George Pell

Headline "man molests 20 kids inside blue van"

wahesh "that van is not even blue, its violet at best"

 

headline "man who helped dispose of dead body charged with obstruction of justice and conspiracy"

wahesh "this is an overreaction, he knew that there was not going to be enough evidence to convict him in court, so instead of being laughed out of court the only thing he could do was help dispose of the body"

 

Neutral, concerned members of the Australian public who are fed up with abuse of power of institutions and paedophilia, will judge and condemn Pell on the RC findings and therefore his reputation accordingly.


There are still legal proceedings regarding direct sexual accusations against him to be dealt with. He will receive the presumption of innocence until those matters are dealt with, however, the RC is very damning against his character and truthfulness.


The Law Council, in attempting to explain the judgement, also go much further in openly encouraging the publication of the RC unredacted findings regarding Pell for public assessment.


https://www.lawcouncil.asn.au/media...s-on-the-high-court-judgment-pell-v-the-queen




It's proof enough to make your own assessment on the man, the priest, the humble human being and protector of vulnerable children in his flock.


Perhaps the penultimate judgement awaits on how he and fellow priests served the children, and their families, entrusted to their pastoral care.

 

I'm hesitant to say much about the RC discussion around Pell because I don't think it's possible for any truth to come out because of the witch hunt and media frenzy that has been whipped up over the last 5-6 years.

This is a shame because there is nothing more important than the truth (particularly when it comes to people abusing innocent children, which is monstrously disgusting).

The other problem is we are discussing events which took place 30+ years ago when (at that time) it was not common for people to be as aware about child abuse as we are today. Many people back then innocently overlooked child abusers actions because they didn't realise what was going on.

I'm not saying Pell did or didn't know what was going on back then, but i am saying that none of us are going to find out the truth because too many people are more interested in holding their ideological lines and either finding him innocent or finding him guilty.

It's the same reason why he couldn't get a fair trial. Look how keen one of the juries was in finding him guilty (despite the significant evidence to the contrary).

In summary, this whole Pell issue is a perfect case study in why ideology is so dangerous, because it often prevents any truth from being found.

As a footnote, (I've said this many times) the catholic church were previously criminally negligent with how they dealt with some priests who abused children. It's disgusting and rightfully so many of the priests have been put before courts and properly punished (I hope they never come out of jail).

 

what are you talking about witch hunt and media frenzy? so you are saying that the media are overblowing the situation and innocent people are being hunted down by the media?

tell me who has been incorrectly hunted down by the media? or why the media aren't handling this correctly?

the royal commission found that he knew about it, so how about you go with that, or how about you use simple logic like when I didn't need the royal commission findings to be released to know that he knew, because setting up a pedophile hush program and all the priests getting moved away is a dead giveaway

Pell "hmm i have no idea about any child abuse in my church and nobody has ever said anything to me but id like to randomly set up a church response to child abuse to investigate claims and pay off victims for absolutely no reason"

pell is criminally negligent and you cant cloud things up to protect him, im surprised you even tried

 

Respectfully, I think parts of your response are the reason why I don't think any truth is going to come out of this. There are also other people blindly defending Pell, and I say the same thing to them. They have pre-conceived ideas and they are creating an environment where the truth won't be found.

I'm not interested in defending or protecting Pell. I'm not saying he's perfect and I'm not saying he's the devil. I'm simply saying the truth is not going to come out because too many people have pre-conceived ideas about the man.

 

I’m not saying he’s completely innocent either because we know that’s not true... on a case by case basis though, he was wrongfully convicted in his most recent trial.

 

are you trying to break the world record for ignorance?

thousands of victims, complaints made that went up the chain, complaints made directly to him, nobody turned in, all priests moved along, hush fund set up

my recommendation is if you don't want people to have pre conceived ideas about you then don't protect pedophiles and allow them to continue to work with kids because people hate that

 

I'm with you on this one

 

are you? You're welcome to your opinion, but you don't need to jam it down someone elses throat. I simply stated I think people have pre-conceived ideas about Pell and you are a case in point.

 

you also stated that there was a witch hunt, that 30 years ago it was more difficult to know about child abuse and that the truth cant come out

so you are going to the full press defence for pell downplaying the royal commission, the media is out to get him, we cant know the truth but even if it was true then it was just a sign of the times

 

No I am not saying that. I've said there appears to be an agenda amongst some people (particularly at the ABC) towards Pell. I think many other areas of the media being the lazy journalists they are, simply took the ABC's lead and spent very little time looking at the actual facts and evidence of the allegations against Pell and his ensuing trial. A narrative was created because there was only one line being spoken about in the media, and then when the second jury found him guilty, then the narrative become 'truth' in many people's minds.

