Really. The self righteous who wish to condemn an innocent man with undue process and a media frenzied trial by media.

Bolt was just brave enough to call out the vigilantism for what it was.

No, most people were actually concerned at this diaboloical trampling of the legal process and violations against his human right for a fair trial under the presumption of innocence.

It's something EVERYONE should have been worried about but were not.

You clearly do have feeling because you attacked Andrew Bolt for expressing his feelings on the matter.  Did you attack David Marr or any of the Guardian/ABC attack dogs who’ve gone after Pell for years, assuming his guilty and never questioning the victim complaints or justice process?  Why single out Bolt when ultimately he was proven right and the Pell hate squad proven wrong?  Bolt should he commended for standing by his friend in the face of intense community pressure and flagrant accusations of being a paedophile defender (as was I).

Of course we all have skin in this.  The truth is important and should be vigorously defended.  We can all see now how incompetent and compromised the the Victorian legal system was in denying justice to Pell to satisfy the blood lusts of mainstream media and broader public.  What was it that the seven judges on the High Court could see that the two baffoons on the Vic court of appeals couldnt?  It is a fucking travesty that this was ever brought to the High Court and exposes deep flaws, failings and prejudice in the legal system and has seriously damaged its reputation and credibility.  

Anyway its obvious that youre a hardcore lefty and you should probably stop pretending that you’re more objective and less “certifiably fucking insane” than the rest of us. 😂

Good to see the ExtraTime debates haven't evolved beyond "you're a lefty /righty" in the time since I stopped clicking in

I have more respect for people when they admit their bias.  There’s nothing worse than when some hardcore greenie moves the goalposts so they are in the centre and everyone to the right of them is a fascist.

It has nothing at all to do with lefty or righty.

But this was a crusade or lynching by media of a person who did not receive due legal process. That's the issue, and that's the reason why the Supreme Court quoshed all charges.

Cardinal Pell shouldn't have been charged to begin with.

What we need now is a Royal Commission into the Victorian courts for this miscarriage of "justice".

What was evident to me was the blood lust from the media and public, with not many questioning the veracity of the claims or caring that due process will be followed. The just wanted the scalp of a Cardinal.

The Jury System is now being blamed.  Lets have Judge only trials.

I can't see how they can say that when the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the President of the Court Appeal were both unanimously found to be wrong in their decision by the High Court. SEVEN to Nil.  They couldn''t be any more wrong in getting a basic premise of our criminal justice system- that a finding of guilty must show that not only is the offence possible, but that it is the ONLY reasonable thing that could have happened

The question is how many others have these two gooses sentenced in error?

You know we probably should. Why force a group of people out of their normal lives, subject them to witness horrendous accounts from victims and ask them for a verdict if a group of judges are just going to override their decision anyway? It'd be different if the appeal was won because of inadmissible evidence or other error in proceedings but thats not the case. The high court justices decided the jury made the wrong verdict. If I was on that jury I'd be filthy.  

it's because he's a racist dogwhistling fuck and that resonates with a lot of people. they love it. they vote for it. they watch the shit on tv.

the jury convicted him. it was the judges that thought it was necessary to accommodate his appeal in the high court on matters that were already considered by the jury. very conveniently. 

Of course you would, but thats because youre a spiteful, prejudiced person who hates the Church and would find against the Cardinal regardless of the evidence presented.  But then again you are unfit to be on a jury and I hope for the integrity of the legal system that never happens.

Your reply has nothing to do with what I wrote and was just an attempt to attack me. What a contemptible person you are.

Pot kettle black

Have never seen you concede a point once in years on this forum.  I'd have more time for your opinions if you weren't such a partisan hack.  Abbot, Scomo, Bolt or Trump could eat a live baby on TV and you'd find some way to defend them.

Pathetic.

What's that saying?  The ignorant are cocksure, the intelligent full of doubt.

You’re precisely the opposite.  Abbott, Scomo, Bolt or Trump could cure cancer and you’d still find some way to attack them.

We are all partisan hacks

The jury should not have given the verdict they did based on the evidence provided.

Besides the choir change room is on the opposite side of the High Altar.

I've followed this case very closely and read the transcripts. Anyone who has been to St Patrick's Cathedral knows the accusation didn't fit the timeline regardless of the Vestment inclusion. Since this man was Archbishop of Sydney he has been decried by various communities, and even by His own colleagues due to his conservatism. I have seen too many innocent people incarcerated because of the social climate. Whoever is angry, separate your hatred for the institution or the man. Today's desecration of St Patrick's Cathedral in Melbourne was abhorrent. What did their parishioners do to the desecrator?

Being called either left or right is so boring... There is so much more diversity when it comes to opinions. I find it a bit crazy how this case has become a left v right issue.

You are very wrong.  Just recently I've already posted an article in the coronavirus thread saying Trump is correct to be blaming China.  I also said in the same thread that Greg Hunt and Josh Frydenburg have been doing a good job.  

There'd be dozens of other examples dotted through ET.  

I call out shit behaviour regardless of which party they belong to.  

Being an ideologue is embarrassing state to be in.

The facts are regardless of what the WHO said Trump stood there, and against all the best advice of his people and other countries said we've got it all under control, this'll all disappear amongst dozens of other though bubble missives.  The bloke fucked up big time.  Only the dumbest would think otherwise.

Congratulations.

But you didn't call out the shit behavior of the wrongful persecution of an innocent man.

Even if you disagree with the possibility of him being innocent, you still did not disagree with the misscarriage of justice.

The appeal to the High Court was won on the basis of a fundamental flaw in the prosecution case- that it was not open to the jury to find .guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It doesn't get more clear cut a mistake than that.  Don't blame the jury- an earlier one found 10-2 in Pell's favour.  Blame the Judges-they know better, or should.

I knew the government was fucked when the prosecutor started suggesting sending it back down for a re-trial. The High Court had the option to do that.   It did not. It quashed the conviction because the prosecution case was so weak there could never be a conviction based on the evidence no matter how many more times he was tried. 

Everyone in Victoria should be concerned about how the rule of law is administered here. Its the most Left-wing State in the country, and this is what the law likes under the Left: it convicts who it wants, as it wants.

WTF are you talking about it?

This isn't about your hatred for Trump.

This is about the wrongful conviction of someone due to the mob mentality that extended all the way to Victoria's Supreme Court Chief Justice and President of the Victorian Court of Appeal. If that doesn't scare you, nothing will.

Way to miss the point both of you.
Though I'm pretty sure, with you especially, that's always entirely intentional.

"George Pell’s legal team privately petitioned Victoria's Director of Public Prosecutions two years ago to abandon the criminal proceedings against the cardinal, citing much of the same evidence that convinced the High Court to quash his conviction.

Had the newly appointed DPP, Kerri Judd, QC, taken up this sliding doors moment, it would have exposed her office to public outcry but avoided the injustice of Cardinal Pell spending 13 months in jail for a wrongful conviction.

Cardinal Pell’s legal team submitted to Ms Judd that the prosecution was doomed to fail and the problems in the evidence should not be obscured by the strong public interest in the case."

https://www.theage.com.au/national/how-the-dpp-allowed-a-sliding-door-to-close-on-the-prosecution-of-pell-20200408-p54ibk.html

If there is any blame to be assigned, I’d say the prosecution carries a fair bit of it. 

Who's blaming the jury? The judges in the high court are by saying "it was not open to the jury to find .guilt beyond a reasonable doubt". God people talk some rubbish here.

I'm talking to Rusty not you.

I've had very little to say about this.

I will say this now though.  The jury obviously thought he was guilty.  The judges, and I haven't followed this closely, appear to be saying there was enough reasonable doubt to not convict him.  (Could be wrong about all of that.)

So I'm not sure if that means he got off on a technicality or something else.  The facts are 12 jurors thought he was guilty.  7 judges thought there wasn't enough evidence to convict. 

Fair enough, that's the law.

The Jury did not apply a guilty version beyond any doubt. There was never enough evidence to copnvict the Cardinal at all. The Jury was swept away in the vigilantism trial by media.

 Ansd this is WHY we have the Federal Courts as the final appeal thrid referee if you like and they voted unaminously 7 to 0