moonee Ponds and one charge of escaping from legal custody.[93]
Gerald Leo Fitzgerald a Christian Brother. The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse found that Fitzgerald was moved moved to new locations with continued access to children after allegations had been made.[94] One victim described the type of behaviour of Fitzgerald to the Commission: "...Brother Fitzgerald was his grade 3 teacher in 1974. He said that at the end of school every Friday Brother Fitzgerald would line up his students and kiss them goodbye. He kissed some with his tongue."[74] He died in 1987 before any charges were laid against him.
Fr Dan Hourigan.[92][95][96]
Fr Vincent Sproules.[97]
If u want to go on an expedition get a Land Rover, if u want to come home from an expedition get a Landcruiser!
John Silvester writing in the left-leaning Age newspaper wrote this article:
The following quote is particularly relevant:
Below is a link to an interesting short summary of the law regarding corroboration in the different Australian jurisdictions:Which means Pell was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt on the uncorroborated evidence of one witness, without forensic evidence, a pattern of behaviour or a confession.
It is a matter of public record that it is rare to run a case on the word of one witness, let alone gain a conviction.
In recent years there has been a shift in the investigation and prosecution of sex crimes. For years victims have been denied justice because not enough resources were thrown at cases that were not black and white.
Now police are told to come from a mindset of believing a person who says they have been sexually assaulted and more cases in the grey area are being presented to juries. In reality, sex crimes are being treated differently to other crimes, although the standard of proof remains the same.
It puts Mr 672A's view of the world in perspective. As I have posted previously, vastly exaggerated but not without some basis.
It is quite difficult to see how a jury can be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt based on the testimony of an accuser without any corroboration.
And here are the actual grounds of appeal copies from the Appeal Notice:
We should all bear in mind that we did not attend the trial and were not privy to the evidence or what else happened. A friend of mine expressed the opinion that there must be something not reported to justify the conviction. This is possible but seems to me unlikely. Her fallback positions were that Pell was guilty of covering up abuse. Perhaps, but this is not one of the offences he was charged with. She also raised the problem that if Pell is in fact innocent then it is fitting that he suffer for the sins of his church. Given the Christian doctrine of Jesus having died for our sins I can see a certain irony in this. However, it is not what our justice system is supposed to do. Heaven knows enough innocent victims are convicted already without the attitude that some individually innocent people should be convicted and suffer for the sins of a group they belong to. If this is what it appears to be I think ground 1 should succeed. Imagine for a moment that you personally are accused of this type of offence many years ago. You are of course innocent. Yet you face the peril of conviction in the absence of any corroboration whatsoever. There is a distinction of course between being innocent and being not guilty. I don't know what Pell did or didn't do. What I do know is that if the reporting is accurate and nothing of major relevance has been omitted he should not have been found guilty. Not because he is necessarily innocent. Simply because the evidence falls far short of proving his guilt, even on a balance of probabilities let alone beyond reasonable doubt. Even if you hate Pell and are absolutely convinced without hearing the evidence that he is guilty imagine your own conviction based on the similar evidence of one victim. Since you know you didn't do it that victim was either deliberately lying or mistaken. You know with certainty that you didn't do it. But a jury does not.1. The verdicts are unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the
evidence because on the whole of the evidence, including unchallenged
exculpatory evidence from more than 20 Crown witnesses, it was not open to
the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt on the word of the
Complainant alone.
2. The Trial Judge erred by preventing the defence from using a moving visual
representation of its impossibility argument during the closing address.
3. There was a fundamental irregularity in the trial process because the accused
was not arraigned in the presence of the jury panel, as required by sections 21 0
and 21 7 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009.
lsemmens (03-03-19),Mr 672A (04-03-19),ol' boy (03-03-19),OSIRUS (04-03-19),peteramjet (03-03-19),VroomVroom (07-03-19)
Yeah, i read the 3 appeal points on Friday
Will be interesting how long the process takes now
Does the jury need to reach "beyond reasonable doubt"?
12 people all reaching the same verdict
Below is a prior case that might be used against the prosecution
The trial judge would be fully aware of the case, so you'd think his trail was run avoiding these pit falls which allowed an appeal to be granted.
Green vs R (1971)
Last edited by ol' boy; 03-03-19 at 06:34 PM.
If u want to go on an expedition get a Land Rover, if u want to come home from an expedition get a Landcruiser!
The jury must reach a verdict beyond reasonable doubt. I'm no expert in Victorian law but a quick search seems to reveal that majority verdicts are applicable, and that 11 jurors are sufficient.
That case has no application here. The appeal makes no allegation that there was an error in his honour's directions to the jury. The case you link to is an error in just that. The Appeal has two grounds in which it claims the judge erred. The first is his failure to allow the use of the model. The second is a technical point about him not having been arraigned in the presence of the Jury.
I have been told that if Pell wins the appeal this will give ground on many hundred of cases similar to this with men still in jail or out of jail because the person in jail will say Hang On the DPP had less on me and the Person just released out from Jail will say Hang on my case has Zero evidence on me compared to Pell case ( Pell had Hear say and had more dirt compared to others in Jail) so what will happen, In both situations the both will ask to speak to there Solicitor or another Solicitor. Now I have been told the Person In Jail The Corrective Services works for the DPP ( Joking, but many prisoner know this ) but they will make it hard for the person in Jail to contact the solicitor once all their appeals have failed. They misterly ( cant spell it Blame the stroke) have their mail Disappear, (Not inward Legal Mail), they will refuse to add a new phone contact to the prisoner prison phone and the only way to do this is get his family to do the Dirty work then the Prison System wont be able to stop a visit from a legal representative.
Till today I still remember have a Conversation with a Solicitor that works for the PLS (Prisoners Legal Services) over my Solicitor friend place and I was Horrified on what he said what happens in Jail when it Comes to the prison System trying hard to stop you defend yourself or start up you case again. Now I have been told all Prisons behave differently on this.
Time ahead will be interesting.
One of the Most interesting people to speak to regarding these maters 1/ PLS Solitor or even Better still the HEAD Prison Chaplin or Chaplin that visits most of the Jail and he or she will tell you the ZOMBIES walking in jail (SEX Jails) as they cannot work out why are they in Jail in the first place.
Last edited by Mr 672A; 04-03-19 at 09:02 AM.
It wont be long before lawyers line up for Civil case again Pell. Today you can be found guilty on a Criminal case but found not Guilty in a Cavil case and you can be found not guilty in a Criminal Case but found guilty in a Civil case so work that out. For me take the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ out of a case you might get the Truth.
Some My think that I say OUTRAGEOUS Statements because we say "We are in Australia, something like this does not happen in Australia" Funny thing is most of what I have said it true and does happen in Australia but to find out you must speak to the Correct people not the lairs in Government that are protecting them self.
My days for FANCY WORDS ARE GONE (thanks to the Stroke) but I know right and wrong but I still know the basic of Law what I have been told by people smarter than me on these matters
Back On Pell !!!!! I give it one week and someone will start suing for $$$$$$$$$$$ why? It has too otherwise you not following the Australian tradition.
OSIRUS (04-03-19)
@Mr 672A. Obviously you have not read Newspaper reports earlier today that one of the alleged victims of the pool incident, for which Pell was not charged, is suing Pell. As I've posted in the past, I don't buy your corruption and conspiracy theories about corrupt police and prosecutors. No doubt there are some, but most are people trying to do a difficult job. I seldom respond to your posts no matter how outrageous they may be, because I read your reports of your illness and I'm happy that you made it through. And I think your constant cautions to all of us to be very careful around minors is very good advice indeed.
I have refrained for instance from pointing out the errors in your longstanding signature. I must have wasted at least $10,000 a year on professional indemnity insurance when as part of a protected species I obviously didn't need it. Come to think of it, the Law Society clearly didn't know either, since they would not issue me with a practising certificate without proof of such insurance. Like much of what you say, this assertion is not entirely without basis. There is a concept called "advocates immunity" which survives in Australia but has been abolished in the UK and New Zealand. You can read a simple account of it . If you want to explore the subject in more detail there is a link to the 2016 High Court decision in Atwells v. Jackson Lalic Lawyers in the article.
The germ of truth in relation to your allegations about childhood sexual abuse cases was touched on in an earlier post by me where I wrote:
The law is not perfect. Since child sexual assault and other sexual assault cases usually have no eye witnesses it is very hard to get a conviction. Corroboration has always been very important to prosecutors. The corroboration can be a series of simple things like proof of physical location, making a complaint without undue delay resulting in an early statement of what allegedly happened, medical evidence, forensic evidence, evidence of witnesses who whilst not seeing the assault can testify what happened immediately preceding or immediately afterwards, etc. One of the really damaging things about the testimony of Professor Ford about Kavanaugh is that she claimed to have such witnesses but those she named had no such recollections. Even with our law making convictions difficult the fact is that innocent people are convicted. But far more guilty men go free, especially in the case of child sexual assaults. Our legal system does indeed let many such victims down badly. As a response to this, there is a push that alleged victims must be believed. Essentially if this is adopted it would reverse the onus of proof. To say that alleged victims must be believed in the context of the criminal justice system is outrageous. What alleged victims are entitled to is not belief. What they are entitled to is to have their allegations taken seriously and properly and competently investigated.It puts Mr 672A's view of the world in perspective. As I have posted previously, vastly exaggerated but not without some basis.
There should IMHO never be a criminal conviction based on testimony of an alleged victim which is totally uncorroborated. The mere absence of even the slightest corroboration is itself suspect. In cases like Pell's the sheer time which has passed may account for it. Had these allegations been made at the time and were true the police may well have been able to obtain some corroboration, though we will I suppose never know. The more time elapses from an alleged crime, the more danger arises of injustice. Quite frankly we are human and I don't see any way for our law to do justice to both alleged victims and alleged perpetrators. I suppose I put myself in the position of an innocent person accused after many years of such an offence, where even the particular day of the alleged offence is not known. If I can be convicted and sentenced to a lengthy term of imprisonment based on the uncorroborated allegations of my accuser, I am playing Russian Roulette with the rest of my life. On the other hand, I try to put myself in the position of a victim who was in fact sexually assaulted. The trauma of perceiving that I was not believed would indeed be painful. And, of course, the worse the act, the worse the potential trauma. But I think when one looks at it logically the answer is very obvious. The high possibility of convicting the innocent and completely destroying their lives must regrettably trump the possibility of additional trauma to genuine victims who complain so many years later. We cannot pretend that all accusers are telling the truth when there is literally no corroboration, especially not when their complaint comes years after the event, no matter how justified the delay.
Basically I think that our system is incapable of doing justice to both accuser and accused in these situations.
Last edited by DB44; 04-03-19 at 03:10 PM.
lsemmens (04-03-19),OSIRUS (05-03-19),VroomVroom (05-03-19)
Just posted on the ABC site
There is a fine line between "Hobby" and "Madness"
No I dont buy newspapers and rarely watch the news because I'm not bothered or I'm always doing something outside and in the evening I'm always watching Sat Tv not Local Tv. I Hate Local Tv as the wife complain to me "Why shows like Neighbour and Home and Away shows men being hit by WOMEN but not the other way around. I stand for Mens right, pity more men are not like me.
DB44 Said.
Obviously you have not read Newspaper reports earlier today that one of the alleged victims of the pool incident, for which Pell was not charged, is suing Pell.
Mr 672a
It shows you that it easy to be sued and you not in the case that sent you to Jail.
DB44 Said
I don't buy your corruption and conspiracy theories about corrupt police and prosecutors. No doubt there are some, but most are people trying to do a difficult job.
Mr 672a
Well you can see they do things that is boarding on issue that they should not do but they get away it with and lot of time the defense team are not smart enough to pick it (Mainly Legal Aid). I will give you two example Please dont ask for more as I going over my recommended practice of typing and editing to a frusting level.
One case
a/ One Child Sex case I was told by my friend that The Police/DPP supeoned ( cant spell it and spell check cant fix it) yes (Forgotten the Police or the DPP subpoenaed (yeah I got it) the Phone records including mobile phone records as the Complainant said to the Police that This Man uses to RING ME ALL the time on my mobil phone. Now when the Police/DPP got the Record they found there was no record, say it again NO record of this man ringing the child on any account so what did the DPP/prosecuted do. They did not inform or hid it (As they can) to the Jury that this man phone records were subpoenaed as the child said that man rang me 100's time but his phone record showed NOTHING!!!!! (so called Legal aid defence, they should have Pick this one up)
2nd case
I remember this one.
A Child complained that he was threatened with his Gun license, Yes a Gun license ( who know maybe the Child was about to get his neck cut off with the Gun license lol.) The Police get a search warrant to search the Defendant house to find the GUN LICENSE because the Police can only go on what the Child said and the Child said he was threatened bu a GUN LICENSE so the Police trying to find this Gun License and they Never Found it. Now tell me all If you had a Gun License the size of you drivers License where would you keep it>>>>>> Yes In your wallet but the Police forgot to ask the defendant to look into his wallet.
Apparently months later the local Police rang the defendant and ask him to bring his Gun license in and apparently he did what he was asked to do and got a RECEIPT Showing GUN License with the Number and the DATE handed in which was months, say it again MONTHS later then the first and ONLY search warrant.
So what did happen
Some how this License that was surrender to the Police station months after the search warrant raid found it way on the list of EVIDENCE where the Jury read the Child Complaint letter and next to it was the GUN LICENSE so tell me was that a mistake or was it a sneaky ploy by the DPP and apparently no body pick it including the Legal Aid defence team. Now what Confused Ever one because I think the defendant has a LIST of Guns inside the Gun Cabinet that you have to show when the Gun police knock on you door the Judge said CLEARLY as I was told "Judge said: that these GUN Licensesssssss YES PLURAL "GUN LICENSES" " Judge ured) do not mean something like he threatened the Child with any licenses (PLURAL) something like this as I have forgotton what was said but it was written in the Judges final report. So tell me was it a genuine Mistake or was it a Sly trick.
DB44 Said
I don't buy your corruption and conspiracy theories about corrupt police and prosecutors. No doubt there are some, but most are people trying to do a difficult job.
Mr 672A
I say out of 100% most corruption or bending the truth goes to Any Child Sex Cases
No Long ago via my friend I met a Police Woman Yes a Woman that work for the Child Protection Unit and she was transferred from Child Protection Unit to many units ( move her family 100's of miles because of this) because she though that the Police there was doing doggy things to get someone convicted and one they were released from Jail they tried to make the X Prisoner to fail so they can put him back in Jail.
Typice Exercice finished for tooday as it took me 1 and a haft hoit to typec this.
Yes the the 16vwords before I have to correct hem sometime this forum times me out so I copy and replace every time
Last edited by Mr 672A; 05-03-19 at 12:01 PM.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks