Cardinal George Pell convicted of sexually abusing choirboys

Buchaill Dana

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
11,632
So conspiracy shit.

Zzzzzz
 


Buchaill Dana

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
11,632
Yes its before the Australian Courts this week

- this is what we are now discussing

- do try and keep up me lad....
So if there is an appeal in motion he is definitely innocent, but the fact he was found guilty and lost his first appeal is irrelevant.

I am so happy in 20 years you will all be dead.
 

Catahualpa

Well-known member
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
2,235
Website
irelandinhistory.blogspot.com
So if there is an appeal in motion he is definitely innocent, but the fact he was found guilty and lost his first appeal is irrelevant.

I am so happy in 20 years you will all be dead.
God alone knows when we will all be dead

- BTW its dangerous to wish Death upon other people me boy in case it comes back and bites you

- 4 the Devil is listening….🎃
 

talkingshop

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
29,019
I know this is a waste of bandwith, but any evidence for this alleged 'reasonable doubt'? Other than your fanaticism
See the dissenting judge’s reasoning in the appeal judgment. Tons of grounds for reasonable doubt: he/she is right imo, the jury were “unreasonable”, they should have had a reasonable doubt.
 

StarryPlough01

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2010
Messages
15,705
Cat,

I need to remind you that the witness J gave his evidence in-camera. We will never know the full extent of what J had to say. We only have accounts from the barristers of what was said during the trial (they read from the transcript). This is what the journalists have run with.

Therefore, you can't categorically state that Pell is innocent. The jury heard the full testimony and also found J a compelling witness.

Pell's team (like yourself) are trying to destroy the witness' Truth.

I think giving evidence via video links (videotape) is going to be more common in courtrooms (think coronavirus and changing times). Pell's defence team are saying the videotape swayed the jury and that J's evidence should have been read in manuscript form.

After assessment of the whole evidence, only then can a jury make the decision to convict or acquit (Guilty or Not Guilty). Pell's defence team are trying to rewrite a trial by your peers.

It was a trial by jury, and *not* by a judge. As Lumpy said it was an unanimous verdict.

As I've said before to you, Pell has some very powerful establishment friends. These shadowy figures are working hard behind the scenes to overturn the Guilty verdict - lean on people. I would prefer that the case goes back to the Appeal Court - this is an option - rather than acquit Pell.


______

FYI - COVERT OPERATIONS

Updated 12 Nov 2017, 12:55pm


By Christopher Pollard

"In an egregious breach of the separation of powers, Chief Justices Garfield Barwick and Anthony Mason advised [Governor General Kerr - in secret] how to dismiss a government."

The governors general have a reserve power to dismiss a democratically elected prime minister, which has already been invoked in Australia - a coup:


"Opinion Gough Whitlam

'The British-American coup that ended Australian independence'

'In 1975 prime minister Gough Whitlam, who has died this week, dared to try to assert his country’s autonomy. The CIA and MI6 made sure he paid the price'


Thu 23 Oct 2014 13.50 BST Last modified on Fri 14 Jul 2017 22.49 BST


By John Pilger

Secret US military base Pine Gap:

"Whitlam demanded to know if and why the CIA was running a spy base at Pine Gap near Alice Springs, a giant vacuum cleaner which, as Edward Snowden revealed recently, allows the US to spy on everyone. “Try to screw us or bounce us,” the prime minister warned the US ambassador, “[and Pine Gap] will become a matter of contention”.​
"Victor Marchetti, the CIA officer who had helped set up Pine Gap, later told me, “This threat to close Pine Gap caused apoplexy in the White House … a kind of Chile [coup] was set in motion.”​



johnpilger.com/videos/the-last-dream-other-peoples-wars

"[…] he [Gough Whitlam] revealed that in 1977 President Carter had sent an emissary to Australia who told him that ‘the US would never again interfere in the domestic political processes of Australia’."​
 

talkingshop

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
29,019
Cat,

I need to remind you that the witness J gave his evidence in-camera. We will never know the full extent of what J had to say. We only have accounts from the barristers of what was said during the trial (they read from the transcript). This is what the journalists have run with.

Therefore, you can't categorically state that Pell is innocent. The jury heard the full testimony and also found J a compelling witness.

Pell's team (like yourself) are trying to destroy the witness' Truth.

I think giving evidence via video links (videotape) is going to be more common in courtrooms (think coronavirus and changing times). Pell's defence team are saying the videotape swayed the jury and that J's evidence should have been read in manuscript form.

After assessment of the whole evidence, only then can a jury make the decision to convict or acquit (Guilty or Not Guilty). Pell's defence team are trying to rewrite a trial by your peers.

It was a trial by jury, and *not* by a judge. As Lumpy said it was an unanimous verdict.

As I've said before to you, Pell has some very powerful establishment friends. These shadowy figures are working hard behind the scenes to overturn the Guilty verdict - lean on people. I would prefer that the case goes back to the Appeal Court - this is an option - rather than acquit Pell.


______

FYI - COVERT OPERATIONS

Updated 12 Nov 2017, 12:55pm


By Christopher Pollard




The governors general have a reserve power to dismiss a democratically elected prime minister, which has already been invoked in Australia - a coup:


"Opinion Gough Whitlam

'The British-American coup that ended Australian independence'

'In 1975 prime minister Gough Whitlam, who has died this week, dared to try to assert his country’s autonomy. The CIA and MI6 made sure he paid the price'


Thu 23 Oct 2014 13.50 BST Last modified on Fri 14 Jul 2017 22.49 BST


By John Pilger

Secret US military base Pine Gap:

"Whitlam demanded to know if and why the CIA was running a spy base at Pine Gap near Alice Springs, a giant vacuum cleaner which, as Edward Snowden revealed recently, allows the US to spy on everyone. “Try to screw us or bounce us,” the prime minister warned the US ambassador, “[and Pine Gap] will become a matter of contention”.​
"Victor Marchetti, the CIA officer who had helped set up Pine Gap, later told me, “This threat to close Pine Gap caused apoplexy in the White House … a kind of Chile [coup] was set in motion.”​



johnpilger.com/videos/the-last-dream-other-peoples-wars

"[…] he [Gough Whitlam] revealed that in 1977 President Carter had sent an emissary to Australia who told him that ‘the US would never again interfere in the domestic political processes of Australia’."​
You can’t categorically state he is not guilty, true, but having read the whole appeal judgment today my prediction is the High Court will quash the conviction: Weinberg, dissenting, gave a meticulous analysis (far better than the other 2) and showed how a reasonable jury could not but have had a reasonable doubt.
 

StarryPlough01

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2010
Messages
15,705
You can’t categorically state he is not guilty, true, but having read the whole appeal judgment today my prediction is the High Court will quash the conviction: Weinberg, dissenting, gave a meticulous analysis (far better than the other 2) and showed how a reasonable jury could not but have had a reasonable doubt.
I don't see why the High Court of Appeal would overturn the conviction. I haven't read any good arguments from Pell's team.

If you have reasonable doubt you cannot convict. Pell's team is saying the jury must have reasonable doubt of his guilt to convict and, therefore, should not have convicted.

TS, it's for the jury to say!!

The High Court has reserved its decision. It might be a lengthy Judgment!

There is the option of the case going back to the Appeal Court, rather than Pell being acquitted.
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
32,884
Twitter
No
Cattle-wiper there says he 'believes Pell'. Now there's ashocking and stunning piece of news. Why would anyone expect anything else from a slave to a cult?
 

Catahualpa

Well-known member
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
2,235
Website
irelandinhistory.blogspot.com
I don't see why the High Court of Appeal would overturn the conviction. I haven't read any good arguments from Pell's team.

If you have reasonable doubt you cannot convict. Pell's team is saying the jury must have reasonable doubt of his guilt to convict and, therefore, should not have convicted.

TS, it's for the jury to say!!

The High Court has reserved its decision. It might be a lengthy Judgment!

