- Joined
- 29 January 2006
- Posts
- 7,217
- Reactions
- 4,437
If you think lying is not an important consideration in the justice system, then you have a point.
Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sex Abuse
- Thread starter Tisme
- Start date
-
- Tags
- royal commission
- Joined
- 25 February 2011
- Posts
- 5,685
- Reactions
- 1,218
Do not presume to know what I think until you have taken the time to understand what I actually posted!
Do you understand that the words 'liar' and 'pedophile' are not synonymous (nor are they conjoined).
It may come as a surprise to some, but there are many more liars in the world than there are pedophiles! Being guilty of the former, does not necessarily make one guilty of the latter!
- Joined
- 29 January 2006
- Posts
- 7,217
- Reactions
- 4,437
Your comprehension skills continue to be sub-par.
Pell was a former housemate and friend of convicted paedophile Risdale.
Pell had knowledge of Risdale's activities and has been dishonest about this fact.
Pell has had other accusers of his activities as a paedophile but only one has been brave enough to take his case to court.
A trial by jury found Pell guilty, and the appellant court upheld the verdict.
We know the High Court overturned Pell's verdict on a curious technicality, having never heard the evidence against him.
The original verdict of Pell's guilt was predicated on the honesty of the victim's testimony.
Pell is known to be a liar of long standing, a friend and supporter of a convicted paedophile, and clearly a person who did nothing to stop Risdale's activities. Furthermore, if he were a person of compassion he would have swiftly put an end to Risdale's vile activities, yet he allowed it continue within his diocese for decades.
Pell was lucky the redacted evidence of the Royal Commission did not taint earlier considerations. However, the truth about Pell is now in the public domain and it is absolutely damning.
- Joined
- 25 February 2011
- Posts
- 5,685
- Reactions
- 1,218
And what pray tell, has any of this to do with the alleged crimes at the cathedral in 1996 and 1997?
If Pell had been charged and convicted for lying about his knowledge of Ridsdale's criminal activities, we wouldn't be having this interchange!
Do you comprehend what I am actually trying to convey here!
There does exist a difference between mendacity and paedophilia!
(Pell was charged and tried for the latter, not the former!)
- Joined
- 29 January 2006
- Posts
- 7,217
- Reactions
- 4,437
You continue to fail to grasp the concept of credibility, so I will leave it there.
- Joined
- 30 June 2008
- Posts
- 15,357
- Reactions
- 7,232
It's interesting to see George Pell attempt to keep his pristine reputation intact.
The Royal Commission judges heard and interrogated hundreds of witnesses over thousands of accusations of abuse. They made decisions on the overall credibility or otherwise of these often conflicting statements.
With regard to George Pell they were inclined to disregard a number of accusations as possibly mistaken or whatever. However on other allegations ie the likelihood that he was aware of specific allegations about abusive priests and that he did not take action to stop these practices they found there was a credible case.
So it seems that while George Pell acknowedges the awful reality of all those priests around him who repeatedly abused children with multiple complaints made, he won't accept the findings that as a very intelligent Bishop and Church leader he was aware of the situation and chose not to do anything about it.
I know nuthing...
No one believes that. It is not true. The findings of he Royal Commission judges confirm the obvious.
The Royal Commission judges heard and interrogated hundreds of witnesses over thousands of accusations of abuse. They made decisions on the overall credibility or otherwise of these often conflicting statements.
With regard to George Pell they were inclined to disregard a number of accusations as possibly mistaken or whatever. However on other allegations ie the likelihood that he was aware of specific allegations about abusive priests and that he did not take action to stop these practices they found there was a credible case.
So it seems that while George Pell acknowedges the awful reality of all those priests around him who repeatedly abused children with multiple complaints made, he won't accept the findings that as a very intelligent Bishop and Church leader he was aware of the situation and chose not to do anything about it.
I know nuthing...
No one believes that. It is not true. The findings of he Royal Commission judges confirm the obvious.
- Joined
- 30 June 2008
- Posts
- 15,357
- Reactions
- 7,232
Analysis of the findings of the Royal Commission regarding George Pells knowledge of sexual abuse by priests over 25 years.
We can understand why this was not published before his trial.
History will not be kind to George Pell, as royal commission reveals its secret findings
.. Today, it's clear judges presiding over the five-year Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse repeatedly rejected the Cardinal's evidence to them about the extent of his knowledge that other priests were paedophiles.
Pell had always emphatically asserted that he was kept in the dark. The royal commissioners say he wasn't.
While in some cases his evidence about notorious allegations was accepted by the commission, many of his submissions in relation to what he knew about offending in Ballarat and Melbourne were described as "implausible", "inconceivable" or "not tenable".
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-05-08/george-pell-royal-commission-findings-revealed/12225690
We can understand why this was not published before his trial.
History will not be kind to George Pell, as royal commission reveals its secret findings
.. Today, it's clear judges presiding over the five-year Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse repeatedly rejected the Cardinal's evidence to them about the extent of his knowledge that other priests were paedophiles.
Pell had always emphatically asserted that he was kept in the dark. The royal commissioners say he wasn't.
While in some cases his evidence about notorious allegations was accepted by the commission, many of his submissions in relation to what he knew about offending in Ballarat and Melbourne were described as "implausible", "inconceivable" or "not tenable".
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-05-08/george-pell-royal-commission-findings-revealed/12225690
Don't We?
You're defending, threw obfuscation( your standard) a man who through his actions procured children for Ridsdale to sexually assult...
The final scene of 'The Postman Always Rings Twice' whilst an injustice was true Justice.
And Pell should be charged as being an enabler of paedophiles a facilitator a pimp. A nonse's nonse....
Do some thing useful for once; send a few Bucks to BraveHearts. Or don't ... best to 'Know thy self' .
- Joined
- 25 February 2011
- Posts
- 5,685
- Reactions
- 1,218
I have never, ever, defended such reprehensible activities!!!
I object to any suggestion to the contrary.
Furthermore, you have indignified yourself, by levelling such a false accusation against me!
A creative work of fiction!
How is that relevant?
Injustice is injustice in the real world!
Perhaps he should be charged, provided there is actually a case to be made, with a strong body of supportive evidence!
If so, then I would be in wholehearted agreement!
So the question then becomes, why hasn't this been done?
My philanthropic activities are none of your business!!!
- Joined
- 30 June 2008
- Posts
- 15,357
- Reactions
- 7,232
It will be interesting to see what the Catholic Churchs official response is to the unredacted Royal Commission findings with regard to Cardinal Pell.
- Joined
- 30 June 2008
- Posts
- 15,357
- Reactions
- 7,232
They could begin by talking to the people in Ballarat
‘Why didn’t he help those little boys?’: how George Pell failed the children of Ballarat
The cardinal maintains he didn’t know about the Victorian town’s notorious paedophile priests, a claim the royal commission found ‘implausible’
“Why isn’t all of Australia talking about what happened here in Ballarat?”
That’s the question Clare Linane remembers asking her husband, Peter Blenkiron, 12 years ago as they were sitting in the kitchen talking about his abuse. Linane’s husband, brother and cousin had all been abused when they were children between 1973 and 1974 by Christian Brother and now convicted paedophile Edward “Ted” Dowlan. They knew they were among thousands of people living in and around Ballarat – Victoria’s largest inland city – who had been affected by child sexual abuse perpetrated by clergy.
On Thursday, Australia’s five-year inquiry into child sexual abuse in Australian institutions published its findings about Ballarat in full, more than two years after its inquiry was complete. Previously, a heavily redacted version of the report had been published, missing details about Cardinal George Pell and what he knew about abuse in the town located about 100km north-west of Melbourne. At the time Pell was working in the diocese, Ballarat was home to some of the Catholic church’s, and Australia’s, most notorious paedophile priests. Survivor groups say at least 50 suicides in the town over the past few decades are the result of clergy abuse.
With Pell’s court case now complete and his convictions overturned, there is no longer a risk of jurors being prejudiced by the findings – so they were released. Ballarat survivors have begun a petition to have Pell defrocked following the findings.
Pell was a parish priest in Ballarat from 1972 and was also a member of the College of Consultors of the Ballarat diocese, a group of senior priests who advised the then bishop Ronald Mulkearns.
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...w-george-pell-failed-the-children-of-ballarat
If you knew anything of it? you'd know it is a morality tale... like a fable or a scripture, a warning as to consequences. It's consequences a couple fictional of deaths... Ahh the young Lana Turner, even Nina Simone sung of her.
The consequences of the putrid Pell? Incalculable. And will ring down generations.
I look forward to the day when Pell is out in public with his arch protectors, Abbott, Bolt, Kenny, Devine, Howard, the ghastly toad Henderson(and some incredulous fools).... the look and smell of an open sewer.
and you think I do myself an indignity to point to your gaping failures of comprehension...
For Pell comes the second ring on the bell.
- Joined
- 25 February 2011
- Posts
- 5,685
- Reactions
- 1,218
Before accusing me, yet again, of your own failing, I suggest you take the time to revisit and reread my posts carefully.
If you do, you will hopefully come to the realisation that I was not actually defending Pell, I was defending the right of every Australian citizen, to an important legal protection!!
- Joined
- 29 January 2006
- Posts
- 7,217
- Reactions
- 4,437
Very few Australians get to take their case to the High Court, and fewer still win on a technicality.
The legal standard is trial by jury, and that is moderated by an appellant court.
The curious judgement of the High Court boiled down to them determining that inadequate consideration was given to a chance the offence never happened. It is curious in that a Crofts direction was not given by the trial judge, as this consideration would have been formed were he concerned about the credibility of the witness.
In matters of allegation without material evidence, the only weight that can carry is credibility.
Pell is liar.
- Joined
- 25 February 2011
- Posts
- 5,685
- Reactions
- 1,218
- Joined
- 29 January 2006
- Posts
- 7,217
- Reactions
- 4,437
Om the contrary.
There is a more likely chance from what we all know that the High Court has acquitted a guilty person.
- Joined
- 25 February 2011
- Posts
- 5,685
- Reactions
- 1,218
- Joined
- 29 January 2006
- Posts
- 7,217
- Reactions
- 4,437
You simply have no concept of the importance of "credibility" in this case.
In all cases where a complainant has no ability to provide material evidence the case rides wholly on what is most credible.
If you had ever sat on a jury you would find it offensive that anyone, let alone the High Court, considered you did not properly entertain "doubt." It's the very reason people are found not guilty from the outset (or sometimes leads to a hung jury).
It is a logical nonsense statement from the High Court that "doubt" was not "entertained," as if there is no doubt then the matter either never goes to court, or the plea becomes immediate.
Pell managed to destroy one life, and has gravely harmed another.
As an accomplished liar Pell will never admit his wrongdoings, and nowhere is this better proven than in the unredacted sections of the Royal Commission that forensically reviewed his many deeds.
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,666
- Reactions
- 11,967
The burden of proof is hardly a technicality, it's the "Golden Thread" as someone once said.
- Joined
- 29 January 2006
- Posts
- 7,217
- Reactions
- 4,437
You need to read the thread more carefully.
Courts with juries assess the evidence and determine the burden of proof.
The High Court ruled on a technicality. The nub of this technicality is that the High Court considered the claimant was dishonest.