Pell’s lawyer says cardinal’s abuse of child was ‘plain vanilla sex’

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vouthon
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It doesn’t really matter what anyone thinks about the case except the jury and the judge. They heard the whole testimony of the victim and obviously found the victim to be completely believable since their guilty verdict was unanimous. Personally, I think it was a mistake for Pell’s lawyer not to have him testify since it was basically a ‘he said’, ‘he said’ type of thing, but perhaps the lawyer thought Pell’s natural arrogance would count against him. I don’t think that could have been any worse than not testifying at all, but maybe the lawyer was thinking he could use that (and his own stupid comments later) as grounds for an appeal?

I know Pell personally and many of the people involved. This was not the only abuse he was accused of committing. Just because the other claims did not make it to trial, does not mean they did not occur. I believe justice has been done but I know there will always be people on both sides disagreeing with the verdict (or the appeal outcome). Over 500 victims of sexual abuse by priests in the state of Victoria alone signed away their rights to sue the Catholic Church through Pell’s ‘Melbourne Response’ which basically told them they could have no more than $37,000 compensation but would have to be silent about the crimes. He was very intimidating at the time. And many people felt they had no other choice but to sign away their rights.The Victorian government is considering releasing them from their signed promises of not taking further action against the Church.

Whatever the outcome of Pell’s appeal, he is still responsible for a cover-up of massive proportions here and deserves not to be a Cardinal or a priest anymore.
 
nunsense said:
It doesn’t really matter what anyone thinks about the case except the jury and the judge. They heard the whole testimony of the victim and obviously found the victim to be completely believable since their guilty verdict was unanimous
Click to expand...
The jury did not hear a lot of testimony and evidence that may have been exculpatory for Pell because the judge blocked it. That flies in the face of civil law and the basics of due process foreshadowed in Old Testament law and affirmed by the Words of Jesus when -He- said “…so that EVERY word may be established.” Every word was not established in this trial, and it is because of that I reject the outcome of this trial as “justice served”.
 
I do find the comment confusing, if the defense position is that NOTHING happened.
 
yes, and it seems awkward to be arguing the charges AFTER a verdict has been published – there’s no point to that, that I can see.

I don’t understand how a competent attorney could make such a statement – perhaps THAT was the very point, to give Pell the very argument that he had incompetent representation, that he prejudiced the judge and or jury in the sentencing phase.
 
Last edited:
Crickets?!?!

The judge BLOCKED evidence that may be exculpatory for the defense. YOU.CANNOT.SAY.THAT. “I believe justice has been done…” WHEN.THAT.IS.THE.CASE!

Yes, I’m shouting. Justice has NOT been done, and I’m furious about that. If -you- DEMAND that the potentially exculpatory evidence and testimony that was blocked by the judge be heard, and if Pell is still found guilty, I will accept it. Until then, -you- are part and parcel to mere mob mentality. Got it?
 
kmaaj said:
Crickets?!?!

The judge BLOCKED evidence that may be exculpatory for the defense. YOU.CANNOT.SAY.THAT. “I believe justice has been done…” WHEN.THAT.IS.THE.CASE!

Yes, I’m shouting. Justice has NOT been done, and I’m furious about that. If -you- DEMAND that the potentially exculpatory evidence and testimony that was blocked by the judge be heard, and if Pell is still found guilty, I will accept it. Until then, -you- are part and parcel to mere mob mentality. Got it?
Click to expand...
Shouting doesn’t make a person right, it just makes them rude. The judge blocked evidence from both sides that he considered to be inadequate in some way. That is why the second trial of Pell abusing boys in Ballarat did not go forward -the evidence was considered inadequate. Those who believed the victims in that case probably did a lot of shouting as well.
But obviously the judge found the ‘exculpatory’ evidence put forward by the defense to be inadequate just as he felt the ‘condemning’ evidence put forward by the prosecution in that case inadequate. Perhaps some evidence was hearsay, perhaps it wasn’t supported, only the court knows the reason why it withheld evidence from both the defense and the prosecution sides.

I do understand the strong emotions (on both sides) that makes it seem the case was black and white in either direction. But shouting about it doesn’t change the facts of what was acceptable and what was not in a court of law.

Pell had his day in court, and like everyone else, he is also availing himself of the right to appeal the verdict. There will always be people on both sides claiming that they are right and the other side is wrong. We don’t need to lose our civility to discuss it by attacking others personally (which I have been on another thread).
 
nunsense said:
Perhaps some evidence was hearsay, perhaps it wasn’t supported,
Click to expand...
No “perhaps” about. ALL of the prosecutory evidence was hearsay and unsupported.

TWENTY alibis for the defendant were ignored.