There is the option of the case going back to the Appeal Court, rather than Pell being acquitted.
The Prosecution Team has indicated that they are amenable to it being settled where it is now.
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
32,884
Twitter
No
Ah so you can read the coverage for yourself.
 

talkingshop

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
29,019
I don't see why the High Court of Appeal would overturn the conviction. I haven't read any good arguments from Pell's team.

If you have reasonable doubt you cannot convict. Pell's team is saying the jury must have reasonable doubt of his guilt to convict and, therefore, should not have convicted.

TS, it's for the jury to say!!

The High Court has reserved its decision. It might be a lengthy Judgment!

There is the option of the case going back to the Appeal Court, rather than Pell being acquitted.
I know it’s normally for the jury to decide, but there is such a thing as an unreasonable verdict, a verdict that flies in the face of the evidence. All of the 3 judges in the Victoria Supreme Court allowed him leave to appeal on the unreasonableness ground (though 2 ultimately did not find the verdict was unreasonable) so clearly they felt there was a question to be answered about whether the verdict was unreasonable. Now he’s appealed that the Victoria Court got it wrong, and the High Court agreed to hear the appeal, so again they agree it’s something worth looking at.
 

Jackson_Browne

Active member
Joined
May 8, 2019
Messages
123
I'm asking why you think this particular rapist is the victim here?
It's pretty clear what I am saying here.

To me, it appears to be a miscarriage of justice, in that he was found guilty for a crime he didn't commit.


Further, I made the prediction that this, currently convicted, child rapist will be exonerated, and become,in the future, a man wrongfully accused,charged and convicted of a sexual assault he didn't commit.

And in saying that, it necessarily makes any counter arguments that "the courts proved he did it", or "he was convicted", and other such simplistic factual statements, irrelevant to my what I am saying. Distractions,red herrings, irrelevances. Pick a word.

That's it. That's all I am saying. Time will see how this plays out.
 

Jackson_Browne

Active member
Joined
May 8, 2019
Messages
123
Just one legal, not emotional point. The prosecution appear to be re arguing and changing established facts in the trial.

Ms Judd stunned the court when she abandoned the prosecution’s position over the amount of time that private prayer was held for after Solemn Mass.

She said the five- to six-minute timeframe, which the prosecution claimed gave the opportunity to offend, may actually have been longer, depending on what unfolded in the cathedral on the day.

On the amount of time allowed for private prayer, Ms Judd said: “They are approximate times. It was not a precise five or six minutes.’’ She urged the court not to tie the offending to a specific time, arguing that events in the cathedral were fluid.

It was not clear from Ms Judd exactly when Pell was supposed to have offended, although it had previously been stated that he assaulted the boys after the procession had ended and he returned to change in the sacristy.

The five- to six-minute timeframe was put to the jury and, until Thursday, was at the centre of the prosecution narrative.

What was at the centre of the prosecution's narrative of events, is now all a bit vague and indeterminate.
 

StarryPlough01

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2010
Messages
15,705
I know it’s normally for the jury to decide, but there is such a thing as an unreasonable verdict, a verdict that flies in the face of the evidence. All of the 3 judges in the Victoria Supreme Court allowed him leave to appeal on the unreasonableness ground (though 2 ultimately did not find the verdict was unreasonable) so clearly they felt there was a question to be answered about whether the verdict was unreasonable. Now he’s appealed that the Victoria Court got it wrong, and the High Court agreed to hear the appeal, so again they agree it’s something worth looking at.

"(though 2 ultimately did not find the verdict was unreasonable)"


So you agree with me.
 

talkingshop

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
29,019
"(though 2 ultimately did not find the verdict was unreasonable)"


So you agree with me.
No, I agree with the 3rd, dissenting judge, the jury verdict was unreasonable.

Let’s see what the High Court say, but I’d put money on the verdict being quashed.
 

StarryPlough01

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2010
Messages
15,705
We won't lose any sleep over it either way. Although Cat might need a wee dram to steady his nerves should the conviction be upheld.
 


New Threads

Top Bottom