So you are saying that the essendon players were guilty!!! A jury would most likely have found
Hird guilty and that is what a witch hunt does and as you have shown it is easy to
get sucked in to one
I’ve read this a couple of times and I’m honestly still not sure what you’re trying to say.
this goose is cooked.
2 Likes
Guilty of being AWESOME.
2 Likes
James Hird broke no laws and was guilty of nothing. I would have liked the whole saga to have faced a real court, the entire outcome would have been very different.
6 Likes
Equating CAS to a court of law. It is a private arbitral body established by the IOC.
3 Likes
Again, a straw man, (google that if you dont know what that is) learn to stick to the point and focus on your original argument. You’re distracting from Pell’s conviction either deliberately or ignorantly.
2 Likes
Don’t get drawn into an irrelevant argument…it’s his way of deflecting blame away from Pell.
1 Like
I think every single person here is taking a completely different view about his comment. I’ve read it a few times now and I think he’s implying that Pell is a scapegoat to protect a bigger players in the Catholic Church, thus taking the focus off these unknown person(s).
1 Like
how do you get bigger players than the church’s ■■■■■■■ accountant?
4 Likes
So I am a catholic ? What a load of rubbish - People can form their own independent opinions without being influenced by religion/class/race etc,etc.etc/
Think the analogy Tom is trying to draw is this - The EFC 34 could have been given 50 banned substances by Dank BUT to be convicted of taking TB4 was a stretch by the CAS - Pell may have abused 500 minors but the case in which he was charged and found guilty wasn’t cut and dried.
A few minor differences.
One party found guilty in an effectively private overseas court with new evidence and no appeal rights, where there’s documentary proof that evidence was manufactured, and by people with a conflict of interest. Where group total guilt was found by flimsy patchy evidence pertaining to only some of the group. Also where key people were saying before evidence was heard that they had to be found guilty.
The other party was found guilty by a jury of peers in a properly constituted Australian court, with appeal rights, where there’s nothing provably wrong with the evidence (and some key bits Tom hasn’t, like the rest of us, seen).
If the E34 won the right to have their guilt or innocence finally decided in a proper Australian court like Pell got, there’d have been champagne corks popping around here.
The business about the other complaints isn’t to say that he’s obviously done some things so he therefore must be found guilty here, it’s just about context. Bolt says he couldn’t be guilty of this one instance because among other things he’s a lily white with no other history of concerns. Those other complaints haven’t been proven in court, but it’s not like none have been raised. At every person’s first conviction, they haven’t to that point been found guilty of anything else. That’s just obvious maths, but Bolt thinks it should carry special weight.
2 Likes
Embarrassing that yet again someones compared the two.
3 Likes
yep FFS
Can’t wait for the saga to be used to justify holocuast denial.
3 Likes
Repeat after me
I
Have
Not
Heard
The
Evidence
2 Likes
So are you saying Hitler is still alive and directing all this whilst living it up in Argentina???
You are bringing too much reverence to our Justice System which is a sick joke.
It is all relative. We have a legal system, where police arrest, investigate and then the public prosecutor decides if there is enough evidence to seek a prosecution, there is presumption of innocence with a trial process and jury to decide guilt beyond reasonable doubt, or otherwise, a judge to set the sentence, and an appeal process that can go higher and higher.
Many countries have police and no courts.
There is also the stage between the DPP decisions and the trial - the committal hearings - after which the charges get dropped or the trial proceeds according to the criminal standard of proof. Whatever the evidence at the trial, the initial burden of proof remains with the prosecution.
It’s not perfect, but in many cases, there is a level of plausibility of the prosecution evidence.
1 Like