P
Phatmass1
Guest
When the defendant is guilty they wouldn’t.
- Status
C
Cruciferi
Guest
Nope. Taking the stand doesn’t prove that you’re innocent or exonerate you. Prosecution will eat you alive and turn everything that you say against you.
Pell appeal lost today Catholic News
A
Annie
Guest
If you take the stand, it opens you up for cross-examination–you have to answer the prosecutor’s questions. Even tho there are boundaries to what can be asked in the cross-examination, a good prosecutor can make mincemeat out of a person testifying on his own behalf, and if the defendant makes a small mistake, it can be blown up by the prosecution.
S
stpurl
Guest
No, please don’t put words in my mouth.
Some people are wrongfully convicted, and we can see that they are wrongfully convicted, sometimes at the time, sometimes after the fact.
of course you can’t wrap your head around what you SAID my argument was, first because that was never my argument in the first place, second because it isn’t a logical argument at all, which is why you can demolish your ‘false’ claim to ‘my argument’, but you cannot demolish my true claim that some people are wrongfully convicted.
Some people are wrongfully convicted, and we can see that they are wrongfully convicted, sometimes at the time, sometimes after the fact.
of course you can’t wrap your head around what you SAID my argument was, first because that was never my argument in the first place, second because it isn’t a logical argument at all, which is why you can demolish your ‘false’ claim to ‘my argument’, but you cannot demolish my true claim that some people are wrongfully convicted.
S
stpurl
Guest
I respectfully remind you that your ‘interpretation’ of my post was not what I stated; therefore you need have no worries regarding me or mine.
Since YOU were the one who came up with the ‘interpretation’, maybe you’d better worry more about the person who came up with that false ‘interpretation’. . .
Last edited:
A
Annie
Guest
Considering the evidence for and against each man, it seems likely that MacCarrick is guilty and Pell innocent.
However, I think the reason that so many are dismayed by Pell’s conviction is that conviction is supposed to occur when the evidence presented is “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Pell should never have even been charged, given the evidence against his having been able to commit the crime as described. The fact that he was convicted shows a breach of the principle of beyond a reasonable doubt.
I
IdaCatholic
Guest
The case against Pell is actually stronger than any against mccarrick. Pell was tried, he had a defense, evidence was presented for and against, 12 people deliberated, they all agreed, a judge agreed, then an appeal was filed, heard, and decided upon.
Mccarrick had no real trial, his options for defense and review was limited, the media dictated (rightfully so) that he was dealt with swiftly. And what are his accommodations now?
Pell was tried in a fair, just system by people who should be given the assumption of charity and was found guilty. It is truly frightening to me how people cannot see and accept that. The hate for the innocent jurors, lawyers, government, and people is so scary to me. As a parent I find my faith shaken, not by Pell but by those who twist reality to fit their agendas.
Mccarrick had no real trial, his options for defense and review was limited, the media dictated (rightfully so) that he was dealt with swiftly. And what are his accommodations now?
Pell was tried in a fair, just system by people who should be given the assumption of charity and was found guilty. It is truly frightening to me how people cannot see and accept that. The hate for the innocent jurors, lawyers, government, and people is so scary to me. As a parent I find my faith shaken, not by Pell but by those who twist reality to fit their agendas.
P
pnewton
Guest
That is a matter of opinion. For most of the history of jurisprudence there was an understanding that time matters, as does evidence.
The first jury was hung 10-2 for acquittal. In the appeal, one judge noted that Cardinal Pell may well have been innocent. Two of the three denied the appeal. So on balance, ten jurors believed him not guilty, fourteen believed him guilty. Two judges upheld the verdict, one did not. There was one, repeat, one accuser from two decades ago and no physical evidence. Reasonable doubt? There is way beyond reasonable doubt on this.
I reject your claim that this is desire for justice is some lack of charity and say rather this desire for punishment at all cost, innocent or not, is the much greater lack of charity. Before you pick the mote in the eyes of others here, you should see to your own beam.
A
Annie
Guest
Do you understand why some of us believe that Pell did not commit the crimes which he has been convicted of?
I
IdaCatholic
Guest
No annie, I dont.
I
IdaCatholic
Guest
When people make claims about this case, like reasonable doubt or even god so far s to believe him innocent they are doing so without knowledge or experience of those who actually were involved in the process. Justice was served. He was convicted.
He cant abuse now. I have zero chance of meeting him. All the people who think he 8s innocent however. They seem to be all around. Ready to turn a blind eye and ignore logic because “father is one of ours”
I hope that it is just an ideological argument and that were Pell in their living rooms they wouldnt leave their kids with him for ten minutes.
He cant abuse now. I have zero chance of meeting him. All the people who think he 8s innocent however. They seem to be all around. Ready to turn a blind eye and ignore logic because “father is one of ours”
I hope that it is just an ideological argument and that were Pell in their living rooms they wouldnt leave their kids with him for ten minutes.
T
TheHolyTrinity
Guest
Where you one of the lawyers or on the jury on Pell’s case?
G
GiftofMercy
Guest
Both these men are in different countries with different legal systems. we cannot compare the legal systems and their strengths against each other, there are different laws in place.
Pell still has leave to appeal. Lets see where that goes.
A
Annie
Guest
I do not think Pell is guilty because of the testimony that
1, none of the 3 people alleged to be involved (Pell and the alleged victims) would have been able to leave the procession, and
2, Pell’s vestments were configured in such a way that he would have been unable to commit the alleged acts.
There is some other evidence which is not as strongly exculpatory, that the layout of the building was such that people would have noticed this happening, that a counselor who counseled dozens of victims of others in Ballarat never heard anything doubtful about Pell, the accuser’s alleged fellow-victim’s denial, etc.
Do you understand better why some of us have doubts about the conviction?
1, none of the 3 people alleged to be involved (Pell and the alleged victims) would have been able to leave the procession, and
2, Pell’s vestments were configured in such a way that he would have been unable to commit the alleged acts.
There is some other evidence which is not as strongly exculpatory, that the layout of the building was such that people would have noticed this happening, that a counselor who counseled dozens of victims of others in Ballarat never heard anything doubtful about Pell, the accuser’s alleged fellow-victim’s denial, etc.
Do you understand better why some of us have doubts about the conviction?
G
GiftofMercy
Guest
On this comment, the judges examined the vestments and found they could be moved aside for the offenses to occur. The jury were also able to examine the vestments.
On this comment it was also determined that it is quite possible for choir boys to take off , and the ArchBishop to take his leave briefly too.
on this comment , there is a lot of talk regarding Pell and his actions at certain Surf Clubs over the years. It will be detailed in a book that will be rereleased once all legal proceedings are done.
Only Pell and God know the truth, and the living Choir boy.
My suggestion is to pray for the author of this book, who is a practicing Catholic and telling those who are impacted by the abuse scandels, not to stop, or if not attending, to start attending Mass again. Her statements to people she talks to are having an impact on people returning to the Church.
Last edited:
A
Annie
Guest
In that case, his conviction is much more understandable. Thank you for explaining all that.
G
GiftofMercy
Guest
You are welcome. There are reports today that he has decided to appeal to the High Court, they are unsubstantiated as yet . I will update when they are confirmed.
A
Annie
Guest
That is wonderful. I will pray for her and her work.
O
OraLabora
Guest
McCarrick’s case was never tried in court. Pell’s was. So yes the case against him is stronger in that sense,
The systems are not so dissimilar. Both are based on English Common Law. But yes you are right, he has leave to appeal, and we should reserve our own judgement until that has happened, assuming he does appeal.
Yes thanks from me too. I suspected that this might be the case. We were not there, and did not hear what the jury heard.
T
TheHolyTrinity
Guest
I had directed the question to Idacatholic about Pell. I was not asking about McCarrick’s Case.
- Status