-
Latest Posts
-
Recent Comments
-
TCL Archive
- October 2023 (1)
- September 2023 (84)
- August 2023 (74)
- July 2023 (89)
- June 2023 (81)
- May 2023 (88)
- April 2023 (90)
- March 2023 (118)
- February 2023 (84)
- January 2023 (101)
- December 2022 (62)
- November 2022 (72)
- October 2022 (83)
- September 2022 (81)
- August 2022 (82)
- July 2022 (83)
- June 2022 (113)
- May 2022 (80)
- April 2022 (114)
- March 2022 (117)
- February 2022 (120)
- January 2022 (126)
- December 2021 (116)
- November 2021 (112)
- October 2021 (126)
- September 2021 (84)
- August 2021 (6)
-
Post Categories
- Art, music, letters
- Australian police state
- Climate hoax
- Culture
- Defence and national security
- Economics and the economy
- Education
- Elections
- Ethics and morality
- Fake conservatism
- Fake news
- Fake science
- Federal politics
- Foreign policy
- General
- History
- International
- Left-wing extremism
- Left-wing hypocrisy
- Legal affairs
- Media
- Politics
- Religion and faith
- Rule of law
- Science and technology
- Social media
- Sport
- State politics
- US politics
- War and peace
- War on Christianity
- Whatever
-
Motto of ‘The Victorian Legal Gang’ – communists-r-us
The point is that the standard of proof is now lower … and a jury won’t be too upset about handing over church money to anyone who looks a little bit like a victim.
Hey isn’t Pope Francis in the belief that the church should be poor? I mean spiritually rich of course … but materially poor. I vaguely remember St Francis was into that concept.
They must not mention that George Pell – George Cardinal Pell – was exonerated. That would be telling.
Surely the point is that when the standard of proof was higher, the High Court ruled 7-0 (against the same Court of Appeal) that it didn’t happen.
Surely the point is that when the standard of proof was higher, the High Court ruled 7-0 (against the same Court of Appeal) that it didn’t happen.
C.L. – now you’re being silly – this is the Victorian legal system. The point is the Catholic Church is a fair & legitimate target.
“Proof” is such an out-dated and racist/paternalistic/transphobic concept – be off with you.
Tel, someone like the Dominican Sisters of Hawthorne, of whomI knew very little until a couple of days ago, are very well off indeed. They have a lovely place, serene and all, even though they say they accept no money from the government nor from any organisation. As for their enormous wealth, they live it as the Grace of God in their professed devotion to dying patients who otherwise and in other places are encouraged to top themselves.
Tel, I forgot to say that the Sisters accept no fees from their patients either.
Not only was Pell cleared by the HC of this trumped-up charge, the dead choirboy himself admitted the alleged incident never happened.
This is all about money and nothing to do with justice.
what Lee says 26 August, 2023 at 12:13 pm
My understanding is that the only thing the High Court ruled on, was that because several witnesses contradicted the prosecution story, and these witnesses went unchallenged by the prosecution, therefore the jury should have had “reasonable doubt” … meaning insufficient standard of evidence for a criminal conviction. It’s incredibly rare for any court to rule outright that a crime never happened, nor does the legal system require such a ruling.
The civil court can still rule that money is owed, without needing to ever achieve “beyond reasonable doubt” evidence. This isn’t a logical contradiction, it’s merely a way to handle the unavoidable uncertainty of events happening many decades ago, with only vague memories of events.
Jane Carosene has an alcohol-fueled? “dream”.
Imagine if you will a “tear” in the fabric of the universe. Let’s call it the “Twilight Zone” where nothing makes sense. Imagine that in this Twilight Zone there are never-before-heard-of B&T Women in Media Awards. Then imagine if you will a loud-mouthed, loathsome harridan being bestowed with a “lifetime achievement” award by said Awards. Astonishing? Astonishing, indeed. Astonishing even to the recipient:
The WINNERS Of B&T’s Women In Media Awards Are HERE!
Jane Carosene has an alcohol-fueled? “dream”.
Dunny-door wisdom says –
“Reality is simply an optical illusion caused by an alcohol deficiency”.
Dunny-door wisdom says –
“Reality is simply an optical illusion caused by an alcohol deficiency”.
And: Reality is for those people who can’t handle drugs.
Interesting fact.
Seemed to be a connection between the b & t website name and the GangGreen head.
Turns out that
bandt is simply “b and t” sans spaces.
This shit is exactly why the cardinal should not have turned the other cheek and sued the arses off of everyone who besmirched him.
There was a lot more to it than that, Tel.
Pell v The Queen.
The Victorian Court of Appeal knows very well that this accusation is false.
The High Court did something rare even in court judgements to overturn a conviction: it said not only that there was reasonable doubt, but that there was ‘a significant possibility that an innocent person has been convicted.’ It went further to affirm that a jury that was acting rationally and considering the whole of the evidence could not have returned a guilty verdict.
The seven judges also dismissed some of the Victorian DPP’s arguments as ‘specious’. As Frank Brennan (a lawyer and son of a chief justice) points out, that is exceptionally strong language for a HC judgement.
And as Jeremy Gans has pointed out, the HC judgement was not only unanimous but joint: i.e. all seven signed up to the one short and sharp text without giving individual opinions. That has happened in less than four per cent of cases in which all seven judges have sat; in other words, it doesn’t get more authoritative.
The Hunchback and his minions, not to mention the ABC, must have been furious that three of the seven were Labor appointees, including the new CJ Gageler.
CL, read the judgement at your own link.
They clearly say that Pell (and the various witnesses on his side) failed to prove impossibility … but also that it would be unfair to demand that any defendent must prove impossibility in a criminal trial … they have judged that the defence was indeed able to at least prove “reasonable doubt”.
There’s no part of the judgement where the High Court decided that the whole thing was impossible … merely that they doubted it.
You are welcome to make up your own mind about that … but the High Court said no such thing. Sure, if you want to read between the lines a little you might well imagine what they could have been thinking … I’m only going by what was actually said.
On this ridiculous civil action which the courts in Comrade Andrews’ Victoria are allowing, two observations: (1) the High Court found that the alleged offences didn’t happen, therefore (2) any claim for compensation for nervous shock etc should be directed against the Victorian police and DPP and the leftist media for presenting him with this baseless story.
In any case, a B and D Master claiming to be a wilting flower subject to nervous shock is a bit rich, isn’t it? See Keith Windschuttle’s book for details.
7-0 isn’t reading between the lines.
That’s the headline.
Their Honours didn’t say that once. They said it three times.
The church owns churches, schools, hospitals, age care facilities, orphanahes and many beautiful works of art so sell them, then what?
I have a bit of an idea about dear old dad who claims his heart attack was brought on by the claim his son (who died several years earlier from an overdose) might have been abused.
And even if it did cause the attack, if the allegation is untrue, he has no valid claim against the church.
Old Lefty beat me to it.
Dad’s lifestyle, son’s addiction and death.
Move along, nothing to see here.
⬆️
And the ABC.
Old Lefty, yes details are in Keith Windschuttle’s book The Persecution of George Pell. He’s also been on TV. Cardinal Pell wrote in his Prison Journal that Chris Friel’s research was like having another QC on the case. One summary is here: https://www.academia.edu/96468483/A_Psalter_for_Pell
The HCA video 12 March 2020 from about 2:50 on the HCA website reveals some of the issues with where the complainant said he found the wine. One section is redacted from the transcript but not from the video.
It is quite unusual that the ABC does not seem to have a story on the Father’s civil claim on their website, unless I’ve missed it. There are stories in the Guardian, the Age and other outlets. Milligan was one of the first to tweet about it, she was retweeting information from a Ballarat journalist. Interesting that Shine Lawyers Melbourne have carriage of this now, previous Shine spokesperson who did media interviews since 2019 was based in NSW. She tweeted about the Father’s claim proceeding the day Cardinal Pell died.
VSCA judgment: https://aucc.sirsidynix.net.au/Judgments/VSCA/2023/A0197.pdf
Chrissie and Anthony Foster cited a number of times.
Who is paying for this?
Did Cardinal Becciu’s $26,000,000 transfer to Australia all balance off after the intrepid investigators from AUSTRAC found “nothing to see here”, or has some been told to put up or pay up (a refund).
Follow the money.
Weinberg, who would not disagree that the allegation of the corridor abuse was a fabrication, nevertheless thought it would be problematic, in law, to say that the lying about the corridor incident automatically meant meant the complainant was lying about the abuse in the sacristy.
Rather, and quite apart from the many particularised discrepancies in the complainant’s allegations about the sacristy in ident, Weinberg found – and the full bench of the HCA amplified the point- that the complainant’s allegations could be ‘ … distilled … to ten claimed compounding improbabilities.’
Now, I would not know how to express this numerically, yet I suspect the improbabilities would look pretty persuasive as to false witness by the complainant.
By which token of probabilities, the new claim by the father in a hearing requiring the ‘balance of probabilities’, has already been addressed by, firstly Weinberg, then by the HCA.