Page 8 of 14 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 202
  1. #106
    CC Grandmaster Desmond's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The island
    Posts
    13,439
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    How faith was lost on judgment day for a state legal system
    Justice Mark Weinberg’s dissent is long and closely reasoned, ensuring grave doubts about Pell’s guilt will not be dissipated by the 2-1 verdict against him.
    The a priori position held by paedophile Pell's supporters needed no bolstering - they would have clung on to any dissent no matter if the reasons given were that the dissenting justice had Elvis appear to him/her in a dream and crooned the word "innocent" while doubling Jesus on a unicycle.

    Given this minority judgment, Pell’s legal team is likely to take recourse to the High Court.
    Again there was never any doubt of this, Cardinal Paedophile's legal resources are practically limitless. Indeed his victim gave thanks that Ridsdale's former bunk buddy had the best defence that money can buy.

    The majority case, obviously, must be accepted.
    Yep. It's actually interesting to read the judgment including the systematic analysis of why the paedophile's defence was unsuccessful.
    But a reading of the entire judgment suggests the majority case is flawed and less convincing than the minority.
    lol A priori much.

    Requiring only a majority to overturn seems a fairly low bar when compared to unanimous requirement to convict, but nope not this time buddy.
    So what's your excuse? To run like the devil's chasing you.

    See you in another life, brotha.

  2. #107
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    1,110
    John Finnis AC QC is professor emeritus at Oxford University, having been Professor of Law and Legal Philosophy from 1989 to 2010. He is a Fellow of the British Academy (Law and Philosophy sections). A barrister of Gray’s Inn, he practised from 1979 to 1995 and was appointed Queen’s Counsel [QC] (honoris causa) in 2017. Originally from South Australia, he was created a Companion in the Order of Australia in 2019 ‘for eminent service to the law, and to education, to legal theory and philosophical enquiry, and as a leading jurist, academic and author’.

    Here is his analysis of the Judgment: where-the-pell-judgment-went-fatally-wrong

  3. #108
    CC Grandmaster Desmond's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The island
    Posts
    13,439
    Quote Originally Posted by idledim View Post
    John Finnis AC QC is professor emeritus at Oxford University, having been Professor of Law and Legal Philosophy from 1989 to 2010. He is a Fellow of the British Academy (Law and Philosophy sections). A barrister of Gray’s Inn, he practised from 1979 to 1995 and was appointed Queen’s Counsel [QC] (honoris causa) in 2017. Originally from South Australia, he was created a Companion in the Order of Australia in 2019 ‘for eminent service to the law, and to education, to legal theory and philosophical enquiry, and as a leading jurist, academic and author’.

    Here is his analysis of the Judgment: where-the-pell-judgment-went-fatally-wrong
    One term not used in this particular article is "advantage". I.e. the advantage that the jury had, and indeed so did the appeal court, of having, you know, heard the evidence from the former choirboy. The author of that article has never heard it.

    It's great that idledim has found someone with some legal experiece to write a piece defending paedophile Pell. But you know what, I reckon the court of appeal justices have some credentials too. I'll leave that as an exercise for idledim to document them. And of course, they heard the evidence and deliberated on it for some time. That's probably useful, unless of course you already decided the outcome without bothering with encumberances like evidence.
    So what's your excuse? To run like the devil's chasing you.

    See you in another life, brotha.

  4. #109
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    1,110
    Quote Originally Posted by road runner View Post
    One term not used in this particular article is "advantage". I.e. the advantage that the jury had, and indeed so did the appeal court, of having, you know, heard the evidence from the former choirboy. The author of that article has never heard it.

