Rybags 1,024 Posted March 13 Ligher sentence because he's old... lame. Have to wonder though, will others come out of the woodwork? Generally for every case that's reported there's multiple more that aren't. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mac Dude 326 Posted March 13 46 minutes ago, fliptopia said: Well maybe his appeal will go awry for him and he'll end up with more? Stay tuned I guess. My very limited legal knowledge has me thinking that his appeal will be successful and there will be a new trial. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cybes 1,150 Posted March 13 2 hours ago, fliptopia said: Well maybe his appeal will go awry for him and he'll end up with more? Stay tuned I guess. At his age, 6 is a significant portion of his life. And I don't imagine he's going to be general population, so he'll be lonely as hell. I am not in any way sympathetic to him - just recognising what he's in for. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fliptopia 131 Posted March 13 1 hour ago, Mac Dude said: My very limited legal knowledge has me thinking that his appeal will be successful and there will be a new trial. Yeah, I think it may be headed that way. Too many high up friends to make anything stick. But maybe there will be enough public sentiment that they'll be prepared to let this one go to avoid a bit of extra scrutiny on the church that it may get if everything gets overturned... 10 minutes ago, Cybes said: At his age, 6 is a significant portion of his life. And I don't imagine he's going to be general population, so he'll be lonely as hell. I am not in any way sympathetic to him - just recognising what he's in for. 3 and 8 months in real terms. He knows how to act like a good boy Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
eveln 832 Posted March 13 (edited) 1 hour ago, Cybes said: At his age, 6 is a significant portion of his life. And I don't imagine he's going to be general population, so he'll be lonely as hell. I am not in any way sympathetic to him - just recognising what he's in for. Only will he get close to six years is if his appeal fails and then, his parole hearing fails. He has the look of shock in his eyes now. I'd say his brain will take him elsewhere ... where exactly I don't know Edited March 13 by eveln Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
scruffy1 648 Posted March 13 2 hours ago, fliptopia said: 3 and 8 months in real terms. He knows how to act like a good boy ouch ! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mac Dude 326 Posted March 13 2 hours ago, fliptopia said: Yeah, I think it may be headed that way. Too many high up friends to make anything stick. Lol, my opinion isn't based on high up friends, it's based on evidence. Or lack thereof. Pell's conviction boils down to one person's word against another. There was zero material evidence of any crime and there was circumstantial evidence that no crime had been committed. So, how can he be convicted 'beyond reasonable doubt'? Well, he cant.... 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
eveln 832 Posted March 13 ...but his trial was behind closed doors. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
@~thehung 564 Posted March 15 On 3/13/2019 at 9:47 PM, Mac Dude said: Pell's conviction boils down to one person's word against another. There was zero material evidence of any crime and there was circumstantial evidence that no crime had been committed. So, how can he be convicted 'beyond reasonable doubt'? well, if somebody had undue knowledge of the shape of a birthmark on his taint, would we necessarily know about that? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mac Dude 326 Posted March 15 14 hours ago, @~thehung said: well, if somebody had undue knowledge of the shape of a birthmark on his taint, would we necessarily know about that? There were journalists and members of the public who sat in on the whole trial but it’s only after the suppression order was lifted that anything about that trial could be published. The reports are consistent - there was no physical evidence or witnesses. It’s the word of one person against another. The only component of the trial that is held in secret is the testimony of the victim. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
eveln 832 Posted March 15 The only secret component of the trial is the victim's testimony... Seems to me that is no reason to just rely on "reports that are consistent", as they too can be constructed according to a bias Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cybes 1,150 Posted Saturday at 09:32 AM 10 hours ago, Mac Dude said: The reports are consistent - there was no physical evidence or witnesses. It’s the word of one person against another. "reports" plural. "witnesses" plural. This is not "one person's word against another". Also, what sort of physical evidence would you expect to have survived all this time? Even if he had violently sodomised a kid so badly that he'd perforated their bowel, it'd be gone by now - and nobody's suggesting that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mac Dude 326 Posted Saturday at 11:22 AM Sorry, how is it not one person’s word against another? Isn’t it the victim’s word against Pell? As for me expecting the evidence to survive not my point. The point is how do you make the decision he is guilty, beyond reasonable doubt, without evidence or witnesses? That’s my question. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fliptopia 131 Posted Saturday at 11:49 AM 24 minutes ago, Mac Dude said: Sorry, how is it not one person’s word against another? Isn’t it the victim’s word against Pell? As for me expecting the evidence to survive not my point. The point is how do you make the decision he is guilty, beyond reasonable doubt, without evidence or witnesses? That’s my question. I think the point is that there may bot have been witnesses there but people would have witnessed his behavior afterwards amongst other things. Then there would be people who might witness to Pell's attitude towards others doing the same thing with in the church. For the event itself it might be one word against another but there are other factors surrounding it that help lay weight to one version of events over another. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mac Dude 326 Posted Saturday at 12:31 PM 25 minutes ago, fliptopia said: I think the point is that there may bot have been witnesses there but people would have witnessed his behavior afterwards amongst other things. Then there would be people who might witness to Pell's attitude towards others doing the same thing with in the church. For the event itself it might be one word against another but there are other factors surrounding it that help lay weight to one version of events over another. People witnessing Pell turning a blind eye should have no impact on a verdict for this case. At best its circumstantial. If you're interested in hearing from someone who sat in on the trial, there is an interesting Radio National podcast: https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/lawreport/2019-02-26/10850390 Worth a listen. It's from Terry Laidler, ex-ABC broadcaster. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cybes 1,150 Posted Saturday at 12:32 PM 1 hour ago, Mac Dude said: victim’s Victims'. Study that apostrophe carefully. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
eveln 832 Posted Saturday at 12:33 PM (edited) 48 minutes ago, fliptopia said: I think the point is that there may bot have been witnesses there but people would have witnessed his behavior afterwards amongst other things. Then there would be people who might witness to Pell's attitude towards others doing the same thing with in the church. For the event itself it might be one word against another but there are other factors surrounding it that help lay weight to one version of events over another. Yeah but ... It's still his word against another's, any which way . And just cos someone appears a certain way, is still not 'proof' ... I was wishing / hoping that the vicyim's testimony would reveal a mark or something as @~thehung referred to. Something that an objective body could check . I'm only human and as such am so over Pell spouting his innocence. He rose through the ranks of his organisation by putting the church ahead of those he was asked to guide and more or less protect. <<< that's why I really don't care whether he goes to jail now. His lack of real care has left hundreds of families bereft. edit: I can't remember which church person said it, and it was a number of years ago ... but the comment was made that the church didn't really understand the level of harm that was being inflicted on the kids that were being assaulted, and that perhaps this might help explain the behaviour of the church in dealing with it's assaulting clergy ... I've never forgotten that piece of utter dribbling shite Edited Saturday at 12:43 PM by eveln just cos Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mac Dude 326 Posted Saturday at 12:49 PM 16 minutes ago, Cybes said: Victims'. Study that apostrophe carefully. Yes, my grammar and punctuation are appalling. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
