K
kmaaj
Guest
‘Scuse me, but MANY in proximity that had such evidence were blocked to begin with. There was no good reason to block them in the 1st place. This as it stands is mob rule, plain and simple.
Last edited:
Pell’s lawyer says cardinal’s abuse of child was ‘plain vanilla sex’
- Status
N
nunsense
Guest
I guess we will just have to view the law differently. I respect that there is never going to be a perfect verdict in this world as humans are flawed in their judgments, but I do believe in the legal system and in the good faith of the court. I don’t suppose you are from Melbourne or Ballarat? So what you are reading is probably a lot Catholic-bias reports that make it seem as if this is a giant anti-Catholic witch hunt. It isn’t. I am from the Ballarat and Melbourne area both and know not only Pell but also the pedophile priest he lived with in Ballarat and the ones he covered up for in Melbourne. Pell has managed to attract a following that sees him as innocent but he isn’t. It’s interesting that it is easier for many Catholics to believe in the guilt of ‘unimportant’ priests but not so much in a Cardinal.
I feel your pain at what is happening in the Church. I disagree with your interpretation of how the legal system here handled it. I am only sorry that the Ballarat victims won’t get their day in court, but I accept the judges verdict in this one, just as others have to accept his verdict in the Melbourne case.
Hopefully, one day the crimes will all be in the past and there will be no more offences against God’s children.
H
Hoosier-Daddy
Guest
And that is where you slander the jury and the judge.
I understand some people questioning, doubting, or denying the verdict. That’s human nature. What I dont get us this self assured accusations that some huge conspiracy or evil is being committed.
Perhaps, just perhaps. He is guilty…
At any rate 12 people unanimously agreed on it.
Nobody likes it when heroes fall…
There isn’t enough tin foil in the world for me to buy some of the theories. But there is enough if a parent in me to be scared by those that do.
I understand some people questioning, doubting, or denying the verdict. That’s human nature. What I dont get us this self assured accusations that some huge conspiracy or evil is being committed.
Perhaps, just perhaps. He is guilty…
At any rate 12 people unanimously agreed on it.
Nobody likes it when heroes fall…
There isn’t enough tin foil in the world for me to buy some of the theories. But there is enough if a parent in me to be scared by those that do.
K
kmaaj
Guest
I read what I know in the Guardian. Hardly a bastion of conservative Catholic thought…
K
kmaaj
Guest
All that I want is for “…every word to be established”. It clearly was not in this case.
K
kmaaj
Guest
Is what I said not true:
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.
If it is true, then it is not slander.
N
nunsense
Guest
That wasn’t exactly the testimony that was excluded. The prosecutor wanted to show a diagram of how it ‘could’ have been and the judge didn’t want the jury to see the diagram and become confused into thinking that is how it actually was. It was a hypothetical explanation for why it couldn’t have happened, not an actual witness based scenario. And obviously the judge didn’t think all of those people who wanted to be witnesses were credible - perhaps because of a bias or political reason or something else - they were more ‘character witnesses’ than real oberservers. Pell has been a very powerful political figure in Melbourne and Sydney for many years and he has powerful friends. Cover-ups happen at all levels, but most especially for those who are part of the hierarchy.
And if you think a priests robes can’t be pulled aside easily, you have never been a sacristan - I have. There are layers, sure, but they have access to their pockets and of course it all depends on the particular vestments worn that day. It’s possible it happened that way because it did happen that way. It’s painful to accept, but it’s true.
The second accuser didn’t so much recant as deny what happened, as many victims do out of shame. But since the jury found that Pell had abused at least one victim, their verdict was still right.
The most important thing the Church and Catholics should be worrying about right now is protecting the innocent. The headlines are full of abuse stories right now. Here is one that is interesting because it involves Pell’s case in an semi-related way:
www.theage.com.au
This pedophile, Paul David Ryan, was worried he wouldn’t get a fair trial, but when it became clear that his trial was going forward, he pleaded guilty. The article states that Pell knew about this priest but did nothing. All of those abusers protected each other.
And if you think a priests robes can’t be pulled aside easily, you have never been a sacristan - I have. There are layers, sure, but they have access to their pockets and of course it all depends on the particular vestments worn that day. It’s possible it happened that way because it did happen that way. It’s painful to accept, but it’s true.
The second accuser didn’t so much recant as deny what happened, as many victims do out of shame. But since the jury found that Pell had abused at least one victim, their verdict was still right.
The most important thing the Church and Catholics should be worrying about right now is protecting the innocent. The headlines are full of abuse stories right now. Here is one that is interesting because it involves Pell’s case in an semi-related way:
'Anti-priest sentiment': Lawyers for paedophile Ballarat priest tried to delay case after Pell verdict
Former priest and sex offender Paul David Ryan is behind bars after he pleaded guilty to more sex offences against boys. This is despite efforts to adjourn the case in the wake of the Pell verdict.
This pedophile, Paul David Ryan, was worried he wouldn’t get a fair trial, but when it became clear that his trial was going forward, he pleaded guilty. The article states that Pell knew about this priest but did nothing. All of those abusers protected each other.
