RE: Cardinal George Pell has conviction overturned
April 15, 2020 at 6:15 am
(This post was last modified: April 15, 2020 at 6:17 am by Agnostico.)
(April 15, 2020 at 3:31 am)The Valkyrie Wrote: We all know (well I hope we do) that a not guilty finding in court, an acquittal, or overturning of a conviction, does not mean the person is innocent.
From a legal standpoint they may be, but nit necessarily in reality (right, OJ?).
There are many factors that can influence a judge, a jury, or lawyers. And there are factors that can influence a conviction or sentence.
Unfortunately, some of these factors are wealth; fame, and influence if the individual or the organisation they belong to.
Now my mother and her sisters are firmly in the camp of "Pell can't do wrong because he's a man of god" camp. They will bend over backwards to defend him (though aunt Sally is more likely to bend forward).
And I think it's ironic that the term "witch hunt" is being used to defend someone from the organisation that invented them...
I don't need to defend a person whose already been defended successfully
Witch hunt is the term some media outlets have used to describe the actions of the Victoria police
Im certainly not saying Pell is innocent cos he's a man of God
In the 1990s a pedophile scandal was uncovered here. Many priests were convicted
Ask your mum if Gerald Ridsdale is a "man of God". His crimes are deplorable
Anyway, seven judges in the Australian High Court had no choice but to uphold the law
The testimony of a complainant is insufficient evidence to convict someone
Otherwise anyone could just make a claim from 40 years ago simply to destroy someones life
Does anyone think that we should believe all complainants and convict people on just their uncorroborated testimony?
Or only when its against a religion or church do we assume guilt?
