Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 89
  1. #61
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,327
    Quote Originally Posted by road runner View Post
    But I think it's important to call the conviction for what it is, and to remind those defending Pell of what they are defending.
    What do you think we are defending? No one is defending child or teen abuse!!

    Pointing out that the case is under appeal, and he would be the third high-profile Catholic acquitted on appeal, and that many experts think he has a good chance, is not the same. Neither is thinking that he said / he said about crimes allegedly committed decades ago doesn't seem like proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

    Quote Originally Posted by road runner View Post
    Though if idledim's remarks are anything to go by, it's likely people aren't reading the thread carefully anyway.
    Where is the evidence for that?
    “If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions.” — Abba Eban on the UN general assembly

    “You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious.” — Obi-Wan Kenobi on the UN kakistocracy

  2. #62
    CC Grandmaster road runner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    on the skin of the pale blue dot
    Posts
    12,291
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    What do you think we are defending? No one is defending child or teen abuse!!
    You're defending a convicted paedophile and registered sex offender.

    And why the vanilla-style attempt to ameliorate with the use of "teen"? Are you hoping that teen abuser sounds better than child abuser? Grubby stuff.

    Pointing out that the case is under appeal, and he would be the third high-profile Catholic acquitted on appeal, and that many experts think he has a good chance, is not the same. Neither is thinking that he said / he said about crimes allegedly committed decades ago doesn't seem like proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
    Two acquitted out of how many abusers?

    It's not he said / he said when only one party testifies and is cross examined at length (as you got wrong) in court.
    What we in fact have is he said (which you haven't heard since it was sealed) vs he preferred not to say.

    Where is the evidence for that?
    What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. For example where is the evidence to idledim's claim that I slandered an innocent man? I have never made any comment with regards to the other case, which he chose to introduce to the thread about Pell for a reason best known to ideldim himself. I am not familiar with the other case at all, and have never commented on it. A fact which should have been obvious when I said that I don't follow all the cases regarding abuse by clergymen since they are simply legion. They're in the thousands.

    In fact at a quick search I can't find any prior discussion of Tyrrell on this forum at all. So why idledim wanted to raise it is a bit of a mystery, maybe he wanted us all to know the name of the innocent man, who we shouldn't know the name. Well done idledim! Anything to take the heat off Convicted Paedophile Catholic Priest Cardinal Pell.
    meep meep

  3. #63
    CC FIDE Master
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    953
    Quote Originally Posted by road runner View Post

    ...where is the evidence to idledim's claim that I slandered an innocent man? I have never made any comment with regards to the other case ...
    Your response to my observation that the ABC had not reported the acquittal of John Francis Tyrrell was:

    Indeed it is a sad day when a lowly clergyman buggering kids is so common place that it doesn't even make the news. Apparently to make a splash now, you have to get to Cardinal and stick your cock down a boy's throat.


    This is a disgusting slander against John Francis Tyrrell. Tyrrell has always maintained his innocence and the Victorian Supreme Court has determined, after reviewing the evidence, that he was wrongfully convicted. Your statement that, "I have never made any comment with regards to the (Tyrrell) case," is false.

    With respect to the Pell case, which is ongoing, you have shown an appalling lack of respect for the judicial process. It is the duty of the Appeals Court to properly review the evidence and to then either uphold or dismiss the Appeal. You have no way of knowing if the court will acquit Cardinal Pell, order a re-trial, or dismiss the Appeal. Notwithstanding this, you have made comments on this thread that demonstrate a reckless contempt for the Appeal process in Victoria. For example, in response to:

    I think there is going to be a major problem whatever the outcome of the appeal. If it succeeds, a lot of people will conclude that Pell 'got away with it';(PB)

    you wrote:

    Naturally; if convicted by evidence and ordinary people, and excused by expensive legal teams and technicalities. (RR)

    And elsewhere:

    Anyway there were other charges, that his expensive legal team managed to allow him to dodge. (RR)

    And later:

    On legal technicalities. They could win, it's possible. And everyone will know it's because of tricky lawyering, not a truth. (RR)

    The Tyrrell Appeal is a significant decision and I would be surprised if Cardinal Pell's team did not include it in their Appeal.
    Last edited by idledim; 05-04-2019 at 10:49 AM.

  4. #64
    CC Grandmaster road runner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    on the skin of the pale blue dot
    Posts
    12,291
    Quote Originally Posted by idledim View Post
    Your response to my observation that the ABC had not reported the acquittal of John Francis Tyrrell was:

    Indeed it is a sad day when a lowly clergyman buggering kids is so common place that it doesn't even make the news. Apparently to make a splash now, you have to get to Cardinal and stick your cock down a boy's throat.


    This is a disgusting slander against John Francis Tyrrell.
    No it isn't. It's stating that there are so many of these cases that they don't even rate a mention, indeed his name or conviction was never raised on chesschat until you introduced it. Then you falsely claim that his name was besmirched - well, take a bow - you introduced it!

    A cardinal on the other hand, well yes that is high profile.

    With respect to the Pell case, which is ongoing, you have shown an appalling lack of respect for the judicial process. It is the duty of the Appeals Court to properly review the evidence and to then either uphold or dismiss the Appeal. You have no way of knowing if the court will acquit Cardinal Pell, order a re-trial, or dismiss the Appeal. Notwithstanding this, you have made comments on this thread that demonstrate a reckless contempt for the Appeal process in Victoria. For example, in response to:

    I think there is going to be a major problem whatever the outcome of the appeal. If it succeeds, a lot of people will conclude that Pell 'got away with it';(PB)

    you wrote:

    Naturally; if convicted by evidence and ordinary people, and excused by expensive legal teams and technicalities. (RR)

    And elsewhere:

    Anyway there were other charges, that his expensive legal team managed to allow him to dodge. (RR)

    And later:

    On legal technicalities. They could win, it's possible. And everyone will know it's because of tricky lawyering, not a truth. (RR)
    More likely, you're showing an appalling lack of respect for understanding simple English. If he gets off on legal technicalities is a conditional statement and does not imply that he won't get off on other grounds. 2 of the 3 appeal grounds as I understand it are technicalities - that a certain visual prop wasn't allowed in his extensive 2 day summation, and that some of the jurors saw the arraignment via video link rather than being in the room. If one of those does succeed and leads to his acquittal, then people absolutely will know it's because of tricky lawyering, not a truth, as I said.
    meep meep

  5. #65
    CC FIDE Master
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    953
    Post # 64 is a self-serving misrepresentation of what RR said in response to Capablanca Fan in post # 44.

    It is also a self-serving misrepresentation of what was said in post # 56. Tyrrell was convicted on charges of buggery. He was not guilty. RR was aware of his innocence when, responding to my observation that the ABC had not reported the acquittal of Tyrrell, he made the reference to 'a clergyman buggering kids.' It's that simple.

  6. #66
    CC Grandmaster road runner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    on the skin of the pale blue dot
    Posts
    12,291
    Quote Originally Posted by idledim View Post
    Post # 64 is a self-serving misrepresentation of what RR said in response to Capablanca Fan in post # 44.

    It is also a self-serving misrepresentation of what was said in post # 56. Tyrrell was convicted on charges of buggery. He was not guilty. RR was aware of his innocence when, responding to my observation that the ABC had not reported the acquittal of Tyrrell, he made the reference to 'a clergyman buggering kids.' It's that simple.
    Wrong on all counts. And ignoring most of my post. In other words, on par for you.
    meep meep

  7. #67
    CC FIDE Master
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    953

  8. #68
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by idledim View Post
    A few links (from Quadrant online, by Professor Keith Windschuttle, Peter West et al) for readers interested in the Pell matter:


    When a Jury Gets it Ludicrously Wrong
    I read the above link. In summary, it says that it is implausible that the abuse incident ever occurred. Given the way it is told, that is true. Implausible does not mean impossible, however.

    The evidence given to substantiate the allegations must have been very compelling. It would have to have been compelling to go against the implausibility of the event. Remember, Pell had a QC defending him. You would think a QC, faced with a case that meant that it was implausible that his client did it, would have a field day. Rather like being on a soccer pitch, with the ball and in front of an open goal (or, given we are on Chess Chat, King and Rook vs King), how could the QC fail to succeed?

    As an open minded person, there are two possible outcomes:

    - Pell was indeed convicted on insufficient evidence. Hard to believe given a QC defending him.
    - Pell indeed did do it. The evidence is there that he did it, and a fair minded jury duly convicted. The implausibility of the incident is actually in favour of the guilty verdict - the less likely the incident, the stronger the evidence must have been that Pell did it.

    If we are going to debate implausibility, then you would have to say that it is extremely implausible that a QC faced with a case that seems open and shut would not get his client off.

    I'm happy to be convinced either way. However, if the conviction is indeed wrongful, then I am sure with the billions that the Catholic Church has, they can get the best lawyers to get it overturned on appeal.

  9. #69
    CC Grandmaster ER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne - Australia
    Posts
    11,677
    Quote Originally Posted by simdeaf View Post
    (…) Rather like being on a soccer pitch, with the ball and in front of an open goal (…)
    Extremely hard to miss, however, it has happened.

    (…) I am sure with the billions that the Catholic Church has, they can get the best lawyers to get it overturned on appeal.
    strictly adhering to soccer reality, using those millions in order to "convince" a referee into ruling the attacker as scoring from an offside position would have been neither implausible nor impossible!
    ACF 3118316
    FIDE 3201457

  10. #70
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,565
    Since his appeal is only about a week away, maybe we should just wait and see what happens.

  11. #71
    CC Grandmaster road runner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    on the skin of the pale blue dot
    Posts
    12,291
    George Pell will not seek reduced sentence if appeal against guilty verdict fails

    Disgraced Cardinal George Pell will not seek a reduced sentence if the Court of Appeal upholds his conviction for sexually abusing two Melbourne choirboys in the 1990s.

    Pell has been behind bars since February and is due to return to court next month to fight his conviction.

    But he will not be adding an appeal against the six-year prison sentence handed down by County Court Chief Judge Peter Kidd in March.

    Pell was ordered to serve at least three years and eight months of that sentence after being convicted by a jury in December of one charge of sexual penetration of a child and four charges of committing an indecent act with or in the presence of a child.

    Pell raped one 13-year-old choirboy and sexually molested his friend in the sacristy of St Patrick's Cathedral in Melbourne in 1996 when he was newly-installed as Archbishop. ...
    meep meep

  12. #72
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,401
    If Pell's appeal succeeds it could still go to the High Court which has overturned acquittals on appeal in other cases:

    https://www.theguardian.com/australi...ins-his-appeal

    (I try to avoid posting links to the Guardian recklessly but a legal source says this article is generally good. Graphic content warning.)

  13. #73
    CC FIDE Master
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    953
    The Appeal will be live-streamed. This will enable RR and ABC journalists to learn more about how the Appeal process works in Victoria.

  14. #74
    CC Grandmaster road runner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    on the skin of the pale blue dot
    Posts
    12,291
    Appeal judges tour Pell crime site
    The Australian, 4 June 2019

    Three Victorian Court of Appeal judges have visited the scene of George Pell’s sex crimes to examine what a jury saw before convicting him of multiple offences. The judges visited St Patrick’s Cathedral in Melbourne last week to see the same parts of the church that the jury was shown before convicting Pell, 77, of multiple sex offences. The tour, which was not publicised, was confirmed tonight by the Supreme Court of Victoria and is believed to have included the sacristy, where the court found Pell brutally assaulted two choirboys. ...

    Survivor groups warned yesterday the Court of Appeal hearing would serve as a trigger for sex abuse victims across Australia. ...

    The Blue Knot Foundation advocates for victims of trauma. Its president Cathy Kezelman said Pell’s six-year sentence, with a non-parole period of three years, eight months, was a crucial development. “George Pell’s conviction of six years was a watershed moment, as it showed that no one is above the law,’’ she said. “But the fact that there is a possibility of an appeal, and a possibility of overturning the conviction and the possibility of George Pell being released, will unsettle, anger and distress many.

    “Questioning the validity of a survivor’s abuse history, and not being believed is an enormous trigger. Many survivors will identify with this strongly.” ...
    meep meep

  15. #75

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
  •