The latest on a certain case in Australia that is subject to suppression orders here

  • Thread starter Thread starter Roseeurekacross
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Emeraldlady said:
40.png
Bradskii:
40.png
JimG:
A commentary from Phil Lawler:
Click to expand...
Cui bono? A disgraceful and despicable comment.

Who on earth would wonder about bringing to justice someone accused of sexual predation against children and then would piously ask to whom it may benefit. Obviously and glaringly omitting the victims themselves.

The whole article is rendered even more embarrasing by one of its opening sentence: ‘Since I don’t know the facts…’. The writer then goes on to ignore that statement completely and offer his opinion on a case about which he knows nothing. Except heresay from potentially biased third parties. And then goes on to claim that Pell was convicted on nothing but hearsay evidence (with zero evidence to back that up). The irony is too rich for my stomach.

Lawler goes on to make a fool of himself by implying that the court case was negatively impacted against the accused by not being reported. Might I ask what difference would it have made if it had been reported? Yes, the world was prevented from knowing what evidence had been produced by either side. But if it had been, then what? Would we then have deferred to the court of public opinion?

And surely he can’t be guilty because there are very few other charges pending. As if a man who is charged with the sexual molestation of a child cannot be guilty because, well…because we don’t know of any other incidences.

And best of all - he can’t be guilty because…he said he wasn’t.

What a nonsensical, self-serving, farcical and inept article.
Click to expand...
Your whole outrage is based on the mistaken presumption that the cases have not been thoroughly discussed and documented by the media for years prior to this.
Click to expand...
I will simply re-quote what the farcical Lawler said himself: ‘Since I don’t know the facts…’.

It was the only reasonable thing he said. Not realising that it made the rest of what he wrote not worth his time in writing it and not worth mine in reading it.
 
Last edited:
Bradskii said:
40.png
Emeraldlady:
40.png
Bradskii:
40.png
JimG:
A commentary from Phil Lawler:
Click to expand...
Cui bono? A disgraceful and despicable comment.

Who on earth would wonder about bringing to justice someone accused of sexual predation against children and then would piously ask to whom it may benefit. Obviously and glaringly omitting the victims themselves.

The whole article is rendered even more embarrasing by one of its opening sentence: ‘Since I don’t know the facts…’. The writer then goes on to ignore that statement completely and offer his opinion on a case about which he knows nothing. Except heresay from potentially biased third parties. And then goes on to claim that Pell was convicted on nothing but hearsay evidence (with zero evidence to back that up). The irony is too rich for my stomach.

Lawler goes on to make a fool of himself by implying that the court case was negatively impacted against the accused by not being reported. Might I ask what difference would it have made if it had been reported? Yes, the world was prevented from knowing what evidence had been produced by either side. But if it had been, then what? Would we then have deferred to the court of public opinion?

And surely he can’t be guilty because there are very few other charges pending. As if a man who is charged with the sexual molestation of a child cannot be guilty because, well…because we don’t know of any other incidences.

And best of all - he can’t be guilty because…he said he wasn’t.

What a nonsensical, self-serving, farcical and inept article.
Click to expand...
Your whole outrage is based on the mistaken presumption that the cases have not been thoroughly discussed and documented by the media for years prior to this.
Click to expand...
I will simply re-quote what the farcical Lawler said himself: ‘Since I don’t know the facts…’.

It was the only reasonable thing he said. Not realising that it made the rest of what he wrote not worth his time in writing it and not worth mine in reading it.
Click to expand...
The rest of his article should inform the actual meaning of what you quoted. He is talking about not knowing the facts of the trial. Not the facts of the whole issue which led to the the trial. We know so much about it all not least because of the accusers who sort to make themselves known.
 
Also don’t forget that the evidence that was placed in public was that the cardinal was never alone when he said mass at the cathedral or anywhere else. in other words the cardinal would have had to have sex in public surrounded by people without anybody seeing anything. Then move to a secret trial with secret evidence so that the prosecution can get a conviction.
 
Why do you persist in this? It wasn’t a secret trial. It wasn’t secret evidence. You even said yourself: ‘the evidence that was placed in public’. You are contradicting an already nonsensical argument yourself.

Do me a favour. Please explain what difference it makes if the press is not allowed to report on the case. Bearing in mind that the jurors are not even allowed to read, or even discuss the trial with anyone, during the course of the proceedings.

I’ll save you the trouble replying. It makes NO difference whatsoever. And your unquestioning acceptance of hearsay evidence that would have been sufficient to have the case summarily dismissed if actually true sums up nicely the views of quite a few people:

‘I know I don’t know the facts as presented at trial, but I cannot accept that he is guilty, therefore I will determine this evidence be true and that evidence to be false.’

Now that in itself would be an untenable positon to hold even if we were discussing the evidence as presented during the case. But the fact that you don’t have that evidence and you are just relying on hearsay from people who themselves give all indications of being biased in the first place, renders it a nonsensical position.
 
Last edited:
It seems almost as though you are deliberately creating strawmen arguments to give yourself the opportunity to use words like ‘untenable’ and ‘nonsensical’ over and over?

It’s a known principle that trust in the justice system requires “that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.” ( R v Sussex Justices, ex p McCarthy). That is “seen by the general public”. It is both natural and imperative that when there is a climate of prejudice or bias around an issue, the public confidence or lack of confidence is part and parcel of proceedings. I think myself and others on the thread who’ve expressed lack of confidence in this case have all done so with the codicil that it is possible that Cdl Pell may be guilty, but there has not been sufficient openness or sufficient effort against the current cultural bias against the whole Catholic Church to ensure public confidence in the conviction.
 
Last edited:
Emeraldlady said:
…but there has not been sufficient openness or sufficient effort against the current cultural bias against the whole Catholic Church to ensure public confidence in the conviction.
Click to expand...
I think that the highlighted section indicates everything anyone would need to know about how genuine your compalints are.

Considering the general complaint that the public is biased against members of the church, then from your point of view, keeping the details from the public would only be a benefit to the accused. Not that it would, because cases aren’t decided on the opinion of the general public.

Openess during the trial counts for NOTHING. It is irrelevant to the outcome. What is important, as you say but misrepresent, is that the process must be available to all so that we can see that justice has been done. That will happen. And then with the facts availlable to you, you will be free to voice your opinion as you see fit.

Knowing those facts before the verdict, as I have to keep repeating, did not, has not, and will forever not affect the verdict.

Do you or do you not understand that?
 
Last edited:
Bradskii said:
40.png
Emeraldlady:
…but there has not been sufficient openness or sufficient effort against the current cultural bias against the whole Catholic Church to ensure public confidence in the conviction.
Click to expand...
Do you or do you not understand that?
Click to expand...
It’s an interesting use of condescension to mask what is really your own lack of comprehending that the judge, lawyers and jury are all representatives of the people. That is what the term “The People verses such and such” indicates.

And this fallacious strawman that it is myself and a few people on this thread who are violating some code by expressing our own opinions, is utterly see through. It seems to echo those who want to suppress freedom of speech and the participation of the public in a transparent legal system.

Recently Lawyers Weekly discussed this ideology that believes that public commentary during and after a trial should be illegal, that is represented by SLAPP, that is, Strategic lawsuit against public participation.

“Strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) is a common strategy used to silence critics and hinder freedom of expression. The term SLAPP, was coined by two professors from the University of Denver in the 1980s, who defined SLAPP as a situation where a public, political controversy turns into a private and legalistic one. This generally involves the instigation of malicious, meritless and costly lawsuits by a powerful corporation, government, politicians or even the press with the sole intention to intimidate public-spirited institutions or individuals.”


The need to silence public commentary that is based on what individuals know according to their own research, knowledge and experience, actually has an insidious genesis against the freedoms and rights that ensure a fair and honest legal system for all.
 
Emeraldlady said:
The need to silence public commentary that is based on what individuals know according to their own research, knowledge and experience, actually has an insidious genesis against the freedoms and rights that ensure a fair and honest legal system for all.
Click to expand...
Yeah. Mum and apple pie! Freedom for the people! We demand our right to determine justice! Oh, sorry…didn’t actually mean that bit. I meant that we should determine justice based on our own research rather than the facts presented during a case! Oh, sorry. Wrong again.

And I must say that you exhibit no idea whatsoever what that SLAPP article was about. Do you really think it relates to supression orders and secret trials and the fact that justice must be seen to be done?

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.
 
I will say, even with what little I know about the case, the whole thing seems a little fishy to me. The facts of the case don’t seem to line up. When I first heard that Cdl. Pell was going back to Australia to face the charges, my opinion was swayed towards his innocence. He certainly does not act like a guilty man; either he’s confident of his innocence or he’s a really good actor.

I can also see how the current state of the Church in Australia may affect people’s perceptions. That certainly doesn’t help him.

That being said, I don’t know all the facts, so my opinion could be wrong.
 
Prior to the trial there was a public hearing where it was presented that the cardinal was never alone with anybody before, during, or after the mass at which he presided at the cathedral, the alleged sites of the assaults.
If the ‘victim’ is to believed then what you are saying is that the victim was pulled from the choir where he was singing, and attacked in a semi-public location by the prelate who was dressed in episcopal vestments, without anyone seeing or hearing anything. With this logic, I think that they should try him for shooting Lincoln.
 
Actually we are not all saying its impossible. Please don’t speak for everyone. We, those who knew them, thought it was impossible for others to have perpetrated these crimes, yet they did. Nothing is impossible under the sun.

All perps are Jekyll and Hyde characters. People would never guess. You should hear what people say of Risdale here, the people who were in his parishes. Or any of the others.

On another note, I have met people who have no idea this public figure was found guilty or even that the trial had happened.
 
Emeraldlady said:
Damian Dignan
Click to expand...
Damian Dignan has passed on. God rest his soul. Please do not disparage him. This man can now not defend himself or his accusations. And have you ever thought that people become career criminals due to a childhood that had significant trauma in it.

You could do with a great dose of charity towards the survivors and those who did not survive and those yet to come forward and those whose trials will never come to fruition because they passed on.

Damian is prayed for in my Parish and in the Diocese as he was a member of it. He was Catholic and as are you, is a member of the communion of saints.
You are also wrong about what the boy and his mother confirmed or denied, or the context of it.

You are simply wrong to read a snippet or two in some media outlet or on broken rites, and then expound on it.

we pray justice is done either way.

we also pray for the health of Cardinal Pell.
 
Last edited:
Jim we Australians don’t have access to that website.

bradski you will!
 
Poche that was a committal hearing and there was enough evidence in that committal hearing to bring the public figure to trial. And thats why he went to trial on two separate trials.

Do you know what a committal hearing is, do you have them where you are?
 
Roseeurekacross said:
Actually we are not all saying its impossible. Please don’t speak for everyone. We, those who knew them, thought it was impossible for others to have perpetrated these crimes, yet they did. Nothing is impossible under the sun.

All perps are Jekyll and Hyde characters. People would never guess. You should hear what people say of Risdale here, the people who were in his parishes. Or any of the others.

On another note, I have met people who have no idea this public figure was found guilty or even that the trial had happened.
Click to expand...
I didn’t say anyone said it is impossible? I said the opposite.
 
Website is denied for me too, Australian censorship.
 
Last edited:
Roseeurekacross said:
40.png
Emeraldlady:
Damian Dignan
Click to expand...
Damian Dignan has passed on. God rest his soul. Please do not disparage him. This man can now not defend himself or his accusations. And have you ever thought that people become career criminals due to a childhood that had significant trauma in it.

You could do with a great dose of charity towards the survivors and those who did not survive and those yet to come forward and those whose trials will never come to fruition because they passed on.

Damian is prayed for in my Parish and in the Diocese as he was a member of it. He was Catholic and as are you, is a member of the communion of saints.
Click to expand...
Yes, God rest his soul. His accusations against a living person remain on the record.
You are also wrong about what the boy and his mother confirmed or denied, or the context of it.

You are simply wrong to read a snippet or two in some media outlet or on broken rites, and then expound on it.
Click to expand...
You haven’t said what information you have on that issue to show my comments as ‘wrong’. I was going by what was detailed in Louise Milligans book on Pell (very much in the public record) and the information produced at the committal hearing at the beginning of the year saying just that.


I’m happy to be corrected though if my information is indeed wrong.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top