Posted on 02/26/2019 3:53:01 PM PST by ebb tide
Thanks.
Ping
Wrong. Until he gets his conviction overturned, he's a convicted pederast and no longer entitled to any presumption of innocence. If he's not guilty, I hope he's able to clear his name. If not, he's not worthy of the saliva it would take to spit in his face.
Pell has been a pain in Bergolio's neck ever since he started digging into the "irregularities" in the Vatican banking system.
Anybody wit a brain can see Pell’s innocent.
How would you know? They had cardinals at the summit admitting they destroyed files.
That had nothing to do with Pell or his sham trial.
Would you object to being convicted in those circumstances?
So there is no real refutation of anything he was accused of. Just "come on, its obvious he's a victim". Maybe you know more about this case than I (clearly you must because all I know is in this article) but what's presented here is a bunch of opinion and assumptions. So if that means I don't have a brain, so be it swami.
Not credible charges.
Every witness testified Pell was never alone after Mass in the sacristy. The plaintiff had no witnesseses to substantiate his lie, and the defense was prohibited from questioning the plaintiff’s credibility.
It was a sham trial.
I listened to EWTN news as I drove home today.
A friend of the accuser told the jury that neither he nor his friend were molested by Pell.
He will win the appeal.
Pray for him.
I live in Australia. I’ve met George Pell a couple of times - I wouldn’t say I know him, but I have met him. And I do people who do know him.
This includes Priests who are very active in trying to ensure justice for the victims of sexual abuse by clergy. They take the issue very seriously, and the fact that the Church has not always done so very seriously.
None of them like George Pell. They say he’s a bully and in many ways a rather cruel man.
But all of them are doubting this verdict.
It’s important to note that just last year an Australian court convicted the former Catholic Archbishop of Adelaide, Phillip Wilson of involvement in covering up clergy abuse.
That verdict was overturned in December by a higher court because Wilson did not receive a fair trial.
There does seem to be very good reason to wait in this case for the appeal process to take its course.
Cardinal Pell's trial have emerged, after a guilty verdict
There's also this thread from yesterday:
Truth and justice after the Pell verdict (Australia - Catholic Cardinal found guilty of sex crimes)
It sure takes the heat off Francis. At it sure took Francis no time at all to toss Pell under the bus today.
The Catholic Church has very little prestige left.
For decades Pope after Pope have offered empty promises to eradicate the "problem" but none have had the courage to attack the root of this evil...the homosexual mafia that controls the Vatican, Dioceses and seminaries around the world.
There are quite a few of these circulation - this one is easily accessible and not behind a pay wall.
What concerns me most is that Pell was tried twice for the same offences - a second trial being convened after the first resulted in a hung jury - a jury that some sources (although nothing I have seen officially and I cannot confirm the numbers) was 10 to 2 in favour of acquittal.
At the second trial, the alleged victim was not questioned or cross examined, but the jury was simply shown recordings of his evidence. A rather different context.
There's a lot of other stuff that doesn't make sense to me at the moment, but it's possible that can all be explained. But there are reasons why a lot of people are worried that something has gone wrong here, and are looking to the idea that if that is the case, that an appeal will correct it.
If the appeal fails, I, for one, will almost certainly accept its verdict.
But after what happened to Archbishop Phillip Wilson last year, I definitely think waiting for the appeal is very important.
I wouldn't connect those two things. The suppression order was lifted yesterday because the prosecution decided not to proceed with another trial on different charges involving different alleged incidents. The order (right or wrong) was in place in order to try and avoid prejudicing that trial and was lifted as soon as that was no longer a concern.
See post #5 on this thread.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.