Page 14 of 14 FirstFirst ... 4121314
Results 196 to 202 of 202
  1. #196
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by Desmond View Post
    Thanks for the detailed reply Garvin.

    I think that the "ogrification" aspect was certainly relied upon by Pell's militant supporters regardless. They argued that he was convicted for it, even in the absence of the damning royal commission findings. I wonder if their devotion to Pell would be so unwavering if they had read the findings. They seem to have gone to ground now. I wonder if they had that Primal Fear type moment.

    I think whether testimony is honest or not is quite relevant to the case when it comes down to, as was claimed many times on this thread, he-said v he-said style cases. You have one complainant who is clearly a witness of truth, not a fantasist or a liar. You have another who testifies under an oath on the bible about matters over 40+ years with barely a believable utterance passing his lips. I think that's pretty relevant information. And not the same as "past crimes".
    You are biased against the piece of slime so of course you want him found guilty by whatever means, which is fair enough in one way but due process must be awarded to even [..] like Pell.
    Last edited by Kevin Bonham; 09-05-2020 at 04:34 PM. Reason: language

  2. #197
    CC Grandmaster Desmond's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The island
    Posts
    13,393
    Quote Originally Posted by I don't know View Post
    You are biased against the piece of slime so of course you want him found guilty by whatever means,
    Sorry, but I disagree. My default position was that he was innocent. That changed when a jury found him guilty. Unlike many of his supporters who ignored the verdict because they "knew him".

    which is fair enough in one way but due process must be awarded to even [..] like Pell.
    I am curious to see what the future holds for Pell. Are his days before the courts really over?
    Last edited by Kevin Bonham; 09-05-2020 at 04:34 PM. Reason: language in quote
    So what's your excuse? To run like the devil's chasing you.

    See you in another life, brotha.

  3. #198
    CC Grandmaster Garvinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    13,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Desmond View Post
    Thanks for the detailed reply Garvin.

    I think that the "ogrification" aspect was certainly relied upon by Pell's militant supporters regardless. They argued that he was convicted for it, even in the absence of the damning royal commission findings. I wonder if their devotion to Pell would be so unwavering if they had read the findings. They seem to have gone to ground now. I wonder if they had that Primal Fear type moment.

    I think whether testimony is honest or not is quite relevant to the case when it comes down to, as was claimed many times on this thread, he-said v he-said style cases. You have one complainant who is clearly a witness of truth, not a fantasist or a liar. You have another who testifies under an oath on the bible about matters over 40+ years with barely a believable utterance passing his lips. I think that's pretty relevant information. And not the same as "past crimes".
    Now that the case that went to the High Court is over, people are free to have their opinions and to express them. During the trial, especially those working in the media, or broadcasters, are not allowed to speak publically about the case. If they do and are then brought before the court, and then continuing on talking about the case, they can be found guilty of contempt of court by the Judge and spent plenty of time in jail themselves.

    Some will believe it was a miscarriage of justice. Some headlines that I have seen after the High Court verdict was delivered were describing this as the biggest miscarriage of justice since Lindy Chamberlain. Talk about taking things way over the top.

    Then others believe the witness and are not concerned about any other evidence from anybody else.

    I really do not have a perspective or view on this case, with the exception that I have had a complete gutful of those over-sensationalising the case in terms of comparing it to disappearance of Azaria Chamberlain.

    But, one item has always been beyond me. Why did Pell talk to the police/investigators at all? When you might be a suspect in a case, you have the right to shut up, say nothing and let your lawyer say everything. If George Pell should take anything away from this case, it is that. It is not George Pell's job to prove his innocence, it is the responsibility of the DPP to prove his guilt. There is a massive difference.

    In terms of the side of the prosecution, and this is not Monday night Quarterbacking. I thought a better charge was conspiracy to commit said charges.

    I think that would have been much easier to prove. Former Catholic Priests that George Pell worked with and also was friends with had already been convicted of sexual crimes. Therefore, in my view, it would have been much easier to get a guilty verdict that would stand up on appeal for a conspiracy to commit sexual abuse. The key point here is that for a conspiracy charge is that it only requires two people to be acting together.
    Last edited by Garvinator; 09-05-2020 at 05:32 PM.

  4. #199
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by Desmond View Post
    Sorry, but I disagree. My default position was that he was innocent. That changed when a jury found him guilty. Unlike many of his supporters who ignored the verdict because they "knew him".

    I am curious to see what the future holds for Pell. Are his days before the courts really over?
    Okay, I got that wrong. Sorry for the mistake.
    Last edited by I don't know; 09-05-2020 at 11:44 PM.

  5. #200
    CC Grandmaster Desmond's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The island
    Posts
    13,393
    Quote Originally Posted by Garvinator View Post
    Now that the case that went to the High Court is over, people are free to have their opinions and to express them. During the trial, especially those working in the media, or broadcasters, are not allowed to speak publically about the case. If they do and are then brought before the court, and then continuing on talking about the case, they can be found guilty of contempt of court by the Judge and spent plenty of time in jail themselves.
    Yes after the initial guilty verdict I thought it was quite remarkable the disdain shown for the legal process by the likes of Bolt, Craven and others. Just openly saying the decision was wrong and that they didn't accept it, despite the fact that they never heard the whole of the evidence. Of course in Bolt's case, he is no stranger to run-ins with the law for kicking people while they are down.

    ...I have had a complete gutful of those over-sensationalising the case in terms of comparing it to disappearance of Azaria Chamberlain.
    I agree.

    But, one item has always been beyond me. Why did Pell talk to the police/investigators at all? When you might be a suspect in a case, you have the right to shut up, say nothing and let your lawyer say everything. If George Pell should take anything away from this case, it is that. It is not George Pell's job to prove his innocence, it is the responsibility of the DPP to prove his guilt. There is a massive difference.
    I think it is the pure arrogance of the man, with his station, institutions and resources behind him, never believing it would get so far.

    In terms of the side of the prosecution, and this is not Monday night Quarterbacking. I thought a better charge was conspiracy to commit said charges.

    I think that would have been much easier to prove. Former Catholic Priests that George Pell worked with and also was friends with had already been convicted of sexual crimes. Therefore, in my view, it would have been much easier to get a guilty verdict that would stand up on appeal for a conspiracy to commit sexual abuse. The key point here is that for a conspiracy charge is that it only requires two people to be acting together.
    I have wondered about this myself. Not sure if there is a statute of limitations on such matters, that does not apply to the abuse itself. In the case of Ridsdale, Pell was not only friend and colleague, but also roommate.

    The royal commission found that Pell knew back in 1982 what Ridsdale was up to. Ridsdale abused probably hundreds of children, 65 we know of. The church admitted it knew at the time when they were punting him from parish to parish. Pell was one of the consultors.
    So what's your excuse? To run like the devil's chasing you.

    See you in another life, brotha.

  6. #201
    CC Grandmaster Desmond's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The island
    Posts
    13,393
    Reactions to the release of royal commission findings about George Pell
    May 7, 2020

    One of Gerald Ridsdale's many victims: "There was no surprise in the findings, I knew that was the way it was going to go. But it's still knocked me around a bit, reading it there in black and white. It's devastating to read that it all could have been prevented and it wasn't. It really highlights what a repugnant organisation the Catholic Church is."

    Lawyer Viv Waller, whose client Timothy Green was a boy in 1974 when he reported paedophile priest Edward Dowlan to George Pell (the then Father Pell dismissed the complaint as "ridiculous"):"His report to Pell was a remarkably courageous act for a 12 or 13-year-old boy terribly worried that his own abuse would come to light. It is utterly heartbreaking that his complaint was not acted upon. His worry that he has not done enough for others is equally heartbreaking. The failure was not his but was that of the Catholic priests and brothers who knew and failed to report suspected child abuse to the police."

    Chrissie Foster, advocate for sex-assault victims and whose daughters were raped by parish priest Kevin O'Donnell when in primary school: "I think it's very positive. I see it as the truth coming out. It fits in with what all the victims and family members have said all these years. We are after the truth so children can be protected. The findings speak a lot about cover-ups by bishops upwards."

    Former priest Phil O'Donnell, a whistleblower who raised concerns about priests Wilfred Baker and Peter Searson, and gave evidence at the royal commission:
    "I think George just does power plays. His job was to protect the church and that's what he did, he wasn't interested in victims. They [the church] were pretty confident they would get through it all without any accountability."
    ...
    So what's your excuse? To run like the devil's chasing you.

    See you in another life, brotha.

  7. #202
    CC Grandmaster Desmond's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The island
    Posts
    13,393
    Not sure what the legal definition of "a sin" is in Australian law, in any case the ABC was not amoungst the respondents listed for contempt charges on reporting this matter.

    George Pell contempt case: charges over media that allegedly breached suppression orders will go to trial
    More than 20 publications and 19 journalists face trial for allegedly breaching suppression orders when Cardinal Pell was initially convicted ...

    The county court chief judge, Peter Kidd, imposed the suppression order on 25 June 2018 over the trial to prevent “a real and substantial risk of prejudice to the proper administration of justice” because Pell was facing a second trial on separate charges. Despite this, when Pell was convicted in December 2018, numerous publications in Victoria, throughout Australia and overseas reported the verdict before the suppression order was lifted and despite some not attending the trial. It is alleged this placed the second trial, including the alleged victims seeking justice and Pell’s ability to defend himself, at risk. ...

    The respondents include the Herald and Weekly Times, Nationwide News, the Age, Fairfax Media (now owned by Nine Entertainment, also a respondent), Mamamia, Macquarie Media, individual journalists, and publication editors. Those named include Lisa Davies, Charis Chang, Michael Bachelard and Deborah Knight. ...
    So what's your excuse? To run like the devil's chasing you.

    See you in another life, brotha.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Increase in Postal Charges
    By Allan Menham in forum Australian Chess
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 26-06-2010, 10:20 AM
  2. Dlugy aquitted of fraud charges
    By News Bot in forum Chess Australia
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 22-12-2005, 07:02 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •