George Pell

[CaptainJackson]

Im taking abour your original comment reading the prophet and Aisha.

Those articles are relating to the current state of the world.

I took offence to your original comment and suggesting to looo into it with your imam.

Ffs man leave it after this post. I did not say all Muslims believe this, i grew up Muslim ffs, my parents believe aisha was 18 when she was married, that was their sects belief.

However there are some sects that believe she was 6 and they justify this from their selected hadiths.

I then pointed out that lefties criticize those sects beliefs contrary to someone else saying lefties would never criticize Islam.

Having a reasoned discussion, WITH EVIDENCE, is not disrespecting .

If you want to have the shits with anyone, have the shits with the assholes who marry underage girls and then justify it.

 

[Alexander the Great]

I don't agree with you. It's hate speech. You should be charged.

 

[Dawgfather]

This is one and the same

No it isn't. Many hollywood elites are not jewish.

 

[Dawgfather]

Huh. You think I support the pedo Pell ? Yuk c***, I am hurt by that lol. I know muslim lads cop shit. I have plenty of mates who are muslim. My missus is Lebanese, I have been to Lebanon so i am not this narrow minded drop kick ahahahha. But people aren't reading what I am saying. I said lefty people, all these non bionary, lgbt lads who are very very very vocal always critise Catholics, but are hesitant to do it to Muslims or any other religions cause they don't want to be seen as racist. I never said Haji's don't cop it. I probably should off explained my original comment more in depth ahahah my bad

Just wondering what your basis for defaming someone is? Are you ok with the legal implications of making an assertion that someone has committed and been convicted crimes of a sexual nature against children, when they clearly have not been convicted and have not done the things you are inferring they have done?

The moderators on here should be doing a better job than allowing someone to post defamatory material that could bring the member and the website into legal issues.

For the record I find most media reporting of the high court decision very disappointing. Regardless of whether you hate the catholic church, hate pell, love pell, love the church etc etc, the simple facts of yesterdays high court judgement are these:

1. The man who accused Pell of the crimes changed his story a number of times. This does not mean he is lying, but it raises questions that were not answered.
2. The allegations made against Pell could not have happened in the way they were presented. Multiple witnesses testified Pell would stand on steps outside the church after each Sunday service. Another witnesses testified that Pell was always accompanied by another church official during and after the service (therefore he could not have been on his own)
3. Some of the boys allegations seemed unbelievable:
a. The idea that a very tall priest could molest two choir boys for 5-6 minutes with the door open while hundreds of people were around seems far fetched.
b. The idea that two choir boys could escape a procession with 50 other choir boys and other senior church officials and no one saw them is quite unlikely.
4. Overall (and most importantly), there was NO evidence against Pell other than one person's testimony (the alleged victim).
The alleged victim did not have any other people support his version of events.

Some relevant quotes/comments from the high court judgement:

- All 7 high court judges unanimously ruled that Pell was incorrectly found guilty, should be acquitted and released from jail immediately. Specifically they said:

"For the reasons to be given, it is evident that there is a significant possibility that "an innocent person has been convicted because the evidence did not establish guilt to the requisite standard of proof".

http://www6.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/2020/12.html
- The 2 Victorian Court of appeal judges who ruled against Pell were criticised by the high court for failing to understand the basic principle of 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.

their Honours' analysis failed to engage with the question of whether there remained a reasonable possibility that the offending had not taken place, such that there ought to have been a reasonable doubt as to the applicant's guilt.

https://cdn.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgment-summaries/2020/hca-12-2020-04-07.pdf
- The high court judges ruled that the Jury in the original trial got it wrong (i.e. the jury should have held a reasonable doubt as to whether Pell was guilty), specifically:

"The Court held that, on the assumption that the jury had assessed the complainant's evidence as thoroughly credible and reliable, the evidence of the opportunity witnesses nonetheless required the jury, acting rationally, to have entertained a reasonable doubt as to the applicant's guilt in relation to the offences involved in both alleged incidents"

https://cdn.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgment-summaries/2020/hca-12-2020-04-07.pdf

And to finish, if my biggest enemy was in court facing the same charges, I would want him found innocent under the same scenario. We should not be finding people guilty in this country on the basis of one persons testimony (particularly when there are numerous other people with credible testimony who argue against the allegations).

 

[Paulie Gualtieri]

Just wondering what your basis for defaming someone is? Are you ok with the legal implications of making an assertion that someone has committed and been convicted crimes of a sexual nature against children, when they clearly have not been convicted and have not done the things you are inferring they have done?

The moderators on here should be doing a better job than allowing someone to post defamatory material that could bring the member and the website into legal issues.

For the record I find most media reporting of the high court decision very disappointing. Regardless of whether you hate the catholic church, hate pell, love pell, love the church etc etc, the simple facts of yesterdays high court judgement are these:

1. The man who accused Pell of the crimes changed his story a number of times. This does not mean he is lying, but it raises questions that were not answered.
2. The allegations made against Pell could not have happened in the way they were presented. Multiple witnesses testified Pell would stand on steps outside the church after each Sunday service. Another witnesses testified that Pell was always accompanied by another church official during and after the service (therefore he could not have been on his own)
3. Some of the boys allegations seemed unbelievable:
a. The idea that a very tall priest could molest two choir boys for 5-6 minutes with the door open while hundreds of people were around seems far fetched.
b. The idea that two choir boys could escape a procession with 50 other choir boys and other senior church officials and no one saw them is quite unlikely.
4. Overall (and most importantly), there was NO evidence against Pell other than one person's testimony (the alleged victim).
The alleged victim did not have any other people support his version of events.

Some relevant quotes/comments from the high court judgement:

- All 7 high court judges unanimously ruled that Pell was incorrectly found guilty, should be acquitted and released from jail immediately. Specifically they said:


http://www6.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/2020/12.html
- The 2 Victorian Court of appeal judges who ruled against Pell were criticised by the high court for failing to understand the basic principle of 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.
https://cdn.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgment-summaries/2020/hca-12-2020-04-07.pdf
- The high court judges ruled that the Jury in the original trial got it wrong (i.e. the jury should have held a reasonable doubt as to whether Pell was guilty), specifically:

https://cdn.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgment-summaries/2020/hca-12-2020-04-07.pdf

And to finish, if my biggest enemy was in court facing the same charges, I would want him found innocent under the same scenario. We should not be finding people guilty in this country on the basis of one persons testimony (particularly when there are numerous other people with credible testimony who argue against the allegations).

You're right. He has been cleared so that is how everyone should see it. But does it upset you that much i think he did it? Who cares, people always disagree with things. As of the forum I doubt it will get in trouble How many horrible and ruthless statements have been made on here and what do you know nothing has happened hahahahaha. Relax bro the kennel is safe.

 

[Typical dog]

Just wondering what your basis for defaming someone is? Are you ok with the legal implications of making an assertion that someone has committed and been convicted crimes of a sexual nature against children, when they clearly have not been convicted and have not done the things you are inferring they have done?

The moderators on here should be doing a better job than allowing someone to post defamatory material that could bring the member and the website into legal issues.

For the record I find most media reporting of the high court decision very disappointing. Regardless of whether you hate the catholic church, hate pell, love pell, love the church etc etc, the simple facts of yesterdays high court judgement are these:

1. The man who accused Pell of the crimes changed his story a number of times. This does not mean he is lying, but it raises questions that were not answered.
2. The allegations made against Pell could not have happened in the way they were presented. Multiple witnesses testified Pell would stand on steps outside the church after each Sunday service. Another witnesses testified that Pell was always accompanied by another church official during and after the service (therefore he could not have been on his own)
3. Some of the boys allegations seemed unbelievable:
a. The idea that a very tall priest could molest two choir boys for 5-6 minutes with the door open while hundreds of people were around seems far fetched.
b. The idea that two choir boys could escape a procession with 50 other choir boys and other senior church officials and no one saw them is quite unlikely.
4. Overall (and most importantly), there was NO evidence against Pell other than one person's testimony (the alleged victim).
The alleged victim did not have any other people support his version of events.

Some relevant quotes/comments from the high court judgement:

- All 7 high court judges unanimously ruled that Pell was incorrectly found guilty, should be acquitted and released from jail immediately. Specifically they said:


http://www6.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/2020/12.html
- The 2 Victorian Court of appeal judges who ruled against Pell were criticised by the high court for failing to understand the basic principle of 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.
https://cdn.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgment-summaries/2020/hca-12-2020-04-07.pdf
- The high court judges ruled that the Jury in the original trial got it wrong (i.e. the jury should have held a reasonable doubt as to whether Pell was guilty), specifically:

https://cdn.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgment-summaries/2020/hca-12-2020-04-07.pdf

And to finish, if my biggest enemy was in court facing the same charges, I would want him found innocent under the same scenario. We should not be finding people guilty in this country on the basis of one persons testimony (particularly when there are numerous other people with credible testimony who argue against the allegations).

