Patrol 4x4 - Nissan Patrol Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 61 Posts

·
LED ZEPPELIN
1995 GQ TD42 NA
Joined
·
11,999 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I posted this elsewhere but am curious to see what people think about this. It follows on from Andrew Bolt defending George Pell after he was convicted of paedophilia.

So what is it with conservatives and their defence of paedophiles?



On Tuesday night, Mr Bolt questioned the seriousness of Mr Kehoe's crime.

"[He] hit on a boy, no sex occurred."

Mr Bolt also asked "how terrible was it really" that Mr Russell wrote a character reference for Mr Kehoe after his conviction.

Conservative commentator Gerard Henderson responded: "Well not at all, it was a terrible pile on against St Kevin's, within the ABC tradition of attacking mainly Catholic institutions".



These guys don't at all appear to be concerned about a man attempting to sexually assault a young boy. Not even an iota of concern. It's like it's normal to them.

In my world, 'hitting on a boy' will get you at the very minimum a broken jaw. Try it on with my son and see what it gets you.

Andrew Bolt and his cronies are quite simply pieces of ****.

Even Ray Hadley agrees.

 

·
Blues Won as Expected. Go the Knights
Joined
·
30,388 Posts
If you recall also that an ex Australian prime Minister
( Mr John Howard) before George Pell was convicted gave him a character reference..

To me that speaks volumes...
Bet little Johnny baby wishes he never did that now...😉
Me and others now think little Johnny boy is trying to protect them also..
Sicko's.....
 

·
I Have Imaginary Friends
Patrol Hybrid.
Joined
·
12,849 Posts
How many times did Bill Clinton visit Epstien’s Island?
 

·
I Have Imaginary Friends
Patrol Hybrid.
Joined
·
12,849 Posts
The question is a generalisation. Very poorly worded and appears to be designed to antagonise people from one political bias.
 

·
The Googlest, Apparently!
nissan patrol
Joined
·
15,579 Posts
blah blah blah, here we go, the left demonising the right without looking in a mirror, again.

many avowed lefty Hollywood types defended Roman Polanski, and still do, in the name of art.

Numerous leftards defended Micheal Jackson when Leaving Neverland came out, including The World Socialist Web Site, Dianna Ross, Whoppie Goldberg etc.

Hillary Clinton actively defended Thomas Alfred Taylor, who raped a 12 year old.
In an audio interview Hillary Clinton reveals how she managed to get a plea bargain for a man accused of raping a 12-year-old girl - and shockingly laughs as she indicated she knew he may have been guilty. During the course of the conversation which dates from the early 1980s, Clinton, then 27, outlines how she used a mistake by the prosecution to get 41-year-old Thomas Alfred Taylor to walk free. Indeed, so cavalier is her attitude to securing the freedom of a man suspected of raping a child that the shocking and candid interview may tarnish her role as an advocate for women and children in the United States. Quote: However, what is most shocking is the breezy manner in which she discusses her clients crime and the offhand way in which she questions his innocence.

Quote; "'I had him take a polygraph, which he passed – which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs,' she says with a laugh".

Bernie Sanders (possibly next Dem (left) president of the US) voted against a bill that would have set up a national coordinator for the Amber Alert system, which warns the public when a child has been kidnapped.

Why is it so many very well known low life socialists defend paedophiles, or the activities of them?

As Bo Diddley wrote in 1957; "Before you accuse me, take a look at yourself" ...
 

·
Registered
nissan patrol
Joined
·
1,397 Posts
The question I ask 'Is Andrew Bolt a conservative?'

And does it matter?

His initial response to The St Kevin's debacle was nothing but depolarable.

His apology to Paris Street, the Saint Kevin's abuse survivor was just as clumsy and half arsed.

And for those that have short memories Andrew Bolt once worked for the Australian Labor Party.
 

·
The Googlest, Apparently!
nissan patrol
Joined
·
15,579 Posts
If you recall also that an ex Australian prime Minister
( Mr John Howard) before George Pell was convicted gave him a character reference..

To me that speaks volumes...
Bet little Johnny baby wishes he never did that now...😉
Me and others now think little Johnny boy is trying to protect them also..
Sicko's.....
The operative here is; ( Mr John Howard) before George Pell was convicted gave him a character reference..

So, what you are saying is that from the lefts perspective you are guilty till proven innocent ...

And I am not entirely convinced Pell's conviction was safe.

Quote (if you can be bothered, give that you would convict before trail)

I was surprised and disconcerted, astonished actually, by this outcome, so much so I ploughed through all 325 pages of the majority judgment by justices Anne Ferguson and Chris Maxwell and the longer dissenting judgment by Justice Mark Weinberg in an effort to understand where their reasonings diverged.