What I've just said doesn't make me a Pell 'fan'. I don't know the man, I have no reason to blindly 'support' him.

I simply don't like seeing someone prosecuted and charged and found guilty of a crime they clearly didn't commit. It doesn't matter whether the person is a catholic archbishop, a poor homeless person, a rich business person, black/white/asian or even my biggest enemy. In western nations we should not allow people to go to jail when it is very clear they have not committed a crime.

Yes, I believe there was a witch hunt in place to attempt to find Pell guilty of a crime. I think the motivation for this was the severe anguish, trauma and grief caused by the catholic church in it's handling of child abuse claims dating back decades. Pell was seen as the figurehead of the church in Australia and people have allowed their emotions and hatred to take over.

It's very easy to rationalise your behaviour if you think it's grounded in virtue. For example, if you are so vengeful because that catholic church committed terrible crimes against you or your loved ones, perhaps you think it's just and reasonable that the figurehead of that church be torn down in any way possible.

It isn't just my opinion, it's established fact that many decades ago there was not the same awareness and understanding of child sex abuse that there is now in 2020. The only reason I believe the truth will not come out in relation to Pell is what I've stated above (i.e. too many people are too emotional, and too many lazy journalists are not interested in being independent and uncovering facts).

 

All this decision does is confirm my suspicions..

I agree..

 

An eye witness testimony versus the other eye witness who refused to take the stand. All other "witnesses", were witness to BAU process, not the event in question.

The first trial, the magistrate clearly explained what "reasonable doubt" was to the jury, yet it was still as 12-0 outcome from the jury.

The appeals court, would have a better understanding than your average citizen of "reasonable doubt", and found it 2-1 in favour of the victim. They also found the victim to be a credible witness.

The high court (if you have the money to go that far), called on a technicality of not reaching reasonable doubt. They also found the victim credible, however, they felt there wasn't enough evidence to reach beyond "reasonable doubt".

Again, like usual, your skewing the facts.

Again skewing the facts. It came down to a VERY technical definition of "reasonable doubt". The magistrate, in the first trial, EXPLAINED TO THE JURY what reasonable doubt means. The jury, being our fellow citizens and average joes, are not in tune to the ins and outs of legal definition/terminology. Furthermore the appeals court rejected the appeal and it had to be taken to a high court to get off on a technicality.

Bullshit conspiracy theory without ANY JUSTIFICATION WHAT SO EVER. But again you listen to that dumb fuck Andrew Bolt, no doubt his talking points.

How about a royal commission was conducted, victims finally felt their VOICES WERE BEING HEARD and as a consequence finally had the conviction to step up and lodge a complaint.

But nah, it's a political witch hunt. FFS that dumb!

No Alan's staements don't contradict, it's quite crystal clear what he is saying. But again we some skewing.

I think a fair and reasonable person would read your posts and conclude that you parrot whatever andrew bolt says, which isn't really a glowing reference given bolt is a zero.

It was a made up witch hunt people by the victorian courts and police!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No bias what so ever, of course. But it was a WITCH HUNT by victorian police!!!! Don't ask me for proof, just look at them!!!!!

Bloody communist victorian government, they're just like the Chinese!!!!!! But I'm not biased I swear!!!!!!!

Bloody commie victorian state govt, courts and police!!!!!!

FFS, facepalm. More skewing of the facts.

The victim/witness WAS FOUND TO BE CREDIBLE!!!!!!

You don't say?Gees your ideology has just bee seeping through your comments. Do you care to comment about Linda Chamberlain being convicted and the rejection from the high court, to show how the high court gets it right 100% of the time? Or doesn't ideology come into it then? Only when you want it to?

Do you talk to yourself often? Maybe you should see someone about that.

OMFG!!!!!!!!! You can't seriously be this stupid to take that line from news corpse hook line and sinker. News corpse themselves led with the stories about Pell. Get your facts correct. But of course you're not defending your ideology, just baseless accusations of ABC.

In conclusion, I'm not going to bother with the rest because you post a whole lot of garbage DOWN IDEOLOGICAL LINES. Word for word your arguments come out news corpse.