    It's great that idledim has found someone with some legal experiece to write a piece defending paedophile Pell. But you know what, I reckon the court of appeal justices have some credentials too. I'll leave that as an exercise for idledim to document them. And of course, they heard the evidence and deliberated on it for some time. That's probably useful, unless of course you already decided the outcome without bothering with encumberances like evidence.
    All 3 Appeal judges have brilliant minds and a wealth of experience. For what it's worth, it is usually acknowledged that the dissenting judge is the most experienced. That they saw the law differently should mean, in my view, that the High Court grants leave to Appeal - because only it can finally rule on the correct approach in such cases. The majority view appears to be that, howsoever implausible or improbable each of the circumstances might be, none were impossible and it was therefore open to the jury to deliver a guilty verdict. The dissenting view seems to be that, when all the improbabilities and implausibilities are added up, they amount to practical impossibility.

    This is not a matter of whether anyone, whether they be the Appeal judges or learned commentators like John Finnis AO QC, has or has not reviewed the evidence. It is about judicial responses to evidence and obviously different understandings about that process of review. I think the High Court only grant Leave to Appeal in about 15 per cent of cases. I think John Finnis' response provides another reason why it should hear this Appeal.
    Last edited by idledim; 11-09-2019 at 09:12 PM.

  5. #110
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    1,110
    This article outlines Professor Keith Windschuttle's concerns with the evidence: the-contradictions-of-the-choirboy/

  6. #111
    CC Grandmaster Desmond's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The island
    Posts
    13,439
    Quote Originally Posted by idledim View Post
    All 3 Appeal judges have brilliant minds and a wealth of experience. For what it's worth, it is usually acknowledged that the dissenting judge is the most experienced. That they saw the law differently should mean, in my view, that the High Court grants leave to Appeal - because only it can finally rule on the correct approach in such cases. The majority view appears to be that, howsoever implausible or improbable each of the circumstances might be, none were impossible and it was therefore open to the jury to deliver a guilty verdict. The dissenting view seems to be that, when all the improbabilities and implausibilities are added up, they amount to practical impossibility.

    This is not a matter of whether anyone, whether they be the Appeal judges or learned commentators like John Finnis AO QC, has or has not reviewed the evidence. It is about judicial responses to evidence and obviously different understandings about that process of review. I think the High Court only grant Leave to Appeal in about 15 per cent of cases. I think John Finnis' response provides another reason why it should hear this Appeal.
    I am reminded of previous remarks:

    Quote Originally Posted by idledim View Post
    ...The court must also independently review the evidence. Indeed, the High Court has ruled that it must and I am confident it will do its duty.
    ...
    What happened to the confidence? Reviewing evidence seems (seemed) to be important, so I guess having access to it might be useful.

    In any case, of the 3 appeal court judges, one is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Victoria, another is President of the Victorian Court of Appeal, and the other is the dissenter.
    So what's your excuse? To run like the devil's chasing you.

    See you in another life, brotha.

  7. #112
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    1,110
    I have already indicated why I believe that the issue in the Pell case is not about whether the court properly reviewed the evidence, but about how courts should be directed to review evidence. I have also indicated that I believe all three judges have brilliant minds and a wealth of experience. The dissenting judge has more criminal law experience than either the Chief Justice or the President of the Victorian Court of Appeal - that's all. Indeed, Mark Weinberg has been described as Australia's most prominent criminal law jurist. Professor Mirko Bagaric (a Swinburne legal academic) described him as, 'clearly the brightest bloke on the Victorian Court of Appeal.' Mark Weinberg formed the view that the conviction was not safe. It is impossible to read his 204 page dissent without concluding that the High Court should grant George Pell special leave to Appeal. He lists a number of cases where, “notwithstanding the apparent credibility of a complainant in relation to an allegation of sexual abuse, the countervailing circumstances, including any defence evidence, have led the High Court to quash the conviction and enter a verdict of acquittal”.

    Here is the article by Mirko Bagaric: dissenting-judge-gives-pell-reason-to-clutch-at-high-court-lifeline
    Last edited by idledim; 11-09-2019 at 11:56 PM.

  8. #113
    CC Grandmaster Desmond's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The island
    Posts
    13,439
    Quote Originally Posted by idledim View Post
    Mark Weinberg formed the view that the conviction was not safe. It is impossible to read his 204 page dissent without concluding that the High Court should grant George Pell special leave to Appeal.
    Impossible would seem to be a term bandied about a lot of late in an incorrect usage.

    I would say that it is impossible to conclude that the majority view judges did not fully read and consider the dissenting opinion, and that being the case means that your assertion that for them to do so and come to the conclusion that they did being impossible is in itself an impossible assertion.


    He lists a number of cases where, “notwithstanding the apparent credibility of a complainant in relation to an allegation of sexual abuse, the countervailing circumstances, including any defence evidence, have led the High Court to quash the conviction and enter a verdict of acquittal”.
    And the fact that he was unable to persuade the other 2 brilliant jurists of that point of view is perhaps an indication that it's not as clear cut as some would like it to be.

    As though Pell attempting to take it to the high court is news to anybody.
    So what's your excuse? To run like the devil's chasing you.

    See you in another life, brotha.

  9. #114
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    1,110
    Quote Originally Posted by road runner View Post
    Impossible would seem to be a term bandied about a lot of late in an incorrect usage.

    I would say that it is impossible to conclude that the majority view judges did not fully read and consider the dissenting opinion, and that being the case means that your assertion that for them to do so and come to the conclusion that they did being impossible is in itself an impossible assertion.
    If this is true, then it should be easy for you to show us where Anne Ferguson & Chris Maxwell indicate that George Pell should not be given special leave. Personally, I'd be surprised if such eminent jurists took it upon themselves to decide in advance what the High Court should decide. Indeed, one of the reasons for publishing reasons is to give higher courts an indication of the judges reasoning.

    In this case, whether or not compounding improbabilities should equal practical impossibility in the mind of the jury is now a question best addressed by the High Court.
    Last edited by idledim; 12-09-2019 at 08:49 AM.

  10. #115
    CC Grandmaster Desmond's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The island
    Posts
    13,439
    Quote Originally Posted by idledim View Post
    If this is true, then it should be easy for you to show us where Anne Ferguson & Chris Maxwell indicate that George Pell should not be given special leave.
    indeed so, I refer you to the fact that they dismissed the appeal in full knowledge of the dissent opinion.

    In this case, whether or not compounding improbabilities should equal practical impossibility in the mind of the jury is now a question best addressed by the High Court.
    because you didn't get the answer you wanted.
    So what's your excuse? To run like the devil's chasing you.

    See you in another life, brotha.

  11. #116
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    1,110
    Quote Originally Posted by road runner View Post
    indeed so, I refer you to the fact that they dismissed the appeal in full knowledge of the dissent opinion.

    because you didn't get the answer you wanted.
    The question is whether or not special leave should be granted. When the majority refer to the dissenting opinion they do not address this - nor should they. The majority view was that it was open to the jury to convict because, in their view, none of the 13 or so circumstances described by the Defence as impossibilities was actually impossible. The dissenting opinion was that compounding improbabilities equals - as it does, said Mark Weinberg, in game theory, practical impossibility. In other words, by misunderstanding your task, you've avoided it. It really is as simple as that in this case.

  12. #117
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    20,687
    For some, including the jury and two of the appeals judges, the perceived need to punish the Catholic church trumped normal notions of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’—in this case an uncorroborated accusation about something that allegedly occurred decades ago, without the slightest forensic evidence.
    Last edited by Capablanca-Fan; 12-09-2019 at 02:26 PM.
    “The history of the 20th century is full of examples of countries that set out to redistribute wealth and ended up redistributing poverty.”
    “There’s no point blaming the tragedies of socialism on the flaws or corruption of particular leaders. Any system which allows some people to exercise unbridled power over others is an open invitation to abuse, whether that system is called slavery or socialism or something else.”—Thomas Sowell

  13. #118
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,336
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    For some, including the jury and two of the appeals judges, the perceived need to punish the Catholic church trumped normal notions of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’—in this case an uncorroborated accusation about something that allegedly occurred decades ago, without the slightest forensic evidence.
    So everyone (including all twelve jurors!) who thinks Pell is guilty is driven by a need to punish the Catholic Church

  14. #119
    CC Grandmaster Desmond's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The island
    Posts
    13,439
    Quote Originally Posted by idledim View Post
    The question is whether or not special leave should be granted. When the majority refer to the dissenting opinion they do not address this - nor should they. The majority view was that it was open to the jury to convict because, in their view, none of the 13 or so circumstances described by the Defence as impossibilities was actually impossible. The dissenting opinion was that compounding improbabilities equals - as it does, said Mark Weinberg, in game theory, practical impossibility. In other words, by misunderstanding your task, you've avoided it. It really is as simple as that in this case.
    My only task, such that I had any task at all, was to show that your assertion that it was impossible to disagree with the dissenting opinion was wrong, was really a lay down misere.

    But while we're talking about completing tasks, I am yet to hear any comment on why your confidence that the appeal court would duly hear the evidence and justly rule was thrown out the window after you heard their ruling. In the absence of such I will assume it's because it disagreed with your a priori position.

    Paedo Pell was looking forward to his day in court. Until he got convicted.
    His supporters were looking forward to the appeal, until it got rejected.
    Now their hoping for another round.

    It's a bit like a little kid who loses at rock paper scissors and wants to go for two out of three. Then when they lose again, they want best of 5. Convict Catholic Cardinal has it even better than that, he doesn't need to win best of 5, just once will do. Maybe if he rolls the dice often enough he'll get Yatzhee, until then his supports can believe what they want in spite of the evidence and its consideration.
    So what's your excuse? To run like the devil's chasing you.

    See you in another life, brotha.

  15. #120
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    1,110
    Quote Originally Posted by road runner View Post
    My only task, such that I had any task at all, was to show that your assertion that it was impossible to disagree with the dissenting opinion was wrong, was really a lay down misere.

    But while we're talking about completing tasks, I am yet to hear any comment on why your confidence that the appeal court would duly hear the evidence and justly rule was thrown out the window after you heard their ruling. In the absence of such I will assume it's because it disagreed with your a priori position.

    Paedo Pell was looking forward to his day in court. Until he got convicted.
    His supporters were looking forward to the appeal, until it got rejected.
    Now their hoping for another round.

    It's a bit like a little kid who loses at rock paper scissors and wants to go for two out of three. Then when they lose again, they want best of 5. Convict Catholic Cardinal has it even better than that, he doesn't need to win best of 5, just once will do. Maybe if he rolls the dice often enough he'll get Yatzhee, until then his supports can believe what they want in spite of the evidence and its consideration.
    Please do not misquote me, RR - or else show where I have ever asserted that it was impossible to disagree with the dissenting opinion.You keep making this mistake. I keep reminding you that I did not say it - and you keep saying i said it. What i said in post # 122 was that it was impossible to read the dissenting opinion without concluding that the High Court should grant special leave in this case. This is very different from an assertion that the dissenting opinion must be right!

    It is also incorrect to assert that I have somehow lost my faith in the ability of the Victorian Court of Appeal to independently and properly review the evidence - the context of which was originally your failure to understand the responsibilities of the Victorian Court of Appeal when reviewing criminal convictions. You have continued to assert this rubbish despite my clear indications that, in my view, the issue is not about whether the court has done its job in reviewing the evidence; and that it is now, in the context of the two clearly competing principles revealed by the Majority judgment and the dissenting opinion, about how courts should be directed to review the evidence. That decent, brilliant and experienced judges should review the same evidence so differently ought to give rise to, at least the possibility, that the conviction is not safe. To suggest otherwise is either malicious or just plain silly.

    Your repeated misrepresentations of what I have actually said on this matter is nothing to do with me, of course - but that they are misrepresentations can be quickly and easily checked by anyone following this discussion.

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
  •