Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 76 to 89 of 89
  1. #76
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,548
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    That claim is more credible than the one Pell was convicted for.
    The Victorian Court of Appeal seems to be taking it fairly seriously, considering that Pell is still in prison - although that may change tomorrow, of course.

  2. #77
    CC Grandmaster antichrist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    16,768
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    The Victorian Court of Appeal seems to be taking it fairly seriously, considering that Pell is still in prison - although that may change tomorrow, of course.
    As an altar boy for 12 years who watched priest robing and de-robing hundreds of times and who wore the "sutans" (or cowls) I think the Cardinal has no clothes
    Zionism is racism as defined by the UN, Israel by every dirty means available steals land and water, kill Palestinian freedom fighters and civilians, and operates an apartheid system to drive more Palestinians off their land

  3. #78
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,548
    Quote Originally Posted by idledim View Post
    ... and I suggest you read what you wrote in #78. The context of your remarks was clear. ...
    If you say so. Perhaps you should take this up with the moderators - I don't care if they delete my post (it's not that significant).

    Quote Originally Posted by idledim View Post
    If you were intending to refer to the Appeal currently being heard by the Victorian Court of Appeal, perhaps you could explain why it is surprising for the court to take an Appeal seriously in circumstances where the Applicant is still in prison.
    If the original decision was as bad as has been claimed, then surely the VCA would have immediately overturned the verdict, freeing Pell from prison. The fact that Pell is still in prison and the VCA is still considering his appeal suggests that the jury verdict was at least reasonable, even if it is later overturned.

  4. #79
    CC FIDE Master
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    953
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    If you say so. Perhaps you should take this up with the moderators - I don't care if they delete my post (it's not that significant).

    If the original decision was as bad as has been claimed, then surely the VCA would have immediately overturned the verdict, freeing Pell from prison. The fact that Pell is still in prison and the VCA is still considering his appeal suggests that the jury verdict was at least reasonable, even if it is later overturned.
    ... and the word for today is casuistry. It does not follow that the interests of justice are served by immediately overturning jury verdicts - even if they are unreasonable. It does not follow that because a proper Appeal process takes a couple of days or more that any inferences can or should be made about the reasonableness of the jury verdict. Indeed, if the court eventually determines that the verdict was reasonable, the Applicant will not be released. If it determines the verdict was unreasonable on the basis of the evidence, he will be.

    You are very quick to dole out advice to others about accepting the word of experts in areas where you're not one. It's a shame you don't feel the call to heed your own sage counsel in this matter.

  5. #80
    CC Grandmaster road runner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    on the skin of the pale blue dot
    Posts
    12,272
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    The Victorian Court of Appeal seems to be taking it fairly seriously, considering that Pell is still in prison - although that may change tomorrow, of course.
    From what I've read, the ruling may take a couple of weeks.

    Sounds like Convict Pell had a rather good day yesterday, with the prosecutor stumbling a few times. His lawyer seemed more confident. Amazing what money can buy.
    meep meep

  6. #81
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,385
    Posts moved offline

    I have moved a baseless accusation by antichrist and five posts arising from it offline.

    I am not satisfied that the initial post was necessarily a legal problem yet bearing in mind Pell's reputation at this precise point of time, and the extremely low probability of anyone not agreeing with the court verdict taking antichrist's post seriously. In the event of Pell being cleared it would have clearly required immediate removal.

    I am satisfied that at best it was not a helpful contribution to quality debate, nor made with due seriousness.

    antichrist is warned not to make hearsay allegations of this kind in future.

    Anyone wishing to discuss this decision may do so in the Help and Feedback section only.

  7. #82
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,548
    Quote Originally Posted by idledim View Post
    ... and the word for today is casuistry. It does not follow that the interests of justice are served by immediately overturning jury verdicts - even if they are unreasonable. It does not follow that because a proper Appeal process takes a couple of days or more that any inferences can or should be made about the reasonableness of the jury verdict. Indeed, if the court eventually determines that the verdict was reasonable, the Applicant will not be released. If it determines the verdict was unreasonable on the basis of the evidence, he will be.
    If the verdict was clearly unreasonable (as some have suggested), and the appeal court are thus sure that Pell is innocent, surely they would want, in the interests of justice, to order his immediate release? Leaving him in prison for weeks or months - or even a single day - when they believe he is innocent, seems blatantly unjust.

    Quote Originally Posted by idledim View Post
    You are very quick to dole out advice to others about accepting the word of experts in areas where you're not one. It's a shame you don't feel the call to heed your own sage counsel in this matter.
    What expert advice am I rejecting?

  8. #83
    CC FIDE Master
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    953
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    If the verdict was clearly unreasonable (as some have suggested), and the appeal court are thus sure that Pell is innocent, surely they would want, in the interests of justice, to order his immediate release? Leaving him in prison for weeks or months - or even a single day - when they believe he is innocent, seems blatantly unjust.

    What expert advice am I rejecting?
    Whether or not the verdict was reasonable is still being decided. It's the main reason for the Appeal. Pell says:

    1. The verdicts are unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence because on the whole of the evidence, including unchallenged exculpatory evidence from more than 20 Crown witnesses, it was not open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt on the word of the Complainant alone.

    Who says the Appeal Court have already decided that Pell is innocent? Your post is just plain silly. If and when the court determines that the jury erred, then the prisoner will be released. It's really as basic as that - and leads to the inescapable conclusion that the expert advice you're rejecting, for reasons known only to yourself, is the clear advice from the Victorian Court of Appeal that they haven't yet made their decision.
    Last edited by idledim; 07-06-2019 at 04:23 PM.

  9. #84
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,548
    Quote Originally Posted by idledim View Post
    Whether or not the verdict was reasonable is still being decided. It's the main reason for the Appeal. Pell says:
    1. The verdicts are unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence because on the whole of the evidence, including unchallenged exculpatory evidence from more than 20 Crown witnesses, it was not open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt on the word of the Complainant alone.

    Who says the Appeal Court have already decided that Pell is innocent? Your post is just plain silly. If and when the court determines that the jury erred, then the prisoner will be released. It's really as basic as that - and leads to the inescapable conclusion that the expert advice you're rejecting, for reasons known only to yourself, is the clear advice from the Victorian Court of Appeal that they haven't yet made their decision.
    I carefully used the phrase "clearly unreasonable" to indicate what I thought would happen if it was clear to the appeal court that the original verdict was unreasonable. And I carefully started my post with "If" to indicate that my first paragraph was only a hypothetical (I possibly could have been clearer there).

    I agree completely that whether Pell is innocent (ie, the verdict was unreasonable) is still being decided - Pell has in fact returned to prison to await that verdict. My claim is merely that the verdict is not clearly unreasonable - or obviously wrong, to put it more simply.

  10. #85
    CC FIDE Master
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    953
    My claim is merely that the verdict is not clearly unreasonable - or obviously wrong, to put it more simply. PB

    To repeat: There is absolutely no basis for this claim. If the verdict is obviously wrong, and thus clearly unreasonable, the court will so rule. I believe the Victorian Court of Appeal is efficient. On that basis, I'd expect a decision before August. For the court to rule that a verdict is obviously wrong within a day of hearing an Appeal would be highly unusual. I'm not familiar with any Victorian cases where a jury verdict has been overturned within a day of the Appeal being heard. Are you? If so, please share. If not, on what exactly do you base your contention?

  11. #86
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,548
    Quote Originally Posted by idledim View Post
    My claim is merely that the verdict is not clearly unreasonable - or obviously wrong, to put it more simply. PB
    To repeat: There is absolutely no basis for this claim. If the verdict is obviously wrong, and thus clearly unreasonable, the court will so rule. I believe the Victorian Court of Appeal is efficient. On that basis, I'd expect a decision before August. For the court to rule that a verdict is obviously wrong within a day of hearing an Appeal would be highly unusual. I'm not familiar with any Victorian cases where a jury verdict has been overturned within a day of the Appeal being heard. Are you? If so, please share. If not, on what exactly do you base your contention?
    I'm not aware of any cases, but that may simply mean that there have been no cases where the jury verdict was obviously wrong. If the verdict was obviously wrong, wouldn't the VCA want to release Pell as soon as possible (and he's still in prison, so it's now two days)?

    EDIT: This is from Qld, but presumably the VCA would hold a similar view:
    The judges also made some interesting points in their statements that the Court strived to deliver an early judgement when there is only reasonable prospect of an appellant in custody being released, hence the one day hearing yesterday and the quick decision back today.
    Last edited by Patrick Byrom; 08-06-2019 at 11:26 AM. Reason: Example added.

  12. #87
    CC Grandmaster antichrist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    16,768
    Big George is now facing new charges for allegedly protecting a Brother who was allegedly abusing boys.
    Zionism is racism as defined by the UN, Israel by every dirty means available steals land and water, kill Palestinian freedom fighters and civilians, and operates an apartheid system to drive more Palestinians off their land

  13. #88
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,385
    Quote Originally Posted by antichrist View Post
    Big George is now facing new charges for allegedly protecting a Brother who was allegedly abusing boys.
    Seems he is being sued, not charged.

  14. #89
    CC Grandmaster antichrist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    16,768
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    Seems he is being sued, not charged.
    Sorry re error had heard on radio. I mixed with priests for decades and kind of hard to believe they subjected their congregation's children in such an off handed manner. As an altar boy the only cold-heartedness I witnessed was with a doctor of theology priest who would crack jokes all the way to funerals and back. Maybe I felt it because I knew these mourning people but he was new to the area.

    And there was the funny situation when someone's dog ate a child-vomited out communion host (wafer) that is the body and blood of Jesus. It did not concern him at all whereas I read decades later that the priest is supposed to immediately consecrate (bless) another wafer and thus turning it into the body and blood of Jesus, as a doctor he should have known that.

    I didn't mind doing funerals (that I never got paid for) because it got me out of school for a few hours whereas for weddings we were paid well.
    Last edited by antichrist; 08-06-2019 at 12:43 PM.
    Zionism is racism as defined by the UN, Israel by every dirty means available steals land and water, kill Palestinian freedom fighters and civilians, and operates an apartheid system to drive more Palestinians off their land

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Posting Permissions

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