Read The Forum Rules: We have a clear set of rules to keep the forum running smoothly. Click here to review them.

Post Reply 
Vatican Treasurer Cardinal Pell Charged With Sex Offences, No Real Evidence Required
Author Message
Only One Man Offline
Kingfisher
***

Posts: 661
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 4
Post: #26
RE: Vatican Treasurer Cardinal Pell Charged With Sex Offences, No Real Evidence Required
If your religious organization actively shields, moves, hides and protects child molesters, then your religiously organization can go fuck itself. This has been proven to be the case countless times.
07-09-2017 06:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes Only One Man's post:
DarkTriad
bonkers Offline
Sparrow

Posts: 122
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 1
Post: #27
RE: Vatican Treasurer Cardinal Pell Charged With Sex Offences, No Real Evidence Required
So Cardinal George Pell has been found guilty and it was decided by a jury. He has appealed but has not been granted bail.

Will it get overthrown on appeal? And will the appeal be through judge or jury?
02-28-2019 05:30 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Paracelsus Offline
Crow
*****
Gold Member

Posts: 6,233
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation: 149
Post: #28
RE: Vatican Treasurer Cardinal Pell Charged With Sex Offences, No Real Evidence Required
(02-28-2019 05:30 AM)bonkers Wrote:  So Cardinal George Pell has been found guilty and it was decided by a jury. He has appealed but has not been granted bail.

Will it get overthrown on appeal? And will the appeal be through judge or jury?

Whether it gets overthrown on appeal basically depends on one thing: whether the appeal court takes the view that the jury's decision was one that no reasonable bunch of flatheads could have come to.

Juries don't give reasons for their decisions. That's one reason "perverse" verdicts of not guilty can sometimes be returned: where a political prosecution is knocked out by a jury that thinks the law itself is unjust, and accordingly records an acquittal despite the evidence being overwhelming.

This appeal will likely be based on the reverse: the jury returns a verdict of guilty where no reasonable jury thinking shit through would convict. For example, the prosecution puts Donald Trump on the stand and accuses him of fucking horses but doesn't put a single witness, photo, or other piece of evidence proving the crime or even suggesting he's committed the crime.

A jury returning a verdict of guilty in those circumstances would very clearly have returned a verdict that no reasonable jury could. For a verdict of guilty, the jury has to have evidence to act on.

Another example: where Donald Trump is charged with breaking low flight ordinances by walking on air, and the evidence for the charge is a single deranged fuckwit who screams that he saw Trump strolling on foot past the 3rd floor window of a skyscraper at 10 in the morning on 12 July, 1998. Again, were the jury to convict on that evidence, it would be a verdict no reasonable jury could return, because the evidence simply does not concord with the laws of physics.

In essence, the appeal court has to agree that no reasonable jury could have been convinced beyond reasonable doubt of the accused's guilt given the evidence that was provided.

In Pell's case, the evidence comes down to one, uncorroborated witness. There apparently was another ... who was dead of a heroin overdose shortly before Pell was charged. There are apparently a number of physical impossibilities or very-high-improbabilities on that evidence. Supposedly Pell is meant to have forced two altar boys to suck his cock in one of the changing rooms of the cathedral right after saying mass, when Pell was apparently still in his clerical robes. Leaving aside arguments about the precise where the offences occurred, the biggest issue that Pell's likely to point to is that the robes in question physically cannot allow a priest to access his own dick until he takes the whole shebang off, which the accusers say didn't happen; they say he pulled his robes aside and made them grab his dick. Pell did not testify during the trial, but he did deny the crimes when the police recorded him on video and asked for his response to the allegations.

Whether or not Pell gets his conviction overturned on appeal is an open question, but it's certainly a vote in favour of Gerry Spence's dictum that sheer conviction carries credibility far more than logic would dictate.

As for me, I have my doubts. Remember this is the second time Pell was on trial for this crime. The first time, the trial ended in a hung jury, i.e. the jury was deadlocked with at least three jurymembers refusing to agree on a verdict - guilty or not - with the remainder of the jury. A hung jury first time round is, to me, always a red flag for the reliability of a conviction because it indicates either high emotions in the jury or some very different ideas about what the evidence proves. Worse still when the evidence comes down to the word of one witness: this case was the equivalent of he said, she said ... which crops up a lot in child abuse cases to be fair, but if the jury decided to convict solely because they liked the complainant more than Pell, that would be a bad basis for a decision. The principles and what's at stake are similar as with false rape accusations against men: no complaint to police at the time -- understandably -- and also no other witness to the crime.

The appeal court would be made up of three judges, and what would be at issue would be either that there was a miscarriage of justice by reason of an unreasonable jury verdict, or there was an error of law in how the judge summed up to the jury.

Pell made two mistakes on this: he refused to take the witness stand (or was advised not to) and he was content with a trial by jury rather than by judge alone. He made the second mistake I think because he was worried about the PR if he got acquitted by a legal mind rather than 12 ordinary people, but the first mistake I think he made because, regardless of what they tell you, it's never, never a good look to sit silent and never face up to your accusers under cross-examination.

Remissas, discite, vivet.
God save us from people who mean well. -storm
02-28-2019 07:22 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Leonard D Neubache Offline
Owl
******
Gold Member

Posts: 12,965
Joined: Mar 2016
Reputation: 214
Post: #29
RE: Vatican Treasurer Cardinal Pell Charged With Sex Offences, No Real Evidence Required
I think Pell chose a jury because he's been targeted by the Deep State, of which the Catholic Church is a long time member and under which all judges of note take their orders.

Any number of a thousand Catholic priests and those up from there could have been dragged in front of a court for far more serious offences, but for some reason Pell is getting the whip over relatively weak accusations. That said, nobody gets that high in the organisation without taking their 30 pieces of silver.

My bet is that Pell backed the wrong horse too deeply when Francis ousted Benedict and putting him against the wall is the Church and the Deep State's way of sending a clear message about who's in charge in case there are still factional holdouts.

Being cherry picked like that and convicted on such shitty evidence paints a clear picture. Is he guilty of this? Who knows. But there's no smart money in the world that would bet on him not being up to his neck in some kind of satanic bullshit or at least the covering up of it. Nobody pure gets that deep. So you dance with the devil and you pay your dues, Mr Pell. He'll get a cushy cell or home detention if he agrees to keep his mouth shut. If not then he'll "hang himself" or the famously anti-pedo inmates of a suitable cell block will make short work of him.

God demands of Man responsibility. God demands of Woman vulnerability. These are their curse and blessing alike. Libertianism is to Man as Feminism is to Woman.
(This post was last modified: 02-28-2019 07:36 AM by Leonard D Neubache.)
02-28-2019 07:34 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes Leonard D Neubache's post:
ilostabet
Days of Broken Arrows Offline
Crow
*****
Gold Member

Posts: 5,105
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 211
Post: #30
RE: Vatican Treasurer Cardinal Pell Charged With Sex Offences, No Real Evidence Required
I heard about this on my local AM news station. It was late at night, I was half asleep, and the reception was poor, so I thought the announcer had said "Cardinal Hell."

I fell asleep thinking "Wow! Isn't that an ironic name for a church official? Hell! What a trip."

Imagine my disappointment when I woke up the next morning and found his name was actually "Pell." Where's the poetry in that? Anyway, here's someone who really does have the last name Hell, sort of:



(This post was last modified: 02-28-2019 07:37 AM by Days of Broken Arrows.)
02-28-2019 07:36 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes Days of Broken Arrows's post:
Kona
alchemical Offline
Pigeon

Posts: 23
Joined: Jul 2016
Reputation: 0
Post: #31
RE: Vatican Treasurer Cardinal Pell Charged With Sex Offences, No Real Evidence
(02-28-2019 07:36 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  "Cardinal Hell."

..."Wow! Isn't that an ironic name for a church official? Hell! What a trip."

This person might be of interest (and real too!): Cardinal Sin

[Image: 240px-Cardinal_Jaime_Sin_in_1988.jpg]

Yep, that's what they call him, no joke--but it's more of an endearment, which makes it another irony on top of an irony; since he is very much revered and is considered a national hero
02-28-2019 12:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
ilostabet Offline
Kingfisher
***

Posts: 777
Joined: Jun 2017
Reputation: 24
Post: #32
RE: Vatican Treasurer Cardinal Pell Charged With Sex Offences, No Real Evidence Required
(06-29-2017 07:13 AM)Tokyo Joe Wrote:  I Agree with Kona.

Let's break it down.

When a man says he is "treasurer at the Vatican" you will always find that the only thing he treasures is Swooping dudes.

And most of the time those Dudes are altar boys. But most are not honest enough to admit Something like this.

***
The Original "Collusion"

Pastors at local parishes colluding with Bishops and Cardinals to move Priests who are caught Swooping little dudes out of their Fiefdom and into a different Fiefdom.

Most do not talk about this.

***
I was raised a Catholic. I Admit This.

But I brought my Machete to church every week and sharpened it in the front pew during Sunday Mass.

This was a Strong Statement making Move.

The Priests in my Fiefdom did not come anywhere near me.

But most do not do this. So run the numbers.

g manifesto?
02-28-2019 01:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Contact Us | RooshV.com | Return to Top | Return to Content | Mobile Version | RSS Syndication