Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Hello.
theconversation.com
When the Hayne verdict in the now worst run third trial of them all was finally reached no one was allowed to question anything here or they were apparently enablers. My source on Pell is not an ABC article who was making songs about him being guilty even before his charged, it is the supreme justices unanimous decision that the events were implausible. There is not much similarity between the two, other than the plausibility of the events happening as described by the complainants. As for what Pell himself knew about others, not tested in a court so no real comment.Hello.
George Pell was a horrible human. End.
How George Pell won in the High Court on a legal technicality
This High Court appeal did not ask whether Pell committed the offences. It asked whether the two majority judges in the Victorian Court of Appeal, in dismissing Pell’s earlier appeal, made an error.
Hayne outrage ?
www.theguardian.com
Some people really have too much spare time.
That is a falsehood.
theconversation.com
lsj.com.au
www.theguardian.com
So is Pell guilty or not? What are you presuming?That is a falsehood.
How George Pell won in the High Court on a legal technicality
This High Court appeal did not ask whether Pell committed the offences. It asked whether the two majority judges in the Victorian Court of Appeal, in dismissing Pell’s earlier appeal, made an error.
The acquittal of Cardinal George Pell - Law Society Journal
The High Court's reasoning in the Pell case has important implications for the role of appellate courts in reviewing ‘unreasonable’ guilty verdicts.
Comments on the High Court judgment Pell v The Queen, from the Law Council of Australia President, Ms Pauline Wright
Comments on the High Court judgment Pell v The Queen, from the Law Council of Australia President, Ms Pauline Wrightlawcouncil.au
In 2018, a jury unanimously found Pell guilty "beyond reasonable doubt" of five child sexual offenses.
All three Court of Appeal judges thoroughly and independently considered all the evidence.
George Pell claimed that it was impossible for him to assault the altar boys during a small window of privacy. The High Court found that because the Crown failed to pursue and exhaust this claim, he was not given procedural fairness, and accordingly, the jury could not have made their decision beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court held that the jury and the Court of Appeal decisions were "unsafe."
The decision had nothing to do with "anecdotes"; there was no evidence that was discredited or shown as false, and the witnesses were not held to be unreliable. It was a decision on a technicality alone that quashed his conviction.
Justice for the rich ?
Catholic church loses high court bid to prevent father of alleged victim of George Pell suing for damages
Father’s lawyers label high court of Australia decision a ‘monumental outcome’ for families of clergy sexual abuse victims
You’ve got to read the judgement yourself it’s on the high court website. It went way beyond a technicality. It’s probably the most damning judgement ever about a jury.That is a falsehood.
How George Pell won in the High Court on a legal technicality
This High Court appeal did not ask whether Pell committed the offences. It asked whether the two majority judges in the Victorian Court of Appeal, in dismissing Pell’s earlier appeal, made an error.
The acquittal of Cardinal George Pell - Law Society Journal
The High Court's reasoning in the Pell case has important implications for the role of appellate courts in reviewing ‘unreasonable’ guilty verdicts.
Comments on the High Court judgment Pell v The Queen, from the Law Council of Australia President, Ms Pauline Wright
Comments on the High Court judgment Pell v The Queen, from the Law Council of Australia President, Ms Pauline Wrightlawcouncil.au
In 2018, a jury unanimously found Pell guilty "beyond reasonable doubt" of five child sexual offenses.
All three Court of Appeal judges thoroughly and independently considered all the evidence.
George Pell claimed that it was impossible for him to assault the altar boys during a small window of privacy. The High Court found that because the Crown failed to pursue and exhaust this claim, he was not given procedural fairness, and accordingly, the jury could not have made their decision beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court held that the jury and the Court of Appeal decisions were "unsafe."
The decision had nothing to do with "anecdotes"; there was no evidence that was discredited or shown as false, and the witnesses were not held to be unreliable. It was a decision on a technicality alone that quashed his conviction.
Justice for the rich ?
Catholic church loses high court bid to prevent father of alleged victim of George Pell suing for damages
Father’s lawyers label high court of Australia decision a ‘monumental outcome’ for families of clergy sexual abuse victims
He's neither guilty or not guilty. It was essentially a mistrial.
The judgement is nothing of the sort.
Weinberg, the criminal expert of the 3, dissented and said he should have been found not guilty.
I did read it. Next.
He was swinging it around for a few minutes by the sounds and talking to the boys.
sure you did Gronk
No, it was out before the life saver chap went to have a shower. Then he came out of the shower and it was still out. That's when the aspect of reasonably left the room.
What was your favourite bits ?
Where they implied the second alleged incident was essentially so bullshit that the jury should have “had a reasonable doubt”. They never go further than using reasonable doubt but they were definitely saying “FFS that’s BS”.
