Cardinal George Pell, The Catholic Church and Child Sex Abuse | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

Cardinal George Pell, The Catholic Church and Child Sex Abuse

IanG

Tiger Legend
Sep 27, 2004
18,087
3,323
Melbourne
Great news and this after all the media were assuring us that there was no doubt the Pell Appeal would be upheld.
 

eZyT

Tiger Legend
Jun 28, 2019
21,434
25,774
Georgey's getting the old St.Alypius band back together in Ararat Pedo Prison.

I wonder if they will kiss his ring?
 

eZyT

Tiger Legend
Jun 28, 2019
21,434
25,774
What instrument does Pell play, the fiddle.

I reckon he'll be a pretty versatile member of

The Village of The Damned house band Tman.

fiddle, horn section, flute

or he'll jump on the organ
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user

Legends of 2017

Finally!!!!!!!!!!!
Mar 24, 2005
6,703
6,168
Melbourne
Has Bolt commented on it yet?
:rotfl1:rotfl1:rotfl1:rotfl1
Good one.
Oh wait, were you serious? :))

I guess if you call his column where he is saying a 2-1 majority to dismiss the appeal isn't a fair result because the 1 dissenting judge voted to free him should have meant that Pell should have been freed as commenting on it, then yes, he has sooked, I mean commented' on it :)
 

IanG

Tiger Legend
Sep 27, 2004
18,087
3,323
Melbourne
:rotfl1:rotfl1:rotfl1:rotfl1
Good one.
Oh wait, were you serious? :))

I guess if you call his column where he is saying a 2-1 majority to dismiss the appeal isn't a fair result because the 1 dissenting judge voted to free him should have meant that Pell should have been freed as commenting on it, then yes, he has sooked, I mean commented' on it :)

Yeah saw that afterward, he's 'lost his trust in justice' :eek:
 
Jul 26, 2004
78,241
38,240
www.redbubble.com
We Should Afford George Pell The Assumption Of Innocence Until Proven Guilty By Andrew Bolt
By The Shovel on March 5, 2019
EDITORIAL: There has been much written about the trial of Cardinal George Pell in recent days, a great deal of it highly critical of Australia’s highest ranking Catholic.
But although Pell was convicted of child sex offences by a panel of twelve independent jurors overseen by an experienced judge in a County Court, we should be careful not to rush to judgement.
Our criminal system is built on a simple but powerful premise: every man and woman accused of a crime is assumed innocent until found guilty by columnist Andrew Bolt. Derived from the Latin maxim ‘ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat Andrew Bolt’, it is a fundamental pillar of our democracy, and has been for centuries.
Too often in complex cases such as these we are quick to label someone a criminal, without letting the system work in the way it was designed. Too often, we judge someone based on the findings of a rigorous legal process, rather than waiting to see what Mr Bolt’s opinion on the matter may be. After all, he wasn’t there.
Unquestionably, the opinions of those twelve jurors were influenced by the fact that they were there in court at the time of the hearing, listening to the evidence. Mr Bolt’s opinions were never tarnished in such a way. At arms-length from the evidence, Bolt is better equipped to come to an objective conclusion about what took place, and – more importantly – what didn’t.
What’s more, as a close friend and confidant of George Pell, Andrew Bolt offers the sort of impartial, dispassionate judgement that a group of twelve jurors who have not met Pell never could.
How could they have known that Pell was intelligent, funny and an entertaining raconteur at dinner parties? How could they have known that Pell had an amazing knowledge of French wine? Quite simply, they couldn’t. Instead they chose to focus on the fact that Pell sexually assaulted a boy, and then they used that information to infer that he was a paedophile.
It’s biased, it’s sloppy and it’s one-sided – an example of a judge and jury arrogantly acting as if it’s judge and jury.
It’s time to let the process run as it was designed.


Spot on.:mhihi
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 4 users

achillesjones

"just kick it to Royce"
Apr 19, 2004
3,528
2,937
We Should Afford George Pell The Assumption Of Innocence Until Proven Guilty By Andrew Bolt
By The Shovel on March 5, 2019
EDITORIAL: There has been much written about the trial of Cardinal George Pell in recent days, a great deal of it highly critical of Australia’s highest ranking Catholic.
But although Pell was convicted of child sex offences by a panel of twelve independent jurors overseen by an experienced judge in a County Court, we should be careful not to rush to judgement.
Our criminal system is built on a simple but powerful premise: every man and woman accused of a crime is assumed innocent until found guilty by columnist Andrew Bolt. Derived from the Latin maxim ‘ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat Andrew Bolt’, it is a fundamental pillar of our democracy, and has been for centuries.
Too often in complex cases such as these we are quick to label someone a criminal, without letting the system work in the way it was designed. Too often, we judge someone based on the findings of a rigorous legal process, rather than waiting to see what Mr Bolt’s opinion on the matter may be. After all, he wasn’t there.
Unquestionably, the opinions of those twelve jurors were influenced by the fact that they were there in court at the time of the hearing, listening to the evidence. Mr Bolt’s opinions were never tarnished in such a way. At arms-length from the evidence, Bolt is better equipped to come to an objective conclusion about what took place, and – more importantly – what didn’t.
What’s more, as a close friend and confidant of George Pell, Andrew Bolt offers the sort of impartial, dispassionate judgement that a group of twelve jurors who have not met Pell never could.
How could they have known that Pell was intelligent, funny and an entertaining raconteur at dinner parties? How could they have known that Pell had an amazing knowledge of French wine? Quite simply, they couldn’t. Instead they chose to focus on the fact that Pell sexually assaulted a boy, and then they used that information to infer that he was a paedophile.
It’s biased, it’s sloppy and it’s one-sided – an example of a judge and jury arrogantly acting as if it’s judge and jury.
It’s time to let the process run as it was designed.


Spot on.:mhihi

How is a man condemned beyond reasonable doubt with a 2-1 verdict?
 

achillesjones

"just kick it to Royce"
Apr 19, 2004
3,528
2,937
With absolutely no reasonable doubt?

Pell may well be proven to be guilty of many things, but the Media have grabbed this one with a fervour where Orwell's1984 meets Miller's The Crucible. Pell has become the figurehead of some evils that have taken place. So much of the media hysteria has been generalised attacks on the Catholic Church.

As a result, we have some of our most selfless humans in the form of good nuns and priests being scorned within their parishes.

I call this *smile* of the highest order.
 

IanG

Tiger Legend
Sep 27, 2004
18,087
3,323
Melbourne
With absolutely no reasonable doubt?

Pell may well be proven to be guilty of many things, but the Media have grabbed this one with a fervour where Orwell's1984 meets Miller's The Crucible. Pell has become the figurehead of some evils that have taken place. So much of the media hysteria has been generalised attacks on the Catholic Church.

As a result, we have some of our most selfless humans in the form of good nuns and priests being scorned within their parishes.

I call this *smile* of the highest order.

Dunno how you can say that when you haven't seen the evidence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

DavidSSS

Tiger Legend
Dec 11, 2017
10,523
17,874
Melbourne
The jury found him guilty, unanimous verdict, beyond reasonable doubt.

All the judges in the appeal court found was that his appeal against the unanimous beyond reasonable doubt verdict was not sustained. The appeal court judges did not judge Pell's guilt, they judged the merit of his appeal (and found it had none).

DS
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

lamb22

Tiger Legend
Jan 29, 2005
11,484
1,545
The appeal court does not adjudicate on the basis of reasonable doubt. It looks at the question of whether there was an error of law. The issue here was interesting because the argument was that no reasonable jury hearing the evidence could come to that conclusion. It is a very sensitive issue as it invites judges basically to overrule the determiners of fact (jury). Two judges came to the conclusion that the verdict was not unreasonable, not that it was necessarily right or wrong.

The High Court does not hear appeals as of right. You need to seek leave and convince the Court it is a significant and worthy legal matter for them to address. There is no significant legal issue here. It will be difficult for the High Court to accept the appeal as prosecutors , jury and two federal court judges obviously believed a guilty verdict was feasible on the evidence.

If the High Court decides to hear the appeal odds on IMO that there will be reversal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Jul 26, 2004
78,241
38,240
www.redbubble.com
Fantastic 4 Corners episode tonight highlighting the coverups at St Kevins College in Melbourne.
Old traditions die hard when it comes to the Catholic Church.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Jul 26, 2004
78,241
38,240
www.redbubble.com
Headmaster Stephen Russell & Dean of Sport of Luke Travers have resigned in the wake of the St kevin's revelations regarding coverups.
Bravo Louise Milligan ..absolutely brilliant reporting. Hopefully you've made the world a little safer from rock spiders & those protecting them.
Thank heavens for the ABC.

As for that Murdoch #### Andrew Bolt.. Check this interview out.

Paedophile apologist

The question begs what is Bolt protecting??
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 7 users