Cardinal George Pell falsely accused

[pErvinalia]

[mistermack]

Cardinal Pell has now been falsely charged.

What next? God knows.

I wish he'd bummed me. I could do with some spending money.

I always thought the kids who wanted to be altar boys were a bit gay. I didn't realise the scale on which they were corrupting these men of god.

Anyway, the same applies to them as any other. If they didn't speak up at the time, their evidence is worthless. Or should be.

[pErvinalia]

All mistermack achieves with these sorts of gold-digger narratives is to give us an insight into how HE would react (or perhaps has thought about reacting) if a similar situation presented itself to him. It's the same as when conservatives carry on about UBI and suggest that most people will do nothing because they are lazy and selfish. They are just telling us about what THEY would do if they were in that situation.

[Hermit]

When MM claimed Pell was falsely accused and now claims he was falsely charged he is doing nothing more than preempt the decision of the justice system. I predict that if Pell is found guilty, (which is in my opinion an unlikely outcome) he will say Pell was falsely convicted, and if Pell is found not guilty, MM will write "Told you so".

[JimC]

All that has happened is that a magistrate has found that some (not all) of the charges against Pell are worth taking to court - she dismissed others. Now the issues can be fought out in a court of law. Like Hermit, I suspect the verdict will be not guilty, because the evidence comes from sources decades old (which doesn't mean they're not true, just hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt).

What is beyond reasonable doubt is that in his later career as a Bishop, and Archbishop, he was an enabler and shield for pedophile priests...

[Brian Peacock]

Those alter boys were gagging for it, walking around with their mantle of cherubic innocence, the doe-eyed, rosy-cheeked, tight-arsed temptors. They're enough to test the will of a saint.

[Rum]

I think Mistermack probably offered his arse to a priest when he were a lad and was turned down.

Would explain a lot.

[pErvinalia]

[Galaxian]

Cardinal Pell has now been falsely charged.

What next? God knows.

I wish he'd bummed me. I could do with some spending money.

I always thought the kids who wanted to be altar boys were a bit gay. I didn't realise the scale on which they were corrupting these men of god.
Anyway, the same applies to them as any other. If they didn't speak up at the time, their evidence is worthless. Or should be.

Obviously, there's no statute of limitations anymore. Bishop Hollingsworth was also accused 40 years after the event. Only managed to get charges dropped due to a dusty, old church committee records book that proved he was 600 km away at the time of the fraudulent claim by the avaricious criminal who wanted money, & lots of it!

The only people who get away with crimes are the likes of Tony bLIAR, George Bush, Hillary Killigton, and Donald Trump. These can kill thousands or millions without compunction, and be paid handsomely and praised for it.

Funny how theses accusations & compensation demands only come when the "victims" have reached retirement age and want to pay off their mortgages & other debts. But the lawyers love it... they can buy a new Mercedes at taxpayers' expense.

[mistermack]

You need to take account though, of accusations made by people who had no chance at all of making a successful charge against an abuser.
Such as young children, in the custody of powerful organisations like the Catholic Church.

It's a bit different to hard-bitten aspiring actresses accusing the likes of Bill Cosby years after the incident.
It depends on the situation at the time, whether not saying anything was understandable and credible or not.

But at the same time, if YOU want to be considered innocent till proven guilty, then you have to accept that principle for others. And the sad fact is that guilty people will get off. Because nobody can KNOW what they did decades ago.

It's a bitter pill that we all have to swallow. If you start convicting just on probabilities, many more innocent people will spend their lives in prison. And it could even be you.

[Galaxian]

You need to take account though, of accusations made by people who had no chance at all of making a successful charge against an abuser.
Such as young children, in the custody of powerful organisations like the Catholic Church.

It's a bit different to hard-bitten aspiring actresses accusing the likes of Bill Cosby years after the incident.
It depends on the situation at the time, whether not saying anything was understandable and credible or not.

But at the same time, if YOU want to be considered innocent till proven guilty, then you have to accept that principle for others. And the sad fact is that guilty people will get off. Because nobody can KNOW what they did decades ago.

It's a bitter pill that we all have to swallow. If you start convicting just on probabilities, many more innocent people will spend their lives in prison. And it could even be you.

True enough. But the statute of limitations only starts ticking from the age of maturity (18 or 21). It was supposed to be about 6 years. Now it seems the longer the interval, the more persuasive the argument. So waiting 20 yaers is better than 6. Waiting 30 or 40 years is better than 20.

No evidence needs to be produced... simple accusation, gossip or hysteria is enough. "He did this or that". YES he MUST be guilty! happens to old men all the time: German war crimes: YES he MUST be guilty! Rape: YES, he MUST be GUILTY! Say no more...you must really be suffering, we don't want to scratch at old wounds. Look we'll imprison the bastard regardless. He's a man, he has a dick, he must have used it on you... goes without saying, it's bleedin' obvious.

There used to be a legal principle: "Better that 10 guilty men go free than an innocent one be convicted & punished"

[Hermit]

He finally got his out-of-jail card.

George Pell: Court quashes cardinal's sexual abuse convictions

A full bench of seven judges ruled unanimously in Cardinal Pell's favour, finding that the jury had not properly considered all the evidence presented at trial.

"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," said the court in its judgement

[JimC]

I am deeply disappointed, he's as guilty as sin. However, from recent ABC reports, further allegations of sexual abuse of boys when he was a priest have emerged, and I'm hoping charges will be laid. In any case, he has spent time in jail, and presumably will never be a cardinal again, but be shuffled of to a retirement home for old kiddy fiddlers...

[Brian Peacock]

Craggy Island perhaps?

But so much for a jury of one's peers. The jury might have had some doubts, but they may have weighed up the balance of the evidence and decided that those doubts were justifiably outweighed. If the judges think that the trial jury didn't give the weight of evidence due consideration then surely there should be a retrial - or you might as well do away with juries and just let judges decide, rather than merely preside, the outcomes of criminal cases?

[JimC]

It would have been hard to find a jury of twisted bottom feeders to be his peers...