Cardinal George Pell released on appeal.

[exchemist]

so you defend the perverts in this case??

No, I defend the judges in this case, from what looks like an ill-informed attack on their professionalism.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

No, I defend the judges in this case, from what looks like an ill-informed attack on their professionalism.

There is an irony in attacking the judges. Yes, maybe professional, trained judges with access to all the facts of the case got it wrong, it happens. But if you want to claim that professional, trained judges with access to all the facts of the case got it wrong, you expect uninformed, untrained civilians with an emotional response to a hot button charge to get it right??

 

[Lyndon]

Two new accusers say George Pell abused them when they were boys

 

[Mock Turtle]

The court seems to have said it was perverse of the jury not to have entertained "reasonable doubt".

Well they seem to be taking the alibi provided by Portelli as having some higher value over the evidence of another, and looking suspiciously like a cover-up. I know people often do lie about such things but mostly any abused are telling the truth, since it takes a deal of courage to get into such processes. And it is typical for those abused to keep things to themselves for decades - I did, after an older boy abused me.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Two new accusers say George Pell abused them when they were boys

Then let the police investigate and the law do it's thing. Trial by media and public opinion i a bad thing.

 

[exchemist]

Well they seem to be taking the alibi provided by Portelli as having some higher value over the evidence of another, and looking suspiciously like a cover-up. I know people often do lie about such things but mostly any abused are telling the truth, since it takes a deal of courage to get into such processes. And it is typical for those abused to keep things to themselves for decades - I did, after an older boy abused me.

Why would the judges collude in a cover-up?

 

[Mock Turtle]

Why would the judges collude in a cover-up?

I didn't say they did, but the suspicion remains - that they accepted the evidence of Portelli as if he couldn't have lied, or have been mistaken.

 

[Lyndon]

I think what the judges actually meant is even though he is probably guilty, reasonable doubt remained, which I still don't accept. It certainly doesn't exonerate him and that's what he and the pope are claiming

 

[exchemist]

I didn't say they did, but the suspicion remains - that they accepted the evidence of Portelli as if he couldn't have lied, or have been mistaken.

Except that quite clearly this is not what they argued at all. As @Lyndon points out, the issue was reasonable doubt.

In effect it seems to me what they decided was that the conviction was "unsafe", as the English court system would say, and thus should be set aside.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I didn't say they did, but the suspicion remains - that they accepted the evidence of Portelli as if he couldn't have lied, or have been mistaken.

No one's saying he couldn't, the issue is "reasonable doubt"

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I think what the judges actually meant is even though he is probably guilty, reasonable doubt remained, which I still don't accept. It certainly doesn't exonerate him and that's what he and the pope are claiming

So what's your answer? Convict anyone accused?

 

[Lyndon]

Except that quite clearly this is not what they argued at all.

Actually it is what they said, they said that Portelli's account contradicted the accusers hence the "reasonable" doubt.

 

[Lyndon]

So what's your answer? Convict anyone accused?

You didn't read my linked article, did you.

 

[exchemist]

Actually it is what they said, they said that Portelli's account contradicted the accusers hence the "reasonable" doubt.

They did not say they accepted Portelli's version of events.

 

[exchemist]

Funny thing how Catholics rush in to defend child molestation

I really, really, would not try that on with your haircut and shirt, mate.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Those seemingly defending the decision by the court might want to answer this question. How do you feel about Michael Jackson, assuming that you saw the documentary by his two accusers? Do you believe their version of events? And have you any investment in his music? Quite difficult to be completely objective if one has such an investment.

 

[exchemist]

Those seemingly defending the decision by the court might want to answer this question. How do you feel about Michael Jackson, assuming that you saw the documentary by his two accusers? Do you believe their version of events? And have you any investment in his music? Quite difficult to be completely objective if one has such an investment.

I doubt the judges were Michael Jackson fans, but I admit I know nothing of that case.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I doubt the judges were Michael Jackson fans, but I admit I know nothing of that case.

It seems to me that it is only the die-hard MJ fans who will defend him to the hilt and be reluctant to see him as being otherwise, when any with some knowledge of such abuse would likely know that his accusers were not lying, and his behaviour was very much confirmation for what they claimed - and there being so many accusers too. Often difficult to be completely objective.

 

[Glaurung]

Those seemingly defending the decision by the court might want to answer this question. How do you feel about Michael Jackson, assuming that you saw the documentary by his two accusers? Do you believe their version of events? And have you any investment in his music? Quite difficult to be completely objective if one has such an investment.

Let's not pretend that commitment to a forgone conclusion lies solely on his defenders. As for the Michael Jackson case, I know nothing about it.

 

[exchemist]

It seems to me that it is only the die-hard MJ fans who will defend him to the hilt and be reluctant to see him as being otherwise, when any with some knowledge of such abuse would likely know that his accusers were not lying, and his behaviour was very much confirmation for what they claimed - and there being so many accusers too. Often difficult to be completely objective.

Nobody on this thread is defending Pell, so far as I am aware.