Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: George Pell Appeal
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
JK2006 |
You're so right Hedda - exactly my feelings and I've had similar reactions to similar questions from highly intelligent media friends of mine. |
|
hedda |
JK2006 wrote:
Reading the details of the trial and the appeal it seems almost a textbook example of the False Allegations Industry; if Satan was, in fact, organising these witch hunts, he is depending on the new Presumption of Guilt; a person has to prove their innocence of claims for which there is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER. If that is, indeed, the new Global Assumption in Law, as it appears to have become, Pell must remain and be found Guilty. If the old Presumption of Innocence is considered still applicable, he and most other victims should be declared NOT GUILTY. Including myself, from 20 years ago.
Your mention of the jury..in this case the complainant..only one (the other died and claimed he had never been abused yet Pell was convicted of abusing him on hearsay)..was said to be "compelling".
But this is (not that I know one way or the other) surely very, very scary.
It means whoever tells the best story. The complainant may be absolutely honest but what does that say about other complainants who cannot tell their story and yet may be true-full.
I've met plenty of people in my lifetime who have had terrible lives and things happen to them yet they are not articulate and really have no way of expressing the pain in their lives.
I recall hiring a lad from Texas in New York in the early 80s to do all my running around for a project I was working on. He became almost clingy and so excited actually having a job. Overtime he expressed he had never ever been treated so kindly (I was just treating him normally).
After a few months I took him to dinner to find out about his life. The tale that unfolded was horrendous..shocking abuse from a vicious father including rape at 8 years old and beatings including from his father's twisted pals ..the full gamut. It was so sad hearing that sexual abuse was accompanied by terrible physical & mental abuse and pure hatred until he was 15 and ran away.. where the sexual part meant a beating would follow.
But about a week later he was distressed that he had told me (after getting a bit drunk) in case I might think he was terrible as he never wanted anyone to ever know. As a witness in a court case he would be absolutely hopeless and fall apart at the first attack from a skilled lawyer. Compelling? No way.
## as for this Appeal..the Australian media have been absolutely vicious and nasty. I despair.
On the evidence presented I believe Not Guilty should have been the verdict.despite what the truth is.
Using words like "convicted pedophile" and rolling out so-called "victim advocates" who claim victims may be "triggered" by this Appeal is absolutely vicious.
I feel, and I have no great feelings about Pell one way or the other.. that he has been chosen to be the Fall guy for the Catholic Church,
## I saw one of Australia's most "celebrated" writers..David Marr (currently "reporting" on the trial) in the street the other day. I told him I thought he was absolutely appalling the way he had been so vicious about Pell over the years on no proof of anything except his alleged conservatism (many in the media see this as Pell's worst "crime")and how he had taken such a moralising delight in his conviction especially when he was intelligent enough to know the "evidence" was highly questionable.
I also said "you too could be easily falsely accused"..he laughed and said "of course not, I've never done anything illegal". Such is the vacuousness of today's media. they just don't get it. |
|
JK2006 |
Reading the details of the trial and the appeal it seems almost a textbook example of the False Allegations Industry; if Satan was, in fact, organising these witch hunts, he is depending on the new Presumption of Guilt; a person has to prove their innocence of claims for which there is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER. If that is, indeed, the new Global Assumption in Law, as it appears to have become, Pell must remain and be found Guilty. If the old Presumption of Innocence is considered still applicable, he and most other victims should be declared NOT GUILTY. Including myself, from 20 years ago. |
|
JK2006 |
I think you'll find, Barney, that Juries generally far prefer to believe the Media and "a good story" than anything suspect like "evidence" or "alibis". Some time ago the CCRC said my alibi that I was in America when one of the fictitious "crimes" took place didn't matter - "it's not WHEN but WHETHER that's important". In an Age of Consent case where one second is the difference between a crime and No Crime? DOH! |
|
Barney |
Media/legal observers are now commenting that the prosecutor's poor court performance - stammering and struggling to answer the judges' questions - will have worked in Pell's favour.
In addition, Monsignor Charles Portelli - master of ceremonies at St Patrick's Cathedral, where some of the abuse is said to have occurred - has provided an alibi for Pell.
This essentially confirms that both men were together - at all times during the period in question - and that, consequently, the offences could not have happened.
However, the jury at the original trial seem to have discounted this alibi testimony for some reason - and it may be the the appeal judges will not.
 |
|
|
|
