|
And Everyone Blamed Clive
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xYou'd imagine the police have some quite serious evidence against him. Not a charge I imagine that would be made with a light heart. The problem could be that the evidence may largely be witness based ... this is always problematic (and simply due to the number of complaints it may have forced the police's hand to bring forth a charge even if they didn't feel they had any concrete evidence). What they have is some statements. But these people never testified at the Royal Commission. How could you possibly know that ?
Winner of Official 442 Comment of the day Award - 10th April 2017
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Davide82
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 12K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]You'd imagine the police have some quite serious evidence against him. Not a charge I imagine that would be made with a light heart. The problem could be that the evidence may largely be witness based ... this is always problematic (and simply due to the number of complaints it may have forced the police's hand to bring forth a charge even if they didn't feel they had any concrete evidence). But in any case, these matters will be dissected in Court. And anyone telling any porkies will be ripped to shreds. But as you yourself say, he has lawyers bought with vatican gold and we all know justice can be bought. The truth here will never be clear regardless of which way any verdicts go. I don't think so! The legal system will look at the evidence and a jury will decide whether there is enough to convict Wait, seriously? Money doesn't buy justice? No! I don't think so. Fair enough. I believe you are letting your feelings about this particular case guide your responses so I will leave it there. It should actually concern you too this case. The way the information about cardinal Pell was divulged with all the lies and false statements, you should be asking questions, and perhaps defend his Human Rights. This man has been vilified. I am very happy he has decided to come to Australia. As to the rest of it, we will have to wait and see what evidence the accusers and detractors come up with. But at least he can now defend himself. I spoke solely to the notion that money buys justice. I didn't give my opinion as to his guilt either way.
|
|
|
|
|
And Everyone Blamed Clive
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]You'd imagine the police have some quite serious evidence against him. Not a charge I imagine that would be made with a light heart. The problem could be that the evidence may largely be witness based ... this is always problematic (and simply due to the number of complaints it may have forced the police's hand to bring forth a charge even if they didn't feel they had any concrete evidence). But in any case, these matters will be dissected in Court. And anyone telling any porkies will be ripped to shreds. But as you yourself say, he has lawyers bought with vatican gold and we all know justice can be bought. The truth here will never be clear regardless of which way any verdicts go. I don't think so! The legal system will look at the evidence and a jury will decide whether there is enough to convict Wait, seriously? Money doesn't buy justice? No! I don't think so. Fair enough. I believe you are letting your feelings about this particular case guide your responses so I will leave it there. It should actually concern you too this case. The way the information about cardinal Pell was divulged with all the lies and false statements, Your attitude to the complainants absolutely disgusts me
Winner of Official 442 Comment of the day Award - 10th April 2017
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
lol so Pell is totes McGoats a great dude even after he shielded and protected child molesters for decades. K. -PB
|
|
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]You'd imagine the police have some quite serious evidence against him. Not a charge I imagine that would be made with a light heart. The problem could be that the evidence may largely be witness based ... this is always problematic (and simply due to the number of complaints it may have forced the police's hand to bring forth a charge even if they didn't feel they had any concrete evidence). But in any case, these matters will be dissected in Court. And anyone telling any porkies will be ripped to shreds. But as you yourself say, he has lawyers bought with vatican gold and we all know justice can be bought. The truth here will never be clear regardless of which way any verdicts go. I don't think so! The legal system will look at the evidence and a jury will decide whether there is enough to convict Wait, seriously? Money doesn't buy justice? No! I don't think so. Fair enough. I believe you are letting your feelings about this particular case guide your responses so I will leave it there. It should actually concern you too this case. The way the information about cardinal Pell was divulged with all the lies and false statements, Your attitude to the complainants absolutely disgusts me My attitude to the complainants is the best one of all. I support the legal process. Cardinal Pell now has his chance to defend himself, in the flesh and the complainants now have a legal fora to air their complaints and have them scrutinised. Isn't this the best outcome?
|
|
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+xIt's not just the media... Tim Minchin wrote a stupid song about Pell which everyone lapped up. And he hasn't even been charged with anything yet. Perhaps he is guilty, but we don't know yet. Possibly all he did was try and sweep under the carpet the misdeeds of a few priests. I just resent the mob mentality of attacking certain traditional religions- it's like we are back in the 16th century- let's burn someone at the stake! Yes indeed! We are regressing alright. Where is the 18C rule and the Human Rights Commission on this one? AWOL! Obviously, we are not all equal in the eyes of the law.
|
|
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]You'd imagine the police have some quite serious evidence against him. Not a charge I imagine that would be made with a light heart. The problem could be that the evidence may largely be witness based ... this is always problematic (and simply due to the number of complaints it may have forced the police's hand to bring forth a charge even if they didn't feel they had any concrete evidence). But in any case, these matters will be dissected in Court. And anyone telling any porkies will be ripped to shreds. But as you yourself say, he has lawyers bought with vatican gold and we all know justice can be bought. The truth here will never be clear regardless of which way any verdicts go. I don't think so! The legal system will look at the evidence and a jury will decide whether there is enough to convict Wait, seriously? Money doesn't buy justice? No! I don't think so. Fair enough. I believe you are letting your feelings about this particular case guide your responses so I will leave it there. It should actually concern you too this case. The way the information about cardinal Pell was divulged with all the lies and false statements, you should be asking questions, and perhaps defend his Human Rights. This man has been vilified. I am very happy he has decided to come to Australia. As to the rest of it, we will have to wait and see what evidence the accusers and detractors come up with. But at least he can now defend himself. I spoke solely to the notion that money buys justice. I didn't give my opinion as to his guilt either way. You mean it buys great lawyers. I don't think we are as corrupt to suggest we can buy verdicts and outcomes. Either way, I think the opposing lawyers to Pell, are no slouches either. They are Bull terriers too.
|
|
|
|
|
P&R will fix it 2.0
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.8K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
433
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+xThis charade just got blown wide open. Cardinal Pell is back and will be pleading innocent to all charges. Now the ball is in the court of all the accusers and detractors to prove all the"Trial by Media" claims and hyperbole. Now let's be clear. He didn't have to come back at all and defend anything. But it seems his legacy is important to him and it seems he is of the firm belief that he has done NOTHING wrong. So he has done what most thought he would never do because they presumed he was guilty. Well it doesn't work this way and some of you are going to learn a lot about our legal system because of this. He also has one of the most feared and brutal attorneys in Australia. Oh boy the fireworks are going to be spectacular. All funded by The Vatican no doubt at $10,000 per day! oof
|
|
|
|
|
Jong Gabe
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
So does he rot in a cell now for the rest of his life?
E
|
|
|
|
|
Carlito
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 28K,
Visits: 0
|
May he rot in hell
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
A very high-profile figure was convicted on Tuesday of a serious crime, but we are unable to report their identity due to a suppression order. The person, whose case has attracted significant media attention, was convicted on the second attempt, after the jury in an earlier trial was unable to reach a verdict. They will be remanded when they return to court in February for sentencing. Suppression orders are widely used in Victoria. A suppression order issued by the Victorian County Court, which applies in all Australian states and territories, has prevented any publication of the details of the case including the person's name or the charges. It was imposed after the court accepted that knowledge of the person's identity in the first trial might prejudice a further trial being held in March. It is relatively common in cases where a person faces separate allegations in sequential trials for the first trial to be suppressed. The process is designed not to prejudice later juries. However, in this case, the word has got out widely online and through social media. Google searches for the person's name surged on Wednesday, particularly in Victoria. Two of the top three search results on the suppressed name showed websites that were reporting the charges, the verdict and the identity of the person in full. One of the websites was blocked from viewing by Australian residents, but its content was republished on a number of other sites. On Wednesday afternoon, the person's name was the subject of thousands of tweets. The tweets both named the individual and the charges and posted links to online sites where the information was available. A number of readers contacted us asking why we were not reporting this major issue in the public interest. We, like all media organisations, are required by law to adhere to suppression orders and breaching such a suppression order is taken very seriously by the court, and could lead to charges of contempt of court. Victoria uses more suppression orders than any other jurisdiction in Australia, with the state accounting for more than half of such orders nationally. The wide dissemination of the suppressed information online, however, highlights the challenges of the suppression regime in some high-profile cases of public interest. A year-long review of Victoria's 2013 Open Courts Act by retired judge Frank Vincent called into question the function and efficacy of suppression orders in an internet age. Even if major media organisations were gagged, nothing could prevent a case from being canvassed on social media, blogs and myriad other channels, he said. A view to the contrary is “most likely to represent wishful thinking than reality'', Justice Vincent found, and a “real world” approach is required. Despite this, and the principles of transparent justice enshrined in the Open Courts Act, Victorian judges were “troublingly” issuing as many suppression orders as they ever were. The Vincent report made 18 recommendations, none of which has been implemented by the state government. 
|
|
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
The first jury couldn't convict and he has appealed.
So there is more to play out in this. It isn't over yet.
The Catholic church has made its bed and must lay in it. I am so happy we are not part of the hypocritical Catholics and Anglicans.
Orthodoxy is the one true Church.
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
Pope has booted him from his council lol -PB
|
|
|
|
|
Carlito
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 28K,
Visits: 0
|
+xThe first jury couldn't convict and he has appealed. So there is more to play out in this. It isn't over yet. The Catholic church has made its bed and must lay in it. I am so happy we are not part of the hypocritical Catholics and Anglicans. Orthodoxy is the one true Church. Stop. This is no time for your my religion is the one true church bullshit. This is about a fucking monster in pell. Stop ur trolling
|
|
|
|
|
Carlito
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 28K,
Visits: 0
|
+xPope has booted him from his council lol -PB Good He also kicked out a chilean minister as well.
|
|
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xThe first jury couldn't convict and he has appealed. So there is more to play out in this. It isn't over yet. The Catholic church has made its bed and must lay in it. I am so happy we are not part of the hypocritical Catholics and Anglicans. Orthodoxy is the one true Church. Stop. This is no time for your my religion is the one true church bullshit. This is about a fucking monster in pell. Stop ur trolling I'm not trolling. I made a simple statement because it is important that not all Christianity is lumped with the same people just because a few people did some bad things. I feel entitled to make my position known because some have turned this into an anti religion crusade.
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
Thanks everyone. We've re-opened the thread.
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
rusty
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
I'm pretty suss on historical allegations dating back 20+ years ago. How does one prove rape or molestation took place in the absence of ANY physical evidence? It's essentially the accusers word against the defendants, and we all know what an easy target the Catholic Church is at the moment and how vulnerable jury members might have been received had they not sided with the so called victims. Also as we saw with the Judge Cavanagh fiasco there was a turnstile of women lining up to make and absurd claims of sexual harassment and rape against him, and the left media and so called progressives were more than happy to oblige those claims even when they ventured into farcical territory. It seems that being Catholic, conservative and male is enough to warrant a guilty verdict these days. Also with the Catholic Church there's the added dimension of reparations, and it would be disingenuous to deny that there are people out there who would be willing to game the system to make a quick buck.
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
+xI'm pretty suss on historical allegations dating back 20+ years ago. How does one prove rape or molestation took place in the absence of ANY physical evidence? It's essentially the accusers word against the defendants, and we all know what an easy target the Catholic Church is at the moment and how vulnerable jury members might have been received had they not sided with the so called victims. Also as we saw with the Judge Cavanagh fiasco there was a turnstile of women lining up to make and absurd claims of sexual harassment and rape against him, and the left media and so called progressives were more than happy to oblige those claims even when they ventured into farcical territory. It seems that being Catholic, conservative and male is enough to warrant a guilty verdict these days. Also with the Catholic Church there's the added dimension of reparations, and it would be disingenuous to deny that there are people out there who would be willing to game the system to make a quick buck. Yep, he just tripped and fell on those boys. -PB
|
|
|
|
rusty
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
I’m no bible brasher but it’s clear as day that people who WANT Pell to be a child molsester. If the jury came back with an innocent verdit, they would be disappointed with that result, upset that Pell didn’t bum rape children. That Pell was found guilty has brought great joy to them, they are delighted that Pell was found to have butt fucked children, and they are anticipating the sentencing with glee. Now maybe Pell is guilty, but if you were an honest person, you would admit that the main target here is the Catholic Church, and Pell is just a Trojan horse. Not everyone is honest though...
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
Betoota sums it up very well https://bit.ly/2Efpe7C
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
rusty
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
Again there’s no physical evidence that rape or molestation occurred, no witnessses, just one mans allegations versus another mans denials. No matter how much you want the Cardinal to be guilty, no matter how much you hate religion and the Catholic Church, no matter how much you want to see the Church collapse, can anyone reasonably argue that the Cardinal was guilty “beyond reasonable doubt” on the basis of a testimony and total absence of evidence? Of course not, but why should reasonable doubt ever extend to white, male Catholics?
|
|
|
|
|
Carlito
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 28K,
Visits: 0
|
+xAgain there’s no physical evidence that rape or molestation occurred, no witnessses, just one mans allegations versus another mans denials. No matter how much you want the Cardinal to be guilty, no matter how much you hate religion and the Catholic Church, no matter how much you want to see the Church collapse, can anyone reasonably argue that the Cardinal was guilty “beyond reasonable doubt” on the basis of a testimony and total absence of evidence? Of course not, but why should reasonable doubt ever extend to white, male Catholics? Andrew is that you? As a person who was raised catholic I praise the ruling as the church has let this go on for too long. But yeah blame the victims
|
|
|
|
|
Carlito
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 28K,
Visits: 0
|
+xAgain there’s no physical evidence that rape or molestation occurred, no witnessses, just one mans allegations versus another mans denials. No matter how much you want the Cardinal to be guilty, no matter how much you hate religion and the Catholic Church, no matter how much you want to see the Church collapse, can anyone reasonably argue that the Cardinal was guilty “beyond reasonable doubt” on the basis of a testimony and total absence of evidence? Of course not, but why should reasonable doubt ever extend to white, male Catholics? So the orthodox jewish community didnt do the same thing for the ex principal of a school here in melbourne. They flew her to israel and the community shunned the police . But nah its only the white catholic males . Give me break
|
|
|
|
|
Carlito
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 28K,
Visits: 0
|
Also were you the judge or jury? They heard the testimony and they provided a verdict. The testimony is rightly not to be heard by us the general public as we weren't on the jury but guessing you wanna rant and say white Christian men are the victims? Give it a spell you pathetic excuse for a human
|
|
|
|
|
sub007
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+xAgain there’s no physical evidence that rape or molestation occurred, no witnessses, just one mans allegations versus another mans denials. No matter how much you want the Cardinal to be guilty, no matter how much you hate religion and the Catholic Church, no matter how much you want to see the Church collapse, can anyone reasonably argue that the Cardinal was guilty “beyond reasonable doubt” on the basis of a testimony and total absence of evidence? Of course not, but why should reasonable doubt ever extend to white, male Catholics? Pell was found guilty by a court of law because in the opinion of the jury he was guilty, not because of bias against the church. Blaming the victim of a heinous crime is just fucking disgusting. It says a lot about you as a human being when you are defending a convicted paedophile.
|
|
|
|
rusty
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
Juries fuck up all the time. Many have been accused of crimes and later found innocent. I shudder to think of those who were innocent and rotted in jail until their deaths. Unless one can reproduce tangible evidence that a crime occured, or at least extract a confession, then I don’t know how the condition of “beyond reasonable doubt” can ever be satisfied. This goes for all crime, otherwise everyone would go around accusing people they didn’t like of terrible things to get them into trouble.
|
|
|
|
|
sub007
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+xJuries fuck up all the time. Many have been accused of crimes and later found innocent. I shudder to think of those who were innocent and rotted in jail until their deaths. Unless one can reproduce tangible evidence that a crime occured, or at least extract a confession, then I don’t know how the condition of “beyond reasonable doubt” can ever be satisfied. This goes for all crime, otherwise everyone would go around accusing people they didn’t like of terrible things to get them into trouble. Clearly they did provide "tangible evidence" which is why the jury adjudged him to be guilty. Stop making shit up and stop trolling. It's pathetic that you're blaming his victims.
|
|
|
|
|
433
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.7K,
Visits: 0
|
I hope the karnt spends the rest of his days in prison if he's guilty, but I do wonder how someones testimony being the only evidence and no other witnesses is enough to satisfy the "beyond reasonable doubt" requirement for an event occurring 20 years ago
|
|
|
|