115 REPLIES 115

Pell Acquitted


@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

The High Court did not find that Pell was innocent. They found that the evidence presented was not so conclusive that it allowed no room for reasonable doubt. (in other words they opted for that third option 'not proven')

 

The trial juury obviously felt the evidence  was sufficiently compelling, and since, to the best of my knowledge, none of us here were  actually in that courtroom, I don't think we are in a position to say whether or not we would have found it equally so.

 


Perhaps not   ..... However, unless the evidence had changed dramatically , the first jury were unable to reach a verdict. 

Message 111 of 116
Latest reply

Pell Acquitted


@lyhargr_0 wrote:

@domino-710 wrote:

@imastawka wrote:

He wasn't found not guilty nor innocent.

 

His conviction was overturned, that's all.

 

Doesn't equal being not guilty or innocent.

 

 


He walked FREE.

 

That's all.

 

When has the law been about - guilty or innocent. lol


IMO Many, many times   ............


No - the ' law' is not about ' justice '.

 

It's an argument.

 

Depends on whose argument is more feasible - better - convincing.

 

TRUTH - as we know it - has nothing to do with LAW.

 

Just another bit of paper. lol

Message 112 of 116
Latest reply

Pell Acquitted


@domino-710 wrote:

@lyhargr_0 wrote:

@domino-710 wrote:

@imastawka wrote:

He wasn't found not guilty nor innocent.

 

His conviction was overturned, that's all.

 

Doesn't equal being not guilty or innocent.

 

 


He walked FREE.

 

That's all.

 

When has the law been about - guilty or innocent. lol


IMO Many, many times   ............


No - the ' law' is not about ' justice '.

 

It's an argument

.

Depends on whose argument is more feasible - better - convincing.

 

TRUTH - as we know it - has nothing to do with LAW.

 

Just another bit of paper. lol


Going let it go through to the keeper, no longer interested into arguing the point with you

Message 113 of 116
Latest reply

Pell Acquitted

In part, from that link -

 

Cardinal George Pell knew of Catholic Church child abuse for decades โ€“ and โ€œconsidered measures of avoiding situations that might provoke gossipโ€ โ€“ according to the child abuse royal commission.

 

The comments come in redacted portions from the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse that were released in the Senate on Thursday.

 

The report shows the commission rejected Cardinal Pellโ€™s evidence that he had been deceived and lied to by Church officials about Australiaโ€™s worst paedophile priest, Gerald Ridsdale, and Melbourne parish priest Peter Searson.

 

โ€œWe are satisfied that in 1973, Father Pell turned his mind to the prudence of Ridsdale taking boys on overnight camps,โ€ the report said.

 

โ€œThe most likely reason for this, as Cardinal Pell acknowledged, was the possibility that if priests were one-on-one with a child, then they could sexually abuse a child, or at least provoke gossip about such a prospect.โ€

 

Ridsdale is Australiaโ€™s most prolific paedophile priest, having been convicted of abusing more than 60 boys over decades.

 

But what will be the outcome of this report?

 

Will the Government do anything?

 

Nah.  I didn't think so either.

Message 115 of 116
Latest reply

Pell Acquitted

I would have thought he could be accused of aiding and abetting. 

Whether or not he is the fact is his good name is completely besmirched forever/  That he knew of the monster Risdale's  crimes (abused 60 boys) and protected him is abhorrent.  And he wasn't the only one.

 

I peronally knew a woman who had known him well when he was in his 20s.  She said a kinder and more devout person you couldn't meet.  I have to wonder what turned him into such a nasty piece of work or was it always latent in him. How he can live with himself is beyond me as I think he still only sees  himself as a victim. 

 

Message 116 of 116
Latest reply