Do you acknowledge that Pell has helped numerous pedos escape the law and has offered victims hush money?

 

[LFC Bulldogs]

The legal system needs an overhaul.
I'm not even going to get into the debate of whether Pell is innocent or guilty.
The Police open an investigation based on witness allegations, forward it to the DPP who proceed with the matter ,it then proceeds to the Magistrates Court, County Court and then Court of Appeal...… the High Court reverse everything that that happened prior 7-0. 7 judges voted to acquit .

Something isn't right with our legal system.

 

[Dawgfather]

But does it upset you that much i think he did it?

Not at all, one of the best things in AUstralia is that we all have the freedom to assess objective facts and make our own minds up.

Given how closely I've followed this case, I'd be curious how anyone made their mind up that Pell was guilty. You can feel free to answer that or not answer it, I do (in all seriousness) respect your freedom to have your own opinion.

*edit* To protect yourself and this forum you should honestly go back and remove any potentially defamatory comments you made about Pell.

 

[Dawgfather]

Do you acknowledge that Pell has helped numerous pedos escape the law and has offered victims hush money?

This I can't comment on because I honestly don't know.

I became really interested in the case because of all the hype around it. So I followed it very closely and read each of the judgements from the original trial, to the appeal in Victoria and now the high court.

 

[Paulie Gualtieri]

Not at all, one of the best things in AUstralia is that we all have the freedom to assess objective facts and make our own minds up.

Given how closely I've followed this case, I'd be curious how anyone made their mind up that Pell was guilty. You can feel free to answer that or not answer it, I do (in all seriousness) respect your freedom to have your own opinion.

*edit* To protect yourself and this forum you should honestly go back and remove any potentially defamatory comments you made about Pell.

I think he is guilty cause of the churches history with child abuse. That's it really. I have nothing against the church, I am not a religious person but I am not an atheist either. Big yes to the freedom to assess comment you made.

 

[Kelpie03]

was this situation reported by the media? or is it a fake story?

links please

If you had to ask weather the Pell cases was fake media story, it can only prove that you carry a bias, (or more correctly a permanent hate) which proves beyond any doubt that you are not willing to search for and believe the truth, and for this I can only feel sorry for you.
Bias people have been responsible for all of the worlds problems, so if you hate all Catholics do you think that Mother Theresa should have been treated as a criminal.
BTW I once did meet Mother Theresa, and I have known a few bad Catholic Brothers and one or two Priests, I believe that we will all be judged by the Almighty in the end and that includes the HATE people.

 

[Dawgfather]

The legal system needs an overhaul.
I'm not even going to get into the debate of whether Pell is innocent or guilty.
The Police open an investigation based on witness allegations, forward it to the DPP who proceed with the matter ,it then proceeds to the Magistrates Court, County Court and then Court of Appeal...… the High Court reverse everything that that happened prior 7-0. 7 judges voted to acquit .

Something isn't right with our legal system.

Also, something is not right with your ability to review facts and then comment on them.

Your comment about how the investigation started is not right, or at least does not provide the proper context. Strangely, the victorian police went in search of people from the church within a particular year and asked if they had any information about sexual crimes. It appeared as if the police were searching for information to warrant charges. This is strange because typically police are responsible for investigating AFTER allegations have been made, not BEFORE.

The OPP did not proceed with the matter and originally they recommended against charging him. The police then went back to them and asked them to look at it again, and this time they said there was enough to charge but strangely left the decision up to police.

You also left out the information that the original (first) trial could not reach a verdict so the state had another crack, ran another trial and managed to get a guilty verdict.

You are right to ask questions but the proper questions in my estimation should be:

- How did a jury of 12 get their verdict so wrong
- Why did the 2 most senior judges in Victoria (on the appeal court) fail to apply the correct burden of proof for a criminal law case.
- Why did Victorian police proceed with charges against Pell, after the Victorian DPP initially recommend that the police not proceed with charging him?

 

[Dawgfather]

I think he is guilty cause of the churches history with child abuse. That's it really. I have nothing against the church, I am not a religious person but I am not an atheist either. Big yes to the freedom to assess comment you made.

On that basis, if you ever have anything to do with an institution or group that has a poor record of dealing with crimes, then by association you are guilty as well.

 

[Kelpie03]

I think he is guilty cause of the churches history with child abuse. That's it really. I have nothing against the church, I am not a religious person but I am not an atheist either. Big yes to the freedom to assess comment you made.

So by your estimation all Catholics a child molesters, BTW the Catholic Church has been the first institution to expose its bad apples, how about you take a serious look at some other institutions.

 

[LFC Bulldogs]

Also, something is not right with your ability to review facts and then comment on them.

Your comment about how the investigation started is not right, or at least does not provide the proper context. Strangely, the victorian police went in search of people from the church within a particular year and asked if they had any information about sexual crimes. It appeared as if the police were searching for information to warrant charges. This is strange because typically police are responsible for investigating AFTER allegations have been made, not BEFORE.

The OPP did not proceed with the matter and originally they recommended against charging him. The police then went back to them and asked them to look at it again, and this time they said there was enough to charge but strangely left the decision up to police.

You also left out the information that the original (first) trial could not reach a verdict so the state had another crack, ran another trial and managed to get a guilty verdict.

You are right to ask questions but the proper questions in my estimation should be:

- How did a jury of 12 get their verdict so wrong
- Why did the 2 most senior judges in Victoria (on the appeal court) fail to apply the correct burden of proof for a criminal law case.
- Why did Victorian police proceed with charges against Pell, after the Victorian DPP initially recommend that the police not proceed with charging him?

Regardless of the intricacies of who did what and what they should and shouldn't have done, its process was straight forward.

1. A complaint was made
2. Police investigate , and decide to lay charges
3. The DPP ( regardless of what they did or didn't recommend ) proceeded in prosecuting the matter. They could have dropped the matter, they didn't.
4. Every Court up to the court of appeal did NOT acquit or throw the matter out.
5. The High Court unanimously acquits him .

Like I said, our legal system needs to be reformed.

 

[N4TE]

If you had to ask weather the Pell cases was fake media story, it can only prove that you carry a bias, (or more correctly a permanent hate) which proves beyond any doubt that you are not willing to search for and believe the truth, and for this I can only feel sorry for you.
Bias people have been responsible for all of the worlds problems, so if you hate all Catholics do you think that Mother Theresa should have been treated as a criminal.
BTW I once did meet Mother Theresa, and I have known a few bad Catholic Brothers and one or two Priests, I believe that we will all be judged by the Almighty in the end and that includes the HATE people.

Yeah but dude why are you right?

 

[Dawgfather]

Regardless of the intricacies of who did what and what they should and shouldn't have done, its process was straight forward.

1. A complaint was made
2. Police investigate , and decide to lay charges
3. The DPP ( regardless of what they did or didn't recommend ) proceeded in prosecuting the matter. They could have dropped the matter, they didn't.
4. Every Court up to the court of appeal did NOT acquit or throw the matter out.
5. The High Court unanimously acquits him .

Like I said, our legal system needs to be reformed.

Are you saying our legal system needs to be reformed because you didn't like the verdict?

Which part of the high courts judgement do you disagree with? Quote the specific evidence or point of law.

I bet you don't have a solid reason for your opinion, you are just likely butt hurt that your assumptions about Pell that you've gladly lapped up from the media without doing your own independent research were wrong.

 

[Paulie Gualtieri]

So by your estimation all Catholics a child molesters, BTW the Catholic Church has been the first institution to expose its bad apples, how about you take a serious look at some other institutions.

I don't think they are all chomo's. Sure the Church have exposed their pedo's but they also covered for them just like other institutions have.

 

[Wahesh]

"forgive me father for I have sinned, I molested 37 kids this year so far"

"really? tell me what you did to them...."

 

[Wahesh]

Regardless of the intricacies of who did what and what they should and shouldn't have done, its process was straight forward.

1. A complaint was made
2. Police investigate , and decide to lay charges
3. The DPP ( regardless of what they did or didn't recommend ) proceeded in prosecuting the matter. They could have dropped the matter, they didn't.
4. Every Court up to the court of appeal did NOT acquit or throw the matter out.
5. The High Court unanimously acquits him .

Like I said, our legal system needs to be reformed.

Yes it does. The High court should be step 2.