K
kmaaj
Guest
I’m a music minister in my parish, so I am in the sacristy weekly. The vestments are awkward, and the traffic is constant. In my own parish (which IS a cathedral) the scenario is highly unlikely at best, for all practical purposes IMPOSSIBLE. You cannot say that “it did happen that way” because no one knew. That evidence was blocked, and for no good reason.
Do you -want- Pell to be guilty?
N
nunsense
Guest
Thank you for asking that as a question rather than just assuming that I want him to be guilty. The answer is no, of course not. Him being guilty means that some child was sexually assaulted. I don’t ever want any child to feel that kind of pain and shame, so I don’t WANT any priest to be guilty. But many of them are. Many more of them are not, thank God for that, but many are. So, is your hypothesis that another priest assaulted those boys in the sacristy and not Pell? And they just couldn’t tell the difference between that priest and the Cardinal of their Cathedral, where they sing? Or are you saying that the victim lied about it all and that it never happened? These are all options of course.
My opinion is based on personal knowledge of the man Pell and personal knowledge of the Melbourne and Ballarat communities where he served (not the Sydney Archdiocese as I never lived there). And personal knowledge of being a sacristan.
This site is advising me that I have already replied to you 3 times in this topic and that I should reply to other people and get more perspectives, so this will be my last reply to you. Thank you for your opinion.
K
kmaaj
Guest
My experience is that even the most modest of vestments are clumsy and all sacistry’s have frequent and heavy traffic that makes the scenario highly implausible.
N
nunsense
Guest
Implausible doesn’t mean impossible. And my experience is that anything is possible.
K
kmaaj
Guest
But the more implausible, the greater the need to see that “…every word may be established.” And in this case, that WAS.NOT.DONE.
N
nunsense
Guest
The law is not subject to your quotes. It operates based on a specific set of rules. Not every word is equal in the eyes of the law as evidence.
K
kmaaj
Guest
Where do you think those rules came from?!?!
Where do you think my “quote” came from?!?!
Where do you think my “quote” came from?!?!
N
nunsense
Guest
I have no idea, you didn’t source them.
H
Hoosier-Daddy
Guest
That a person works in a parish and is adamant that they know the facts of the Pell case and is quite emotional about this being unjust is concerning. Having read stories of victims who’s own parents would never believe them because of this clericalism of priests is part if the culture that lead to this in the first place. Pell had opportunity to talk about timeline, he had ample ability to present facts and defend himself. But everybody here has apparently watched enough law and order as to factually state what the jury could not.
OJ
Michael Jackson
Pell.
All three are probably guilty. One has a conviction to cement the probably to an is.
Pell is guilty
OJ
Michael Jackson
Pell.
All three are probably guilty. One has a conviction to cement the probably to an is.
Pell is guilty
K
kmaaj
Guest
Like I said, present ALL of the pertinent evidence and testimony, and if the jury still finds him guilty, so be it.
My status in my parish is a matter between my priest, my God, and myself and is NONE of your concern.
H
Hoosier-Daddy
Guest
This whole timeline thing is so baffling. What was it like 10-15 minutes heck even 5 is doable.
When I was young (and I cant he the only one here) a 10 minute break at work is sufficient.
A tram ride at a ski resort I worked at was 12 minutes. That includes coat, gloves, ski boots, ski pants , sweats etc. Imagine. “Your honor, we had 10 minutes in the car at he senior prom. She had a huge dress and I had a tux, there s no way we could have done that”
I mean please…
When I was young (and I cant he the only one here) a 10 minute break at work is sufficient.
A tram ride at a ski resort I worked at was 12 minutes. That includes coat, gloves, ski boots, ski pants , sweats etc. Imagine. “Your honor, we had 10 minutes in the car at he senior prom. She had a huge dress and I had a tux, there s no way we could have done that”
I mean please…
H
Hoosier-Daddy
Guest
Pells best defense for me personally would not be timeline, or 20 “witnesses” who didn’t witness the crime. It would be his strait up character. His clean past and his reputation for being a man who carries himself with dignity and pride and moral uprightness. That would cause me pause as a juror. A looooong pause. Not to mention I loved his politics and theology. So for 12 people to come to a conclusion that he is guilty. To look at the facts and agree this man should be destroyed and incarcerated means that it isn’t an emotional reaction or anti catholic bias or a corrupt judge etc. What a grand scheme that there really is no motive for austrailia to risk just to convict a cardinal. I trust the verdict. The sheer seriousness of the verdict and crimes warrants the presumption the judge and jury took this on with fairness and gravity.
L
LateranBasilica
Guest
And now Lawyers are attempting to postphone the trial of next trial of Ryan, due to this 'anti catholic ’ sentiment.
Having already served time for past offences, the man needs to confess guilty and allow the survivors, victims and their families time to heal. And the church
Having already served time for past offences, the man needs to confess guilty and allow the survivors, victims and their families time to heal. And the church
Last edited:
- Status