King of Hits.co.uk - Your Views Messageboard

IMPORTANT NOTE:
You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.

Home

Forums

	Messageboards	Categories Show latest posts

Welcome, Guest
Please Login or Register. Lost Password?

Messageboards

King of Hits

Your Views Messageboard

Post a new message in "Your Views Messageboard"

Name:

Subject:

Boardcode:

Message:
(+) / (-)

Emoticons





More Smilies

Enter code here

Topic History of: more Pell mendacity by police
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)

Author	Message
Barney	In Australia, the High Court rarely overrules the lower court jury decision. Roughly - in about one in eight cases. And there is no specified time in which the final verdict will be given. Perhaps in many months time...
wjlmarsh	Agreed the complainant credibility has no basis and we still know nothing of his lifetime character. But what puzzles me more than anything is the second boy introduced as a supporting victim with additional charges to boot. He was dead with no notarized statement or anything and at most a denial confirmed. So how can he be allowed into evidence for the prosecution. The jury been made of easily influenced normal everyday people would add the now non available character in their minds as a supporting witness even though everything comes from the one and only complainant. Judge Kidd allowed this. It does not make sense for a fair trial. Legally or on any account I can not see this been correct. Everything I have read does not say anything about this big elephant in the room. What am I missing?
hedda	I still have little faith the High Court in Canberra will reverse this appalling conviction on the basis the "evidence" just does not compute: The latest on yet what looks like another vicious Victorian Police action in assisting a "victim " im their recollections. What Everyone Has Overlooked in the Pell Case Because this is not a mystery story I’ll get to the point straight away. The Crown claimed, and still claim, that the complainant’s credibility was enhanced because he located the wine in the correct area of the sacristy, that is, in the alcove in the corner. To this the defence replied that maybe he got that knowledge from a tour back in 1996. But an attentive viewing of the interview with Pell and the police in Rome shows that originally the complainant did not locate the wine correctly at all. Beyond doubt the original location was a storage area that may be called a kitchenette as it contains two sinks (above). When the complainant visited the sacristy with the police he looked at that kitchenette and said that it was just the same as 1996. But the police were to learn after the interview that in 1996 the “kitchenette” was a wardrobe. The sinks had not been installed and the wood panels that apparently the complainant had described so well were not there. It was used for hanging albs quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2020/03/new-...s-rome-interview-ii/