|
Enzo Bearzot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x[quote]The Jury System is now being blamed. Lets have Judge only trials.
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. 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. 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. The Court of Appeal should have dismissed the verdict on appeal. The Jury are laypersons. The two appeal Court Judges on the other hand have no excuse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x"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. Curious as to why you'd think that? Is it purely because you believe the case wasn't strong enough? Because they ultimately weren't successful? The odds are very much stacked against the prosecution (as it should be) in criminal trials and it's even harder in sexual abuse cases involving children that happened years ago. I think we'd all rather have some guilty people go free (as Pell likely has) than have any innocent people imprisoned. It's just awful for victims of institutionalised sexual abuse, the power dynamic that makes them feel the entire system is against them and that they aren't to be believed has been reinforced by the system. That's why I called out an abhorrent reaction to the decision on this forum.
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x[quote]The Jury System is now being blamed. Lets have Judge only trials.
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. 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. 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. The Court of Appeal should have dismissed the verdict on appeal. The Jury are laypersons. The two appeal Court Judges on the other hand have no excuse. Ok, if the two appeal court judges can overrule a jury? Why have a jury? I actually know the answer to this but I suspect most people are talking out of their behinds...
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
|
Enzo Bearzot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xGood 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. 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 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. 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. 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. Appear to be saying? WTF? The High Court could have not have said it any more loud and clear- SEVEN-NIL. They could have ordered a trial-but they didn't as there was a and never could have been a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt As far as 12 jurors thinking he was guilty, a different 10 jurors thought he wasn't. It wasn't a "technicality". Proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is a fundamental pillar of our criminal justice system. The Victorian Courts turned that on its head by requiring Pell to prove his innocence. What happened in the Victorian Courts was a travesty. There was the Victorian State acting against religion, not Pell.
|
|
|
|
|
Enzo Bearzot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]The Jury System is now being blamed. Lets have Judge only trials.
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. 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. 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. The Court of Appeal should have dismissed the verdict on appeal. The Jury are laypersons. The two appeal Court Judges on the other hand have no excuse. Ok, if the two appeal court judges can overrule a jury? Why have a jury? I actually know the answer to this but I suspect most people are talking out of their behinds... We have a jury because of a precedent several hundred years ago when Judges were acting corruptly and needed to be kept in check. The jury was seen as a way to do that. The issue in this case is that it proceeded to trial at all. That decision falls at the feet of the Victorian government, who in their zealousness to convict religion because that's what Far Left governments-just couldn't help themselves. Even Our Dan refused to comment on the verdict. Why not Dan? Didn't like the outcome..
|
|
|
|
|
Enzo Bearzot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
double post
|
|
|
|
|
Enzo Bearzot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x"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. Curious as to why you'd think that? Is it purely because you believe the case wasn't strong enough? Because they ultimately weren't successful? The odds are very much stacked against the prosecution (as it should be) in criminal trials and it's even harder in sexual abuse cases involving children that happened years ago. I think we'd all rather have some guilty people go free (as Pell likely has) than have any innocent people imprisoned.It's just awful for victims of institutionalised sexual abuse, the power dynamic that makes them feel the entire system is against them and that they aren't to be believed has been reinforced by the system. That's why I called out an abhorrent reaction to the decision on this forum. Pell didn't go free-he spent 400 days in prison when he should never have, so I don't know what it is that you are trying to say.
|
|
|
|
rusty
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
Pell wasn’t “likely guilty”. The High Court ruled that a rational jury would’ve cast doubt reasonable doubt on guilt based on the testimony of opportunity witnesses, who pointed out the difficulty and unlikelihood of committing a sexual crime in broad daylight in a public place after Mass on Sunday. The whole case was a stitch up from go to woe, a collusion between Victorian Police, Victorian DPP, left wing media, religophobes like Mcjules and aggrieved sex assault victims seeking a scapegoat to destroy a powerful and conservative Catholic figure and damage the church.
It’s worth noting that Pell has been falsely accused of sex offences in the past which were retracted after evidence was found refuting the claims. Fake complaints do happen and this was one that slipped through to the keeper. What damage it has done for genuine victims of sex crimes as well, who will now fear taking their complaints to police and barristers completely incapable of distinguishing between fake and real complaints.
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]The Jury System is now being blamed. Lets have Judge only trials.
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. 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. 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. The Court of Appeal should have dismissed the verdict on appeal. The Jury are laypersons. The two appeal Court Judges on the other hand have no excuse. Ok, if the two appeal court judges can overrule a jury? Why have a jury? I actually know the answer to this but I suspect most people are talking out of their behinds... We have a jury because of a precedent several hundred years ago when Judges were acting corruptly and needed to be kept in check. The jury was seen as a way to do that. The issue in this case is that it proceeded to trial at all. That decision falls at the feet of the Victorian government, who in their zealousness to convict religion because that's what Far Left governments-just couldn't help themselves. Even Our Dan refused to comment on the verdict. Why not Dan? Didn't like the outcome.. Seems like a googled answer, close but not quite right. If it was just that judges wouldnt be able to overrule juries. As for the rest, what a bonkers take.
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x"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. Curious as to why you'd think that? Is it purely because you believe the case wasn't strong enough? Because they ultimately weren't successful? The odds are very much stacked against the prosecution (as it should be) in criminal trials and it's even harder in sexual abuse cases involving children that happened years ago. I think we'd all rather have some guilty people go free (as Pell likely has) than have any innocent people imprisoned. It's just awful for victims of institutionalised sexual abuse, the power dynamic that makes them feel the entire system is against them and that they aren't to be believed has been reinforced by the system. That's why I called out an abhorrent reaction to the decision on this forum. You said likely has and therefore leave the prospect that the man is innocent. Therefore, the law must be applied and measured beyond all doubt otherwise innocent people go to jail. The jury did not apply the law properly and as a result, the judgement didn't pass muster with the Federal High Court. In addition, the evidence and testimonies had plenty of holes and inconsistencies. There were many incorrect statements. The evidence was clearly not strong enough for a conviction.
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x[quote]The Jury System is now being blamed. Lets have Judge only trials.
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. 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. 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. 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 What trial by media lol? It was under massive suppression. -PB
|
|
|
|
rusty
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]The Jury System is now being blamed. Lets have Judge only trials.
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. 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. 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. The Court of Appeal should have dismissed the verdict on appeal. The Jury are laypersons. The two appeal Court Judges on the other hand have no excuse. Ok, if the two appeal court judges can overrule a jury? Why have a jury? I actually know the answer to this but I suspect most people are talking out of their behinds... We have a jury because of a precedent several hundred years ago when Judges were acting corruptly and needed to be kept in check. The jury was seen as a way to do that. The issue in this case is that it proceeded to trial at all. That decision falls at the feet of the Victorian government, who in their zealousness to convict religion because that's what Far Left governments-just couldn't help themselves. Even Our Dan refused to comment on the verdict. Why not Dan? Didn't like the outcome.. As for the rest, what a bonkers take. The unconscious bias in your brain that you’re not aware pof can easily explain this comment.
|
|
|
|
rusty
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]The Jury System is now being blamed. Lets have Judge only trials.
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. 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. 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. 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 What trial by media lol? It was under massive suppression. -PB Oh dear
|
|
|
|
|
Enzo Bearzot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]The Jury System is now being blamed. Lets have Judge only trials.
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. 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. 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. The Court of Appeal should have dismissed the verdict on appeal. The Jury are laypersons. The two appeal Court Judges on the other hand have no excuse. Ok, if the two appeal court judges can overrule a jury? Why have a jury? I actually know the answer to this but I suspect most people are talking out of their behinds... We have a jury because of a precedent several hundred years ago when Judges were acting corruptly and needed to be kept in check. The jury was seen as a way to do that. The issue in this case is that it proceeded to trial at all. That decision falls at the feet of the Victorian government, who in their zealousness to convict religion because that's what Far Left governments-just couldn't help themselves. Even Our Dan refused to comment on the verdict. Why not Dan? Didn't like the outcome.. Seems like a googled answer, close but not quite right. If it was just that judges wouldnt be able to overrule juries. As for the rest, what a bonkers take. Right I googled an answer just to be wrong... As for the rest Our Dan's "No Comment" speaks volumes.
|
|
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]The Jury System is now being blamed. Lets have Judge only trials.
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. 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. 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. 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 What trial by media lol? It was under massive suppression. -PB The ammount of outrage and political interference from the Andrews Government and the politicization of this case was beyond ludicrous. Even under the best of circumstances, there was no way the cardinal would get a fair trial. Even the ABC-TV 2 days before a decision would be delivered by The Federal High Court came up with massive stories about new allegations which were not new at all. These allegations were looked into by the Police who decided they didn't have enough to pursue Cardinal Pell over. This was a clear attempt to muddy the waters once again. Again, I must reiterate. No one wants a sexual criminal to get away with these disgusting crimes. If the Cardinal committed such crimes, he sould be in jail. However, I am not convinced he committed these crimes at all.
|
|
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]The Jury System is now being blamed. Lets have Judge only trials.
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. 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. 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. 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 What trial by media lol? It was under massive suppression. -PB Oh dear It wasn't in the news until he was found guilty. The news already achieved maximum damage against the cardinal. We all witnessed the vitriol until the courts put in place a Court Order for a blanket media blackout.
|
|
|
|
|
paladisious
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 39K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]The Jury System is now being blamed. Lets have Judge only trials.
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. 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. 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. 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 What trial by media lol? It was under massive suppression. -PB Oh dear It wasn't in the news until he was found guilty. The news already achieved maximum damage against the cardinal. We all witnessed the vitriol until the courts put in place a Court Order for a blanket media blackout. But it was under a suppression order, that is a fact.
|
|
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]The Jury System is now being blamed. Lets have Judge only trials.
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. 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. 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. 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 What trial by media lol? It was under massive suppression. -PB Oh dear It wasn't in the news until he was found guilty. The news already achieved maximum damage against the cardinal. We all witnessed the vitriol until the courts put in place a Court Order for a blanket media blackout. But it was under a suppression order, that is a fact. After all the vitriol. Answer me this, how the hell was that Jury able to maintain any detachment and non bias? And why did they make a judgment without adhering to fundamental legal principles?
|
|
|
|
|
Burztur
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x"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. Curious as to why you'd think that? Is it purely because you believe the case wasn't strong enough? Because they ultimately weren't successful? The odds are very much stacked against the prosecution (as it should be) in criminal trials and it's even harder in sexual abuse cases involving children that happened years ago. I think we'd all rather have some guilty people go free (as Pell likely has) than have any innocent people imprisoned. It's just awful for victims of institutionalised sexual abuse, the power dynamic that makes them feel the entire system is against them and that they aren't to be believed has been reinforced by the system. That's why I called out an abhorrent reaction to the decision on this forum. It’s the prosecutions job to build the case and I’m not sure why they proceeded without closing the gaps. The prosecution has all the information available to it and chose a certain course of action to present their case in the best possible light.
If they are unable to close the gaps then their case may not have been as strong as they thought.
|
|
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x"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. Curious as to why you'd think that? Is it purely because you believe the case wasn't strong enough? Because they ultimately weren't successful? The odds are very much stacked against the prosecution (as it should be) in criminal trials and it's even harder in sexual abuse cases involving children that happened years ago. I think we'd all rather have some guilty people go free (as Pell likely has) than have any innocent people imprisoned. It's just awful for victims of institutionalised sexual abuse, the power dynamic that makes them feel the entire system is against them and that they aren't to be believed has been reinforced by the system. That's why I called out an abhorrent reaction to the decision on this forum. It’s the prosecutions job to build the case and I’m not sure why they proceeded without closing the gaps. The prosecution has all the information available to it and chose a certain course of action to present their case in the best possible light.
If they are unable to close the gaps then their case may not have been as strong as they thought. They proceeded because of the public outrage and trial by media as well as the anti religious sentiment sweeping social media and twitter. Daniel Andrews did it for political point scoring, votes, and virtue signalling. The problem however is that a man was jailed unfairly. I warned all of you how was going to be let off and found innocent but many here were just politicizing it and spewing hatred and vitriol. If this is how society has become, we are all in BIG trouble.
|
|
|
|
|
paladisious
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 39K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]The Jury System is now being blamed. Lets have Judge only trials.
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. 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. 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. 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 What trial by media lol? It was under massive suppression. -PB Oh dear It wasn't in the news until he was found guilty. The news already achieved maximum damage against the cardinal. We all witnessed the vitriol until the courts put in place a Court Order for a blanket media blackout. But it was under a suppression order, that is a fact. After all the vitriol. Answer me this, how the hell was that Jury able to maintain any detachment and non bias? No human decision can be made without bias. Maybe when some AI takes over we can pass the impossible criteria you set out in your argument, but for now you're stuck with us humans. Curtailing society's free speech with a suppression order is the best that the defence could ask for, and even then I could argue that it does more harm than good. And why did they make a judgment without adhering to fundamental legal principles?
That's a very vague accusation.
|
|
|
|
|
paladisious
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 39K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x"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. Curious as to why you'd think that? Is it purely because you believe the case wasn't strong enough? Because they ultimately weren't successful? The odds are very much stacked against the prosecution (as it should be) in criminal trials and it's even harder in sexual abuse cases involving children that happened years ago. I think we'd all rather have some guilty people go free (as Pell likely has) than have any innocent people imprisoned. It's just awful for victims of institutionalised sexual abuse, the power dynamic that makes them feel the entire system is against them and that they aren't to be believed has been reinforced by the system. That's why I called out an abhorrent reaction to the decision on this forum. It’s the prosecutions job to build the case and I’m not sure why they proceeded without closing the gaps. The prosecution has all the information available to it and chose a certain course of action to present their case in the best possible light.
If they are unable to close the gaps then their case may not have been as strong as they thought. They proceeded because of the public outrage and trial by media as well as the anti religious sentiment sweeping social media and twitter. Daniel Andrews did it for political point scoring, votes, and virtue signalling. The problem however is that a man was jailed unfairly. I warned all of you how was going to be let off and found innocent but many here were just politicizing it and spewing hatred and vitriol. If this is how society has become, we are all in BIG trouble. Involving Daniel Andrews in the matter at all sounds pretty tinfoil hat material to me, TBH.
|
|
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]The Jury System is now being blamed. Lets have Judge only trials.
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. 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. 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. 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 What trial by media lol? It was under massive suppression. -PB Oh dear It wasn't in the news until he was found guilty. The news already achieved maximum damage against the cardinal. We all witnessed the vitriol until the courts put in place a Court Order for a blanket media blackout. But it was under a suppression order, that is a fact. After all the vitriol. Answer me this, how the hell was that Jury able to maintain any detachment and non bias? No human decision can be made without bias. Maybe when some AI takes over we can pass the impossible criteria you set out in your argument, but for now you're stuck with us humans. Curtailing society's free speech with a suppression order is the best that the defence could ask for, and even then I could argue that it does more harm than good. And why did they make a judgment without adhering to fundamental legal principles?
That's a very vague accusation. the justice system has set out very clear legal principles behind such notions as "beyond reasonable doubt". These criteria were broken by the initial judgment, this violating the Human right of Cardinal Pell who was illegally incarcerated for 404 days. He should seek compensation.
|
|
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x"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. Curious as to why you'd think that? Is it purely because you believe the case wasn't strong enough? Because they ultimately weren't successful? The odds are very much stacked against the prosecution (as it should be) in criminal trials and it's even harder in sexual abuse cases involving children that happened years ago. I think we'd all rather have some guilty people go free (as Pell likely has) than have any innocent people imprisoned. It's just awful for victims of institutionalised sexual abuse, the power dynamic that makes them feel the entire system is against them and that they aren't to be believed has been reinforced by the system. That's why I called out an abhorrent reaction to the decision on this forum. It’s the prosecutions job to build the case and I’m not sure why they proceeded without closing the gaps. The prosecution has all the information available to it and chose a certain course of action to present their case in the best possible light.
