Hayne~NFL~RU~Tits~Eels~Dad~Jailed~Mistrial~Jailed 5yrs~Retrial~Jailed~Appeal~Quashed-Sued

[ImTheMan]

George Pell Not Guilty, High Court Finds

The High Court of Australia found that “the evidence did not establish guilt to the requisite standard of proof”.

www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au

Since we love linking random shit, he was not guilty otherwise they would have kept him in there.

 

[ImTheMan]

.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

He's neither guilty or not guilty. It was essentially a mistrial.

Not guilty is literally the opposite of guilty. He is either one or the other.

 

[the phantom menace]

Nonsense. Winning an appeal against a guilty court verdict does not automatically equate to a not guilty court finding.

You need to read the appeals judgement to find what the judge/majority of judges are saying about the specific case and charges in upholding the appeal.

#educatingmerkins

 

[Poupou Escobar]

You don't need a not guilty court finding. You are not guilty until found guilty. That's what the presumption of innocence means.

 

[Gronk]

George Pell Not Guilty, High Court Finds

The High Court of Australia found that “the evidence did not establish guilt to the requisite standard of proof”.

www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au

Since we love linking random shit, he was not guilty otherwise they would have kept him in there.

Whilst I didn’t start this Pell tangent, I stand on the fact that George got off on a technicality because his club had unlimited resources.

While the Australian legal system strives to provide fair trials for all individuals, the disparity in resources can lead to differences in the level of legal scrutiny and representation between high-profile cases like Pell’s and those involving ordinary citizens. In Pell’s case, the combination of financial resources, the best lawyers, and probably his profile, contributed to the comprehensive review by the High Court.

Whilst a jury of his peers and the the majority bench on appeal found him guilty, the High Court conceded that the Crown failed to vigorously disprove his defence. This is why the High Court held that the jury should not have made a finding of beyond reasonable doubt. I wonder how people in jail would like a similar scrutiny of their cases on such a granular level ? Makes me wonder how many historical allegations would actually stand up.

Without sitting on the fence, Pell died surrounded by a litany of allegations that involved himself personally and his involvement in the protection of others. Do you think he died with clean hands ?

 

[Legal Eel]

I did read it. Next.

have you ever practiced Criminal Law?

From your comments I sincerely doubt it and I think that on this topic you come from a place of ignorance and faith-based prejudice.

 

[Legal Eel]

You don't need a not guilty court finding. You are not guilty until found guilty. That's what the presumption of innocence means.

Absolutely correct. There is no "finding" of innocence. The presumption of innocence is a fundamental basis of our rule of law, but certain groups would have that usurped by an unjustly empowered leftist media.

 

[Gronk]

have you ever practiced Criminal Law?

From your comments I sincerely doubt it and I think that on this topic you come from a place of ignorance and faith-based prejudice.

If you want to throw the ignorance tag about, the first time faith has been been In this thread is you.

 

[Gronk]

Absolutely correct. There is no "finding" of innocence. The presumption of innocence is a fundamental basis of our rule of law, but certain groups would have that usurped by an unjustly empowered leftist media.

What part of what I said “He's neither guilty or not guilty.” was wrong ?

 

[ImTheMan]

What part of what I said “He's neither guilty or not guilty.” was wrong ?

Gronk what are you both guilty or not guilty of? Apparently we don't need the burden of proof anymore we just use imagination from alleged anecdotes, an absolute fantasy of yours no doubt.

 

[Gronk]

Gronk what are you both guilty or not guilty of? Apparently we don't need the burden of proof anymore we just use imagination from alleged anecdotes, an absolute fantasy of yours no doubt.

Not following. Please rephrase without the philosophical navel gazing.

Whist you're at it, answer the clean hands question.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

What about how Pell sandbagged paedophile priests?

*teabagged

 

[the phantom menace]

You don't need a not guilty court finding. You are not guilty until found guilty. That's what the presumption of innocence means.

Well... you are presumed innocent at all times, and if your charges proceed to court you receive a guilty or a not guilty finding. If you appeal a guilty finding, you may win the appeal - but that is not the same as a not-guilty finding... even though you have moved back to the presumed innocent realm.

But if you're a binary type of dude only capable of processing nuance or more two possibilities in a black or white fashion, then yes you are "either guilty or not guilty".

 

[Poupou Escobar]

The law is also black and white.

 

[ImTheMan]

Gronk, you will answer to god one day why you put your hate of Hayne et. al into the universe, when literally god is the only one that could give a guilty beyond reasonable doubt verdict given all the correct evidence presented or in this case not presented within the trials.

 

[ImTheMan]

I am not judging clean hands, the law can do that

 

[Gronk]

The law is also black and white.

True

https://www.naacpldf.org/critical-race-theory-faq/

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Gronk, you will answer to god one day why you put your hate of Hayne et. al into the universe, when literally god is the only one that could give a guilty beyond reasonable doubt verdict given all the correct evidence presented or in this case not presented within the trials.

To be fair, Hayne is obviously a douchebag. He’s just not (yet) guilty of this crime.

 

[Mojo]

Gronk, you will answer to god one day why you put your hate of Hayne et. al into the universe, when literally god is the only one that could give a guilty beyond reasonable doubt verdict given all the correct evidence presented or in this case not presented within the trials.

If I'm not mistaken god impregnated a virgin and then arranged a marriage to another bloke. It's written-up in his memoir.