Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sex Abuse

Jump to new
A boy that had been sexually abused by another priest reported it to George Pell. Pell's response was, "Did you like it?"

 
bellenuit said:
So my question is: How can Pell argue innocence (that he has not committed those acts) when his counsel seems to be arguing that he had done those acts but was not of rational mind at the time?
Click to expand...

He cannot, and who cares, he is a pedo, found guilty and should be damned to hell, if it even exists.

I cannot believe our society is wasting so much time and energy over a pedo, who abused children in the name of god.

We all should be focused on doing good, not defending and trying to understand the crimes committed in the name of God, terrorism, the catholic church.
 
That is a really interesting comparison Wayne. I thought the Judge did an excellent job of weighing up all the factors with regard to Cardinal Pells case and coming up with the sentence. Frankly I would have given a few more years but I'm not the judge.
On the other hand the theoretical harshness of the sentences faced by David Boyle are bloody scary. That is dangerous BS.
 
bellenuit said:
But the judge in his summation stated that Pell's counsel tried to suggest that Pell was not of a rational mind at the time as there was a high probability that someone could walk in on him during those acts and also that there were lockable rooms close by that would have been less risky. Doing it under those circumstances indicated a lack of rationality. The judge rejected those claims for several reasons, one of which was that no medical evidence had been put to the court to suggest that Pell had any mental impairment at the time in question.
Click to expand...

Were these suggestions put by the defence during the trial or at the sentencing hearing ?

If at the trial, then the defence might have meant that he couldn't have done it because it would not be a rational act to do it in such an open place and there was no sign that Pell was not rational..

If at the sentencing hearing the defence tries to mitigate the act for a lower sentence in case the appeal does not succeed.
 
wayneL said:
As an interesting aside:

Click to expand...

maybe if he was a catholic, he would have only got 1 life sentence for doing the right thing. If he had f--ked young boys then even less, just a few years, stands to reason, better to believe in god and get away with a light sentence than to the right thing and stand by your moral convictions and get 6 life sentences.

Just out of curiosity, has anyone in Aus being given a sentence so long.
 
SirRumpole said:
Were these suggestions put by the defence during the trial or at the sentencing hearing ?
Click to expand...

I had assumed during the trial. But if only at the sentencing then the dichotomy might make sense. However, if at the sentencing, could it have an impact on the appeal? Perhaps anything said outside of the actual trial is excluded?
 
bellenuit said:
However, if at the sentencing, could it have an impact on the appeal? Perhaps anything said outside of the actual trial is excluded?
Click to expand...

From what the judge said at the sentencing, the appeal is a completely different process. I don't think the appeal court takes any notice of what is said at the sentencing hearing, they only deal with the trial itself, matters like whether the jury was properly instructed or whether relevant evidence was allowed to be presented.
 
I might have to do some research as Bas suggests . I don't think this will stop at all , but just get worse (more news to come).
 
grah33 said:
I might have to do some research as Bas suggests . I don't think this will stop at all , but just get worse (more news to come).
Click to expand...

In this case, I simply cannot understand what evidence, could possibly have been presented, to eliminate all reasonable doubt.

As such, I strongly suspect that, irrespective of Pell's guilt (or absence thereof), that the jury was likely incorrect in delivering a guilty verdict, and was more likely driven, by emotively formed opinions, rather than objective assessment of the facts.
 
cynic said:
In this case, I simply cannot understand what evidence, could possibly have been presented, to eliminate all reasonable doubt.

As such, I strongly suspect that, irrespective of Pell's guilt (or absence thereof), that the jury was likely incorrect in delivering a guilty verdict, and was more likely driven, by emotively formed opinions, rather than objective assessment of the facts.
Click to expand...

They took 5 days to reach a verdict on what seems a simple case of believe either the witness or defendant so there probably was a good deal of doubt in the jury's mind.
 
cynic said:
In this case, I simply cannot understand what evidence, could possibly have been presented, to eliminate all reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...

So child molesters can't be found guilty unless there's, say, security cam footage of it, to make sure 100% it happened?
 
satanoperca said:
He cannot, and who cares, he is a pedo, found guilty and should be damned to hell, if it even exists.

I cannot believe our society is wasting so much time and energy over a pedo, who abused children in the name of god.

We all should be focused on doing good, not defending and trying to understand the crimes committed in the name of God, terrorism, the catholic church.
Click to expand...

Not sure they abused "in the name of God". More likely that the rules of celibacy of catholic priests is too much for some to handle.
 
This was the second trial, first trial was a hung jury.

Do your own research.

The ABC in my view has been a disgrace.
 
Tink said:
This was the second trial, first trial was a hung jury.

Do your own research.

The ABC in my view has been a disgrace.
Click to expand...
I do know who the disgrace really is, the real stories of Pell and his peodophile mates years back at Ballarat will now start to come out clearly and bigger shocks yet to hit. The Royal Commission got into those revelations but only about 40% of it and our lovely press skimped over it also.

Two sides to a coin.
 
Tink said:
This was the second trial, first trial was a hung jury.

Do your own research.

The ABC in my view has been a disgrace.
Click to expand...

Once again Tinks loyalty to her cult shines through, face it Tink, you’re cult is morally bankrupt.
 
Top