 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
^
Yep. I have absolutely no idea how to feel about that.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
 |
KenH
Joined: 24 Jan 2010
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Not surprised! Not happy though.
_________________
Cheers big ears |
|
|
|
|
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I doubt any of us will ever conclusively know whether he was guilty or innocent (and, of course, the high court judgement makes no claim either way). But this is, I think, a vindication of what many of us were saying from the beginning – that it seemed highly improbable that, given the nature of the allegations, a jury could reasonably find him guilty beyond reasonable doubt, which is precisely what the court has found.
Of course, I doubt this decision will move the needle for those who hate him – they already decided he was guilty a long time ago, of course, and this decision will likely be interpreted primarily as an indictment of the courts' capacity to enact justice. And the recent allegations from the 1970s (which, to my unqualified mind, sound far more credible than the ones he actually got convicted over) will ensure that he will be labelled a child molester for as long as he lives.
Will be interesting to see what the Catholic Church does now, in regard to his position at the Vatican. Will he be reinstated, or will they be happy for him to quietly disappear into retirement?
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw 
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| ^ Except, of course, that saying so is now defamatory. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Well, yes, I suppose the op-ed writers like Clementine Ford will have to cross their t's and dot their i's. But social media will be a different story, as anyone who's witnessed a Facebook discussion about, say, Woody Allen will already be well familiar.
(Edit: oops, perhaps I spoke too soon!)
https://twitter.com/clementine_ford/status/1247318387673280512
| Clementine Ford wrote: | George Pell is a child abuser, a sexual predator and a life ruiner. Apart from the children he personally harmed, he oversaw the harm of countless others. If there’s a hell, he can rot in it. I don’t care what the High Court and his high profile pedo defending friends say.
I’m thinking of his victims, both alive and dead, who will be hurting beyond belief today. I hope he gets corona and dies. I said it.
Andrew Bolt, Miranda Divine and Tony Abbott can rest easy in the knowledge the pedophile they have championed for years is finally free to do it again. |
147 retweets already. If there's an appetite for applying defamation law to social media posts, this case will certainly test it.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^ Well, if he were a Collingwood footballer, his name would always be hyphenated in the media as "George-Pell-who-was-found-guilty-in-the-Supreme-Court-of-Victoria-of-sexual-assault-against-choirboys-but-had-his-appeal-allowed-by-the-High-Court-on-the-basis-of-a-perceived-doubt-despite-the-accepted-credibility-of-the-evidence-of-the-complainant".
Let's see if that happens. |
|
|
|
|
KenH
Joined: 24 Jan 2010
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I hope he gets out of Australia and goes to live in Italy.
_________________
Cheers big ears |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
|
|
|
|
Woods Of Ypres
Joined: 27 May 2003
Location: Yugoslavia
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| disgraceful |
|
|
|
|
Dave The Man 
Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Location: Someville, Victoria, Australia
|
| Post subject: | |
|
WHAT A JOKE THAT PEDOPHILE PELL HAS GOT OFF. SAYING IF YOU ARE IN THE CHURCH YOU CAN TOUCH LITTLE CHILDREN AND YOU WON'T GET IN TROUBLE
_________________
I am Da Man |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I read some of it, this part early is probably the best summary you can get.
| Quote: | | it is evident that there is "a significant possibility that an innocent person has been convicted because the evidence did not establish guilt to the requisite standard of proof" |
Which is pretty much what David and I and some others have been saying for some time.
I suggest that the decision is the legally correct one, whether it is the "right" one can be debated.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Wokko 
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Dave The Man wrote: | | WHAT A JOKE THAT PEDOPHILE PELL HAS GOT OFF. SAYING IF YOU ARE IN THE CHURCH YOU CAN TOUCH LITTLE CHILDREN AND YOU WON'T GET IN TROUBLE |
No, it isn't saying that at all. It's saying there was reasonable doubt and the jury should have seen it that way.
While I have some reservations about overturning jury verdicts, I'd say in this case the High Court has done exactly what they should do. Whether he did it or not is between him and his God, but by the facts presented in the case he was not guilty. |
|
|
|
|
Tannin 
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Wokko wrote: | | While I have some reservations about overturning jury verdicts, I'd say in this case the High Court has done exactly what they should do. |
I want to know what precedent this sets. Can we now expect a whole tidal wave of appeals against jury verdicts on the grounds that "someone thinks the jury got it wrong"? What is the point of trial by jury when a panel of judges can just throw the result out and decide it for themselves?
So my main concern is for the justice system and the effect this may have on it.
As to the particular case, I was always doubtful of the direct charges, but had no trouble at all in believing every word of the accusations that he stood by and did nothing time and time again, and that he was complicit in moving child abusers around the state so that they could escape the consequences of their actions and offend again. And again. That's worth 20 years in quod, every time. But it looks as though trial for those things will have to go to civil actions.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: |
I read some of it, this part early is probably the best summary you can get.
| Quote: | | it is evident that there is "a significant possibility that an innocent person has been convicted because the evidence did not establish guilt to the requisite standard of proof" |
Which is pretty much what David and I and some others have been saying for some time.
I suggest that the decision is the legally correct one, whether it is the "right" one can be debated. |
The decision is, in legal terms, egregiously incorrect but it scarcely matters. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^ Can you expand on that, P4S? Would be interested in reading why.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
