Jump to content

Cardinal Pell


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 783
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

All I can say is that I am glad that Tim has done what he has....to bring it to the forefront and have people realize a little more of what may have been done, all I can do is wait my turn to give evi

I probably have a bit of a unique insight into this. I was at the school when the attacks happened: in year 11 to be exact. I knew/know many exCcathedral College choir kids. I attended the masses and

To be fair, Pell was a senior cleric in parishes all over the state/country that have had thousands of cases of proven child sexual abuse. In all these cases, it has since emerged that there were alwa

Posted Images

  • 3 months later...

So has he been found guilty?  The Project is saying there is a huge story that's trending internationally but a gag order is holding off the reporting of it.

We're finding comments online that's he's been found guilty of the sexual abuse of two choir boys.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, goughy said:

So has he been found guilty?  The Project is saying there is a huge story that's trending internationally but a gag order is holding off the reporting of it.

We're finding comments online that's he's been found guilty of the sexual abuse of two choir boys.

Let’s hope you are right 

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Cottoneyes said:

Is there a reputable news source showing it yet?  Nothing on the website of London Times or Irish Post

Don’t have to read closely between the lines. Confirmed.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/victoria/why-the-media-is-unable-to-report-on-a-case-that-has-generated-huge-interest-online-20181212-p50lta.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's pretty much what The Project said at the start of last night's episode!

So last trial ended in a hung jury.  Now there's two separate trials.  So was the jury unable to come to a decision because the combination of multiple victims in the case made it difficult to find guilt on all of them?  So break the case into two trials, with the most likely to prove guilt in the first trial?

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a second trial in March. The media coverage now would make it difficult to find a jury that wasn’t aware of this conviction. I have no sympathy for him or other offenders of his ilk, but would rather not give him grounds for an appeal if he was found guilty at the second trial.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Stoney!!! said:

There is a second trial in March. The media coverage now would make it difficult to find a jury that wasn’t aware of this conviction. I have no sympathy for him or other offenders of his ilk, but would rather not give him grounds for an appeal if he was found guilty at the second trial.

but there isn't media coverage of his conviction 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Peter said:

He better go to jail forever. Farking

As if.  Our legal system is pathetic when it comes to jail sentences for people who commit serious crimes.

Hence a total shitbag gets out on parole and rapes a 7yo girl, or rapes and murders a woman in Melbourne, or gets behind a wheel again and wipes out a whole family.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

So is this like some Underbelly defence that his legal team has dreamt up?  You know, when Underbelly the original series was banned in Victoria at the time of release, everyone pretty much spoke of nothing else for the next month.  By the time it could be seen and talked about, everyone just went Meh..

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get all this suppression stuff and how some media even blur out faces of some 'alleged' criminals, yet some tv channels show them. they can't stop potential jurors reading social media things, so I thought that the idea is both sides agreeing on a 'fair' jury at  jury selection.  Any lawyers explain this to me. Andrew??

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Prince said:

I don't get all this suppression stuff and how some media even blur out faces of some 'alleged' criminals, yet some tv channels show them. they can't stop potential jurors reading social media things, so I thought that the idea is both sides agreeing on a 'fair' jury at  jury selection.  Any lawyers explain this to me. Andrew??

In this age of "Instant Information" from around the globe, is there even any point in a suppression order just in Australia? Does this mean the only potentially "uninformed" jurors will be 70 year olds without the internet?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ex-Hasbeen said:

In this age of "Instant Information" from around the globe, is there even any point in a suppression order just in Australia? Does this mean the only potentially "uninformed" jurors will be 70 year olds without the internet?

they are pretty much the majority of people with the time and inclination to want to go to jury duty anyway

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Tyno said:

they are pretty much the majority of people with the time and inclination to want to go to jury duty anyway

Then how come 6 of my team of 11 have been called up this year? I'm the only one that got out of it, & I am the closest to that description of the lot. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Tyno said:

they are pretty much the majority of people with the time and inclination to want to go to jury duty anyway

Only until they get there and realise they don't get to tell everyone their life story and how much tougher Ironman was back in their day

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Ex-Hasbeen said:

Then how come 6 of my team of 11 have been called up this year? I'm the only one that got out of it, & I am the closest to that description of the lot. :)

It must be the year for it. 3 out of 4 in our family are on the jury roll and we've all been called up this year and all had to get excused due to prior travel arrangements or work.

The docs say a call up is random but that is BS as our youngest just keeps getting called. The other day it was for a 12 week trial! As if her employer can lose her for 12 weeks. They've had to write her a letter to say not possible. A 2 week trial maybe but 3 months?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

What I don't understand, and I mean this sincerely is how on earth two 13 year old boys didn't fight back or tell anyone? I understand maybe back in the 50ies when they would have feared no one believing them etc but this case was back in 1996 when this type of stuff was public knowledge?? Also they were 13 year olds, not little boys. Most 13 year olds boys I know would have no problem smashing you in the face if you tried something like that. 

I dunno, maybe these types of sickos only prey on the weak that they know wont fight back or say anything :( 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Your last sentence explained it all!  Predators know their targets!  Heck, the reality is we don't even truly know if this was the first time these boys were assaulted.

Look at how indoctrinated some people can be.  The true believers, the sort of people who might become altar boys!   Their faith can reach levels many of us couldn't even comprehend, and someone as powerful as a bishop or cardinal (let alone a regular priest) is someone not just to be reflected, but also feared!  For Pell, there is no way this can be his first assaults, and years of getting away with it, and seeing and helping others to get away with it, would have left him feeling untouchable!  Don't forget, we are taking about hundreds, if not thousands of years of such abuses, that are only coming into the public light over the last few decades.  And really only a few years were priests are being charged.   It makes you wonder how many such people were attracted to the church for this, almost secret society, to give them access to kids but also provide a protective wing to hide under.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, goughy said:

what a callous thing to say.  He needs to meet some of the victims of which there are many that only couldn't get justice as there was not enough evidence. He is not only guilty of the sick pedophile cases but of covering up for others, lying, and being a hippocrit. I hope Bolt gets all the hate mail he deserves. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Much and all as I despise the church and all it stands for, I struggle to understand how he was found guilty based on the 'evidence' disclosed so far. Essentially one person making a claim that Pell denies but that the jury believed, because of details kept secret?

Edited by XCOM.!
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with you XCom, taking nothing from the victims but do not understand how beyond reasonable doubt was reached on one persons evidence.  Apparently Pell did not speak in his defence though which would have swayed most people to assume guilt.  Even so, he personally appears to have covered up or abetted plenty of other cases so no sleep will be lost here

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...