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.
You did not look at all of the facts. Evidence and testimony that was possibly exculpatory for the defense was blocked by the judge. All I’m saying is present that evidence and testimony, and if the jury still finds him guilty, so be it. That you would impugn my character and standing with my parish over that is troubling.
 
kmaaj, can you please show me where you are getting these court transcripts from.
 
LateranBasilica said:
Does not mean it cannot happen.
now does it?
Click to expand...
20 people gave witness that Pell was in constant company when the alleged incident was supposed to happen. Sacristy’s have a constant flow of traffic right up to the point that the sacristan locks it up for the day.
 
Please see my previous reply. Sacristy’s in Australia do not have that constant flow of traffic, in my experience. One can be alone in one, or in the company of a priest, or other parishioners, or even a Bishop.
 
Civil law has its basis in Old Testament law. And “…so that EVERY word may be established” comes straight from the Mouth of our Lord. Every word was NOT established in this case.
 
Have you actually been in the Melbourne Cathedral? The sacristy there is often empty after Mass, especially when lots of people are gathered outside. I don’t know what you base all your assumptions on, but it doesn’t seem to be personal knowledge of either Pell or the communities he served, or the Cathedral itself.
 
LateranBasilica said:
Please see my previous reply. Sacristy’s in Australia do not have that constant flow of traffic, in my experience. One can be alone in one, or in the company of a priest, or other parishioners, or even a Bishop.
Click to expand...
Absolutely true.
 
Why do you think you know more than the judge and jury. Like I said, if you have presentable evidence please inform the appropriate authorities. Other than that please accept the facts as they are. Pell is a convicted child abuser. You brought your parochial role into it. I’m more than happy to keep those issues out of the discussion. As they should be. But it is a good time to remind all readers to review and know your safe environment policies.
 
My wife was at that cathedral three weeks ago. It was beautiful.
 
Hoosier-Daddy said:
Why do you think you know more than the judge and jury. Like I said, if you have presentable evidence please inform the appropriate authorities. Other than that please accept the facts as they are. Pell is a convicted child abuser. You brought your parochial role into it. I’m more than happy to keep those issues out of the discussion. As they should be. But it is a good time to remind all readers to review and know your safe environment policies.
Click to expand...
Oh, pleeeeeze,

FOR>THE>UMPTEENTH>TIME>!!! All I want is for the potential exculpatory evidence and testimony suppressed by the judge to be presented. If the jury considers that evidence and hears that testimony and still finds Pell guilty, SO>BE>IT!!!

I Heard the Voice of Jesus Say, “But if he hear thee not, take with thee one or two more, that at the mouth of two witnesses or three every word may be established.” Every decent chain reference Bible worth it’s salt sees this as Jesus affirming OT law: “One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall a matter be established.”

In this case, every word was NOT established. Establish EVERY WORD, and then, if the jury still finds Pell guilty, I’ll be shouting it from the mountaintops right alongside y’all.

nunsense brought his/her parochial role into the discussion as a means to discredit me, I simply responded.
 
I am sorry you feel that discussing his parochial role did you a disservice. I just don’t believe that you have the knowledge or understanding of his role in our communities. As for the jury not hearing all the evidence, what do you have to support this apart from conspiracy reports? There is so much information that was provided to the jury that we will never know about since Australia’s law forbids a lot of things that other countries might not. That is why there was a gag order as well, so that future juries would not be influenced by the results of this trial. The gag order was only released when those trials were cancelled. Have you seen a transcript of the trial evidence?It seems unlikely, but if you have, then please share that source with us.

Please don’t take our conversation personally as it is not directed (by me at least) to anyone in particular, but simply trying to offer my own perspective, based on experience and knowledge of the place, the people and the facts.
 
nunsense said:
simply trying to offer my own perspective, based on experience and knowledge of the place, the people and the facts.
Click to expand...
If the news is accurate, the good people of Australia are split right down the middle on that one. There are some very thoughtful and intelligent people in your neck of the woods that believe Pell is a scapegoat and the verdict is a sham. Some of those very people were NOT fans of Pell to begin with. Did you ever give any consideration to their arguments?
 
kmaaj said:
If the news is accurate, the good people of Australia are split right down the middle on that one. There are some very thoughtful and intelligent people in your neck of the woods that believe Pell is a scapegoat and the verdict is a sham. Some of those very people were NOT fans of Pell to begin with. Did you ever give any consideration to their arguments?
Click to expand...
This article says it better than I could and addresses so many of your questions. It addresses the issue of Pell being a possible scapegoat, evidence etc. Perhaps we could discuss it more after you have read the article?

www.theguardian.com

Cardinal George Pell's conviction: the questions that remain

George Pell’s trials on child sexual assault charges have received unprecedented public attention. Melissa Davey, one of the few reporters who sat through the entire process, answers some of the most common questions raised since his conviction
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
I read the article. Nothing in there that can sway either side of the obvious split among your own, so my question stands.

I also read the judge’s summary. He used the words “infer” and “assume”, neither of which have any place in judicial discourse. I remain unconvinced.
 
Well I certainly wasn’t trying to convince you. I am simply stating responses to some of your questions concerning the evidence. There will always be those who can’t believe Pell is guilty and those who can’t believe he is innocent. I am in the middle, I believe the verdict. I am more inclined to believe the verdict than some might however, because of my past associations with Pell here in Australia, and that is a bias towards guilt. On the other hand, if he is found innocent upon appeal, I will accept it, although I might not believe it. That’s probably the best I can do considering my own experiences.
 
I also read the article, and it seemed to be as fair a trial as could be had under the circumstances, with excellent direction from the judge, in a « rule of law » democracy.

Pell is also entitled to appeal. This isn’t a banana republic kangaroo court. He is deemed guilty unless he mounts a successful appeal.
 
I watched the entire sentencing and the judge bent over backwards to be as fair as possible with the sentencing. It seems a light sentence to some but he was taking into account a lot of things, including Pell’s standing in the community. There was no scent of kangaroo court or rmob rule etc. Once the jury had rendered their verdict (and this was after strict guidelines by the judge NOT to use Pell as a scapegoat for other offences by priests in the Catholic Church), the judge did everything in his power to make the sentencing as fair as he could. And he spoke about the heinousness of the crimes but also showed Pell respect and consideration. The fact that he allowed the sentencing to be recorded was also a sign of good faith - because this is not usual in Australia. He wanted there to be transparency with regard to the sentencing.

An appeal is the next step. Until then, Pell is guilty and a registered sex offender. At the trial it was the job of the prosecution to prove guilt, but for the appeal, it is the job of the defense to prove that there has been an injustice in the verdict. All we can hope for is that the court continues to be as unbiased and fair as it has been so far (which not everyone agrees with, I know).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top