Reply With Quotealpha0ne (09-04-20),LeroyPatrol (09-04-20),lsemmens (09-04-20),Mr 672A (09-04-20),OSIRUS (10-04-20),VroomVroom (10-04-20)
Which is still no excuse to throw normal legal requirements of PROOF and beyond reasonable doubt at the window just to nail someone because someone else says they did something 20-30 years ago.Originally Posted by RogerTheDoger
Apparently it's not that hard at all to get a conviction on this seeing how they nailed pell on the bullshit they had which was all they had.
This case was a farce and the judge and jury involved in the initial conviction should be removed from whatever position they hold or charged with perverting the course of Justice until THEY prove and substantiate what they based their decision on.
alpha0ne (09-04-20),LeroyPatrol (09-04-20),lsemmens (09-04-20),Mr 672A (09-04-20),OSIRUS (10-04-20),VroomVroom (10-04-20)
Like I said a hundred times before. If you get caught with 100kilo of Cocaine the DPP using REAL EVIDENCE to sent you to jail, If you swindle $1,000,000 the DPP using REAL EVIDENCE to sent you to jail, If you murder someone the DPP using REAL EVIDENCE to sent you to jail, If you steal 1,000,000 in property from you boss the DPP using REAL EVIDENCE to sent you to jail, yes the real evidence that shows you how you stole the property from your boss but if you get charged with Child sexual offenses the rule of LAW goes out the window and it become anything will do as long as we get conviction out of it. All you have to do is see whats happening now. Do you see this on a Cocaine trial, NO. Do you see this on embezzlement trial, NO. Do you see this on a large property thief, NO. Do you see this on a Child Sex case YES, the dirty trick the DPP and the Police use to get what they want.
Barristers call these Trials "RUNAWAY TRAINS"
Last edited by Mr 672A; 09-04-20 at 01:20 PM.
VroomVroom (10-04-20)
Did this ever hit the Magistrate court circuit and pass the muster on prima facie? Anyone know?
For me Pell case is a historic case but what the police should do is concentrate the current offenses that happens NOW and forget about the ones 40 years ago.
I would love to tell you all on what happened last year when I went Shopping with my wife and my daughter and being a person like me that smells thing out I spotted a Cop car (Camry) with to plain clothe cops and on the front one cop on the drivers side of the car was talking to a young boy around 12 to 15 old and my wife spotted me looking at this car stuck in the middle of the car park so I said to her that the car has two cops in it, she said how do you know that are cops? I said I can smell them the cops was still talking to the young boy standing outside, After this the Boy walked away and I said to my wife I bet you this boy goes into the Public Men's Toilet and after 40 mtrs of walking the Boy went into the toilet. Now the wife said how did you know this? I said you have been living with me for 35 years and you know what the work I did for 5 + years, I can smell something like this. Haaa wont say more.
lsemmens (09-04-20),VroomVroom (10-04-20)
The Magistrate are useless. No doubt they are told to pass this to the upper level (supreme Court) because they never stop any child case.
According to the opinions (and to be fair, that's all they are) of most legal people I have read and spoken to, Pell wouldn't have been convicted anywhere else but Victoria on such flimsy and challengeable (is that a word?) evidence.
I couldn't care less about Pell. I'm more concerned that the legal process was followed. The bottom line to me is he won, 7-0. That's pretty emphatic I would have thought.
This victory was in the highest court in the land. Those that are willing to accept only the judgements that they like can go and get f*cked as far as I am concerned. Suck it up!
I guess the slavering mob and the ABC will have to find someone else to lynch.
The fact that there's a highway to hell and a stairway to heaven says a lot about the anticipated traffic flow.
All I hear is a bunch of apologists for paedophiles. I wonder why?
My sentiments EXACTLY!
Maybe he was a kiddie Fiddler. I highly suspect he knew of others if he didn't do it himself and did nothing about it, BUT, There is MORE than reasonable doubt and no evidence in this case to convict him of anything.
It's not about nailing him for what he might have done to others, it's not about what he might have known, it's about proving beyond reasonable doubt he committed the SPECIFIC offences he is accused of.
IF he was a kiddie Fiddler, well get him for a specific example you can prove. If there is something else he did he shouldn't have, well hang him out for that.
You cannot concoct a conviction for something you think a person did with the idea of even if he didn't on that occasion, he deserves it for others things.
That's complete and utter bullshit but seems to be the sentiment applied here.
Those complicit in this debacle need to be hung by the balls because there IS evidence that they committed offences themselves and THEY should be tried and held accountable for that. They have wasted time and money on a bullshit case that could have been put to nailing him or other peados for something they did do and should be jailed for. Now it's all useless and probably goes against getting the guilty mongrels in the future.
And what specifically is that supposed to mean?
Spell it out, make yourself clear.
alpha0ne (10-04-20),enf (10-04-20),lsemmens (09-04-20),VroomVroom (10-04-20)
Agreed!
Regardless of the outcome of THIS case, unless the evidence is proven BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT, the jury must return a NOT GUILTY verdict. At no time in this case has there been evidence presented that is undoubted. There are some things that Pell may be guilty of, kiddy fiddling has not been proven.
I'm out of my mind, but feel free to leave a message...
And once again you show your extreme ignorance. Unless and until Pell is actually convicted of a child sex offence he is entitled to the presumption of innocence. Your apparent belief that anyone who does not agree with your views on Pell and the High Court result are apologists for pedo's is unreasonable. You'd make a great juror in the People's Republic of Victoria.
I don't know what your problem is, but I'll bet it's hard to pronounce.
EDIT: Found it, see
Last edited by RogerTheDoger; 09-04-20 at 08:41 PM.
Seriously? I haven't heard of any confirmed paedophiles in this case. Although it seems that your psychic abilities could be used by the courts to just scrap the law and have rule by bigot.
Pell isn't guilty of anything according to the law. That may change in due course, but people like you will have to wait a while for your deluded summary execution. Our society is built on a system of laws, not your precognitive abilities. A shame that, hey???
The fact that there's a highway to hell and a stairway to heaven says a lot about the anticipated traffic flow.
Come on, you made a statement, have the Balls to back it up and stop playing games like a fking coward.
Tell us exactly what you meant and have the guts to explain your self.
Myself and others on this thread this comment was leveld at want to know exactly what you were insinuating.?
George it's a case of. "If the cap fits" if it doesn't you're not included. Those who are, if any, will know.
Enough with the semantics, are you accusing anyone here of being a peado or not?
Yes / no answer.
enf (10-04-20)
He can't george....it's too hard to type with a diving rod in each hand. Then again, he may be using a ouija board (peado edition) to suss everyone out which will leave at least one hand free.
The fact that there's a highway to hell and a stairway to heaven says a lot about the anticipated traffic flow.
DB44 (10-04-20)
George, no I'm not, but what I said was, "that robbing a child of their innocence is the most abominable crime there is" and I followed that up with, "All I hear is a bunch of apologists for paedophiles. I wonder why?" And when some got up in arms I said, "If the cap fits".
Now these are all statements, made by me to fit what has been said in this thread, 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". 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.
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?
Last edited by RogerTheDoger; 10-04-20 at 05:44 AM.
Maybe police can hand George Pell a $1600 fine for not having a valid reason for being outside
If u want to go on an expedition get a Land Rover, if u want to come home from an expedition get a Landcruiser!
Completely irrelevant....calling for the lynching of people that are considered innocent by the law just because of personal opinions and hatreds is pretty bad too.
Perhaps we should get everyone that you yourself consider a potential peado and put them in striped coveralls and slap a yellow star on them prior to giving them all a shower.
The fact that there's a highway to hell and a stairway to heaven says a lot about the anticipated traffic flow.
DB44 (10-04-20)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks