Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 137
  1. #31
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,990
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    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.
    It's not just an "accusation" - Pell was convicted of the offence!

  2. #32
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,846
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    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.
    Or rather that if Andrew Bolt thought Pell had really done what he was accused of, then Bolt would despise him for it. But Bolt has already said that even if the appeal is dismissed he will not be convinced of Pell's guilt unless he sees further "evidence" of it. What kind of evidence would convince Bolt?

    I do think a lot of people who strongly oppose Pell (for which there are no shortage of valid reasons) are celebrating the guilty verdict as definitive proof and rubbing the religious right's nose in it prematurely. Better to wait and see what happens at the appeal.

  3. #33
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,846
    There is a surprising appeal ground - the defence is claiming that Pell was not arraigned before the jury panel.
    Last edited by Kevin Bonham; 01-03-2019 at 11:13 AM.

  4. #34
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,990
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    ... I do think a lot of people who strongly oppose Pell (for which there are no shortage of valid reasons) are celebrating the guilty verdict as definitive proof and rubbing the religious right's nose in it prematurely. Better to wait and see what happens at the appeal.
    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'; if it fails, Pell's supporters will continue to claim that he is innocent. So Pell will become an even more controversial figure than he already is, and I expect that he will quietly disappear even if the appeal is successful.

  5. #35
    CC Grandmaster road runner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    on the skin of the pale blue dot
    Posts
    12,560
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    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';
    Naturally; if convicted by evidence and ordinary people, and excused by expensive legal teams and technicalities. Under different circumstances the likes of CF would be talking about "shyster lawyers" and "the anointed".

    if it fails, Pell's supporters will continue to claim that he is innocent.
    Nothing new if they ignore reality.
    meep meep

  6. #36
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,846
    Post deleted

    Deleted post commenting on the placement of this thread.

    Posts commenting on moderation, including thread splits or the placement of threads, must be posted in the Help and Feedback section only.

    Any comment on this moderation action must also be posted in the Help and Feedback section only.

  7. #37
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    19,589
    Quote Originally Posted by road runner View Post
    Naturally; if convicted by evidence and ordinary people, and excused by expensive legal teams and technicalities. Under different circumstances the likes of CF would be talking about "shyster lawyers" and "the anointed".
    If there was actual evidence more than he said - he said.

    Quote Originally Posted by road runner View Post
    Nothing new if they ignore reality.
    You mean, believe a single accuser and the most implausible scenario? Beyond reasonable doubt? Spare me!
    “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.

  8. #38
    CC Grandmaster road runner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    on the skin of the pale blue dot
    Posts
    12,560
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    If there was actual evidence more than he said - he said.
    The question was asked earlier; what evidence would be convincing to you?
    Or to put it another way - assuming it were true, what evidence would you expect there to be?


    You mean, believe a single accuser and the most implausible scenario? Beyond reasonable doubt? Spare me!
    I mean - reality is a conviction that has survived appeal process (in the hypothetical scenario I was commenting on).
    meep meep

  9. #39
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,990
    One of the reporters covering the trial answers some of the questions raised:
    But courts have been frustrated by the lack of successful prosecutions against sex offenders and the unfairness to victims, so evidence requirements have changed. There is overwhelming evidence that shows many victims do not speak about their abuse until decades later. The vast majority of sexual assault cases now come down to the complainant’s word. To ensure trials are still fair, legislation now requires the judge to give jurors specific directions to balance any unfairness against the defence or complainant when it comes to word on word cases. Jurors are commonly told they must consider that the defendant may be deprived of an alibi (if the complainant cannot specify the time of the alleged offence) and is at significant forensic disadvantage due to the passage of time. They are told it is up to prosecutors to prove guilt, not up to the defence to prove innocence. They are told it is not uncommon for child abuse victims to forget exact dates and peripheral details, or to report only as an adult. The jurors in the Pell case were given clear, repeated directions along these lines.

  10. #40
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    19,589
    Quote Originally Posted by road runner View Post
    The question was asked earlier; what evidence would be convincing to you?
    Or to put it another way - assuming it were true, what evidence would you expect there to be?
    Corroboration of the accuser's claims, a pattern of behaviour evinced by other accusers of Pell, a plausible place and time where this abuse could have happened. As it stands, guilt has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
    “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.

  11. #41
    CC Grandmaster road runner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    on the skin of the pale blue dot
    Posts
    12,560
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    Corroboration of the accuser's claims,
    From whom would you expect that to come in this case? The only other witness is deceased, his life having been consistent with someone who suffered great trauma in childhood.

    a pattern of behaviour evinced by other accusers of Pell,
    I don't see why you would expect this, unless it is alleged that he was a serial abuser as opposed to the incidents for which he was convicted. Anyway there were other charges, that his expensive legal team managed to allow him to dodge.
    a plausible place and time where this abuse could have happened.
    As previously noted including by Frank Brennan and others, victims sometimes get the details wrong. Maybe it was a rehearsal the day before. Maybe it was an hour after the ceremony. Maybe the robes worn on that day weren't the ones furnished to the court decades later. As Brennan said, "Although the complainant got all sorts of facts wrong, the jury must have believed that Pell did something dreadful to him." Maybe he was fuzzy on the time and place, but he remembers quite vividly what was done to him, I expect.

    As it stands, guilt has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
    You cannot know that; you haven't heard the evidence. Those who have did hear it evidently think that he was guilty beyond reasonable doubt. They're in a better position to know than you are.
    meep meep

  12. #42
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,990
    Quote Originally Posted by road runner View Post
    ... Under different circumstances the likes of CF would be talking about "shyster lawyers" and "the anointed".
    I am amazed that Capablanca-Fan has finally conceded that unrestricted free speech can be a bad thing and that unelected judges are needed to protect people from the outcome of a vote.

  13. #43
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    19,589
    Quote Originally Posted by road runner View Post
    From whom would you expect that to come in this case? The only other witness is deceased, his life having been consistent with someone who suffered great trauma in childhood.
    And who denied it to his mother.

    Quote Originally Posted by road runner View Post
    I don't see why you would expect this, unless it is alleged that he was a serial abuser as opposed to the incidents for which he was convicted. Anyway there were other charges, that his expensive legal team managed to allow him to dodge.
    Normally someone with such proclivities doesn't confine it to one person.

    Quote Originally Posted by road runner View Post
    As previously noted including by Frank Brennan and others, victims sometimes get the details wrong.
    But not to propose very implausible scenarios. And there was no cross-examination. The evidentiary maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus has apparently flown the coop.

    Quote Originally Posted by road runner View Post
    Maybe it was a rehearsal the day before. Maybe it was an hour after the ceremony. Maybe the robes worn on that day weren't the ones furnished to the court decades later. As Brennan said, "Although the complainant got all sorts of facts wrong, the jury must have believed that Pell did something dreadful to him." Maybe he was fuzzy on the time and place, but he remembers quite vividly what was done to him, I expect.
    The jury convicted them, yes. But if they convicted him for those reasons, that would have disobeyed the judge's clear instructions, as per the helpful Guardian article PB posted. It should not have been enough to believe that Pell did something dreadful to him. They should have convicted only if they thought there was no reasonable doubt of the fact. And although they were told that they must not make a scapegoat of Pell for abuse in the Catholic church that the media has been all over (ignoring the 100 times more prevalent abuse in the secular government schools), they may have done so anyway.

    The same article said:

    Is there a chance the conviction could get overturned on appeal and how does the process work?
    There is a good chance the appeal will succeed, experts have said, but it is much more likely on one of the three grounds cited by Pell’s lawyers than the other two. The prominent Sydney barrister Bret Walker, not Richter, will lead the appeal.

    So legal experts think there are grounds to distrust the jury.
    Last edited by Capablanca-Fan; 03-03-2019 at 05:47 AM.
    “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. #44
    CC Grandmaster road runner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    on the skin of the pale blue dot
    Posts
    12,560
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    And who denied it to his mother.
    Not unusual.
    But there was another witness - Pell. He declined to testify.


    Normally someone with such proclivities doesn't confine it to one person.
    He was convicted for offences on two people, and there were additional charges on others also.

    But not to propose very implausible scenarios. And there was no cross-examination. The evidentiary maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus has apparently flown the coop.
    From what I read, he was cross-examined at some length. 2 and a half days.
    Mis-remembering small details doesn't mean the event didn't happen. If Pell orally raped him on a Thursday and the victim thought it was a Sunday, would you want Pell walking free?

    Reuters:
    In his closing argument to the jury, prosecutor Mark Gibson, in a quiet voice, called the accuser’s evidence “powerful and persuasive”.

    “He was not a person indulging in fantasy or imagining things to the point where he now believed his own imaginative mind, but was simply telling it as it was and is,” Gibson told the court.

    The jury convicted them, yes. But if they convicted him for those reasons, that would have disobeyed the judge's clear instructions, as per the helpful Guardian article PB posted. It should not have been enough to believe that Pell did something dreadful to him. They should have convicted only if they thought there was no reasonable doubt of the fact. And although they were told that they must not make a scapegoat of Pell for abuse in the Catholic church that the media has been all over (ignoring the 100 times more prevalent abuse in the secular government schools), they may have done so anyway.

    The same article said:

    Is there a chance the conviction could get overturned on appeal and how does the process work?
    There is a good chance the appeal will succeed, experts have said, but it is much more likely on one of the three grounds cited by Pell’s lawyers than the other two. The prominent Sydney barrister Bret Walker, not Richter, will lead the appeal.

    So legal experts think there are grounds to distrust the jury.
    On legal technicalities. They could win, it's possible. And everyone will know it's because of tricky lawyering, not a truth.


    Doubters’ outcry over Pell verdict disrespectful to jury, legal system

    Was George Arthur Pell found guilty, “beyond reasonable doubt”, by a jury of his peers, of orally raping a 13-year-old boy and molesting another? Emphatically, yes.

    Despite that undeniable fact, a series of commentators and conservative figures– mostly those who agitated that he never be put on trial in the first place – have sought to cast serious doubt on the verdict.

    Those figures include Tony Abbott, who has remained front and centre in public support, despite Pell's conviction.

    One of the doubters' key thrusts is that Pell has been found guilty because he is such a high figure in the Catholic Church, and is being made to pay for its manifest sins, rather his own.

    To those commentators, let me ask one quick question: what would have been your reaction if Pell had been found innocent and, in my column, I had written, “Yeah well, I know this man, and I’ve looked at the trial transcripts, and I think he is guilty anyway.”

    Can you imagine?
    ...
    meep meep

  15. #45
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    12,963
    Interested in Chess Lessons?
    Email webbaron!@gmail.com for more Info!

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
  •