If they are unable to close the gaps then their case may not have been as strong as they thought. They proceeded because of the public outrage and trial by media as well as the anti religious sentiment sweeping social media and twitter. Daniel Andrews did it for political point scoring, votes, and virtue signalling. The problem however is that a man was jailed unfairly. I warned all of you how was going to be let off and found innocent but many here were just politicizing it and spewing hatred and vitriol. If this is how society has become, we are all in BIG trouble. Involving Daniel Andrews in the matter at all sounds pretty tinfoil hat material to me, TBH. he involved himself all the way through, even with his latest statements.
|
|
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
Some people will rejoice some will be angry over this.However here are a few issues surrounding the case.
1. One of the boys who died always said it never happened.
2. The accuser was a junkie for many years.
3. Pell's minders at the church said he was always out the front of the church when the offending was meant to be taking place.
4. If the complaint was to be believed at the time of offending Pell, was wearing heavy robes. There was argument over if it was possible to move them.
5. The offending was taking place in an area where any one could walk in on. Yet no one come forward to say anything happened.
6. The defense had many many witness saying the alleged offending was not possible. While the DPP relied on the complaint only.
To me there is at least some reasonable doubt and the HC did the right thing. Plus remember all the Justices agreed.
|
|
|
|
rusty
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
The facts dont matter. People decided long before that Pell was guilty, not because he allegedly raped some altar boys, but because he is a high ranking official of the Catholic Church. They decided that the cornerstone of western justice, namely innocent until proven guilty, no longer applied to Catholics in high positions and they have fanned a fake narrative that the church is full of paedophile priests and every accusation must be believed regardless of its merits.
The left are a disease and a biggest threat we face to democracy in modern times. We are seeing continued trend of leftists across western democracies trying to subvert democracy in order to instill their socialist ideological agenda. The fake Russia investigation, the Brett Kavanaugh nomination, attempts to revoke Brexit, these are just some examples of the mainstream left defalcating on western ideals because free speech and democracy have failed as useful tools. Its only the beginning too.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
https://chaser.com.au/national/abc-announces-it-will-punish-reporters-who-criticised-pell-by-moving-them-to-another-parish/The Australian Broadcasting Corporation has today apologised to the Catholic church over their reporting of the fact that one of their most senior members had been convicted of molesting children, admitting they should have been more like the Church and just ignored such claims and covered them up. “We’re very sorry to Cardinal Pell, and anyone who was hurt by our reporting of the facts of his case after they were released publicly,” explained the ABC via an official statement on their website. “We would also like to take this opportunity to apologise to News Corporation who have very rightly lambasted us for reporting on the conviction after the court suppression order expired. We clearly should have been more like them and respectfully not besmirched Pell’s image by simply running multiple front page stories alluding to the trial while it was still ongoing.” Asked how they would be paying reparations for the damage they have done to Pell’s previously untainted image, the ABC say they will be doling out the harshest possible punishment to those who overstepped the line – by moving those reporters to a slightly different location and then continuing to allow them to do the thing they got in trouble for. “We think this is the best and most appropriate response given the circumstances,” explained the ABC, “and we’re sure the Church will agree.”
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|
rusty
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
Royal Commissions aren’t wardens of absolute truth. They are, much like the Victorian court of appeals, subject to interpretation and sometimes bias. Secondly there’s no smoking guns in the unredacted report, nothing to suggest the Cardinal deliberately shielded and protected paedophile priests. The worst you can accuse him of is being incompetent, but not in a maliciously way. Pell is probably a reflection of that particular era when sexual abuse tended to be swept under the rug rather than confronted, not just by churches but by schools, police, households and society in general. Thats not to excuse Pell, but you probably couldnt find a politician or clergy member of that era who “couldn't have done more”.
You also have to balance what Pell didnt do with what he did do, which we rarely ever hear about because its not fashionable to talk about the “good side” of Pell, unless you want to commit career suicide.
In Mcjules mind, being a Catholic clergy is enough to be a monster, but thats no need to take a shit on our principles of justice, which should always rise above petty religaphobic antagonism.
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
Of course someone abhorrent enough to laugh at the suffering of sexual abuse survivors would see this as no big deal. 🙄
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|