Page 23 of 27 FirstFirst ... 131415161718192021222324252627 LastLast
Results 441 to 460 of 526

Thread: Vic police have the green light to charge george pell with sexual abuse

  1. #441
    Administrator
    admin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Victoria
    Age
    56
    Posts
    31,150
    Thanks
    2,238
    Thanked 13,731 Times in 5,823 Posts
    Rep Power
    4552
    Reputation
    165805

    Default

    As some may recall, I have been vocal for a number of years on Austech in regards to Pell being the whipping boy for child sex crime, not just in the Catholic Church, but all churches collectively.

    We had the (I hate to use this word as it is thrown around every day due to covid19) "unprecedented" event where police actually "advertised" for victims....that alone rings very serious alarm bells. There have been many accusations against Pell and some have been hilarious, such as him molesting someone when he actually lived in another country. These charges were the best prosecutors could come up with, and even then they were very poor. The main evidence against Pell was that the accuser "seemed to be a very credible well spoken witness", which is absolutely frightening from a legal stand point.

    I personally can be very well spoken if I want to be, at other times I talk classic Australian and can sound like a yobbo... if I want to. What I am saying is you cant convict someone simply because the witness "seems credible". Pell (who voluntarily came back to Australia to face the charges...he didnt have to... I believe we do not have an extradition treaty with Vatican City) had the misfortune of being dealt with by a jury. Public perception of the Catholic Church has been poor for many years, so Pell was up against it straight away. Enter a smooth talking witness and the jury put 2 and 2 together and got 5.

    The evidence showed it was impossible for Pell to do what was claimed. Evidence from the assistant who was with him all day was ignored. The fact Pell was clothed in a ceremonial robe from neck to ankle with no front opening that was so heavy that 3 people were required to dress him was ignored. While wearing this heavy robe, he allegedly sexually assaulted 2 boys in 5 minutes in one of Australia's best known and largest churches in a room with the door open with hundreds of people around.

    Also of interest is that the second boy Pell allegedly assaulted stated before his death that Pell had NOT assaulted him. It seems this also was ignored.

    This is a victory for justice, something that is being eroded at a frightening rate. If Pell has been found guilty, it would open the door for much more injustice. Imagine if you were for example the President of a football club and decades ago there were sexual assaults. How would you feel being the whipping boy for other peoples crimes ? Because when people get a bee in their bonnet, they want to see someone pay for the crime. The problem of course is they don't care who pays for it.

  2. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to admin For This Useful Post:

    alpha0ne (07-04-20),DB44 (07-04-20),eaglem (08-04-20),Landytrack (07-04-20),lsemmens (07-04-20),Mr 672A (07-04-20),OSIRUS (08-04-20)



  • #442
    Administrator
    admin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Victoria
    Age
    56
    Posts
    31,150
    Thanks
    2,238
    Thanked 13,731 Times in 5,823 Posts
    Rep Power
    4552
    Reputation
    165805

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by enf View Post
    News this morning that these two "new accusers" are in fact not new. One case apparently went before a judge and was thrown out. The other was even rejected by the prosecution....

    The ABC.....sigh!
    Yes, more "quality" news from our out of control far left national broadcaster.

    Definitely not new, old claims that got nowhere for lack of evidence. It would seem the ABC are a bit confused....they reported this exact same stuff a couple of years ago , and are now reporting it as new accusers.
    Looking forward to seeing their funding cut in the near future. Seriously, what would these people do for work in the real world ?

  • The Following User Says Thank You to admin For This Useful Post:

    eaglem (08-04-20)

  • #443
    Member
    RogerTheDoger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Location
    State of Despair
    Posts
    370
    Thanks
    288
    Thanked 395 Times in 146 Posts
    Rep Power
    228
    Reputation
    8064

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by admin View Post
    Definitely not new, old claims that got nowhere for lack of evidence. It would seem the ABC are a bit confused....they reported this exact same stuff a couple of years ago , and are now reporting it as new accusers.
    Looking forward to seeing their funding cut in the near future. Seriously, what would these people do for work in the real world ?
    Not quite true, If you watched the program you would have seen the new news and that was the two abused boys, now men, actually telling their story of what happened to them in detail, where, when and by whom. The lack of evidence that caused the case to be withdrawn was because the two chaps lost their nerve and withdrew from the case. That meant that the police no longer had their main witnesses available to give the evidence to the court. Quite a different kettle of fish.

    However now that Pell has been released, not because he didn't do it, but because the High Court found the verdict unsafe. It was unsafe because it was unsupported by corroborating evidence. Quite another kettle of fish. The case using the evidence of these two men still may not go ahead. Another apparent victory for all the paedophiles in Australia, who will probably be resting easier in the belief that their victims will continue to remain stum, because they now know that they will have even less chance of being believed.
    Last edited by RogerTheDoger; 07-04-20 at 02:58 PM.

  • #444
    Premium Member
    ol' boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    17,662
    Thanks
    8,131
    Thanked 10,460 Times in 5,194 Posts
    Rep Power
    4471
    Reputation
    184272

    Default

    I think the question is, how would Joe Average have gone in the same situation?
    If u want to go on an expedition get a Land Rover, if u want to come home from an expedition get a Landcruiser!

  • #445
    Premium Member
    alpha0ne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Mandurah WA
    Age
    68
    Posts
    1,443
    Thanks
    3,455
    Thanked 2,988 Times in 813 Posts
    Rep Power
    1427
    Reputation
    59477

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ol' boy View Post
    I think the question is, how would Joe Average have gone in the same situation?
    You mean if in Pells place ??, he would have been hung/drawn/quartered..........but on the other hand he would never have been arrested due to no complainants thru lack of available $$$$$$ insentives

  • The Following User Says Thank You to alpha0ne For This Useful Post:

    eaglem (08-04-20)

  • #446
    Senior Member
    Mr 672A's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    The only Country in the English speaking World where you cannot sue your Solicitor or Barrister.
    Posts
    4,271
    Thanks
    1,167
    Thanked 1,173 Times in 677 Posts
    Rep Power
    722
    Reputation
    21825

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ol' boy View Post
    I think the question is, how would Joe Average have gone in the same situation?
    I can tell you this that In QLD know body that have been charged with the same offenses ever had t case go to the High Court Why one more time Why because the DPP drain your account with deliberate cancel of mentions and pre-trial hearing. Now to start with if you use a Private Lawyer but the DPP know you not made of money so they drain more of your money on Mentions that they cancel 1 hour before and yet you have to pay for your Solicitor and your Barrister (More money down the drain) and when you run out of money its LEGAL AID TIME and when you are with legal Aid your guaranteed to lose and 99% of the Time LEGAL AID never go to a High Court even if they know you are innocent and you have a better chance to be cleared on a High court Appeal.
    I have told this that in Child Sex Case that has one or even two complainants even with no evidence with plenty of HEAR SAY they will be found GUILTY in the Supreme Court Of Zealot Judge that goes on what the Community think, again anyone that have been charged with these offenses these case that go to a HIGH COURT (If they get there) they will be dismissed but the trouble is the DPP know this and they spend plenty of money to stop you to go to a High Court because they know you have a very good change you conviction will be overturned.
    You have read on my other post where I joke that I was seeing a Shrink for many years because I was addicted with TV's, the more the better. Now I will tell the first time why I was seeing shrink and it was the 5 and half years of Videoing Scum Liars on this Earth that all they think about is $$$$$$MONEY$$$$$$. This alone got to me See what I wrote on the other post on what you are doing with spare time because of the COVID 19, I wrote in the thread that a Man was set up by a woman to steal his house because he was changed with sex offenses to her child. Yes I had to leave as I had enough that I had to go because I was sick and tired of this shit and that I had to get some else to take over my job as I was sick of it and I quit because my eyes saw something but the DPP and the Prosecutor twisted the truth to suit themselves yet Legal aid to shorten the case wont say anything.
    NOW THE DPP will know a few of similar cases like this (NOT Priest but the Average Jo Blow), that need to be tested in HIGH COURT but once again the DPP will send there thugs out (No Letters No Evidence to say they were knocking on your door when you were out of jail for 8 years but they will remind not to start anything anything to get your case to be re opened yet they denied they visited the man.
    The Fun will now Start, I can see a few case to be re-opened
    Last edited by Mr 672A; 07-04-20 at 05:22 PM.

  • #447
    Premium Member
    wotnot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Location
    Scenic Rim, SE Qld
    Posts
    3,236
    Thanks
    1,462
    Thanked 2,934 Times in 1,510 Posts
    Rep Power
    1334
    Reputation
    58690

    Default

    Being myself an apatheist, I need hold a more holistic view about all of this. I was born in the late 50's, and from that moment forward what I have observed, from a young boy, is that the common 'folk lore' about the clergy/priests being involved with kiddie fiddling, is about as common place as the association of all secondhand car salespeople being absolute ripoffs. These sorts of lore, are invariably based upon (or started by) some actual event or happening. If I take anything in the wikipedia entry on this topic, which is this , it becomes readily apparent to me, that the Catholic church has had a few hundred years to eliminate these sicko rock-spiders from their ranks, and yet, reality testifies to the fact they've done bugger all about it.

    I do however concur with Admin's sentiment of it being unjust to treat Pell as a whipping post for something that is common knowledge in the community, as if to make an example of someone, who may not, in fact, be guilty of the charges laid.

    That said, personal opinion only, who the blazes would want to be affiliated with/join *any* collective of people, who have carried this stigmas around with them for so long? You either want to be there for truly honest reasons (belief, faith), want to be in with the sickos doing this sort of thing...but either way, don't be surprised if you get blamed for doing such, even if you didn't. Nor be surprised at those looks you get from people, every time you touch a kid, even innocently. For mine, you'd need to be a few sheep short in the top paddock, to choose a vocation so disposed to such social associations with paedophilia.

  • The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to wotnot For This Useful Post:

    DB44 (07-04-20),enf (08-04-20)

  • #448
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Gold Coast
    Posts
    1,504
    Thanks
    1,879
    Thanked 1,590 Times in 726 Posts
    Rep Power
    767
    Reputation
    27988

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RogerTheDoger View Post
    Not quite true, If you watched the program you would have seen the new news and that was the two abused boys, now men, actually telling their story of what happened to them in detail, where, when and by whom. The lack of evidence that caused the case to be withdrawn was because the two chaps lost their nerve and withdrew from the case. That meant that the police no longer had their main witnesses available to give the evidence to the court. Quite a different kettle of fish.

    However now that Pell has been released, not because he didn't do it, but because the High Court found the verdict unsafe. It was unsafe because it was unsupported by corroborating evidence. Quite another kettle of fish. The case using the evidence of these two men still may not go ahead. Another apparent victory for all the paedophiles in Australia, who will probably be resting easier in the belief that their victims will continue to remain stum, because they now know that they will have even less chance of being believed.
    I have to pull you up once again Roger. Your comments show your ignorance. The allegations were old ones and the ABC should have made that clear. One continually failed to appear and the Magistrate failed to commit for trial. In the other Pell was committed for trial but the prosecution failed to proceed because their case was too weak. Then again it is hard to imagine a weaker case than the one for which he was just acquited.

    A court never finds anyone innocent, ever. When you are accused you are presumed to be innocent, a presumption which is displaced on conviction. Now Pell has been acquited he is again entitled to be presumed innocent. No one but those present know what really happened, and given the frailties of human memory maybe not even all of them.

    As for corroborating evidence, the law certainly looks for it in these cases. It is very difficult but not totally impossible for either a Judge or a Jury to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt without it. However, at paragraph 53 of the High Court Judgement which you have plainly not read the court says:

    There is no requirement that a complainant's evidence be corroborated before a jury may return a verdict of guilty upon it. Nonetheless, it was not correct to assess the capacity of A's evidence to support the verdicts on a view that there was independent support for its acceptance. And it was, with respect, beside the point to find that it was open to the jury to view A's knowledge of the priests' sacristy as independent confirmation of him having been inside it.
    The Court directed that George Pell be acquitted of the charges because no reasonable jury could have been satisfied based on the evidence before them that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It is sad indeed if genuine victims fail to come forward because a man won an appeal because there was not just doubt but reasonable doubt about his guilt. This case was so weak that in my view it should never have been brought. That he was convicted by a Jury and the verdict affirmed by a majority of an Australian Supreme Court is to me incredible. If he is guilty of other offences charge him with them if there is sufficiently cogent evidence. In Australia, even the People's Republic of Victoria, we do our best not to lock people up when there is reasonable doubt of their guilt.

  • The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to DB44 For This Useful Post:

    LeroyPatrol (09-04-20),lsemmens (07-04-20),OSIRUS (08-04-20),VroomVroom (08-04-20)

  • #449
    Senior Member
    Mr 672A's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    The only Country in the English speaking World where you cannot sue your Solicitor or Barrister.
    Posts
    4,271
    Thanks
    1,167
    Thanked 1,173 Times in 677 Posts
    Rep Power
    722
    Reputation
    21825

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DB44 View Post
    It is sad indeed if genuine victims fail to come forward because a man won an appeal because there was not just doubt but reasonable doubt about his guilt. This case was so weak that in my view it should never have been brought. That he was convicted by a Jury and the verdict affirmed by a majority of an Australian Supreme Court is to me incredible. If he is guilty of other offences charge him with them if there is sufficiently cogent evidence. In Australia, even the People's Republic of Victoria, we do our best not to lock people up when there is reasonable doubt of their guilt.
    What about of the Men in jail today that have been charged and convicted with the same offenses with one complainant and no other evidences only hear say but they protested that they are innocent to the end, Yes there a few of them but do not have the notoriety of Pell so they have stay in jail to complete the circus all because they cannot be funded to a High Court Appeal.
    Last edited by Mr 672A; 07-04-20 at 05:37 PM.

  • The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Mr 672A For This Useful Post:

    DB44 (07-04-20),lsemmens (07-04-20),OSIRUS (08-04-20)

  • #450
    Member
    RogerTheDoger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Location
    State of Despair
    Posts
    370
    Thanks
    288
    Thanked 395 Times in 146 Posts
    Rep Power
    228
    Reputation
    8064

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DB44 View Post
    I have to pull you up once again Roger. Your comments show your ignorance.
    Uncalled for, perhaps you could have said, I disagree, or Not quite true, or I see it differently. Followed with a because------.

  • #451
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    still above ground level
    Posts
    1,779
    Thanks
    5,562
    Thanked 1,964 Times in 714 Posts
    Rep Power
    0
    Reputation
    35657

    Default

    perhaps you should go fishing with decent bait roger trash is available for tuition and I can assure you you will catch more then !!!!

  • #452
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    2,235
    Thanks
    2,822
    Thanked 1,514 Times in 835 Posts
    Rep Power
    795
    Reputation
    27703

    Default

    so , now that Pell is a free man , is there any chance that he will be found guilty in the civil cases ? I don't see how they could ever proceed.

  • The Following User Says Thank You to VroomVroom For This Useful Post:

    eaglem (08-04-20)

  • #453
    Senior Member
    Mr 672A's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    The only Country in the English speaking World where you cannot sue your Solicitor or Barrister.
    Posts
    4,271
    Thanks
    1,167
    Thanked 1,173 Times in 677 Posts
    Rep Power
    722
    Reputation
    21825

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by VroomVroom View Post
    so , now that Pell is a free man , is there any chance that he will be found guilty in the civil cases ? I don't see how they could ever proceed.
    Shine Lawyer will dig deep for this.
    Yes this can happen but mainly in the US because to be found Guilty in a Criminal case but you can be found not guilty in civil case and at the same time you can be found NOT GUILTY in a Criminal case or win your appeal but found to be guilty in a Civil case. Yeah Make no Sense.
    In Pell case The Complainant wants MONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and on Radio today @ 7.00AM 4 KQ whilst my wife was shopping for the oldies on the News the Complainant said in a recording for all news services that he Respects the HIGH COURT DECISION but he still want to sue Pell because of all of this that has made him depressed and wants money also SHINE Lawyer what there big piece of cake too. MONEY, Money MONEY, Money MONEY, Money I want Money the more I get the more I want.

  • The Following User Says Thank You to Mr 672A For This Useful Post:

    eaglem (08-04-20)

  • #454
    Senior Member
    Mr 672A's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    The only Country in the English speaking World where you cannot sue your Solicitor or Barrister.
    Posts
    4,271
    Thanks
    1,167
    Thanked 1,173 Times in 677 Posts
    Rep Power
    722
    Reputation
    21825

    Default

    By any chance did anyone see the 1 hr of the Bolt report last night, WOW he was full on attacking the ABC and the Victorian Police. He hammered the lot of them for 55 Min then for five minutes Talked about COVID-19
    About the Pell case there is no Difference between Pell case and any others Child sex case except Pell case it was FULL ON but what happens is the same. The DPP knows Pell had plenty of money so they will try another trick and because Pell is well known by the People they the DPP will use the advantage for the Media to get what they want but if you are not well known the Media is nothing so what the DDP does they check you finance if you can get a Private Lawyer and if you get a Private Lawyer they find out how good is the Private Lawyer and what Barrister being used (Mind you it has been reported that you Might Have 2 up 5 barristers if your Solicitor is no good)but if you have to use LEGAL AID YOUR FCUKED then the Circus starts. Legal Aid Works for the DPP as they have the worst ever wins on any Child Sex cases.
    Like in Pells case Andrew Bolt said the Committal hearing should have stopped this in the early days but the Magistrate in the Committal hearings is under the thumb and will never stop any child sex case on ANY CASE. Once again its a sham.
    People on this site like talking about the LAW well the LAW is a ASS, I know the law but I want to concentrate on the DIRTY TRICKS used by the DPP or the Police to get a GUILTY Verdict like here in QLD if there are any Child Sex cases you will find most of the time mostly in Brisbane in the public gallery those two sitting in the Back + if they cannot go they get the Other Women to come in or another well known campaigner against Child Abuse and sit out the back in the Public Gallery so the Member in the Jury say "isn't that Mr so and so with his Wife or if they are not they the other Child Protection Women or Woman's comes out" and sits in the rear of a Court Room and these people hangs around the Court room like fly's on Shi.t on these cases. Have you all noticed when you watch the News and you see any Child Sex Cases on manly the ones one step higher than the average joe blow child sex cases have you noticed these people hanging around the Court room like fly's on Shi.t. So tell me why are they allows to do this and still get away with it.

    When there is a General Election and when you go to you main Shopping Centre and you see your Prime Minister or the Opposition Leader there you say Its So and So so what do you do nextYOU VOTE FOR one of THEM. The same goes to those Child Abuse campaigner there sitting in the rear of the Court room smiling to the Jury.

    Funny think last night I had a Call from another friend over the Phone and he told me, "Hey Prisoners in the Prison Heard Pell talk to himself why did I abuse those two children, or they will use this trick when a Prisoner has 24 hour 7 day a week confinement but when they need to see a doctor all prisoners are all in together so one Prisoner to get early release say " I talked to Pell in the Doctor area whilst waiting to see a Doctor and he told me he abused the Kids" Yes Ask Civil libertarian and Criminal lawyer Terry O'Gorman for this because this happens Australia Wide and most Lawyer are switch on with this Crap but the Media will feed on it, they will exploit it (Yes the ABC Again) and they will say NEW EVIDENCE HAS JUST COME OUT LOL.

  • The Following User Says Thank You to Mr 672A For This Useful Post:

    OSIRUS (08-04-20)

  • #455
    Member
    RogerTheDoger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Location
    State of Despair
    Posts
    370
    Thanks
    288
    Thanked 395 Times in 146 Posts
    Rep Power
    228
    Reputation
    8064

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by VroomVroom View Post
    so , now that Pell is a free man , is there any chance that he will be found guilty in the civil cases ? I don't see how they could ever proceed.
    They could possibly proceed, criminal cases require a verdict based on "Beyond reasonable doubt" while in civil cases the requirement is "Balance of probability". Look at OJ Simpson, but that was US law, a bit different to ours. Also George Pell is such high profile character, courts may refuse to hear the case, or bringing one may be so incredibly expensive, no one could afford to go ahead. What ever the case I expect that the Catholic Church and Pells supporters would put up barriers to drag the case out and end up bankrupting the litigants before the case was finished.

  • #456
    Super Moderator
    enf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Canberra
    Age
    70
    Posts
    17,752
    Thanks
    16,817
    Thanked 34,961 Times in 9,058 Posts
    Rep Power
    13677
    Reputation
    644429

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RogerTheDoger View Post
    They could possibly proceed, criminal cases require a verdict based on "Beyond reasonable doubt" while in civil cases the requirement is "Balance of probability". Look at OJ Simpson, but that was US law, a bit different to ours. Also George Pell is such high profile character, courts may refuse to hear the case, or bringing one may be so incredibly expensive, no one could afford to go ahead. What ever the case I expect that the Catholic Church and Pells supporters would put up barriers to drag the case out and end up bankrupting the litigants before the case was finished.
    Standard legal procedure then.........
    The fact that there's a highway to hell and a stairway to heaven says a lot about the anticipated traffic flow.

  • #457
    Member
    RogerTheDoger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Location
    State of Despair
    Posts
    370
    Thanks
    288
    Thanked 395 Times in 146 Posts
    Rep Power
    228
    Reputation
    8064

    Default

    Some people are obviously upset by the decision of the high court:
    Cathedral vandalised as George Pell flees Victoria



    Melbourne’s St Patrick’s Cathedral has been vandalised, with the words “rapist” and “no justice” graffitied across its doors a day after Cardinal George Pell was acquitted on child sex abuse charges.
    “Rot in hell, Pell” was also scrawled across the doors of the cathedral at the centre of allegations the cardinal abused two choirboys in the 1990s.

    The words “the law protects the powerful” were also spray-painted on the cathedral forecourt.

    Meanwhile, a tricycle, ribbons and a paper bag emblazoned with a biblical quote were left at the gates of the monastery in Melbourne’s east where Cardinal Pell spent his first night of freedom on Tuesday.
    see

  • #458
    LSemmens
    lsemmens's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Rural South OZ
    Posts
    10,585
    Thanks
    11,867
    Thanked 7,061 Times in 3,338 Posts
    Rep Power
    3153
    Reputation
    132592

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RogerTheDoger View Post
    Some people are obviously upset by the decision of the high court:

    see
    Therein lies the problem with these Vigilantes. They are targetting the wrong institution with the vandalism. It was not the Catholic Church that freed Pell, it was the court system that we all would hope to serve us well should the need arise. Regardless of cost or verdict. We all have the same laws to live under. If a solicitor (I include all of the legal profession under this banner) can convince a court of a person's guilt or innocence, under the law then, regardless of the morality of such ruling, we must accept same. If the law is at fault, then we must needs see to it that the law is changed. In this case, perhaps the vandals would be well to direct their anger at the law makers, or the judge who made the ruling.
    I'm out of my mind, but feel free to leave a message...

  • #459
    Senior Member
    Mr 672A's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    The only Country in the English speaking World where you cannot sue your Solicitor or Barrister.
    Posts
    4,271
    Thanks
    1,167
    Thanked 1,173 Times in 677 Posts
    Rep Power
    722
    Reputation
    21825

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lsemmens View Post
    If the law is at fault,
    The Fault is, if you where charged with these offense then you have to be found guilty FULL STOP of the crime even if you we not in the Country at the time or where the offense happened. Again the Law is a ass but I'm here to tell all of the dirty tricks the Police, the DPP, the Media use for Child Sex Cases, The lot of them seems to grow a extra leg when it comes to Child Sex Cases. No other indictable offenses behave like a Child sex case because Laws goes out of window and it becomes anything goes to get a conviction. Pell is the High Profile but this happens to ALL men in Australia.

  • #460
    Member
    RogerTheDoger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Location
    State of Despair
    Posts
    370
    Thanks
    288
    Thanked 395 Times in 146 Posts
    Rep Power
    228
    Reputation
    8064

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr 672A View Post
    Again the Law is a ass but I'm here to tell all of the dirty tricks the Police, the DPP, the Media use for Child Sex Cases, The lot of them seems to grow a extra leg when it comes to Child Sex Cases.
    On the other hand robbing a child of their innocence is the most abominable crime there is, and it is the hardest on which to get a conviction.

  • The Following User Says Thank You to RogerTheDoger For This Useful Post:

    william10 (09-04-20)

  • Page 23 of 27 FirstFirst ... 131415161718192021222324252627 LastLast

    Bookmarks

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •