Well, lets not forget the crowd of previously abused victims that attended court yesterday
May have been abused by other members of the Church, but they didn't turn up because they had nothing better to do.
They were there for a genuine and personal reason.
And on the "Turn up and be counted" basis, there was probably 9 times that amount that didn't attend.
He has one last chance now... the High Court
"High Court could decide whether to accept the case by the end of this year, possibly hearing it by the middle of next year." * The Australian
Obviously the Pell defence will lodge this with the High Court
And given the 200 pages from Justice Weinberg, gives them good grounds the appeal should go ahead.
If not, just 3 short years and he'll be out on bail.
First thing i thought watching yesterdays appeal, was i wonder if all those Judges were also lovers of the Catholic faith and/or George Pell ?
As it seems the people in these very high places come from a stern religious school up bringing, which is also continued in the right private schools and universities.
Of course, they are meant to be more professional than that... But...
Last edited by ol' boy; 23-08-19 at 07:17 AM.
If u want to go on an expedition get a Land Rover, if u want to come home from an expedition get a Landcruiser!
irritant (22-08-19)
mR672A, you are forgetting the people who witnessed the self destruction and eventual death of the second offended victim and whose testimony and collaboration they gave the court, there were a few of them that endorsed the reason for the deterioration of the dead witness and the reason he self destructed. Then there was witness one, evidently he was unwavering in his evidence that could not be faulted
If I am correct George did not enter the witness box, the only reason i can tell is he did not want to be subjected to cross examination, wonder why?
Guilty as hell and hope he rots there
There is a fine line between "Hobby" and "Madness"
ol' boy (22-08-19)
If u want to go on an expedition get a Land Rover, if u want to come home from an expedition get a Landcruiser!
True freedom is the greatest gift a man can possess, yet is the one thing most easily and innocently given away, to crafty curses and binds cleverly disguised as blessings and gifts, in the pursuit of supposed achievement, status and power.
If he was telling the truth then I see no reason for him not to take the witness stand, but he didn't....
Which to me is as bad as if he committed the crimes himself, to say he only did that is like saying that Osama bin Laden only supplied Al quieda with money.
Cheers
Ted (Al)
ol' boy (22-08-19)
Last edited by ol' boy; 23-08-19 at 03:59 AM.
If u want to go on an expedition get a Land Rover, if u want to come home from an expedition get a Landcruiser!
All Barristers advise you not to sit in that Electric chair, this is for all type of cases not just Child sex cases only and one of the many reason for child sex cases is most of the defendant are old and they have been a few case where the defendant fell ill with stress or sufferer a heart attack. You must remeber that PELL was DRILLED in the Royal commission and he had not issue with this but a trial is different.
irritant (24-08-19)
Mainly Involve Legal Aid but also in Hi Profile cases
Being involved with a few Lawyers doing there dirty work for over 5 years you get to know the dirty tricks. Now try this!
1/ Go to a supreme Courts on Monday and look at the Law List on the wall and find any case that is defended by Legal Aid, (Do your homework first to find the case is Legal Aid).
2/ As the 12 jurors are impaneled go in the court as a public visitor so you sit out the Back or the top.
3/ Find the Barrister
4/ Find the Court Room Wall Clock
5/ During the Case (mainly after 2 or 3 days of a 4 to 5 day trial) you will see the Barrister CONTINUALLY LOOK AT THE CLOCK I mean continually look at the wall clock all because he wants the case to finished and the last thing the barrister wants the defendant to go on the stand and stretch the case out because the barrister might go over the time limit that can effect the NEW Another High Profile case that starts on each or Monday, Fortnight, or even Tuesday. Yes by have a defended giving evidence this can put a case that is destined to be a 4 to 5 day case Max to be a 10 day or more days and trust me barristers don't like this.
Even on High Profile cases like PELL's barristers dont want the case to go over the time limit which the Prosecutor is happy to do because barristers have many cases to do.
When it comes to Legal Aid the Barristers controls the case and because Legal Aid pays SH.it they shorten the case as much as possible (Remember a New case starts on Monday or Tuesday that pays plenty of $$$$) and the last thing a barrister want is a defendant goes on the stand and drag the case on. "Barrister have a right to do this and control the case in any way they want"
As to be expected most dont understand the Politic in a Court room
irritant (24-08-19)
Well, at least there was one actual judge there who looked at facts.
We really have gone down the gurgler when it comes to legal justice. Based on the evidence, if this case heard in any other country the case would be thrown out for lack of evidence. And lets face it, there isnt any evidence at all. It just comes down to one persons word against an others.
Its hard to believe that Pell, on the busiest day of the year for St Patricks cathedral, managed to molest not one, but two alter boys in a 10 minute period with a church full of people in a room with the door open. And that's while wearing ceremonial robes that cover him from neck to ankle and are so heavy it takes 2 people to dress him. And one of those alter boys saying he was not molested. And the single accuser claiming they were molested when Pell caught them drinking the church's red wine....which they didnt have, they had white.
While I have sympathy for anyone who has genuinely been sexually assaulted by anyone to do with the any church, simply choosing to punish someone simply because they are a figurehead of the church is not acceptable and never will be. The 2 judges who agreed with the accuser said they did so because "he seemed a credible witness". What ????? So that's all required for a prosecution these days ? No need for evidence, just seem credible. Ironically Pell had witnesses that said they were with him all day, seemingly they must be liars because they are from the church ?
I would hope true legal justice is done at the next appeal. Otherwise we might as well just set up Salem Witch trials in the future run by the church hating left.
* Disclaimer. I am an atheist and have never been christened.
OSIRUS (23-08-19)
Just a quickie, Admin, are you sure that the wine that day was white? It goes against all tradition where communion wine is traditionally red to symbolize the Blood of Jesus.
I'm out of my mind, but feel free to leave a message...
irritant (24-08-19)
Which means that if any child was to accuse you of abusing them 20 years ago or more, without any evidence but the word of the now adult child, you better hope that they are not a good actor. Since some of these children may over the passing years have come to genuinely believe that you did in fact abuse them, which of course you did not, even acting skills may not be required. Sadly this does mean that many guilty accused will go free simply because there is no corroboration available. It is the better of 2 bad choices, but blindly believing a victim without corroboration beyond a reasonable doubt is a travesty.
It is hardly surprising that the Peoples Republic of Victoria leads the nation in turning its courts into modern day star chambers.
Last edited by DB44; 24-08-19 at 01:06 AM.
Im sure it is not as simple as you portray
If u want to go on an expedition get a Land Rover, if u want to come home from an expedition get a Landcruiser!
We really have gone down the gurgler when it comes to legal justice. Based on the evidence, if this case heard in any other country the case would be thrown out for lack of evidence. And lets face it, there isnt any evidence at all. It just comes down to one persons word against an others.
People keep saying it was one persons word against another
This is simply not true and inaccurate
There were two people telling the same story about the incident, but one had trouble making it to court
The fact the second witness had related what occurred to him that day to a number of witnesses many times prior to his death, verified what was said by witness number one
There is a fine line between "Hobby" and "Madness"
Here in QLD no corroboration is needed to send the defendant to jail, actually in some cases its the opposite way around as you can have a Child (not Adult complain 30 years later) a child giving evidence via a recording and yet you have 2 or more children giving evidence that contradict the complainant child yet the defendant is found guilty, WHY? Difference today we have a FEAR FACTOR here in QLD because of all the Daniel Morcombe stuff going up here.
Once Again I will say for the untine time KEEP AWAY FROM ANYONE UNDER 18 YEARS OLD because its like a car crash everyone else dies on the road crash but not you the same goes for being accursed to be a sex offender but if someone does this to you you will be stuffed.
Actually (spoke about this before) One day I would like to see someone set up the complete system to prove the system has major flaws in it to a point that this other person Defiantly a well trained man, a Man that will be convicted and sent to jail then others involved with this man release the Video and other evidence to prove it was nothing but a set up to set up a defunk system.
Back to the Tv now.
Last edited by Mr 672A; 24-08-19 at 11:05 AM.
irritant (24-08-19)
Again, comes back to the fact he abused all these Kids but they can only find one/ two to come forward and testify?
That's BS right there.
When my friend was involved with the case where he was abused there was plenty of people who came forward. They all by then had jobs and families and an otherwise normal life as well and there were more willing to testify than what the cops needed.
Just seems unreal that they go after such a High profile person like pell and put all their eggs in the one basket with a single witness. I don't think anyone would say the guy is innocent directly or indirectly turning a blind eye to it but you have to do these things properly.
Seems to me they let go all sorts of other crims on the flimsiest of errors or technicalities but they are wanting to lock pell up with no where near the evidence they would require for some other POS.
Surely this case shouldn't be that hard to find a load of evidence for that would put his conviction beyond everyone's reasonable doubt.
Bookmarks