Now, if George was an Imam.... LOL
Unbelievable. What State do you live? I say Victoria. Just imagine you being called up for Jury duty and you get selected on a case and it was a Child Sex case. I bet you will find the defendant Guilty as soon as the Charges are read out but the trouble is there a hundreds or maybe thousand like you.Originally Posted by RogerTheDoger
Which is accusing people here of being, or being sympathetic to peados which is the same thing.
Why else would you say it?
You can spin doctor and squirm what you said all you fking like but the intent was clear. Predictably, you don't have the balls when called out on it to stand by and back up your statements. Thats the lowest Chicken shit gutless thing anyone can do in my book., Accuse people of something heinous when they have no way of having the first clue about them and then when called out, try and make bullshit excuses. THAT sounds to me like something I would expect a Peado to do because they are gutless cowards.
So again,confirmation that you are aiming the comments at people here.Now these are all statements, made by me to fit what has been said in this thread,
Do you want any more rope or have you hung your self sufficiently already? You are well and truly swinging from where I'm standing.
If I take the pre scripted " At least he's not talking about me" line of BS, then who ARE you talking about? I'm in this conversation so I can only assume you are talking about me . What I have done or not is irrelevant, YOU made an accusation I take great exception to. You would not get away with that in real life even if you did have the guts to say it. Which clearly you wouldn't.it is what I believe and it's up to the individuals reading it to either say, "He's got a point, no one has taken the other tack" or "I don't understand" or "at least he's not talking about me".
You have already said your comments were " Made to fit what was said here " so clearly in your opinion, you must be talking about someone on this thread,. No other logical explanation or way to bullshit your way out of it.
What I say is a forth option: " That's a completely unfounded comment made by someone too ignorant and biased to see what the hell HAS been said and is too pathetic and gutless to back it up when called out on it. "
No one has to say anything about you, you have said more about yourself than anyone else has.Or if it's that DB44 with the self esteem problem, "once again you show your extreme ignorance" which actually says a lot more about him than it says about me.
Trying to deflect blame on someone else when you are being held accountable is another pathetic and failed subterfuge which is fooling no one.
You have also proved what DB said as being entirely correct. You have proven it repeatedly in fact.
No ones asking about what you said at the start of the discussion so don't try and weasel your way out with that slight of hand either.Does anyone here not agree with the statement "that robbing a child of their innocence is the most abominable crime there is" the thing I said that started this particular discussion?
What I'm taking issue with is your statement of " All I hear is a bunch of apologists for paedophiles. I wonder why?" and those thereafter.
You haven't got the guts to stand up to any of what you have said and I know damn well you certainly wouldn't have the balls to say it my or most other peoples faces either.
The best thing for you to do before you make yourself look any more of a leftie coward is just go away. It's people like you that are responsible for innocent people being Fked over on heresay from whingers like yourself that only want the world to be the way they think it should be and damn facts and consideration for anyone else.
lsemmens (10-04-20)
^ Careful george.....hurting someones feelings is a criminal offense in certain parts of AU.............words can hurt and = VIOLENCE against womyn !!!!!
george65 (10-04-20)
Particularly Woketoria.....
The fact that there's a highway to hell and a stairway to heaven says a lot about the anticipated traffic flow.
I still don't hear anyone agreeing with the general statement "that robbing a child of their innocence is the most abominable crime there is".
Happens the moment they start going to school in my book ~ your point?"that robbing a child of their innocence is the most abominable crime there is"
how can one define innocence there is no such thing so why ask a hypothetical question that doesn't have a answer there is no such thing as your so called innocence . They learn by stages or are you inferring that they are all angelic and then suddenly turn into nymphomaniacs at a certain age , sorry but you are wrong roger you have dodged education in this field , the only abominable crime here is your ignorance of worldly wherewith all and causing undesirable sanctions on the innocent with a bigoted ignorance and fake views of the society , in other words you are a fuvken warped gossip
DB44 (10-04-20)
Nobody is arguing that stealing a child's innocence is wrong. They are taking exception to your accusations, that those who choose to obey the rule of law and not convict an accused person on hearsay, are paedophiles, themselves. Two very different statements, both of which have been made, or implied, by your posts Roger.
I'm out of my mind, but feel free to leave a message...
That does happen and it did happen from dirty priest but at the same time A Plane will crash in the next 10 years and people will die. We are speaking about Pell case not in general. I have spoken to one man years ago when I was working for the Lawyers he wished that he was abused by the priest but it didn't happened when he was in those Catholic orphanage. I said WHY? he replied $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. No doubt plenty are saying this because some people today will do anything for money including wishing something like this to happen. Tell me if a young 14 year old boy is in the Catholic orphanage and he is GAY and he plays with other boys dick and a Priest come up to him and serve him and when he gets older the boy now a man cry's he that priest abuse me, He Makes $$$$$$$$ money of the situation. I bet this has happened before.
I still don't see you maning up to you allegations and taking responsibility for them and pretty sure I won't.
What you do actually see is no one falling for your Guilt trip attempt at distraction from your pathetic accusations against people here. Plenty here don't like me and that's fine, not a lot to like BUT, I'll be stuffed if I will let anyone get away with labelling people Peados with no proof and a not even the first damn clue.
No one has to agree with your statement because it doesen't need to be said. Anyone with a shred of decency knows this so you can stop with the bullshit already. Not that you will.
I can respect someone that makes a Mistake, admits it and apologises when appropriate but I have no respect for piss weak cowards that try and spin doctor things and deny their guilt when clearly caught out particularly when they accuse people of what you have.
You should be very careful mate.
One day you might meet someone just like yourself that will accuse you of something low and without foundation. You will then get a taste of your own medicine and be in a whole world of shit.
I hope you get the double scoop with an entire Jury of people that think just like you do which you clearly deserve.
Maybe you might have a bit of a change of heart when it's you that's on the receiving end.
hinekadon (10-04-20)
Well geo you are correct and theres a place for the likes of him just been having a nosy at the posts no-one has actually been helped by his posts as they seen to convey insinuations of the holier than thou thoughts of a person who is just full of shite
DB44 (10-04-20)
or even a prophet
I had someone with an account unlock this for me....This is an Article by Paul Kelly that clearly documents the failures of the church and the case.
It's a bit of a long read, so don't bother if ya don't want to....
Travesty of justice: ‘trusted’ institutions fail Pell
Paul Kelly
12:00AM April 11, 2020
The George Pell story is a fiasco that combines incompetence and malevolence. It had every aspect of tragedy — a big man who polarised opinion, a church engaged in criminal behaviour, victims who demanded justice, and police, media and legal institutions that failed to honour their obligations.
It is a particular Australian tragedy that originates in the horrific crimes of the Catholic Church. These crimes and their cover-ups were worse than normal crimes because they ruined the lives of children and violated the raison d’etre of the church — to proclaim God’s mission.
The earthquake that engulfed the church did not stop there. It spread across the landscape leaving a trail of personal grief, public anger and an inevitable response from institutions — police, parliaments, media and courts. But this process triggered a new and dangerous entanglement — between justice for the individual and punishment for the church. This dilemma led to the Pell fiasco.
Pell was too big a leader for an institution so widely discredited. In Melbourne nearly everybody had a view about him. Many people felt moral retribution was justified — if the opportunity presented, Pell must be brought down. And that opportunity did present with the accusation from the former choirboy who came forward in 2015 and became complainant A, alleging sexual abuse by Pell in 1996 and 1997, 19 years earlier.
This week’s High Court decision brought certainty and finality to this dismal saga of many years. Its essence is its 7-0 unanimity. There can be no further argument. Pell was wrongly convicted and jailed for 404 days. He is no longer the “convicted pedophile”, as his opponents loved to brand him.
The High Court reached this decision not by resort to activism or inventing new law but by invoking the core principle of the criminal justice system — guilt must be established “beyond reasonable doubt”. This decision did more than release a man wrongly convicted who was likely to die in prison. It provided the defining interpretation of the Pell fiasco. It offered — along with the minority judgment of Mark Weinberg in the Victorian Court of Appeal — the lens through which the multiple institutional failures in the Pell case can be seen and assessed.
It is Pell’s opponents who broke the conventions and retreated from legal reasoning. It is Pell’s opponents who fomented a mood bordering on irrational vindictiveness that meant he was denied fair process. The High Court’s repeated use of the word “rational” in its judgment is revealing in its logic — that Pell was treated in an irrational way by the justice system.
This is polite judicial language. Let’s call it for what it was: a sentiment in parts of the community that Pell’s trial had a meaning transcending guilt or innocence — that he must be punished for the church’s crimes in the name of its hundreds of victims. This is how many saw his trial and, in this sense, it was a political trial.
Only the High Court, in its wisdom, halted the abuse of the justice system. The force of its judgment raises the inevitable question: if this case had been treated on merit Pell would not have been charged. The evidence was inherently implausible.
We live in a time of institutional failure, demonstrated in our financial, political and religious systems. Sadly, institutional failure can beget more institutional failure. This has happened in the Pell saga in relation to Victoria Police, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Victorian justice system and much of the media, with the ABC conspicuous for its sustained campaign against Pell.
These institutions are compromised. In each case they failed to meet their responsibility. These failures should neither be denied nor suppressed. Each contributed to a situation where Australia’s most senior Catholic and the most senior figure in the church worldwide to face such accusations was convicted as a sexual predator, with huge cultural and moral consequences if this conviction had been upheld.
This was an international event. It revealed the extent to which the church’s crimes in Australia had spilled into other institutions in a blend of misplaced justice, anti-religious prejudice and operational dysfunction. A friend said to me a few weeks ago she was struck by the number of people “who needed Pell to be guilty”.
Speaking to Inquirer, Frank Brennan, Jesuit priest and human rights champion, said: “I was a law and politics student in Queensland in the 1970s when Joh Bjelke-Petersen was premier. This Pell saga has all the marks of the same broken-down criminal justice system. The difference is that it was right-of-centre in the Sunshine State and it is left-of-centre here in Victoria. Let’s wait and see what the Queensland royal commissioner turns up on the Victorian police and Lawyer X. That, at least, will be a start.”
Scott Morrison and Daniel Andrews sent a resounding message to victims, in effect, saying: “I believe you.” That is a welcome turning point. But what does “I believe you” actually mean? It means victims must be listened to with serious respect and regard. But it cannot mean the courts operate on the “we believe you” principle. The High Court has just announced this cannot work. Justice is not a one-way street. Most Australians would accept that. The Prime Minister and the Victorian Premier need to refine their message. It is imperative that victims still come forward and it is imperative that victims know how the criminal law works.
The Pell saga has constituted a universal tragedy. There are only losers. Both Pell and his accuser have suffered immense pain. The entire exercise has brought nothing but grief. The pivotal question remains unanswered: have the responsible parties learnt anything?
The full scale of this fiasco is not appreciated even by many of Pell’s supporters. It is, however, on stark display in the treatment of the second incident alleged by A in early 1997. He claimed that after Sunday mass at St Patrick’s Cathedral, when A was part of the 50-strong procession along the sacristy corridor, Pell pushed A against the wall and squeezed his testicles and penis painfully. In the trial transcript A was cross-examined by Pell’s lawyer, Robert Richter:
Richter: Yes, and out of nowhere the archbishop physically assaults you. Is that what you say?
Complainant: Yes.
Richter: In front of all these people?
Complainant: Yes … Yes. It happened like that. It was such a quick, um, quick and cold, callous kind of thing that happened. It was — it was over before it even started and it was — I was isolated in a corner for literally seconds. Um, there were people sporadically walking down the hallway and um, I was obviously not being looked at, at that time, because somebody would have, hopefully, would have reported it.
Richter: So the archbishop in his full — oh you said and, of course, the choir numbered what, about 50 people?
Complainant: I would say so.
Richter: And in the middle of that number of people, the archbishop in his full regalia shoves you against the wall violently, yes?
Complainant: Yes.
Richter submitted the complainant’s account of this incident was so highly improbable to be incapable of acceptance. Complainant A did not say anything about this alleged incident at the time, nor did he tell his colleague, B, the other choirboy he alleged was #abused by Pell in the first incident.
George Pell's lawyer, Robert Richter. Picture: David Geraghty
George Pell's lawyer, Robert Richter. Picture: David Geraghty
How did the Victorian police in their investigations handle the alleged second incident? The lead police investigator, Christopher Reed, conducted no investigation and made no effort to interview other potential witnesses. He admitted this at trial. Here is the exchange:
Richter: Well, is there any record of anyone undertaking any investigation about (A’s) allegations relating to February 1997?
Reed: No. Not that I’m — not that I can categorically recall now. No.
Richter: Right, and if there had been, you’d have known about it?
Reed: Yes, you would.
Richter: Yes, thank you.
Perhaps the Victorian coppers felt by this stage they could get away with anything. Getting Pell convicted on a charge where no investigation had been done would be quite an achievement. And they pulled it off, all the way to the High Court.
The High Court quashed the Victorian Court of Appeal 2-1 finding against Pell with Chief Justice Anne Ferguson and Justice Chris Maxwell — the two most senior judges in Victoria — in the majority. Their view of this incident — as summarised by the High Court — was that “it was quite possible that the brief encounter went unnoticed” and that “the evidence once again falls well short of establishing impossibility”.
There was, of course, no #obligation on Pell’s defence to establish the event was impossible. Its task was to establish there was a reasonable doubt. The Victorian judges asked the wrong question. In a judgment that was consistently damning the High Court threw out the Court of Appeal majority finding. It accepted the minority view of Weinberg — widely seen as the best criminal appellate of his generation — with Weinberg saying: “It seems to me highly unlikely that none of those many persons present would have seen what was happening or reported it in some way.”
The Ferguson-Maxwell majority said they found “improbable” the idea that the complainant “would have thought to invent a second incident if his true purpose was to advance false allegations” against Pell because this second allegation only risked the likelihood his entire position “would unravel” when tested. In short, the sheer dubious nature of A’s second complaint must be a sign of his credibility! What hope did Pell have against this logic? Weinberg, by contrast, categorically rejected Pell’s conviction on this incident. The High Court said of Weinberg’s view: “His Honour concluded that it was not open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the applicant’s guilt of the offence charged in the second incident.”
The operative words are “not open” — the jury got it wrong.
In fact, Weinberg went further. He said: “I would have thought any prosecutor would be wary of bringing a charge of this gravity against anyone, based upon the implausible notion that a sexual assault of this kind would take place in public and in the presence of numerous potential witnesses.” In short, the Victorian DPP should never have brought Pell to trial on this incident.
The High Court was not obliged to address that conclusion. But its heavy reliance on Weinberg’s minority judgment throughout its 7-0 judgment leaves the irresistible implication the High Court shared his view. As Brennan said, “an ordinary police investigation” would have exposed these defects and meant Pell would never have been charged with this second offence — so much for justice Victorian style.
The Ferguson-Maxwell majority found the “fleeting physical encounter” described by A as “readily imagined”. The High Court delivered a lethal dismissal to such conjecture: “The assumption that a group of choristers, including adults, might have been so preoccupied with making their way to the robing room as to fail to notice the extraordinary sight of the Archbishop of Melbourne dressed ‘in his full regalia’ advancing through the procession and pinning a 13-year-old boy to the wall is a large one. The failure to make any formal report of such an incident, had it occurred, may be another matter.” The High Court, in its prudence, said it was “unnecessary” to decide “whether A’s description of the second incident so strains credibility as to necessitate that the jury, who saw and heard him give the evidence, ought to have entertained a reasonable doubt as to its occurrence”. It found, however, the surrounding evidence was “inconsistent” with acceptance of A’s allegation. That became its clinching point.
The High Court concluded that the jury “acting rationally” should have entertained doubt of Pell’s guilt and its failure to do so meant “there is a significant possibility that an innocent person has been convicted”. Weinberg, however, had more to offer about the integrity of the Victorian system: “The complainant’s account of the second incident seems to me to take brazenness to new heights, the like of which I have not seen.” What does this tell us about the Victorian police and the DPP? Are we supposed to believe the ineptitude identified that involves the non-existent Victoria Police investigation, the Victorian DPP, two jury trials and a 2-1 Court of Appeal decision before the High Court finally threw out the second incident conviction arose merely because of unconnected, random incompetence? How credible is that? Incompetence cannot be denied. But only a fool would believe that is the entire story.
A more realistic and honest assessment is that Pell, the nation’s senior Catholic, was unable to get a fair trial in Victoria. There was a climate of opinion against him that was irredeemably hostile. Much of this was cultivated by the media spearheaded by the ABC. It became a serious institutional and social failure and arose primarily because of Pell’s identity and the institution he represented, a different situation from the Lindy Chamberlain case.
This second incident is important because Pell’s conviction on this charge, upheld on appeal, best illustrates the preposterous nature of the campaign against him. Brennan said: “The fragility of the Victorian criminal justice system is exposed when you look at the total absence of any investigation of the second incident and the reasoning of Ferguson and Maxwell satisfying themselves that the incident must have occurred.”
Long a champion of indigenous rights in this country, Brennan told Inquirer of the Pell fiasco: “I don’t think Aborigines were treated as prejudicially by even the worst of 19th-century judges.”
The High Court reached the same conclusion about the alleged first incident. In this incident A alleged that in late 1996 Pell had abused both himself and B after serving mass at St Patrick’s Cathedral when he found the two boys in the priests’ sacristy. There was no evidence Pell knew the boys or had spoken to them before.
A alleged that Pell challenged them, took his penis out and forced B’s head towards it. The assault took “barely a minute or two”. He alleged Pell then pushed his penis into A’s mouth, instructed A to remove his pants and fondled A’s penis and testicles. This further indecency lasted “a minute or two”. A said the boys left and rejoined the choir. The whole event took no more than five or six minutes. A made no complaint to anybody including his parents. The second boy, B, died in 2014. When asked by his mother, B said he had never been interfered with. When Pell was first told in Rome by visiting Victorian police that the accusation related to an incident in the cathedral after mass he immediately said this was impossible, that he was accompanied always after mass by his master of ceremonies, Monsignor Charles Portelli, and that he went to the front door to greet parishioners. “What a load of garbage and falsehood,” he said to the police. Portelli gave evidence to this effect and the High Court noted it was “unchallenged”.
In essence, nothing much was advanced beyond these contours in subsequent proceedings. In his judgment, Weinberg said “the prosecution case relied entirely upon the evidence of the complainant to establish guilt and nothing more”. The prosecution had “no supporting evidence of any kind from any other witness” and the jury’s convictions were based solely on its “assessment of the complainant”.
A lawyer close to these events told Inquirer: “The word of complainants is now regarded as near infallible.”
Pell’s lawyers produced a body of evidence from a range of witnesses to the effect it was virtually impossible for him to have offended when he was alleged to have done so. Richter told the jury: “There were literally dozens of people including a number of adults who would have been congregating around the area of the priests’ sacristy shortly after the conclusion of Sunday solemn mass. Anyone could have walked into that room at any time … There was no suggestion he (Pell) had engaged in any grooming.” Richter said only a “madman” would have attempted such abuse in this manner and that A’s account could not be accepted because “it’s impossible, basically”. The High Court noted Weinberg’s point that in using the language of impossibility the defence risked setting a test for itself it did not need to meet. The Ferguson-Maxwell Court of Appeal majority was impressed by A, finding him to be a compellingly truthful witness. The High Court said their honours declined to accept unchallenged evidence inconsistent with A’s allegations arguing it was still “possible” that A’s account was correct. The High Court said this analysis failed to engage the critical question: whether there was “reasonable doubt” of Pell’s guilt. The High Court noted Weinberg’s dissent from the majority view of A as a witness and it warned of “the highly subjective nature of demeanour-based judgments”.
The prosecution, in fact, conceded that if Pell was on the cathedral steps he could not have committed the offences. The High Court, following Weinberg’s argument of “compounding improbabilities”, offered its own summary of the improbabilities, all of which had to occur, if Pell was guilty.
It concluded that notwithstanding the jury found A to be a credible witness, “the evidence as a whole was not capable of excluding a reasonable doubt” about Pell’s guilt. The High Court found the Court of Appeal majority on the critical issue was “wrong”. It found a jury “acting rationally” should have entertained a doubt and there was a “significant possibility” that “an innocent person has been convicted”.
Once again, the Victorian police with their “get Pell’ outlook failed to properly investigate the issue. The DPP persisted with a flawed case. The reasoning of the Court of Appeal majority was comprehensively rejected by the High Court.
The moral lesson is that justice cannot be delivered to victims by insisting that injustice be visited upon Pell. Yet much of the Victorian system seemed to reflect that attitude. In the end, this attitude failed both Pell and his complainant, who suffered trauma for years only to find the case against Pell finally collapsed. Victoria’s Andrews stands discredited. After the trial he said Pell had got a fair trial and he attacked people who said it was a flawed verdict. Andrews was wrong — Pell didn’t get a fair trial and the High Court quashed the verdict.
Some media outlets made serious mistakes in the Pell fiasco. They fuelled the mob mentality. The job of the ABC was to inform and educate on one of the most contentious trials in the past half-century. Instead, it campaigned against Pell, essentially offering a one-sided condemnatory view in a coverage that was extensive, powerful and influential with the public.
The High Court’s decision reveals that, from the start, there were two sides to this story — a flawed church that Pell represented and a flawed Victorian legal system prejudiced against him. The ABC saw only one side. Its campaigning mentality meant it failed to inform the public about the real nature of this contest and the issues involved.
It remains exposed by the High Court’s decision.
The fact that there's a highway to hell and a stairway to heaven says a lot about the anticipated traffic flow.
Yeah, that about sums it ..as a man, he get trialed under law ... as a man of god, he gets trialed by the church. By a jury of their peers, a priest stands to be judged against twice ; once as a man, and again as a priest. (and 'peers' is the normal general public). It's a difficult case with extenuating circumstance....I refer back to something a barrister once told me;
'the weight of the evidence, must equal or outweigh the weight of the crime' ... by that definition -- a normal layperson with these sorts of charges brought against them, has possibly committed a very heinous crime ; for these same charges to be brought against a priest, is in most people's eyes an ever MORE heinous crime, because the alleged perp is a member of the clergy. In that very same instant, there will be members of the public, perhaps themselves believers in the Catholic church, who will perceive this as a pack of lies, just *because* the man is a priest, a highly ordained one at that, and in their minds something like this could *never* happen -- imho, good luck picking an appropriate jury.
As that is very really the situation here, the weight of the presented evidence must be such, that it can dismiss ANY doubt that this person is guilty of the charges here ... and by that, I mean this evidence has to be as good as something you can make a 10minute youtube doco of, that is so conclusive, that every man, woman and child on earth can watch it and go "Yep, he's guilty alright"...and that includes all people who are member of the Catholic church...and even members of that church's clergy as well.
It's my opinion he was released, because upon review, the evidence presented was inadequate by these criteria. Nothing more, nothing less.
It really boils down to the fact Vic police decided to Fk him over and other useful idiots like some here, did the rest because they convicted a man on nothing more than wanting him to be guilty and set aside the one basic Principal every one should know and abide by, " Beyond reasonable Doubt."“the prosecution case relied entirely upon the evidence of the complainant to establish guilt and nothing more”. The prosecution had “no supporting evidence of any kind from any other witness” and the jury’s convictions were based solely on its “assessment of the complainant”.
Pell might have done over 100 Choir Boys, BUT, there was no evidence what so ever to suggest he did over this one and the story that he did is laughable. No one other than somone that wanted to get him regardless could have every believed the version of events that was put forward and as said, should not have even made it to court.
Even if he did do 100 Others, (none of which they can find despite trying BTW) that is not an excuse to use this case as payback, as the article states.
Seems though a lot of people would have liked to do exactly that and make Pell the scapegoat for the wrongs of every other clergy.
The real victim(s) of this are people whom HAVE been molested. Rather than the bleeding heart Fktards with a grudge racking up one for their side, they have only achieved a complete 180. Instead of the public opinion ( amongst the not totally biased) going to thinking that there is something to those that claim molestation in the future, The thought will be back to " Look at what they did to Pell when they eventually overturned him because the guy was making up fairy tales. "
There should be an investigation into the behaviour of the ABC. They are completely out of control and dangerously high on their belief they are infallible and the only right way of thinking there is. We need to be tightening the Gubbermint purse strings, there is a Billion a year saved right there plus sell off the assets.
They have REPEATEDLY disgraced themselves and been an embarrassment to Australia too many times now. The only people they represent is Loonie left Fktards whom are not near the majority of Australians or anywhere near it.
Sorry Rodger. You might have to get your daily dose of lefty virtue elsewhere and find someone else to do your thinking and form opinions for you.
That was the Pell one I meant, not the other one LOL
Hey Rodger,
I still don't hear you agreeing with the ruling of the High Court that the evidence in the case did not meet the standard of reasonable doubt and the case should never have even come to court based on the evidence or lack thereof, Presented.
The High Court said this analysis failed to engage the critical question: whether there was “reasonable doubt” of Pell’s guilt.
The prosecution, in fact, conceded that if Pell was on the cathedral steps he could not have committed the offences. The High Court, following Weinberg’s argument of “compounding improbabilities”, offered its own summary of the improbabilities, all of which had to occur, if Pell was guilty.
It concluded that notwithstanding the jury found A to be a credible witness, “the evidence as a whole was not capable of excluding a reasonable doubt” about Pell’s guilt. The High Court found the Court of Appeal majority on the critical issue was “wrong”. It found a jury “acting rationally” should have entertained a doubt and there was a “significant possibility” that “an innocent person has been convicted”.
All I hear is a Leftie whiner all bitter and twisted because there outcome was not what they thought it should have been. I wonder why?
I don't know what your problem is, but I'll bet it comes from watching the ABC.The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to enf For This Useful Post:
(11-04-20), (11-04-20), (11-04-20), (12-04-20), (11-04-20), (11-04-20), (12-04-20), (11-04-20), (11-04-20), (11-04-20)
Just as well It was broke up in Pieces otherwise my brain can cope with this if it was written in 4 paragraphs only (Please George 65 write like this so I can read your longer post).
The Part that got to me:
"Some media outlets made serious mistakes in the Pell fiasco. They fuelled the mob mentality. The job of the ABC was to inform and educate on one of the most contentious trials in the past half-century. Instead, it campaigned against Pell, essentially offering a one-sided condemnatory view in a coverage that was extensive, powerful and influential with the public."
Just Image having a high Profile Murder case, would the Media and other Behave like this::: NO
Just Image having a court Case from a Drug Lord that has sold over 500 Million Dollars of drugs that are ruining society, would the Media and other Behave like this::: NO
Just Image having a Bank and they have ripped of millions of Dollars from the People that people have committed suicide for losing their houses and other, would the Media and other Behave like this::: NO
Arghhhh a Child Sex Case and its a High Profile Case and its a Catholic Priest, we must get him at any cost, would the Media and other Behave like this::: YES
Now we will talk about the Other cases that are Medium Profile but not so profile case that I have Followed briefly on and off and some Law Student have been doing this (told by a Lawyer) that I have followed them and one off them is still in Jail,,, Robert Hughes " Hey Dad" The ABC had a Hand in Convicted him big time and still in jail. The ABC also stirred the pot on Scott Volkers Aust Swimming Coach to get him convicted but the DPP Smelt a RAT so they dropped the Case. Now the Volkers case was partly similar to Pells case but the QLD,Brisbane DDP stopped the case because like Pell case the statements did not add up,, yes I know about The Clock yes that clock,.(In Vitoria he would be Guilty+ 10) And the other cases was Rolf Harris and the ABC had a hand in that Too. Google no doubt you will find them.
The ABC is Hell bent on sex Cases they have a Topic Section on Sex Cases.
Maybe someone in the ABC was touched when they were young so this is the reason they are hell bent to get anyone that have the BONE pointed to them to be convicted on Child sex Cases.
What about the Average Jo Blow getting Charged with these Offenses. You have Buckley chance to get OFF.
alpha0ne (12-04-20)
Sky New on WIN ON Tuesday 14/04/2020 @ 7.00 PM ( check to see the Times are Correct) and its between Andrew Bolt and Cardinal Pell. Should be interesting to watch. Yes I think it will be Sky New on WIN
Last edited by Mr 672A; 12-04-20 at 12:22 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks