- Joined
- 29 January 2006
- Posts
- 7,217
- Reactions
- 4,439
If you think lying is not an important consideration in the justice system, then you have a point.
If you think lying is not an important consideration in the justice system, then you have a point.As usual, important distinctions are once again being overlooked.
Falsely claiming no knowledge of others' criminal activities, does not equate to having personally engaged in those same activities.
Do not presume to know what I think until you have taken the time to understand what I actually posted!If you think lying is not an important consideration in the justice system, then you have a point.
Your comprehension skills continue to be sub-par.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!
And what pray tell, has any of this to do with the alleged crimes at the cathedral in 1996 and 1997?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.
You continue to fail to grasp the concept of credibility, so I will leave it there.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!)
Do you comprehend what I am actually trying to convey here!
I have never, ever, defended such reprehensible activities!!!Don't We?
You're defending, threw obfuscation( your standard) a man who through his actions procured children for Ridsdale to sexually assult...
A creative work of fiction!The final scene of 'The Postman Always Rings Twice' whilst an injustice was true Justice.
Perhaps he should be charged, provided there is actually a case to be made, with a strong body of supportive evidence!And Pell should be charged as being an enabler of paedophiles a facilitator a pimp. A nonse's nonse....
My philanthropic activities are none of your business!!!Do some thing useful for once; send a few Bucks to BraveHearts. Or don't ... best to 'Know thy self' .
It will be interesting to see what the Catholic Churchs official response is to the unredacted Royal Commission findings with regard to Cardinal Pell.
A creative work of fiction!
How is that relevant?
Before accusing me, yet again, of your own failing, I suggest you take the time to revisit and reread my posts carefully.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.
Very few Australians get to take their case to the High Court, and fewer still win on a technicality....I was defending the right of every Australian citizen, to an important legal protection!!
Perhaps these will refresh one's failing recollections :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.
Did you fail to notice the last sentence (of the linked article reporting the summary of that High Court ruling), which ended with the following quote:
"a significant possibility that an innocent person has been convicted because the evidence did not establish guilt to the requisite standard of proof".
What is it, exactly, that you are trying to explain here?
Are you suggesting that one should imprison anyone, tried for a serious crime, because there is a possibility that they might be guilty?
And, if so, is that assessment of the possibility of guilt, not also founded upon one's opinion/s of what constitutes evidence and/or proof of the existence of the possibility of guilt?
Do you understand the important role that, the presumption of innocence, until guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt, plays in protecting all members of the Australian populace?
Om the contrary.Perhaps these will refresh one's failing recollections :
Om the contrary.
There is a more likely chance from what we all know that the High Court has acquitted a guilty person.
Again to refresh one's failing recollections:...
In matters of allegation without material evidence, the only weight that can carry is credibility.
Pell is liar.
"...
The High Court found that the jury, acting rationally on the whole of the evidence, ought to have entertained a doubt as to the applicant's guilt with respect to each of the offences for which he was convicted, and ordered that the convictions be quashed and that verdicts of acquittal be entered in their place.
..."
...
There does exist a difference between mendacity and paedophilia!
(Pell was charged and tried for the latter, not the former!)
You simply have no concept of the importance of "credibility" in this case.Again to refresh one's failing recollections:
Very few Australians get to take their case to the High Court, and fewer still win on a technicality.
You need to read the thread more carefully.The burden of proof is hardly a technicality, it's the "Golden Thread" as someone once said.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?