|
Test_Fan
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+xIsn’t he appealing the severity of the sentence and not the actual crime? I mean Pell’s lawyer described his clients action as “plain vanilla sexual penetration.” Surely he wouldn’t have used that phrase if Pell’s was innocent. I do agree that the Jury could be slightly biased but I still think the trial was fair and he was correctly found guilty. That phrase, which the lawyer apologised for, was used in the sentencing hearing which was being held on the basis of him being found guilty. The lawyer was arguing the crimes were on the less severe end of the scale and Pell deserved a sentence on the lower end of the scale. It was not an admission of guilt, those words by the lawyer have no bearing on whether he is guilty or not and use of them as you have done so is completely out of context and totally unfair. Everything I have heard seems to be saying he is appealing the verdict.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xsub007, Before these accusations Pell was a high profile and widely disliked public figure. This means the potential jury pool would have a bias against him. This makes the possibility of jury members pre-judging or being more willing to believe evidence against him more likely than if a nobody like you or me was on trial. So I think there is more chance than normal Pell would be wrongly convicted. However this does not mean he did not receive a fair trial but lets see what happens to the appeal. Do you guys do even the most basic research before you make such dumb claims? A selection of about 120 potential jurors is brought into a court. This is called the jury pool. They are then given instruction by the judge to exclude themselves if they feel they have a conflict of interest, and the judge will give specific instructions about this. People from the jury pool then swear an affirmation or make an oath and explain why they want to be excluded - they can write it down if they don't want the rest of the court to hear. After a number of potential jurors are excused by the judge, they are then called one by one randomly. The defendant and his barrister can then challenge a certain number, they don't even need to give any reason and potential jurors are instantly excused. Selected jurors must make an affirmation or an oath to carry out their duty. People who have a conflict of interest will self-exclude. Even if they manage to find their way on to a jury, they would be unable to convince the other 11 jurors to share their conflict of interest.
To act as if they all got in a room together and conspired to get rid of him is absurd. Great post. And what makes the Andrew Bolt, Tony Abbot, John Howard and Miranda Devine types even more disgusting and pathetic is they would know all of this. One of the great barriers of victims coming forward is the fear of not being believed. Having all of this 'support' and casting of doubt on the verdict played out in public is depressing.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
Carlito
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 28K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xsub007, Before these accusations Pell was a high profile and widely disliked public figure. This means the potential jury pool would have a bias against him. This makes the possibility of jury members pre-judging or being more willing to believe evidence against him more likely than if a nobody like you or me was on trial. So I think there is more chance than normal Pell would be wrongly convicted. However this does not mean he did not receive a fair trial but lets see what happens to the appeal. Do you guys do even the most basic research before you make such dumb claims? A selection of about 120 potential jurors is brought into a court. This is called the jury pool. They are then given instruction by the judge to exclude themselves if they feel they have a conflict of interest, and the judge will give specific instructions about this. People from the jury pool then swear an affirmation or make an oath and explain why they want to be excluded - they can write it down if they don't want the rest of the court to hear. After a number of potential jurors are excused by the judge, they are then called one by one randomly. The defendant and his barrister can then challenge a certain number, they don't even need to give any reason and potential jurors are instantly excused. Selected jurors must make an affirmation or an oath to carry out their duty. People who have a conflict of interest will self-exclude. Even if they manage to find their way on to a jury, they would be unable to convince the other 11 jurors to share their conflict of interest.
To act as if they all got in a room together and conspired to get rid of him is absurd. Great post. And what makes the Andrew Bolt, Tony Abbot, John Howard and Miranda Devine types even more disgusting and pathetic is they would know all of this. One of the great barriers of victims coming forward is the fear of not being believed. Having all of this 'support' and casting of doubt on the verdict played out in public is depressing. Yep. And the bolts devines and howards of the world would say this is why noone reports their abuse if it was say a Muslim cleric or a teacher. I'm glad this happened. The church needed this. As someone who was raised catholic I'm relieved . This is what the church needed to fucking clean itself up. So many people who are catholic are brainwashed Into the rusty type of thinking .
|
|
|
|
|
Test_Fan
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xsub007, Before these accusations Pell was a high profile and widely disliked public figure. This means the potential jury pool would have a bias against him. This makes the possibility of jury members pre-judging or being more willing to believe evidence against him more likely than if a nobody like you or me was on trial. So I think there is more chance than normal Pell would be wrongly convicted. However this does not mean he did not receive a fair trial but lets see what happens to the appeal. Do you guys do even the most basic research before you make such dumb claims? A selection of about 120 potential jurors is brought into a court. This is called the jury pool. They are then given instruction by the judge to exclude themselves if they feel they have a conflict of interest, and the judge will give specific instructions about this. People from the jury pool then swear an affirmation or make an oath and explain why they want to be excluded - they can write it down if they don't want the rest of the court to hear. After a number of potential jurors are excused by the judge, they are then called one by one randomly. The defendant and his barrister can then challenge a certain number, they don't even need to give any reason and potential jurors are instantly excused. Selected jurors must make an affirmation or an oath to carry out their duty. People who have a conflict of interest will self-exclude. Even if they manage to find their way on to a jury, they would be unable to convince the other 11 jurors to share their conflict of interest.
To act as if they all got in a room together and conspired to get rid of him is absurd. Did you really think I did not know that were steps to try remove jurors who might be biased from the final jury? Because if you really thought that then you are one of the biggest idiots on this board In my view these steps might not be completely effective if the case of a very high profile person with a very poor general public opinion, like Pell. This will effect a very large percentage of the potential jurors. I should not have used the word pool, it was not correct sorry. Of course they did not get in the room and conspire to find him guilty. That is not what I was saying at all, for you to even suggest it means you totally misunderstood what I wrote. Also I am no fan of Pell, he was the third most powerful man in the Roman Catholic Church which is a corrupt, godless, self serving, child molester protecting organisation that the world would be much better if it did not exist. It brings no good to the world. Pell is a piece of shit, he has no good in him at all, his whole life has been dedicated to himself and the evil Roman Catholic Church. If he is also a child molester then it is another evil thing he has done.
|
|
|
|
|
sub007
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xsub007, Before these accusations Pell was a high profile and widely disliked public figure. This means the potential jury pool would have a bias against him. This makes the possibility of jury members pre-judging or being more willing to believe evidence against him more likely than if a nobody like you or me was on trial. So I think there is more chance than normal Pell would be wrongly convicted. However this does not mean he did not receive a fair trial but lets see what happens to the appeal. Do you guys do even the most basic research before you make such dumb claims? A selection of about 120 potential jurors is brought into a court. This is called the jury pool. They are then given instruction by the judge to exclude themselves if they feel they have a conflict of interest, and the judge will give specific instructions about this. People from the jury pool then swear an affirmation or make an oath and explain why they want to be excluded - they can write it down if they don't want the rest of the court to hear. After a number of potential jurors are excused by the judge, they are then called one by one randomly. The defendant and his barrister can then challenge a certain number, they don't even need to give any reason and potential jurors are instantly excused. Selected jurors must make an affirmation or an oath to carry out their duty. People who have a conflict of interest will self-exclude. Even if they manage to find their way on to a jury, they would be unable to convince the other 11 jurors to share their conflict of interest.
To act as if they all got in a room together and conspired to get rid of him is absurd. Great post. And what makes the Andrew Bolt, Tony Abbot, John Howard and Miranda Devine types even more disgusting and pathetic is they would know all of this. One of the great barriers of victims coming forward is the fear of not being believed. Having all of this 'support' and casting of doubt on the verdict played out in public is depressing. This. +x+x+x+xsub007, Before these accusations Pell was a high profile and widely disliked public figure. This means the potential jury pool would have a bias against him. This makes the possibility of jury members pre-judging or being more willing to believe evidence against him more likely than if a nobody like you or me was on trial. So I think there is more chance than normal Pell would be wrongly convicted. However this does not mean he did not receive a fair trial but lets see what happens to the appeal. Do you guys do even the most basic research before you make such dumb claims? A selection of about 120 potential jurors is brought into a court. This is called the jury pool. They are then given instruction by the judge to exclude themselves if they feel they have a conflict of interest, and the judge will give specific instructions about this. People from the jury pool then swear an affirmation or make an oath and explain why they want to be excluded - they can write it down if they don't want the rest of the court to hear. After a number of potential jurors are excused by the judge, they are then called one by one randomly. The defendant and his barrister can then challenge a certain number, they don't even need to give any reason and potential jurors are instantly excused. Selected jurors must make an affirmation or an oath to carry out their duty. People who have a conflict of interest will self-exclude. Even if they manage to find their way on to a jury, they would be unable to convince the other 11 jurors to share their conflict of interest.
To act as if they all got in a room together and conspired to get rid of him is absurd. Great post. And what makes the Andrew Bolt, Tony Abbot, John Howard and Miranda Devine types even more disgusting and pathetic is they would know all of this. One of the great barriers of victims coming forward is the fear of not being believed. Having all of this 'support' and casting of doubt on the verdict played out in public is depressing. Yep. And the bolts devines and howards of the world would say this is why noone reports their abuse if it was say a Muslim cleric or a teacher. I'm glad this happened. The church needed this. As someone who was raised catholic I'm relieved . This is what the church needed to fucking clean itself up. So many people who are catholic are brainwashed Into the rusty type of thinking . This. Also great post 433.
|
|
|
|
|
sub007
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xsub007, Before these accusations Pell was a high profile and widely disliked public figure. This means the potential jury pool would have a bias against him. This makes the possibility of jury members pre-judging or being more willing to believe evidence against him more likely than if a nobody like you or me was on trial. So I think there is more chance than normal Pell would be wrongly convicted. However this does not mean he did not receive a fair trial but lets see what happens to the appeal. Do you guys do even the most basic research before you make such dumb claims? A selection of about 120 potential jurors is brought into a court. This is called the jury pool. They are then given instruction by the judge to exclude themselves if they feel they have a conflict of interest, and the judge will give specific instructions about this. People from the jury pool then swear an affirmation or make an oath and explain why they want to be excluded - they can write it down if they don't want the rest of the court to hear. After a number of potential jurors are excused by the judge, they are then called one by one randomly. The defendant and his barrister can then challenge a certain number, they don't even need to give any reason and potential jurors are instantly excused. Selected jurors must make an affirmation or an oath to carry out their duty. People who have a conflict of interest will self-exclude. Even if they manage to find their way on to a jury, they would be unable to convince the other 11 jurors to share their conflict of interest.
To act as if they all got in a room together and conspired to get rid of him is absurd. Did you really think I did not know that were steps to try remove jurors who might be biased from the final jury? Because if you really thought that then you are one of the biggest idiots on this board In my view these steps might not be completely effective if the case of a very high profile person with a very poor general public opinion, like Pell. This will effect a very large percentage of the potential jurors. I should not have used the word pool, it was not correct sorry. Of course they did not get in the room and conspire to find him guilty. That is not what I was saying at all, for you to even suggest it means you totally misunderstood what I wrote. Also I am no fan of Pell, he was the third most powerful man in the Roman Catholic Church which is a corrupt, godless, self serving, child molester protecting organisation that the world would be much better if it did not exist. It brings no good to the world. Pell is a piece of shit, he has no good in him at all, his whole life has been dedicated to himself and the evil Roman Catholic Church. If he is also a child molester then it is another evil thing he has done. I thought his post was more directed at rusty and mouflonrouge.
|
|
|
|
|
Test_Fan
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xsub007, Before these accusations Pell was a high profile and widely disliked public figure. This means the potential jury pool would have a bias against him. This makes the possibility of jury members pre-judging or being more willing to believe evidence against him more likely than if a nobody like you or me was on trial. So I think there is more chance than normal Pell would be wrongly convicted. However this does not mean he did not receive a fair trial but lets see what happens to the appeal. Do you guys do even the most basic research before you make such dumb claims? A selection of about 120 potential jurors is brought into a court. This is called the jury pool. They are then given instruction by the judge to exclude themselves if they feel they have a conflict of interest, and the judge will give specific instructions about this. People from the jury pool then swear an affirmation or make an oath and explain why they want to be excluded - they can write it down if they don't want the rest of the court to hear. After a number of potential jurors are excused by the judge, they are then called one by one randomly. The defendant and his barrister can then challenge a certain number, they don't even need to give any reason and potential jurors are instantly excused. Selected jurors must make an affirmation or an oath to carry out their duty. People who have a conflict of interest will self-exclude. Even if they manage to find their way on to a jury, they would be unable to convince the other 11 jurors to share their conflict of interest.
To act as if they all got in a room together and conspired to get rid of him is absurd. Did you really think I did not know that were steps to try remove jurors who might be biased from the final jury? Because if you really thought that then you are one of the biggest idiots on this board In my view these steps might not be completely effective if the case of a very high profile person with a very poor general public opinion, like Pell. This will effect a very large percentage of the potential jurors. I should not have used the word pool, it was not correct sorry. Of course they did not get in the room and conspire to find him guilty. That is not what I was saying at all, for you to even suggest it means you totally misunderstood what I wrote. Also I am no fan of Pell, he was the third most powerful man in the Roman Catholic Church which is a corrupt, godless, self serving, child molester protecting organisation that the world would be much better if it did not exist. It brings no good to the world. Pell is a piece of ***, he has no good in him at all, his whole life has been dedicated to himself and the evil Roman Catholic Church. If he is also a child molester then it is another evil thing he has done. I thought his post was more directed at rusty and mouflonrouge. He was replying to my post.
|
|
|
|
|
433
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xsub007, Before these accusations Pell was a high profile and widely disliked public figure. This means the potential jury pool would have a bias against him. This makes the possibility of jury members pre-judging or being more willing to believe evidence against him more likely than if a nobody like you or me was on trial. So I think there is more chance than normal Pell would be wrongly convicted. However this does not mean he did not receive a fair trial but lets see what happens to the appeal. Do you guys do even the most basic research before you make such dumb claims? A selection of about 120 potential jurors is brought into a court. This is called the jury pool. They are then given instruction by the judge to exclude themselves if they feel they have a conflict of interest, and the judge will give specific instructions about this. People from the jury pool then swear an affirmation or make an oath and explain why they want to be excluded - they can write it down if they don't want the rest of the court to hear. After a number of potential jurors are excused by the judge, they are then called one by one randomly. The defendant and his barrister can then challenge a certain number, they don't even need to give any reason and potential jurors are instantly excused. Selected jurors must make an affirmation or an oath to carry out their duty. People who have a conflict of interest will self-exclude. Even if they manage to find their way on to a jury, they would be unable to convince the other 11 jurors to share their conflict of interest.
To act as if they all got in a room together and conspired to get rid of him is absurd. In my view these steps might not be completely effective if the case of a very high profile person with a very poor general public opinion, like Pell. This will effect a very large percentage of the potential jurors. I should not have used the word pool, it was not correct sorry. Thousands of years of societal advancement in legal thought has brought us to this method of ascertaining guilt. While it might not be perfect, it's the best hope we've got. There are so many checks and balances built into the justice system to ensure a fair trial that those criticizing this conviction either don't know or choose to ignore. I mean for gods sake, we were kept in the dark about his conviction for 3 months. The courts were so keen on not prejudicing his retrial that they prevented news outlets from breaking the biggest story of the year. I think Bolt knows that he's talking absolute shit, but his play is to muddy the waters and undermine faith in the legal system to plant a seat of doubt in people's minds. Monflonrouge saying things like "the courts make mistake all the time so I don't trust their judgement" is such a non-argument. You either believe in the justice system or not, you can't pick and choose which verdicts are convenient to suit your political agenda.
|
|
|
|
|
Test_Fan
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xsub007, Before these accusations Pell was a high profile and widely disliked public figure. This means the potential jury pool would have a bias against him. This makes the possibility of jury members pre-judging or being more willing to believe evidence against him more likely than if a nobody like you or me was on trial. So I think there is more chance than normal Pell would be wrongly convicted. However this does not mean he did not receive a fair trial but lets see what happens to the appeal. Do you guys do even the most basic research before you make such dumb claims? A selection of about 120 potential jurors is brought into a court. This is called the jury pool. They are then given instruction by the judge to exclude themselves if they feel they have a conflict of interest, and the judge will give specific instructions about this. People from the jury pool then swear an affirmation or make an oath and explain why they want to be excluded - they can write it down if they don't want the rest of the court to hear. After a number of potential jurors are excused by the judge, they are then called one by one randomly. The defendant and his barrister can then challenge a certain number, they don't even need to give any reason and potential jurors are instantly excused. Selected jurors must make an affirmation or an oath to carry out their duty. People who have a conflict of interest will self-exclude. Even if they manage to find their way on to a jury, they would be unable to convince the other 11 jurors to share their conflict of interest.
To act as if they all got in a room together and conspired to get rid of him is absurd. In my view these steps might not be completely effective if the case of a very high profile person with a very poor general public opinion, like Pell. This will effect a very large percentage of the potential jurors. I should not have used the word pool, it was not correct sorry. Thousands of years of societal advancement in legal thought has brought us to this method of ascertaining guilt. While it might not be perfect, it's the best hope we've got. There are so many checks and balances built into the justice system to ensure a fair trial that those criticizing this conviction either don't know or choose to ignore. I mean for gods sake, we were kept in the dark about his conviction for 3 months. The courts were so keen on not prejudicing his retrial that they prevented news outlets from breaking the biggest story of the year. I think Bolt knows that he's talking absolute ***, but his play is to muddy the waters and undermine faith in the legal system to plant a seat of doubt in people's minds. Monflonrouge saying things like "the courts make mistake all the time so I don't trust their judgement" is such a non-argument. You either believe in the justice system or not, you can't pick and choose which verdicts are convenient to suit your political agenda. I believe any system that relies on humans is fundamentally flawed and that despite the attempts to limit those flaws there is still injustice in the system with the innocent being punished and the guilty being set free.
|
|
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xsub007, Before these accusations Pell was a high profile and widely disliked public figure. This means the potential jury pool would have a bias against him. This makes the possibility of jury members pre-judging or being more willing to believe evidence against him more likely than if a nobody like you or me was on trial. So I think there is more chance than normal Pell would be wrongly convicted. However this does not mean he did not receive a fair trial but lets see what happens to the appeal. Do you guys do even the most basic research before you make such dumb claims? A selection of about 120 potential jurors is brought into a court. This is called the jury pool. They are then given instruction by the judge to exclude themselves if they feel they have a conflict of interest, and the judge will give specific instructions about this. People from the jury pool then swear an affirmation or make an oath and explain why they want to be excluded - they can write it down if they don't want the rest of the court to hear. After a number of potential jurors are excused by the judge, they are then called one by one randomly. The defendant and his barrister can then challenge a certain number, they don't even need to give any reason and potential jurors are instantly excused. Selected jurors must make an affirmation or an oath to carry out their duty. People who have a conflict of interest will self-exclude. Even if they manage to find their way on to a jury, they would be unable to convince the other 11 jurors to share their conflict of interest.
To act as if they all got in a room together and conspired to get rid of him is absurd. I know all about this as I was once selected for jury service and therefore know the steps. However, this does not prevent bias in cases of this magnitude and intense profile - which is why there was a suppression order. So difficult having a fair trial under such circumstances as this case.
|
|
|
|
|
433
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.7K,
Visits: 0
|
The accuser took the stand and withstood Robert Richter's notoriously withering line of questioning. This is one of the best defense attorneys money can buy, and the evidence the accuser gave was still enough to convict him.
Unless you have any proof that the verdict was prejudiced, you have to accept the decision of the court even if it means your world view crashes around you.
|
|
|
|
rusty
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+xThe accuser took the stand and withstood Robert Richter's notoriously withering line of questioning. This is one of the best defense attorneys money can buy, and the evidence the accuser gave was still enough to convict him. Unless you have any proof that the verdict was prejudiced, you have to accept the decision of the court even if it means your world view crashes around you. The accuser only gave evidence in the first trial, which failed to establish a unanimous guilty verdicts and reports are the jury voted 10-2 in favour of Pell's innocence. The second retrial in which neither the defendant nor accused appeared and relied on video testimony from the first trial returned a unanimous guilty verdict. Im not sure if Pell is guilty or innocent but having read through some of the court transcripts there doesn't appear to be any smoking gun evidence to convict Pell, and decision to convict was almost entirely based on the compelling nature of the accusers version of events. However it seems according to at least some of the defence witnesses that the crimes that are alleged to have taken place in the manner in which they regarde as impossible. It seems that the accusers testimony must have been so compelling and powerful that is rendered all evidence presented by the defence as meaningless. The important thing to remember in all of this is that no matter how stringent the selection process jury members do not make verdicts on evidence, reason, logic and facts alone, they are liable to be persuaded by prosecutors, defence attorneys, witnesses, cross examinations, judges, fellow jury members and even external influences such as media and society. There's no doubt that the mainstream press was gunning for a guilty verdict and it appears they have gotten the result the wanted, I just wonder how much this lynch mob mentality and sensitivity towards victims of church abuse affected the objectivity of the jury. There's a pretty overwhelming whiff out there that even if Pell did not committ the abuse, he's still guilty of being a Catholic, protecting priest peadophiles and legally challenging those who were abused, therefore the sentence is deserved. At the end of the day we have to respect the court processes and legal system, it doesn't always get the right result but it's the best system we've got. Equally if the appeal is successful then you've got to respect the result. Of course they wont.
|
|
|
|
|
Test_Fan
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+xThe accuser took the stand and withstood Robert Richter's notoriously withering line of questioning. This is one of the best defense attorneys money can buy, and the evidence the accuser gave was still enough to convict him. Unless you have any proof that the verdict was prejudiced, you have to accept the decision of the court even if it means your world view crashes around you. Pell being guilty fits brilliantly into my world view, but Pell being innocent does not effect it. I do not have any evidence that this verdict was prejudiced but there is no doubt that in general jurors are going to be influenced by their own personal biases. This will effect who or what they are more likely to believe or reject as being true. The accuser withstanding cross examination is a good sign he was telling the truth but it certainly does not guarantee it.
|
|
|
|
rusty
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xThe accuser took the stand and withstood Robert Richter's notoriously withering line of questioning. This is one of the best defense attorneys money can buy, and the evidence the accuser gave was still enough to convict him. Unless you have any proof that the verdict was prejudiced, you have to accept the decision of the court even if it means your world view crashes around you. The accuser withstanding cross examination is a good sign he was telling the truth but it certainly does not guarantee it. Perhaps he was telling the truth, but its possible he wasn't telling the truth either. How convincing one tells their version of events does not necessarily support the veracity of it. Also as a 13 year old when this happened, there are many possibilities. Perhaps Pell did do it and is guilty. Perhaps the atrocity was committed by another priest and he confused him with Pell. Perhaps he realises it was another priest, but that priest was never brought to justice, so he'd holding Pell accountable instead. Perhaps the incident never happened in the way the accuser describes and over time and memory lapses an innocuous incident could've morphed into serious sexual assault. Perhaps the accuser is an opportunist and a good liar, or just hates the Catholic Church and religion.
|
|
|
|
|
Carlito
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 28K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xsub007, Before these accusations Pell was a high profile and widely disliked public figure. This means the potential jury pool would have a bias against him. This makes the possibility of jury members pre-judging or being more willing to believe evidence against him more likely than if a nobody like you or me was on trial. So I think there is more chance than normal Pell would be wrongly convicted. However this does not mean he did not receive a fair trial but lets see what happens to the appeal. Do you guys do even the most basic research before you make such dumb claims? A selection of about 120 potential jurors is brought into a court. This is called the jury pool. They are then given instruction by the judge to exclude themselves if they feel they have a conflict of interest, and the judge will give specific instructions about this. People from the jury pool then swear an affirmation or make an oath and explain why they want to be excluded - they can write it down if they don't want the rest of the court to hear. After a number of potential jurors are excused by the judge, they are then called one by one randomly. The defendant and his barrister can then challenge a certain number, they don't even need to give any reason and potential jurors are instantly excused. Selected jurors must make an affirmation or an oath to carry out their duty. People who have a conflict of interest will self-exclude. Even if they manage to find their way on to a jury, they would be unable to convince the other 11 jurors to share their conflict of interest.
To act as if they all got in a room together and conspired to get rid of him is absurd. I know all about this as I was once selected for jury service and therefore know the steps. However, this does not prevent bias in cases of this magnitude and intense profile - which is why there was a suppression order. So difficult having a fair trial under such circumstances as this case. Lol .
|
|
|
|
|
Carlito
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 28K,
Visits: 0
|
Wow the two syncopats will try to discredit the victims because it doesn't suit the syncopats view. I hope to hell you guys don't have kids as you'll probably take the perpetrators side then your kids
|
|
|
|
|
sub007
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xThe accuser took the stand and withstood Robert Richter's notoriously withering line of questioning. This is one of the best defense attorneys money can buy, and the evidence the accuser gave was still enough to convict him. Unless you have any proof that the verdict was prejudiced, you have to accept the decision of the court even if it means your world view crashes around you. The accuser withstanding cross examination is a good sign he was telling the truth but it certainly does not guarantee it. Perhaps he was telling the truth, but its possible he wasn't telling the truth either. How convincing one tells their version of events does not necessarily support the veracity of it. Also as a 13 year old when this happened, there are many possibilities. Perhaps Pell did do it and is guilty. Perhaps the atrocity was committed by another priest and he confused him with Pell. Perhaps he realises it was another priest, but that priest was never brought to justice, so he'd holding Pell accountable instead. Perhaps the incident never happened in the way the accuser describes and over time and memory lapses an innocuous incident could've morphed into serious sexual assault. Perhaps the accuser is an opportunist and a good liar, or just hates the Catholic Church and religion. I'm pretty sure a kid will remember having a dick shoved in their mouth.
|
|
|
|
rusty
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
That’s probably true, but it’s clinically proven that people can invent memories from thin air and come to believe they are completely true. Look at all the loons who believe they were abducted by aliens and probed in the ass. The mind is a fragile thing.
In regards to Pell I find it hard it really implausible that a respected Priest, after delivering Mass on a Sunday, would suddenly corner a couple of boys and rape them in broad daylight in a public space. It just doesn’t add up.
|
|
|
|
|
Test_Fan
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+xThat’s probably true, but it’s clinically proven that people can invent memories from thin air and come to believe they are completely true. Look at all the loons who believe they were abducted by aliens and probed in the ***. The mind is a fragile thing.In regards to Pell I find it hard it really implausible that a respected Priest, after delivering M*** on a Sunday, would suddenly corner a couple of boys and rape them in broad daylight in a public space. It just doesn’t add up. I do not find that implausible at all. It shows what power the Catholic priests think they have and that they think they can get away with anything. There is nothing respectable about being a Catholic priest.
|
|
|
|
|
433
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xThe accuser took the stand and withstood Robert Richter's notoriously withering line of questioning. This is one of the best defense attorneys money can buy, and the evidence the accuser gave was still enough to convict him. Unless you have any proof that the verdict was prejudiced, you have to accept the decision of the court even if it means your world view crashes around you. Pell being guilty fits brilliantly into my world view, but Pell being innocent does not effect it. I do not have any evidence that this verdict was prejudiced but there is no doubt that in general jurors are going to be influenced by their own personal biases. This will effect who or what they are more likely to believe or reject as being true. The accuser withstanding cross examination is a good sign he was telling the truth but it certainly does not guarantee it. No shit, that's why it's the verdict needs to be proven "beyond reasonable doubt" and not "100% absolute certainty". So your argument basically boils down to "Although I don't have any proof the conviction is biased, there's a possibility it is so I'm not going to believe the verdict". That means you wouldn't accept any conviction ever because there is always a chance of it being wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Test_Fan
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xThe accuser took the stand and withstood Robert Richter's notoriously withering line of questioning. This is one of the best defense attorneys money can buy, and the evidence the accuser gave was still enough to convict him. Unless you have any proof that the verdict was prejudiced, you have to accept the decision of the court even if it means your world view crashes around you. Pell being guilty fits brilliantly into my world view, but Pell being innocent does not effect it. I do not have any evidence that this verdict was prejudiced but there is no doubt that in general jurors are going to be influenced by their own personal biases. This will effect who or what they are more likely to believe or reject as being true. The accuser withstanding cross examination is a good sign he was telling the truth but it certainly does not guarantee it. No ***, that's why it's the verdict needs to be proven "beyond reasonable doubt" and not "100% absolute certainty". So your argument basically boils down to "Although I don't have any proof the conviction is biased, there's a possibility it is so I'm not going to believe the verdict". That means you wouldn't accept any conviction ever because there is always a chance of it being wrong. As you chose to falsely accuse me of defending paedophiles in another thread I am done talking to you, you are beneath contempt.
|
|
|
|
|
Roar_Brisbane
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xWhat’s pathetic is the lynch mob for George Pell, just be honest and admit that the main driver of all this spite isn’t because he’s been convicted as a paedo but because he’s a high ranking Catholic church officer. If he was a Muslim/teacher/baptist this barely would’ve made the news. Also there was no evidence, no eyewitnesses, someone told a story and the police and jury believed them, or at least really wanted to. Everyone in their hearts knows that this was a doubtful conviction but they are so consumed with hate for Pell and the Church they can’t think straight. Even if the was found innocent you would all say he got away with it. There’s no committment to the truth or facts here, just a committment to hate and destruction. I agree with this. This trial seems to be more of a lynching. I can't say for sure whether he is guilty or not, and if he is he deserves to be punished but the entire ramblings of the general public in social media has been disgusting. This isn't justice but vigilante ramblings. This case has only reviewed notoriety because it's the Catholic Church. If it was an Islamic Imam, you just watch the same people brush it under the carpet saying "nothing to see here". I am not against the conviction if he is truly guilty. I can only condemn any man that has done such vulgar sexually predatory acts against minors from a position of power and trust (whether religious or secular), but there is a lot more to this case that meets the eye. He was found guilty IN A FAIR TRIAL. Just because you didn't want him to be guilty, it doesn't mean there's an ulterior motive to this case. Pell copping shit for his crimes isn't disgusting. It's the least that he deserves. What is disgusting is that people are defending a convicted pedo and are trying to de-legitimise the jury and the legal system in general. Bullshit. This would have been front page news regardless of what religion the offender is from. And how would you know that there is more to this than what meets the eye? You weren't in the jury or the courtroom. I am not in a position to say either way because I am not privy to the evidence they have or the statements made by witnesses or have any technical knowledge of the case wahtsoever. And I would suspect that the majority of people are in the same boat. Are you for real? I doubt very much if someone asked you your thoughts on any particular case where the defendant has been found guilty, whether that be Adrian Bayley or Brett Peter Cowan for example that you would say "I'm not privy to all the evidence/information of the case, so I can't say but he's not guilty in my eyes yet, you sheeple hahaha". It's fucking absurd, you sound like a nutjob. You are the one who is clearly biased in this case. Pell had the best defense team in the land and even then he was found guilty, he deserves every bit of the abuse he cops even moreso, what a vile disgusting man.
|
|
|
|
|
Carlito
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 28K,
Visits: 0
|
Oh wow . Test fan is wamakie.
|
|
|
|
|
Test_Fan
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+xOh wow . Test fan is wamakie. No I am not.
|
|
|
|
|
sub007
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+xOh wow . Test fan is wamakie. He isn't.
|
|
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xsub007, Before these accusations Pell was a high profile and widely disliked public figure. This means the potential jury pool would have a bias against him. This makes the possibility of jury members pre-judging or being more willing to believe evidence against him more likely than if a nobody like you or me was on trial. So I think there is more chance than normal Pell would be wrongly convicted. However this does not mean he did not receive a fair trial but lets see what happens to the appeal. Do you guys do even the most basic research before you make such dumb claims? A selection of about 120 potential jurors is brought into a court. This is called the jury pool. They are then given instruction by the judge to exclude themselves if they feel they have a conflict of interest, and the judge will give specific instructions about this. People from the jury pool then swear an affirmation or make an oath and explain why they want to be excluded - they can write it down if they don't want the rest of the court to hear. After a number of potential jurors are excused by the judge, they are then called one by one randomly. The defendant and his barrister can then challenge a certain number, they don't even need to give any reason and potential jurors are instantly excused. Selected jurors must make an affirmation or an oath to carry out their duty. People who have a conflict of interest will self-exclude. Even if they manage to find their way on to a jury, they would be unable to convince the other 11 jurors to share their conflict of interest.
To act as if they all got in a room together and conspired to get rid of him is absurd. I know all about this as I was once selected for jury service and therefore know the steps. However, this does not prevent bias in cases of this magnitude and intense profile - which is why there was a suppression order. So difficult having a fair trial under such circumstances as this case. Lol . i wouldn't be so smug if I were you! There is nothing funny about my post.
|
|
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+xWow the two syncopats will try to discredit the victims because it doesn't suit the syncopats view. I hope to hell you guys don't have kids as you'll probably take the perpetrators side then your kids No that is not what was said at all. Please try again.
|
|
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+xThat’s probably true, but it’s clinically proven that people can invent memories from thin air and come to believe they are completely true. Look at all the loons who believe they were abducted by aliens and probed in the ass. The mind is a fragile thing.In regards to Pell I find it hard it really implausible that a respected Priest, after delivering Mass on a Sunday, would suddenly corner a couple of boys and rape them in broad daylight in a public space. It just doesn’t add up. Plus there were eye witness accounts stating that Pell was never left alone and had no opportunity.
|
|
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xThat’s probably true, but it’s clinically proven that people can invent memories from thin air and come to believe they are completely true. Look at all the loons who believe they were abducted by aliens and probed in the ***. The mind is a fragile thing.In regards to Pell I find it hard it really implausible that a respected Priest, after delivering M*** on a Sunday, would suddenly corner a couple of boys and rape them in broad daylight in a public space. It just doesn’t add up. I do not find that implausible at all. It shows what power the Catholic priests think they have and that they think they can get away with anything. There is nothing respectable about being a Catholic priest. A prejudiced statement against from the outset!
|
|
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xWhat’s pathetic is the lynch mob for George Pell, just be honest and admit that the main driver of all this spite isn’t because he’s been convicted as a paedo but because he’s a high ranking Catholic church officer. If he was a Muslim/teacher/baptist this barely would’ve made the news. Also there was no evidence, no eyewitnesses, someone told a story and the police and jury believed them, or at least really wanted to. Everyone in their hearts knows that this was a doubtful conviction but they are so consumed with hate for Pell and the Church they can’t think straight. Even if the was found innocent you would all say he got away with it. There’s no committment to the truth or facts here, just a committment to hate and destruction. I agree with this. This trial seems to be more of a lynching. I can't say for sure whether he is guilty or not, and if he is he deserves to be punished but the entire ramblings of the general public in social media has been disgusting. This isn't justice but vigilante ramblings. This case has only reviewed notoriety because it's the Catholic Church. If it was an Islamic Imam, you just watch the same people brush it under the carpet saying "nothing to see here". I am not against the conviction if he is truly guilty. I can only condemn any man that has done such vulgar sexually predatory acts against minors from a position of power and trust (whether religious or secular), but there is a lot more to this case that meets the eye. He was found guilty IN A FAIR TRIAL. Just because you didn't want him to be guilty, it doesn't mean there's an ulterior motive to this case. Pell copping shit for his crimes isn't disgusting. It's the least that he deserves. What is disgusting is that people are defending a convicted pedo and are trying to de-legitimise the jury and the legal system in general. Bullshit. This would have been front page news regardless of what religion the offender is from. And how would you know that there is more to this than what meets the eye? You weren't in the jury or the courtroom. I am not in a position to say either way because I am not privy to the evidence they have or the statements made by witnesses or have any technical knowledge of the case wahtsoever. And I would suspect that the majority of people are in the same boat. Are you for real? I doubt very much if someone asked you your thoughts on any particular case where the defendant has been found guilty, whether that be Adrian Bayley or Brett Peter Cowan for example that you would say "I'm not privy to all the evidence/information of the case, so I can't say but he's not guilty in my eyes yet, you sheeple hahaha". It's fucking absurd, you sound like a nutjob. You are the one who is clearly biased in this case. Pell had the best defense team in the land and even then he was found guilty, he deserves every bit of the abuse he cops even moreso, what a vile disgusting man. It doesn't take away from the fact that everyone actually has an opinion about this case despite being ignorant of the evidence at hand. And no I ver said he wasn't guilty. It is possible he is guilty. It is also very possible that he isn't guilty at all. No smoking gun evidence anywhere, just pure hearsay.
|
|
|
|