Page 3 of 16 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 153

Thread: Cardinal George Pell, convicted paedophile

  1. Top | #21
    Contributor DrZoidberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    7,928
    Archived
    5,746
    Total Posts
    13,674
    Rep Power
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by ruby sparks View Post
    As far as I am aware, this case was only one of several that the Police and magistrates felt had enough evidence to have been prosecuted. There were also other allegations, but some were deemed to have insufficient evidence.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George...g_sexual_abuse

    Yes, there's apparently a long list of accusations. But this type of crime is notoriously hard to convict for. He'd never been convicted if it wasn't for the volume of accusations.

  2. Top | #22
    Super Moderator ruby sparks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Northern Ireland
    Posts
    7,682
    Rep Power
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    Yet no-one has alleged Pell had a history of this type of crime.
    50 people gave witness testimonies against him in earlier hearings.

  3. Top | #23
    the baby-eater
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Straya
    Posts
    4,031
    Archived
    1,750
    Total Posts
    5,781
    Rep Power
    40
    Pell's own lawyer has tried to minimise the rape as a “plain vanilla sexual penetration case where the child is not actively participating”.

    So the defence lawyer has agreed that Pell really did put his penis in a child.

  4. Top | #24
    Veteran Member Lion IRC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,066
    Rep Power
    21
    Yes, that is bizarre.
    But once the jury has convicted, the accused's lawyer has to proceed on that basis and argue for sentencing leniency in recognition of that verdict.

  5. Top | #25
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    16,874
    Archived
    42,293
    Total Posts
    59,167
    Rep Power
    88
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    Yes, that is bizarre.
    But once the jury has convicted, the accused's lawyer has to proceed on that basis and argue for sentencing leniency in recognition of that verdict.
    So, you’re saying that because of the guilty verdict, the lawyer was legally forced to perjure himself and provide false details of an assault which never happened?

    Australian laws are weird. They also apparently forbid people from dressing up as Batman and Robin.

  6. Top | #26
    Formerly Joedad
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    PA USA
    Posts
    6,214
    Archived
    5,039
    Total Posts
    11,253
    Rep Power
    78
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    Yes, that is bizarre.
    But once the jury has convicted, the accused's lawyer has to proceed on that basis and argue for sentencing leniency in recognition of that verdict.
    So, you’re saying that because of the guilty verdict, the lawyer was legally forced to perjure himself and provide false details of an assault which never happened?

    Australian laws are weird. They also apparently forbid people from dressing up as Batman and Robin.
    But apparently not as Jesus.

  7. Top | #27
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    1,088
    Archived
    2,799
    Total Posts
    3,887
    Rep Power
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    Yes, that is bizarre.
    But once the jury has convicted, the accused's lawyer has to proceed on that basis and argue for sentencing leniency in recognition of that verdict.
    Quoting DailyBeast:

    Cardinal George Pell was taken into custody Wednesday after his lawyer argued that one of his offenses was a “plain vanilla sexual penetration case where the child is not actively participating.”

    Lawyer Robert Richter made the claim while pushing for a lower sentence in a Melbourne court on Wednesday morning, asserting that the 77-year-old former Vatican treasurer had “no aggravating circumstances” and was likely “seized by some irresistible impulse,” The Guardian reports.
    Pell's defense clearly lawyer believes that his client is guilty of the charges. If Richter was simply pleading for a lesser sentence based on the argument that the crime did not involve aggravating circumstances, he would not have added "seized by some irresistible impulse" to his statement. That part only makes sense if Richter knows/believes Pell committed the act.

    It is Richter's job and ethical obligation to defend his client. But why someone like you would feel compelled to defend a convicted pedophile is beyond me.

  8. Top | #28
    Veteran Member Lion IRC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,066
    Rep Power
    21
    Convicted doesn't mean he did it. If he had been acquitted I'm sure there would be tons of people arguing that the jury got it wrong.

  9. Top | #29
    Fair dinkum thinkum bilby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
    Posts
    22,742
    Archived
    10,477
    Total Posts
    33,219
    Rep Power
    87
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    Convicted doesn't mean he did it. If he had been acquitted I'm sure there would be tons of people arguing that the jury got it wrong.
    He wasn't acquitted, so your speculation is baseless.

    As is your belief in his innocence.

  10. Top | #30
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    1,088
    Archived
    2,799
    Total Posts
    3,887
    Rep Power
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    Convicted doesn't mean he did it. If he had been acquitted I'm sure there would be tons of people arguing that the jury got it wrong.
    You skipped over the part of my post where I establish that Pell's lawyer thinks Pell did it. That Pell was seized by an irresistible impulse upon seeing the boy and penetrated the boy's anus in a somewhat unremarkable manner. You can't understand why everyone is making such a fuss about it; the boy had clearly been placed there by the devil to tempt Pell, and deserved to be taught a lesson.

    Here we have a Cardinal of the Roman Church, a member of an elite group of God's own representatives on Earth, anointed in holy oils and dressed up in holy robes. Buggering young boys entrusted to his care. Pell's conviction is a start but there are thousands more like him. Going about their lives, hiding in plain sight, secure in the knowledge that the Church will never turn them in. And who can blame the priests when their lord and master does the same thing - stand by and do nothing, or heap violence and death on innocent children.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-01-2018, 03:04 AM
  2. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-25-2018, 11:30 PM
  3. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 07-02-2017, 01:49 AM
  4. Anita Sarkeesian, paedophile enabler? The Valis77 controversy
    By Joni-san in forum Political Discussions
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-25-2015, 12:00 AM
  5. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10-13-2014, 09:15 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •