TOPIC:

BC wrote: Now that the verdict is out I must say I'm a bit surprised he was found guilty based on the evidence as we know it. In saying that, it appears quite a bit of the graphic detail has been withheld by the press and not reported but notwithstanding that, there's a few unanswered questions which cause me some uncertainty such as you'd think there'd be others as well who Pell had molested since it's taken until recently for this to come out, would he take such a risk in an area where he could quite easily be caught....why did this jury take the unsupported and unverified version of one person over Pell when the burden of proof is beyond reasonable doubt and the first jury weren't all convinced? There just seems to be too many loose ends which imo opinion will see him acquitted on appeal...in saying that, the jury has spoken and the legal system has made a decision which hopefully will give some comfort to other victims and make future predators think twice.

BC there were others but for some reason those cases have been dropped, that is why the verdict and all associated info had been embargoed due to further cases to be heard, thats all gone now so it's can all go public. Why did he take that risk, well imho he never thought it was a risk, he and other pedo's in the clergy considered themselves above reproach and too powerful to ever be taken to task by mere mortals. That is why so many have taken so long to come forward as they were in abject fear of one of the most powerful men in one of the most powerful institutions in the world, an institution that covered up and lied and accused innocents of lies. Only one of the raped boys/men came forward because the other one took his own life, we can only guess why he did that.

Another good example of why trial by judge is a better option.
If reported correctly, how could any jury say that
1. they wern't influenced by all the hype surrounding child abuse
2. that beyond reasonable doubt the offences took place.

Lloyd Rayney and now the suspected Claremont serial killer had the right idea. Judge only.
Judges are trained to ignore the hype and unsubstantiated crap,
I have often pondered that if I was to ever be charged under the ASIC provisions how on earth my innocence would be come across with a jury of tradespeople and domestics who would have difficulty in underatnding the basic provisions of the act,
Whatever the cost, I would go for a judge only trial.

Whether or not the conviction is overturned on appeal, the key issue to me is that the Catholic church is still in complete denial about the extent of historical child abuse . Pell was responsible for covering up multiple abuse by other priests and the church have been dragged kicking and screaming to all investigations including the Royal Commission. They have provided little to no support to the victims and many of them have died not seeing justice. There needs to be a total clean up of this rotten culture.

Senior Seagull wrote:

BC wrote: Now that the verdict is out I must say I'm a bit surprised he was found guilty based on the evidence as we know it. In saying that, it appears quite a bit of the graphic detail has been withheld by the press and not reported but notwithstanding that, there's a few unanswered questions which cause me some uncertainty such as you'd think there'd be others as well who Pell had molested since it's taken until recently for this to come out, would he take such a risk in an area where he could quite easily be caught....why did this jury take the unsupported and unverified version of one person over Pell when the burden of proof is beyond reasonable doubt and the first jury weren't all convinced? There just seems to be too many loose ends which imo opinion will see him acquitted on appeal...in saying that, the jury has spoken and the legal system has made a decision which hopefully will give some comfort to other victims and make future predators think twice.

BC there were others but for some reason those cases have been dropped, that is why the verdict and all associated info had been embargoed due to further cases to be heard, thats all gone now so it's can all go public. Why did he take that risk, well imho he never thought it was a risk, he and other pedo's in the clergy considered themselves above reproach and too powerful to ever be taken to task by mere mortals. That is why so many have taken so long to come forward as they were in abject fear of one of the most powerful men in one of the most powerful institutions in the world, an institution that covered up and lied and accused innocents of lies. Only one of the raped boys/men came forward because the other one took his own life, we can only guess why he did that.

You could be right SS but getting a conviction with one complainant, no witnesses, no forensics, no established pattern of behaviour, no confession and with two boys he didn't even know and with the other boy actually denying he'd been molested. The Catholic Church is guilty of lots of things and no doubt Pell could also be guilty of obstruction of justice by moving pedos around the country to keep them out of the shit...but that's not what he has been charged or convicted of so to me it almost sounds of a scape goat/sacrificial cow type thing. A juror can only come to one of 3 conclusions....he's guilty, he's not guilty, i'm not sure if he is or not....if it's either of the last two then he must be acquitted and based on the evidence think he probably should have got off....that's not to say he didn't do it but don't think the evidence supports a conviction...just my opinion and could be wrong.

Mikeh, I couldn't agree more, but Pell wan't on trial for covering up and on the basis of the evidence reported seems to have been convicted of the sins of the whole Catholic Church.
Interestingly though, taking into account all the reported cases of child molestation in Australia, the % of cases against the clergy of the Catholic Church is the lowest when guaged against other professions and organisations, yet there doesn't seem to be the same vitriol spewed against the other offenders.

Arrrrrchbishop works in a Church..Arrrrrchbishop works under him

BC wrote:

Senior Seagull wrote:

BC wrote: Now that the verdict is out I must say I'm a bit surprised he was found guilty based on the evidence as we know it. In saying that, it appears quite a bit of the graphic detail has been withheld by the press and not reported but notwithstanding that, there's a few unanswered questions which cause me some uncertainty such as you'd think there'd be others as well who Pell had molested since it's taken until recently for this to come out, would he take such a risk in an area where he could quite easily be caught....why did this jury take the unsupported and unverified version of one person over Pell when the burden of proof is beyond reasonable doubt and the first jury weren't all convinced? There just seems to be too many loose ends which imo opinion will see him acquitted on appeal...in saying that, the jury has spoken and the legal system has made a decision which hopefully will give some comfort to other victims and make future predators think twice.