Read my post again: If -you- DEMAND that the potentially exculpatory evidence and testimony that was blocked by the judge be heard, and if Pell is still found guilty, I will accept it. Go ahead and demand the same for the prosecution. Per the Statutes of our Savior: “…so that every word may be established.” In this case, every word was not established. Anything less is mob mentality. You cannot say that you believe justice was served as things stand now. Justice was not served. Mob mentality prevailed.
 
I wonder. If the victim was sitting across your dining room table and you were forced to listen to it. Would you yell this injustice nonsense at them too?
 
Your attempt at an appeal to emotion is noted. It will not work here.

Here’s why:

Victims have sat across my dining room table before. I’m a victim myself.

You might be surprised how many of us believe that this type of mob rule hurts the plight of the victim rather than helps it.

Every word must be established per the Statutes of our Lord. Every word was not established in the Pell case.
 
Last edited:
Hoosier-Daddy said:
Would you yell this injustice nonsense at them too?
Click to expand...
In this case and many others, every word has not been established. Until every word is established, it is an injustice and far from nonsense.
 
Last edited:
You, I and everyone else on these boards were not part of the Jury that rightly concluded the verdict. Pell was given the opportunity to defend himself and the Jury and the Judge are not evil here.

Pope Francis has indicated we should believe accusers and that the media has played a good role bringing the abuse to light. (even if the Pope’s actions are debated with abuses cases he is directing us to this.)

It is you who brings the emotion into it. A Jury has convicted Pell of pedophilia and sexual crimes. Presumption of innocence is now not a logical point. You can argue all day that it was not the correct verdict. And that too will be given weight in the courts of Australia. I support the verdict.
 
Hoosier-Daddy said:
Pell was given the opportunity to defend himself
Click to expand...
As I understand it, the victim took the stand and testified under oath as to what happened. Cardinal Pell had that opportunity but did not take the stand. Yes, it is his right not to testify on his own behalf under oath. But the fact that Cardinal Pell did not testify under oath at the trial as to what actually happened, may cause a few raised eyebrows.
 
Last edited:
I thought that the victim did not personally testify in the second trial, but rather that his testimony in the first trial was submitted as evidence in the second.
 
Hoosier-Daddy said:
You, I and everyone else on these boards were not part of the Jury that rightly concluded the verdict.
Click to expand...
You cannot say that the jury rightly concluded the verdict, considering 20 alibis were ignored and the judge blocked potential exculpatory evidence. When those factors are included and considered, if the jury still finds Pell guilty, I will accept the verdict. Until then, this whole thing flies in the face of civil decency and the Satutes of our Lord.
 
JimG said:
I thought that the victim did not personally testify in the second trial, but rather that his testimony in the first trial was submitted as evidence in the second.
Click to expand...
Please see:

www.japantimes.co.jp

How Australian sex abuse victim's 'powerful' testimony sank pope aide Cardinal George Pell

'Guilty.' There was a gasp in the Australian courtroom as the jury foreman read out the first verdict on child sex offenses against Cardinal George Pell, the Vatican's treasurer, then stunned silence as the same word was repeated for each of the four other charges he faced.
www.japantimes.co.jp www.japantimes.co.jp

"They reached their decision after hearing lengthy testimony from a victim, who described how Pell had exposed himself to them, fondled their genitals and masturbated and forced one boy to perform a sex act on him. "
 
Absolutely I can say the jury rightly reached the verdict.
I’d be careful if I were you invoking the name of God and His statutes when discussing the Jury. That is 12 people you are accusing of not rightly reaching a verdict and sentencing Pell to a horrific life.

At the end of the day there will be Pell supporters who will never accept it and others who would never accept it if he were cleared on appeal. I am neither. I think a man was justly convicted and will wake up tomorrow right where he should be.
He is a convicted Child abuser. no more no less.
 
Hoosier-Daddy said:
I’d be careful if I were you invoking the name of God and His statutes when discussing the Jury. That is 12 people you are accusing of not rightly reaching a verdict and sentencing Pell to a horrific life.
Click to expand...
I never once impugned the jury. Information was withheld from them. Give the jury that information and if they still reach the same conclusion, I’ll agree with you.
 
Hoosier-Daddy said:
What information?
Click to expand...
20 eyewitness accounts that placed Pell in constant company at the time of the alleged attack~~~blocked by the judge.

A simple visual demonstration showing a bishop’s vestments cannot be parted in the manner the prosecution claimed~~~blocked by the judge.

Testimony that the 2nd accuser recanted his accusation shortly before his death~~~blocked by the judge.
 
A judge who is acting fairly and with more expertise than you or I. The Cardinal has had a fair opportunity to defend himself. If you are in possession of any evidence that could free an innocent man you have an obligation to come forward. First to the Cardinal and His lawyer, then to the courts and finally this information could be made public to the Jurors now.

Other than that it is just what you think about the case having no proximity to it or being involved with evidence or legalities in any way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top