|
Post by Vidit Lucem Magnam on Jun 29, 2017 11:39:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Clotilde on Jun 29, 2017 11:59:38 GMT -5
Some sources are saying that the news is getting the story wrong and that it was his underlings who were charged, not him. With MSM the way that it is, I'm not even sure what to believe. I'm sure details are forthcoming.
|
|
|
Post by Jayne on Jun 29, 2017 12:40:35 GMT -5
Some sources are saying that the news is getting the story wrong and that it was his underlings who were charged, not him. With MSM the way that it is, I'm not even sure what to believe. I'm sure details are forthcoming. I completely agree about MSM. I have pretty much stopped believing anything from them, especially when it is about their favourite targets like conservatives, Catholics, Donald Trump, etc. It seems like they aren't even trying to tell the truth. All they appear to care about is making the "right" people look bad. We virtually always have to wait for the truth to come out on any given story. I really liked how VLM included "if true" in his post. Because when we first hear a story, we have no idea yet whether it's true.
|
|
|
Post by Clotilde on Jun 29, 2017 14:56:10 GMT -5
Some sources are saying that the news is getting the story wrong and that it was his underlings who were charged, not him. With MSM the way that it is, I'm not even sure what to believe. I'm sure details are forthcoming. I completely agree about MSM. I have pretty much stopped believing anything from them, especially when it is about their favourite targets like conservatives, Catholics, Donald Trump, etc. It seems like they aren't even trying to tell the truth. All they appear to care about is making the "right" people look bad. We virtually always have to wait for the truth to come out on any given story. I really liked how VLM included "if true" in his post. Because when we first hear a story, we have no idea yet whether it's true. Exactly. I also know that I might be inclined to think badly of anyone involved in the NO, but I have to set that aside in justice.
|
|
|
Post by kim on Jun 30, 2017 6:57:06 GMT -5
I started a thread on this in the crisis column. Moderators feel free to delete it.
Here was my post:
Pel is supposedly one of the conservatives of the Vatican 2 sect so many conservative Novus Ordites are saying this is all a setup due to his conservatism. I thought it might be a setup too. Ordained in 1966, Pel is, at least , a valid priest.
Then I watched the Australian news vids in the article below and I tend to think Pel may well be guilty as charged. Most convincing is the interview with a man who threw Pel out of a surf club bathroom when he caught him full frontal with 3 little boys.
callmejorgebergoglio.blogspot.com/2017/06/background-on-george-pell.html?m=1
|
|
|
Post by micah1199 on Jun 30, 2017 7:45:39 GMT -5
I don't doubt it at all. I went to a Jesuit HS. They used to send the perverts to Alaska and Jamaica when they got caught in the US. These are evil men.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jun 30, 2017 14:12:12 GMT -5
It seems that most of this perversity coincides with the Vatican II era. It is heartbreaking to see these men's lives destroyed by men who claimed to have been priests.
|
|
|
Post by Vidit Lucem Magnam on Jun 30, 2017 15:52:49 GMT -5
Several years ago I read a novel about Vatican II events by Malachi Martin...I can't remember the name of it. If I recall correctly, it claimed that there were pro-pedophile/homosexual groups secretly at work in the Vatican at that time. It was only later that I learned that Martin claimed to be a VII insider with personal knowledge of the council...but for what its worth it was supposedly fiction.
|
|
Greg
Junior Member
Posts: 84
|
Post by Greg on Feb 27, 2019 2:45:16 GMT -5
Cardinal George Pell has been taken in custody following a sentencing hearing in which his lawyer, Robert Richter, described one of Pell’s offences as a “plain vanilla sexual penetration case where the child is not actively participating”.
After the hearing, with Pell’s lawyer having withdrawn his application for bail, the chief judge, Peter Kidd, said: “Take him away, please.” Pell will be sentenced on 13 March after his conviction for sexually assaulting two 13-year-old boys.
The former prime minister John Howard was among those who provided character references for Pell as the cardinal’s legal team tried to argue for a lower-end sentence in Melbourne’s county court on Wednesday morning.
That claim was rejected by the chief judge, Peter Kidd, who said he saw Pell’s behaviour as “callous, brazen offending” and “shocking conduct”.
“He did have in his mind some sense of impunity. How else did he think he would get away with this? There was an element of force here ... this is not anywhere near the lower end of offending.”
Richter’s renowned defence style was on full display, as he tried to argue with Kidd that there were “no aggravating circumstances” to one of Pell’s offences.
It was “no more than a plain vanilla sexual penetration case where the child is not actively participating”, Richter said.
Kidd responded: “It must be clear to you by now I’m struggling with that submission. Looking at your points here – so what?”
So for all the sycophants, contrarians and wishful thinkers who defended this sick clerical sodomite or told us the media had it in for him and the Australian Courts were biased against the Church and the victims were lying.
You. Were. WRONG.
I was right. I knew this creep was guility. I knew Tyack was telling the truth about the changing room incident.
Today, even his defence lawyer admits Pell was a pederast, just a "plain vanilla" pederast. Just one of those "fumbling about in the sacristy cases" that does not deserve a custodial sentence. The judge disagreed.
If Pell was wholly innocent he would never have told his lawyer about "plain vanilla" sexual activity with a choir boy.
|
|
Greg
Junior Member
Posts: 84
|
Post by Greg on Feb 27, 2019 7:56:48 GMT -5
Is it moral to argue for leniancy in sentencing for a crime you didn't commit?
I would instruct my lawyer to insist and behave like the trial had got it wrong, if I was wholly innocent. I would not worry about whether I would die in jail and seek to have a sentence reduce because of extenuating circumstances. If would want to be pronounced innocent and restore my good name and show how the media had conspired against me, be a public martyr.
Getting your lawyer to fight for a reduced sentence is the mark of a guilty man. And I would argue immoral. There is much more at stake here than spending your last 10 years in a Melbourne jail.
|
|
Greg
Junior Member
Posts: 84
|
Post by Greg on Feb 27, 2019 10:09:27 GMT -5
|
|
Greg
Junior Member
Posts: 84
|
Post by Greg on Mar 13, 2019 2:59:38 GMT -5
Got 6 years. Needs to serve 3.666 before parole.
Not enough. Should have got 15 to 20 years so he would die in jail for certain.
|
|