BC there were others but for some reason those cases have been dropped, that is why the verdict and all associated info had been embargoed due to further cases to be heard, thats all gone now so it's can all go public. Why did he take that risk, well imho he never thought it was a risk, he and other pedo's in the clergy considered themselves above reproach and too powerful to ever be taken to task by mere mortals. That is why so many have taken so long to come forward as they were in abject fear of one of the most powerful men in one of the most powerful institutions in the world, an institution that covered up and lied and accused innocents of lies. Only one of the raped boys/men came forward because the other one took his own life, we can only guess why he did that.

You could be right SS but getting a conviction with one complainant, no witnesses, no forensics, no established pattern of behaviour, no confession and with two boys he didn't even know and with the other boy actually denying he'd been molested. The Catholic Church is guilty of lots of things and no doubt Pell could also be guilty of obstruction of justice by moving pedos around the country to keep them out of the shit...but that's not what he has been charged or convicted of so to me it almost sounds of a scape goat/sacrificial cow type thing. A juror can only come to one of 3 conclusions....he's guilty, he's not guilty, i'm not sure if he is or not....if it's either of the last two then he must be acquitted and based on the evidence think he probably should have got off....that's not to say he didn't do it but don't think the evidence supports a conviction...just my opinion and could be wrong.

The jury could only find one verdict. George refused to defend himself as he would have had to swear on the bible to tell the whole truth whilst under oath. His principals wouldn't let him lie under oath. This would sway the jury. If he gets off on appeal then the other charges ( the Ballarat ones) could be reactivated & he swings again. .
He must wonder how his mate Gerald Ridsdale feels.
The church will spend multi millions defending these monsters & yet not compensate or acknowledge those who suffered. NO REMORSE

BC wrote:

Senior Seagull wrote:

BC wrote: Now that the verdict is out I must say I'm a bit surprised he was found guilty based on the evidence as we know it. In saying that, it appears quite a bit of the graphic detail has been withheld by the press and not reported but notwithstanding that, there's a few unanswered questions which cause me some uncertainty such as you'd think there'd be others as well who Pell had molested since it's taken until recently for this to come out, would he take such a risk in an area where he could quite easily be caught....why did this jury take the unsupported and unverified version of one person over Pell when the burden of proof is beyond reasonable doubt and the first jury weren't all convinced? There just seems to be too many loose ends which imo opinion will see him acquitted on appeal...in saying that, the jury has spoken and the legal system has made a decision which hopefully will give some comfort to other victims and make future predators think twice.

BC there were others but for some reason those cases have been dropped, that is why the verdict and all associated info had been embargoed due to further cases to be heard, thats all gone now so it's can all go public. Why did he take that risk, well imho he never thought it was a risk, he and other pedo's in the clergy considered themselves above reproach and too powerful to ever be taken to task by mere mortals. That is why so many have taken so long to come forward as they were in abject fear of one of the most powerful men in one of the most powerful institutions in the world, an institution that covered up and lied and accused innocents of lies. Only one of the raped boys/men came forward because the other one took his own life, we can only guess why he did that.

You could be right SS but getting a conviction with one complainant, no witnesses, no forensics, no established pattern of behaviour, no confession and with two boys he didn't even know and with the other boy actually denying he'd been molested. The Catholic Church is guilty of lots of things and no doubt Pell could also be guilty of obstruction of justice by moving pedos around the country to keep them out of the shit...but that's not what he has been charged or convicted of so to me it almost sounds of a scape goat/sacrificial cow type thing. A juror can only come to one of 3 conclusions....he's guilty, he's not guilty, i'm not sure if he is or not....if it's either of the last two then he must be acquitted and based on the evidence think he probably should have got off....that's not to say he didn't do it but don't think the evidence supports a conviction...just my opinion and could be wrong.

That's the argument being progressed by Kenny and other media gurus, amazing they are so quick to demonise (no pun intended) many others in so many walks of life. So enlightening to see them spring so righteously to the defence of Pell whilst having scant regard for many others.

Bazza wrote:

UNKA2 wrote:

Bazza wrote: Sth Australian Bishop Guilty? - Er no , he was cleared on appeal.

Pell has will also be appealing,

The Catholic mafia in full swing no doubt

What catholic mafia? you trying to say our courts of appeal are full of mafia?

Call me a cynical, NOTHING i repeat NOTHING would surprise me with them!!

therealswansman wrote: Mikeh, I couldn't agree more, but Pell wan't on trial for covering up and on the basis of the evidence reported seems to have been convicted of the sins of the whole Catholic Church.
Interestingly though, taking into account all the reported cases of child molestation in Australia, the % of cases against the clergy of the Catholic Church is the lowest when guaged against other professions and organisations, yet there doesn't seem to be the same vitriol spewed against the other offenders.

Well perhaps because being priest or whatever is held in the highest esteem in sociiety, a protcctor if you like for the vulnerable and poor.. So "the last"people you would think, would be those in society are held in such high esteem.