There were aspects of the matter that surprised me at the outset.

Never having practised criminal law, I was not aware that it was even possible for an offence to be found “beyond reasonable doubt” based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of a complainant, let alone in the face of substantial contrary evidence. Isn’t that guilt by accusation?

How could a conviction be upheld when one of the two alleged victims denied being abused Doesn’t that fact alone scream reasonable doubt?

Then there was the fact, unusually for cases such as this, there was a split decision with Ferguson and Maxwell rejecting Pell’s appeal and Weinberg upholding it, finding the conviction unsafe.

In what ways did their legal reasoning diverge?

Why did Weinberg, acknowledged by all sides as one of the great authorities on criminal law in this country, a former commonwealth director of public prosecutions, feel compelled to reject the view of the other two judges in a tightly argued dissent of more than 200 pages?

Reading through the two judgments, I would have to say that opinions “diverged” is a gross understatement.

They reveal differences in approach to the assessment of evidence so profound that the two sides might as well be on different planets. Much of the disagreement is encapsulated in the use of two different two-word phrases: “reasonably possible” by Weinberg, and “not impossible” by Ferguson/Maxwell.

Both of these phrases are deployed by the respective sides in weighing the witness testimony that the defence argued made the offence virtually impossible.

Take, for example, the testimony of Monsignor Charles Portelli, who was the master of ceremonies assisting Pell throughout the mass on the day of the alleged offences with the two choirboys.

Portelli confidently asserted he accompanied Pell throughout the ceremony the entire time he was wearing the archbishop’s robes, and that this was not just normal practice but a strict requirement of ecclesiastical law.

He, and others, also testified that following the ceremony Pell would stand at the front steps of the cathedral chatting with members of the congregation, and that he recalled Pell doing this on the relevant dates.

Of this evidence Weinberg states: “Portelli’s account, if accepted, would put a complete end to the prosecution case in respect of both incidents.”

Crucially, Weinberg goes on to say: “The same result would follow from that account being regarded as a ‘reasonably possible’ version of events, because any such conclusion would render the complainant’s account literally impossible.”

In his view, the accuracy of the exculpatory testimony does not need to be accepted by the jury, let alone proved.

If it is even a “reasonable possibility” that it is accurate then the jury must acquit.

This phrase occurs nine times in Weinberg’s judgment, in respect of different witness testimony. In two cases, Portelli and Max Potter, responsible for the sacristy where most of the offences are alleged to have occurred, Weinberg contends the evidence is decisive: “Portelli and Potter gave direct evidence that, if accepted, provided a complete answer to the complainant’s evidence with regard to the first incident.”

The other 20 witnesses lend further support, resulting in a compounding of improbabilities surrounding the alleged offences that according to Weinberg: “… had to have taken place within the space of just a few minutes. In that event, the odds against the complainant’s account of how the abuse had occurred would have to be substantial.

“The chances of ‘all the planets aligning’ in that way would at the very least be doubtful.”

By contrast, the phrase “reasonably possible” does not appear anywhere in the Ferguson/Maxwell judgment.

Instead they focus on finding a sliver of possibility for the offence to have occurred. In the case of Portelli’s claim of always being with Pell while he was wearing the archbishop’s robes, they point to his acknowledgment that there might have been occasions when he was away from Pell for a “minute or two”, though he could not recall this ever happening.

Such a sliver of possibility, according to the Ferguson/Maxwell judgment, rendered it open to the jury to convict.

This kind of thinking recurs throughout their judgment. As for the compounding improbabilities point stressed by Weinberg, Ferguson and Maxwell say: “What emerges, therefore, is not a ‘catalogue of impossibilities’, as the applicant contends, but a catalogue of uncertainties and possibilities … the evidence of the successive witnesses served only to confirm that what A claimed had occurred was not impossible.”

This, in their view, opens the way for the jury to convict based solely on complainant testimony that has the “ring of truth”, despite having multiple errors and inconsistencies. Weinberg argues that, far from having the ring of truth, the complainant testimony in some cases “made no sense”.

He points to several empirical studies showing the unreliability of judging the veracity of evidence this way.

There have been some recent cases of authorities being convinced of the truth of extraordinary allegations, such as the Operation Midland case in Britain in which a character by the name of Carl Beech claimed to have been the victim of a pedophile ring that involved a dozen senior figures in the British establishment, including former prime minister Edward Heath and former home secretary Leon Brittan and other MPs as well as chiefs of defence and intelligence.

These uncorroborated allegations led to a major police investigation in which the senior figures accused, all elderly, were dragged through the mud and their reputations destroyed because the senior police who led the investigation found Beech’s testimony “credible and true”.

It was all a complete fabrication. On July 22 this year Beech was sentenced to 18 years imprisonment for 12 counts of perverting the course of justice and fraud.

The police made a grovelling apology to the victims of this sham, including Brittan’s widow. But Beech did have that “ring of truth”.

What about the second of Pell’s alleged victims, who died in 2001 after telling his mother on two occasions that he had not been abused? The majority judgment refers to a submission by the prosecutor to the jury in his final address that states: “while a denial of sexual abuse may mean the sexual abuse did not occur, it does not necessarily mean that is the case. There may be reasons why a 17 or 18-year-old male would not want to tell his mother that he was sexually abused as a child.”

On this basis, Ferguson/Maxwell assert that such denial did not oblige the jury to have a reasonable doubt. But if denial by the alleged victim “may mean” the abuse did not occur, surely there is a “reasonably possibility” that he might be simply telling the truth which, if Weinberg’s principle is correct, would require acquittal.
 

·
I Have Imaginary Friends
Patrol Hybrid.
Joined
·
12,849 Posts
I do believe that there is a higher agenda in this case. The Roman Catholic Church is a very powerful organisation that has far reaching tentacles.
Pell was investigating fraud within the church, he could have stayed in Rome, but he chose to return and protest his innocence.
Never ever trust someone who says ‘We’ll look after you’.
 

·
Registered
Triton n Lovin it.
Joined
·
23,181 Posts
Yeah I stated before in this thread or another one, that I was not convinced that Pell was guilty for the reason that the young bloke that is dead, said on two occasions that he had not been assaulted and there was also the fact that if he was in fact wearing the full gear, it would have been impossible for it to have happened in such a short time frame. I'm not saying that he is guilty or non guilty but for me, there is reasonable doubt for what has been said happened!

Foo
 

·
Administrator
GUII ZD30DI Wgn
Joined
·
45,276 Posts
So because myself and others are conservatives we are automatically linked to paedophiles, what an absolute load of unmitigated BS and also a complete insult to the intelligence of our members, disgusting. I will remind members we have a one domestic political thread rule.
 

·
I Have Imaginary Friends
Patrol Hybrid.
Joined
·
12,849 Posts
At the end of the day Pell was charged and found guilty....

Say no more...
There should be no degree of doubt, read the transcripts, there was doubt, the result was preordained.
 

·
Administrator
GUII ZD30DI Wgn
Joined
·
45,276 Posts
At the end of the day Pell was charged and found guilty....

Say no more...
Well! why are you? You seem to show agreence with the title of this thread that accuses conservatives of vile acts and beliefs. Fair dinkum it is unmitigated crap like this that makes me think I should walk away now, but I ain't doing that until we have XF fully sorted, then I will.
 

·
Blues Won as Expected. Go the Knights
Joined
·
30,388 Posts
Well! why are you? You seem to show agreence with the title of this thread that accuses conservatives of vile acts and beliefs. Fair dinkum it is unmitigated crap like this that makes me think I should walk away now, but I ain't doing that until we have XF fully sorted, then I will.
No no.. All i was only pointing out to DB that at the end of the day he (Pell) was convicted in a court of law...

Nothing more or less..
Just a fact..
 

·
The Googlest, Apparently!
nissan patrol
Joined
·
15,579 Posts
Squalo is no dummy, so we can only take his thread headline as an example the bigotry that is common with the left.

Or is it just that he is being facetiously sarcastic, given that he points to bolt as case point for his reasoning that "Conservatives defend paedophiles". And then uses Hadley, an avowed conservative, as an illustration that being conservative does not mean you protect paedo's.

Or is he just blind to the hypocrisy of his post? 🤣🤣🤣

Nah, I will stick to the obsessive bigotry that is common with the left.
 

·
The Googlest, Apparently!
nissan patrol
Joined
·
15,579 Posts
No no.. All i was only pointing out to DB that at the end of the day he (Pell) was convicted in a court of law...

Nothing more or less..
Just a fact..
Err, no you weren't.

My posts came after yours...

So you were pointing out nothing to me, and therefore your "Nothing more or less.. just a fact.." is pure BS as it is not based on any fact (as in pointing out to DB) ...
 

·
Registered
Triton n Lovin it.
Joined
·
23,181 Posts
And that means Jackchit, if there hasn't been true justice served, so what's your point? :unsure: Lets not pass over the number of times in charges being laid and convicted of, being found to be wrong in the future! :rolleyes:

Foo
 
1 - 20 of 61 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top