Comments by "" (@pwillis1589) on "'Act of censorship': ABC 'wouldn't hear alternate views' on Cardinal George Pell" video.

Pell was as guilty as. He got off on a technicality. A Jury that heard the evidence found him guilty.
2
@morant3057 Based on their summary reasons, the High Court found the Court of Appeal majority judgment did not apply sufficiently cogent reasoning when it assessed the evidence. In their full reasons, the High Court concluded an independent assessment of the evidence by the Court of Appeal should have concluded there ought to have been sufficient doubt in the jury’s minds to preclude the verdict from being open. They found the majority’s judgment failed to consider whether there was a reasonable possibility the offending had not taken place, such that there ought to have been a reasonable doubt as to Pell’s guilt. They also found that despite the complainant’s credibility and reliability, the evidence of the witnesses required the jury, acting rationally, to have entertained a reasonable doubt as to Pell’s guilt. You need to get your facts correct. As I said before Pell was not found innocent. You are factually wrong. Get over it.
2
@morant3057 No, your statement is factually incorrect. He was not found innocent at all. Just read the High Court judgement yourself. Then read the Royal Commission findings on his behaviour. If you wish to remain ignorant and turn a blind eye to sustained child sexual abuse that's your decision. Telling me to get over reveals more about you than me.
2
@morant3057 No. Not guilty and innocent are two completely different terms both legally and by the dictionary. You are factually incorrect.
2
@morant3057 Courts don’t and never have determined innocence. You display a complete lack of understanding of our legal system.
2
The royal commission found Cardinal Pell knew by 1982 of complaints against Ridsdale and perhaps as early as 1977, about 16 years before he was first charged by police. Ridsdale, one of the nation’s most prolific paedophiles, is still being brought to justice and will be sentenced next week for further crimes against children. The royal commission described as "implausible" Cardinal Pell’s explanation that he was deceived about Ridsdale by Ronald Mulkearns, a former bishop of Ballarat who, when confronted by complaints against Ridsdale, moved him from parish to parish to avoid scandal.
2
@morant3057 No that wasn’t even the finding of the High Court.
1
And let’s not forget the findings of the Royal Commission. Pell was a low life dirtbag who led and defended an immoral institution that sanctioned the sustained and coordinated sexual abuse of thousands of children. My understanding is that his orthopaedic surgeon conducting the hip replacement surgery went to a Catholic boarding school. Makes sense.
1
@morant3057 Nope, you don't understand language or the legal system. He was acquitted on a legal technicality, which declared him not guilty.
1
@morant3057 Nope once again read a legal textbook. Courts don't decide innocence. They judge guilty or not guilty. Innocent people don't shove their cocks into a choirboys mouths.
1
@morant3057 The royal commission found Cardinal Pell knew by 1982 of complaints against Ridsdale and perhaps as early as 1977, about 16 years before he was first charged by police. Ridsdale, one of the nation’s most prolific paedophiles, is still being brought to justice and will be sentenced next week for further crimes against children. The royal commission described as "implausible" Cardinal Pell’s explanation that he was deceived about Ridsdale by Ronald Mulkearns, a former bishop of Ballarat who, when confronted by complaints against Ridsdale, moved him from parish to parish to avoid scandal.
1
Not only was he a sexual predator he helped hide numerous other sexual predators in the Catholic Church from secular justice. He died an unnecessary and pointless death from simply hip surgery. No doubt the orthopaedic surgeon was a educated in the Catholic system.
1
@morant3057 No, again, you fail to understand the legal system which doesn't determine innocence. He was found because of a legal technicality to be not guilty. Innocence people don't hide sexual predators from justice as the Royal Commission found. Pell knowingly protected rapist priests from the authorities.
1
@morant3057 The royal commission found Cardinal Pell knew by 1982 of complaints against Ridsdale and perhaps as early as 1977, about 16 years before he was first charged by police. Ridsdale, one of the nation’s most prolific paedophiles, is still being brought to justice and will be sentenced next week for further crimes against children. The royal commission described as "implausible" Cardinal Pell’s explanation that he was deceived about Ridsdale by Ronald Mulkearns, a former bishop of Ballarat who, when confronted by complaints against Ridsdale, moved him from parish to parish to avoid scandal.
1