I was wondering when you would chime in. I concur.
1 Like
I’m not going to flame you. But will add that Pell had the very best defence money can buy.
And we don’t know the evidence provided by the victim.
1 Like
Yes but surely you can trust Messrs Bolt, Abbott and Howard?
They’d never lie!!
1 Like
Straight into the cannon for those two.
I just couldn’t before.
1 Like
You forget your bells?
I am only replying to this as you made statements against what I had written.
I will preface this by repeating that I have despised Pell for longer than many here have been alive, and for longer than most of the rest would have even known his name. And in your case, before you sported that “top deck” hairstyle.
This post is not meant to defend him in any way.
I agree with your sentiment that Hhe is an evil, abusive ■■■■. But you are wrong that “every single factor” I mentioned has “been in play” before, especially the first three.
But if you have evidence to back up your claim that I am wrong that offences have been made by other predators in a Cathedral sacristy immediately after a High Mass by an archbishop in 1996 or later, I suggest you provide it to the police. Otherwise, your attack on me is incorrect.
Umm, someone did have evidence…and he was found guilty.
3 Likes
Umm, FFS read the post before you comment incorrectly.
Also the person who did have evidence was not found guilty. So wrong again.
A) George Pell lived with and defended one of the worst pedophiles the church has produced (that we know off).
B) Why would someone make up a story like this and risk public humiliation to prosecute it for no gain?
C) George Pell has had multiple accusations of abusing children, this is a pattern. Why would multiple people make it up? Is it a conspiracy perhaps?
D) People who think they are untouchable do brazen things.
E) Being 60 is hardly an impediment to being a pedophile. History proves this wrong.
F) George Pell denied abuse victims of justice using the churches non legal status to defend their coffers.
G) Heavy robes is not an impossible.
H) George Pell is trying to have his convictions overturned due to a technicality of law.
H) George Pell is a pedophile convicted unanimously by a 12 person jury who took three and a half days to deliberate on evidence that no one else has seen.
I) ■■■■ George Pell and all the ruin he has created in this world.
13 Likes
Are you really that stupid.
You make comments about abuse from “High Society” trying to mitigate the perversion that is the ROman Catholic Church, and now tell me that I am trying to sweep under the carpet the evail act by all those other religious perverts.
No doubt that Anglicans, Salvos, Scouts and many other organisations were full of abusive perverts who buggered little boys. They all should be slowly roasted over a hot fire.
But don’t tell me the RCC in Ballarat are being persecuted.
That is fair assessment but at the same time other denominations are avoiding scrutiny.
Do you actually remember what you post ? - You are the one who posted about paedophilia rings among the rich and powerful - I actually agreed with your post and even gave it a LIKE - All my post added was paedophilia is an issue within all denominations of religion and they seemed to have avoided scrutiny.
There is no standard practice. If the client loses confidence in the barrister, as often happens when a trial is lost, then the client can get a new barrister for the appeal. That often happens.
This time it’s the barrister who has effectively lost confidence in himself. Richter would normally conduct any appeal, because his clients don’t lose confidence in him even if he loses the trial . In this case Richter has done several things that surprised me. At the committal he attacked the complainant as a liar, when (for what it’s worth) I have no doubt that the complainant believed everything he said. (Which doesn’t necessarily mean it was true.) Presumably he did it again at the trial. Then he didn’t call Pell as a witness, which I think the jury would have expected. It’s standard practice for the accused not to give evidence, because the accused is in most cases uneducated and unemployed and generally unimpressive; but this was not a standard case. And then he came out with the incredibly ill-judged “plain vanilla” remark. I think he is right to quit the appeal.
It will be interesting to see who is retained in his place.
2 Likes
Sydney-based barrister, Bret Walker SC.
He did not say he was quitting the appeal, rather that he would not be the lead barrister, consistent with his view that the trial lead should not lead the appeal.
As to the vanilla Reference, I thought it astonishing to choose such wording some two months after the sentence was handed down. As he said in the ABC interview, he has become too emotionally involved, with objectivity at risk.,
Not so sure that Pell could have been restrained in court, going by the extract of his interview with the police in Rome.
He was given a summary beforehand but came across as arrogant and bullying… THe cops had to remind him to stick to the answers ( and effectively to cut out the spin)
Jesus Albert, it’s not an attack on you.
I’m not going in to this any further. Like Richter, I’m too angry to continue.
Wouldn’t you allways use a different lawyer?
That way your free to argue your legal defense was inadequate the first time. Those kind of appeals are long shots, but you can’t argue it using the same lawyers.
1 Like
Saw fit to publically call the verdict ‘perverse’ after hitting the eject button. Which I would think is at the very least improper given the appeal in place. He should retire if he can’t contain his emotions and refrain from commenting on live affairs.
1 Like