Cardinal George Pell Found Guilty of Child Sexual Abuse

Superhans

Administrator
Donator
Premium Account
Joined
Oct 30, 2015
Messages
4,024
Likes
5,089
This thread is now going to be Heavily Moderated or closed.

Thread Requirements.

1. Stay On topic.
2. Do not abuse others.
3. Do not make libelous comments.
4. Behave in an acceptable fashion.

5. Obey the sites rules.



Consider this a Final Warning to all.

Thread Bans will follow for any poster ignoring Instruction.

 

GodsDog

Moderator
PI Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2015
Messages
6,373
Likes
5,338
Location
Barkshire
My posts here are about pell's lawyer and his comments.
Please stay on topic. What exactly has the above comment got to do with the subject of the OP?
 

Ted

PI Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2016
Messages
1,114
Likes
1,595
It does seem extraordinary in the light of Pells vociferous protestations of 100% innocence that his defence lawyer would make such remarks.
I confess to being completely baffled.
Are the remarks being taken out of context.?
His lawyer explained the remark. He, as a lawyer, has to deal with the cold reality of what confronts him, not with what he wishes to be the case. The verdict was "guilty", so he then had a duty to work only within that verdict. Similarly, the judge is bound by the verdict and would dismiss any remarks that didn't acknowledge and accept the verdict.
 

Catalpa

PI Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2018
Messages
1,523
Likes
3,032
Maybe the lawyer has heard this sort of thing from other abusers, and decided to cut to the chase to reduce the inevitable sentence.

Judges and lawyers can often pick up on tiny facial cues that the TV cameras won't see, and decide on guilt, over and above the spoken and written evidence.
Its not they that decide who is Guilty or Innocent

- it is the Jury

They never even set eyes on Cardinal Pell's accuser!
 

Tadhg Gaelach

Moderator
Donator
PI Member
Premium Account
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Messages
38,228
Likes
37,137
It's Pell's own lawyer. Presumably under instruction from Pell himself and the church!
No doubt strategies were created for the various scenarios that might arise
to minimise any sentence the client might receive, and minimise damage to the church
which was presumably footing the bill for Pell's defence.

Can you really imagine that Cardinal Pell asked his lawyers to say "sure it was only vanilla rape?" Richer overstepped his brief, and it looks like Cardinal Pell withdraw his application for bail in response to Richer's outrageous statement. Richer is no longer part of the defense team, but continues to advise it.
 

Tadhg Gaelach

Moderator
Donator
PI Member
Premium Account
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Messages
38,228
Likes
37,137
A special litigation fund was established in Victoria for all Australian Catholics to donate towards Pell's legal fees.

The Vatican refused to pay for his defence.

Why would the Vatican pay for the defense of every priest accused of anything?
 

Tadhg Gaelach

Moderator
Donator
PI Member
Premium Account
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Messages
38,228
Likes
37,137
I have some friends who are 2nd and 3rd generation emigrants there, and still interested in the "old country" and the church, and realise they've been spun a yarn. But probably the church was good for the first emigrant-convicts.

They will call a spade a spade, and it's the country where I've found the least BS. Their court system has had judges named Gavan Duffy of gaelic-ulster origin...





You'd have to agree the church has had a "fair crack of the whip" Down Under, mostly thanks to us.

The Australian judicial system is condemned as racist, bigoted and biased.


 

Tadhg Gaelach

Moderator
Donator
PI Member
Premium Account
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Messages
38,228
Likes
37,137
mental Issues?
the man's life was destroyed by a despicable pervert, thankfully the law caught up with him. That peverted monster has destroyed many lives with his filthy obsession but you still support him. its telling that you love Pell but attack the victim.

We have no way of knowing that. All we do know is that the sole accuser is deemed to be so mentally incompetent that he was not regarded as fit to appear in court and the defense were not allowed to question him.
 

Tadhg Gaelach

Moderator
Donator
PI Member
Premium Account
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Messages
38,228
Likes
37,137
Maybe the lawyer has heard this sort of thing from other abusers, and decided to cut to the chase to reduce the inevitable sentence.

Judges and lawyers can often pick up on tiny facial cues that the TV cameras won't see, and decide on guilt, over and above the spoken and written evidence.

Or maybe all lawyers are trained to make arguments for clemency after any guilty verdict and Richer did not consult with his client before he made this outrageous statement.
 

Tadhg Gaelach

Moderator
Donator
PI Member
Premium Account
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Messages
38,228
Likes
37,137
His lawyer explained the remark. He, as a lawyer, has to deal with the cold reality of what confronts him, not with what he wishes to be the case. The verdict was "guilty", so he then had a duty to work only within that verdict. Similarly, the judge is bound by the verdict and would dismiss any remarks that didn't acknowledge and accept the verdict.

Indeed, that's what lawyers are trained to do.
 

Tadhg Gaelach

Moderator
Donator
PI Member
Premium Account
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Messages
38,228
Likes
37,137
It's hilarious we are all discussing the lawyer's faux pas, for which he apologised, That's what a skilled bit of deflection can do. :)

Thank your chum Fire2theRain for that, she's the one who re-posted Richters faux pas about 20 times on this thread.
 

GodsDog

Moderator
PI Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2015
Messages
6,373
Likes
5,338
Location
Barkshire
Can you really imagine that Cardinal Pell asked his lawyers to say "sure it was only vanilla rape?" Richer overstepped his brief, and it looks like Cardinal Pell withdraw his application for bail in response to Richer's outrageous statement. Richer is no longer part of the defense team, but continues to advise it.
I imagine that the legal team and the cardinal and a vatican advisor had several strategies prepared depending on how things went.
If "I'm innocent guv" wasn't cutting it then they'd change track to "the witness is unreliable" then if it all went to shit they might cut their losses and plea bargain to "it was only a mild case of penetration, " be gentle with my client he's old and ill and suffers from depression/heart complaint/cancer/ acute haemorrhoids etc. It's usually the same pattern with those in positions of power when facing the courts. They just need to give the judge enough excuse to let them off light and he usually does so.

Like I said before, the apology was for his turn of phrase possibly causing upset to the victims, not for stepping out of his briefs!
Though the unfortunate choice of words no doubt caused damage to his client's case, which explains why they pushed him
on to the back bench out of the media spotlight. But he wasn't actually fired, which would seem to indicate that
he didn't actually get things wrong in the way you are suggesting.
 
Last edited:

Tadhg Gaelach

Moderator
Donator
PI Member
Premium Account
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Messages
38,228
Likes
37,137
I imagine that the legal team and the cardinal and a vatican advisor had several strategies prepared depending on how things went.
If "I'm innocent guv" wasn't cutting it then they'd change track to "the witness is unreliable" then if it all went to shit they might cut their losses and plea bargain to "it was only a mild case of penetration, " be gentle with my client he's old and ill and suffers from depression/heart complaint/cancer/ acute haemorrhoids etc. It's usually the same pattern with those in positions of power when facing the courts. They just need to give the judge enough excuse to let them off light and he usually does so.

Like I said before, the apology was for his turn of phrase possibly causing upset to the victims, not for stepping out of his briefs!
Though the unfortunate choice of words no doubt caused damage to his client's case, which explains why they pushed him
on to the back bench out of the media spotlight. But he wasn't actually fired, which would seem to indicate that
he didn't actually get things wrong in the way you are suggesting.

Yes, it's the turn of phrase that everyone's objecting to - not that a lawyer would plead for a lenient sentence for his client.
 
Top Bottom