Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 132
  1. #16
    CC Grandmaster road runner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    on the skin of the pale blue dot
    Posts
    12,482
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    After being acquitted 10-2 by 12 other ordinary people. Sometimes those ordinary people can convict wrongly, e.g. Chamberlain.

    Miranda Devine:

    It’s devastating because I don’t believe that Pell, who I know slightly and admire greatly, could be guilty of sexually assaulting two choirboys in a busy cathedral after Sunday mass when he was Archbishop of Melbourne in 1996...

    How hard it must have been to find 12 impartial souls after the campaign of vilification against Pell over the past two decades and the carefully orchestrated drip feed of lurid allegations by Victoria police to selected media against the backdrop of shocking revelations of child sexual abuse by clergy around the world...

    Anyone who knows how crowded and open is the sacristy at St Patrick’s Cathedral after Sunday mass must know the accusations are implausible. “Only a madman would attempt to rape boys in the sacristy immediately after mass,” said Pell’s legal team.

    It is the word of one man, codenamed AA, against the word of Cardinal Pell.

    There are no witnesses and evidence was given that the second alleged victim, who died long ago, told his mother that he had not been sexually abused while a chorister.
    Victim disbelief and blaming, belief of abusers in power ... have we learnt nothing from the royal commission?
    meep meep

  2. #17
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    19,497
    Quote Originally Posted by road runner View Post
    Victim disbelief and blaming, belief of abusers in power ... have we learnt nothing from the royal commission?
    That is begging the question of whether the accuser is a victim. We have only his word, an implausible scenario, and decades.

    Lindy Chamberlain was also convicted by 12 ordinary people.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  3. #18
    CC FIDE Master
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    998
    Quote Originally Posted by road runner View Post
    Victim disbelief and blaming, belief of abusers in power ... have we learnt nothing from the royal commission?
    truth-and-justice-after-the-pell-verdict

    FRANK BRENNAN

  4. #19
    CC Grandmaster road runner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    on the skin of the pale blue dot
    Posts
    12,482
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    That is begging the question of whether the accuser is a victim. We have only his word, an implausible scenario, and decades.
    Actually "we" (you and I) haven't heard his word, it was delivered in a closed sitting. Which evidently the jury found credible beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury heard all the plausibility arguments, and on the weight of all the evidence, convicted.

    Lindy Chamberlain was also convicted by 12 ordinary people.
    Wrongful convictions have occurred in the past, so no conviction is valid, is that your argument?
    meep meep

  5. #20
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    19,497
    Quote Originally Posted by road runner View Post
    Wrongful convictions have occurred in the past, so no conviction is valid, is that your argument?
    No, the argument is that it has some similarities with the Chamberlain conviction.

    Andrew Bolt:

    Declaration: I have met Pell perhaps five times in my life and like him. I am not a Catholic or even a Christian.

    But here is why I cannot believe this verdict, which clearly shocked reporters when first announced (but suppressed) last year, and which Pell is appealing as unsound.

    You are meant to believe that Pell in the mid-1990s found the two choir boys in St Patrick’s cathedral’s sacristy drinking altar wine just after a Mass at which Pell had officiated.

    You are meant to believe that Pell forced one boy to give him oral sex while grabbing the other, and also molesting them both.

    Here is why I don’t believe this gothic story — or not enough to think this conviction reasonable.

    One of the boys, now dead, denied he’d been abused.

    The other, whose identity and testimony remain secret, didn’t speak of it for many years.

    The attack is meant to have happened straight after Mass, when Pell is known to have traditionally spoken to worshippers leaving Mass.

    It allegedly happened in the sacristy, normally a very busy room, where Pell would have known people were almost certain to walk in.

    The boys had allegedly slipped away from the procession after Mass to break into the sacristy, but none of the other choristers who gave evidence said they’d noticed them doing so, or noticed them rejoining the choir later.

    Pell was normally followed everywhere during and after Mass by the master of ceremonies, Monsignor Charles Portelli, who testified that he escorted the then Archbishop from the moment he arrived at the cathedral, until the moment he left. He declared the assault impossible.

    Not a single witness from what was a busy cathedral at the time of the alleged abuse noticed a thing during the estimated 10 minutes of this alleged attack.

    There is no history or pattern of similar abuse by Pell, unlike with real church paedophiles such as Gerard Ridsdale who raped or assaulted at least 65 children. Pell was 55 years old at the time of alleged abuse.

    No wonder that a first jury failed to convict Pell. I am unable to tell you just how very close it came to acquitting him before it was discharged as deadlocked.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  6. #21
    CC Grandmaster road runner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    on the skin of the pale blue dot
    Posts
    12,482
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    No, the argument is that it has some similarities with the Chamberlain conviction.
    Such as? I don't think it was a dingo in this case.


    Andrew Bolt:

    [INDENT]Declaration: I have met Pell perhaps five times in my life and like him.
    Probably the case with vast majority of paedophiles - they get away with it due to position of power and are often charismatic. Victims often not believed.

    The rest of Bolt's arguments were all before the jury, who had the added benefit of AA's testimony which Bolt doesn't have. They convicted. Rehashing the defence changes nothing.
    meep meep

  7. #22
    CC Grandmaster ER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne - Australia
    Posts
    11,709
    Quote Originally Posted by road runner View Post
    Not sure, but my reading was the latter. As in, he "just" forced the boy to suck his penis, didn't bugger him or worse.
    Pretty grubby stuff, but I guess that's the job of the defence lawyer, picking up a princely sum for his trouble.
    Others arguing for Pell, well that's a whole other story.
    It really is grubby stuff! I doubt that the judge would accept this as a serious line of defense aiming to minimise the seriousness of
    the offense worded in such an improper and unacceptable manner; let alone contradicting Pell's maintaining his innocence!
    ACF 3118316
    FIDE 3201457

  8. #23
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,722
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew Bolt via Capablanca-Fan View Post
    I am unable to tell you just how very close it came to acquitting him before it was discharged as deadlocked.[/INDENT]
    This is because it is illegal to disclose the vote of the jury. But while Bolt seems to think he knows, this does raise the question of how he would know and whether his source is reliable or unreliable.

    A pro-Pell publication overseas had claimed the margin was 10-2 in favour of acquittal, but provided no evidence as to how it supposedly knew this. Is Bolt's claim based on this unreliable publication or other secondary rumours, or does he actually know something? He has been sloppy with facts in the past (causing him to lose his racial discrimination case).

  9. #24
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,722
    Quote Originally Posted by road runner View Post
    Not sure, but my reading was the latter. As in, he "just" forced the boy to suck his penis, didn't bugger him or worse.
    Pretty grubby stuff, but I guess that's the job of the defence lawyer, picking up a princely sum for his trouble.
    Others arguing for Pell, well that's a whole other story.
    Some more of Richter's comments:

    “It lasted less than six minutes,” he said about the rape of one choirboy and molestation of another in Melbourne’s St Patrick’s Cathedral in 1996.

    “There are no physical injuries. There is no ejaculation. There is no recording of the offences for later. No prior history. No breach of trust in the traditional sense. No pre planning. No use of any implement.”

    https://www.news.com.au/national/vic...817eefe4f535ec

    He was basically just trying to claim an absence of aggravating factors beyond the basic offence - which the judge didn't agree with.

  10. #25
    CC Grandmaster road runner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    on the skin of the pale blue dot
    Posts
    12,482
    Quote Originally Posted by idledim View Post
    Thanks for the link, I think Frank Brennan is usually pretty sensible. This may be true:

    I was very surprised by the verdict. In fact, I was devastated. My only conclusion is that the jury must have disregarded many of the criticisms so tellingly made by Richter of the complainant's evidence and that, despite the complainant being confused about all manner of things, the jury must nevertheless have thought — as the recent royal commission discussed — that children who are sexually violated do not always remember details of time, place, dress and posture. Although the complainant got all sorts of facts wrong, the jury must have believed that Pell did something dreadful to him. The jurors must have judged the complainant to be honest and reliable even though many of the details he gave were improbable if not impossible.
    meep meep

  11. #26
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,860
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    After being acquitted 10-2 by 12 other ordinary people. Sometimes those ordinary people can convict wrongly, e.g. Chamberlain.

    Miranda Devine:
    ... How hard it must have been to find 12 impartial souls after the campaign of vilification against Pell over the past two decades and the carefully orchestrated drip feed of lurid allegations by Victoria police to selected media against the backdrop of shocking revelations of child sexual abuse by clergy around the world ...
    In the past you've argued that Australia should have a level of free speech similar to the US. Have you changed your mind? Because as a public figure, Pell would be subject to a much greater level of free speech if Australia had a First Amendment.

  12. #27
    CC Grandmaster road runner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    on the skin of the pale blue dot
    Posts
    12,482
    Ray Hadley condemns John Howard and Tony Abbott for 'gross errors of judgment' on Pell


    Sydney shock jock Ray Hadley has taken aim at former Liberal prime ministers John Howard and Tony Abbott over their show of support for George Pell in the wake of his conviction for child sexual abuse, declaring they had made "gross errors of judgment".

    In an excoriating attack, Hadley accused the two former prime ministers of showing "a complete lack of understanding" of the victims of paedophiles, and implied Mr Abbott's actions could cost him his seat in Federal Parliament at the election. ...
    meep meep

  13. #28
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    19,497
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    In the past you've argued that Australia should have a level of free speech similar to the US. Have you changed your mind? Because as a public figure, Pell would be subject to a much greater level of free speech if Australia had a First Amendment.
    No I have not changed my mind. But when a case is pending, it is irresponsible for the Polizei to drip feed lurid allegations to the Leftmedia who have vilified Pell for decades.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  14. #29
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    19,497
    Quote Originally Posted by road runner View Post
    Sydney shock jock Ray Hadley … accused the two former prime ministers of showing "a complete lack of understanding" of the victims of paedophiles, and implied Mr Abbott's actions could cost him his seat in Federal Parliament at the election. ...
    What a load of balls. No one is condoning pedophilia, just pointing out that an accusation is not proof. E.g. Andrew Bolt was very clear that if Pell really had done what he was accused of, then Bolt would despise him for it.

    Quote Originally Posted by road runner View Post
    [Citing Frank Brennan]Although the complainant got all sorts of facts wrong, the jury must have believed that Pell did something dreadful to him. The jurors must have judged the complainant to be honest and reliable even though many of the details he gave were improbable if not impossible.
    That could be grounds for a successful appeal, because to find Pell guilty, they needed to find not that this complainant was likely honest and reliable (despite many implausibilities and even impossibilities), but that there was no reasonable doubt that Pell did what he was accused of.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  15. #30
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,860
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    No I have not changed my mind. But when a case is pending, it is irresponsible for the Polizei to drip feed lurid allegations to the Leftmedia who have vilified Pell for decades.
    What lurid allegations? And you're saying that people need to be protected against vilification - if not, your complaint is meaningless?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Abbott's maternity leave policy
    By Igor_Goldenberg in forum Politics
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 26-03-2010, 12:17 PM
  2. middle east leave
    By Davidflude in forum Australian Chess
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-08-2006, 03:40 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
  •