The High Court train is still coming, even if people look the other way. When it gets here the legal game-playing stops and reality will be released with Pell. That reality will run right over those still facing the wrong way. No prize for guessing what political elements will be run over. The smart ones are already well away from these tracks but the Victorian Premier is tied to them.
Steve Owens is not prepared to convict on the strength of what he now understands are the accusations and that is moving past the former position of not approving of a word on word conviction on principle.
After the appeal, and even before I read Weinberg I had already thought the appeal to the High Court ought to be made and what that court ought to find because of the merits of this case as they had slowly been revealed to me before that appeal. Nobody thought an appeal ought to be launched on the basis that the word on word legislation was unconstitutional, so Steve even if he didn’t like it, must have thought that it was open to the jury to find guilt in this case on the strength of that evidence as the majority concluded. Without Weinberg Steve would be lost.
The appeal itself was as I read it, unexplainable head-shaking crap from the majority and typical understatement from the dissenting lawyer turned judge.
If Weinberg did not exist, and some other judge had joined with the majority for a 3:0 decision I would not have altered my view of this case in the slightest. The majority were not dealing with the reality of time and space, let alone in their proper sequence by starting with the leaders of the procession. The leaders had to get to the priests sacristy first; and physical consequences follow from this deductive fact: starting with a time span that had just ended and another commenced.
Even running the impossible argument; say the boys had got there first anyway (and they physically could not without an actual and thus memorable disruption to what would have to have been a stalled procession, that we know did not happen because it was not recalled by the unchallenged witnesses) then the boys would have been discovered by the leaders of that procession as they entered that same room and no crime could result!
So despite the accusation, the facts disclose that the room is already occupied! And everything of the time sequence problem flows from this undoubted fact. The total normal time length of the procession had to expire without any opportunity arising for the boys to enter the sacristy.
The hive of activity evidence then prohibits a subsequent entrance to this area. The boys could never have been there! That is what Steve Owens -and all the other bigots- won’t turn their mind towards.
My ability to spot a consequential massive miscarriage of justice does not rely on the games (with either good or bad motives) that are played by the bourgeois legal profession. I’m only glad that Weinberg was around and able to do as much as he has for the further legal process of the High Court that is coming in about 3-4 months now. Our legal system is the very flawed adversarial system that Australians suffer under. I am not defending ‘their’ system but it looks like Steve Owens is.
On the purely legal issue, my view developed and changed from ‘not guilty’ to something else altogether…
These 5 accusations (for all the reasons already discussed by me) can’t be accepted to being proved to beyond the point of reasonable doubt. That doubt is only in theory; in practice, it’s really the opposite. The accused has 2 strikes against them by being there in the dock in the first place! The presumption of innocence is theory. Doubt ought to have -in this case- remained standing in the accused favor but I failed to convince Steve of this. Dissenting judge Weinberg has convinced Steve of this. The rest of ‘us’ that he read could not get through to the political opponent Steve. Such a surprise!
But a provable lack of opportunity is not guilty because of a demonstrable time and place problem and is another matter altogether. The evidence shows the room where the 4 charges were said to have occurred could not be available for these attacks as others were using the room.
5-6 minutes were not (and so even if unreasonably extended to 10 minutes) available for the crime.
The entire case has collapsed on those 2 physical points of time and space. There was no opportunity for Pell or anyone else to have committed these crimes at that time and place. If that is so it is clear that all 5 charges are simply false.
The defense was correct to say that the case was impossible because it was!
How the jury and the majority missed this is interesting of itself but not important because that is what they have done like it or not. Facts are, as is said, stubborn things!
There is thus not even a need to look further and ask why the accusations were made by J, or how convincingly they were made by him; because without opportunity nothing could have happened no matter what was said! Enter the political, social and cultural dimensions to this case.
A lack of opportunity conclusion ALSO ends the legal issues – BUT we are left not with a political opponent that is still under a cloud and so maybe he is just lucky to have got off… because he is rich and powerful – but instead we are left with an innocent man that is now and could have been for years politically, socially and culturally attacked by the forces that now have to account for what they have been doing with all the power and funds at their disposal. An inquiry is in order to get to the bottom of this.
My question is not what sort of games can the legal profession play to hide that reality, but rather what was the SANO task force actually doing when they had a responsibility to work out if such an implausible accusation was even possible in the first place?
There are in short also the political, cultural and social issues to consider along with the legal, and there are many people who do not want these factors examined. Steve can start by acknowledging that this is the case. A clearly identifiable element do NOT want any further investigation; as a democrat I am deeply concerned about the power of the police and publicly-funded ABC journalists and I do want this inquiry.
For the account to have been real people had to be disappeared or there had to be a Catholic conspiracy to assist in a crime of pedophilia and that (with the people in this procession) is not the real world.
This 2nd form of acquittal thus drags in the police for these other reasons. The police who were in a position to know and yet didn’t go to the trouble of sorting this opportunity issue out; behaved much worse than just recklessly.
They had no excuse to have not sent a couple of police along to record over several Sundays just how the event would have unfolded, that could in any way enable boys to do the bad behavior claimed – without adults noticing what was going on! The police ought never to have flown to Rome over such twaddle! Pell should never have even been interviewed about such crazy accusations. This is persecution heaped upon persecution.
The fact that this man ‘J’ is mentally disturbed in some manner is totally relevant. I correctly picked up on the issue. How is it that such a series of implausible accusations from a mentally troubled person were pursued by the police? This will have resulted after all the struggle, trauma and costs that Pell, the Church, and Catholics generally have been put through in a total defeat of all these accusations! Indeed all the charges against Pell were all flawed to such a sad extent that these last 5, and clearly lunatic accusations were all that went to trial!
Steve is only ‘…prepared to go as far as judge Weinberg and say that there is a significant possibility that Pell is innocent and on that basis should walk free.’
‘Significant possibility’ when the words Steve is looking for are the jury got it wrong; that Pell ought not have been convicted; Pell ought not have spent 1 day in jail, but he will have spent over 14 months in jail and even Steve Owens with so little time to study the issue, understands that this outcome is wrong! So that begs the question; how was it that the police who are paid to do the investigating couldn’t understand that Pell ought not to be charged let alone convicted from the evidence that they cobbled together? Why did they choose to believe a person with a mental disorder who was changing his story? Why did the police advertise for complainants? Why did they bring such feeble-minded accusations all the way to Rome, when J could not even get into the room because other people were already there? Is this how Australia ought to run? There are also the political and cultural aspects of our country to consider and Steve knows this and that is why Steve is dissembling.
People like David Marr have definitely not gone to ground and neither have the police. They have caused the mischief and will get away with it if there is no inquiry and the Victorian ALP Premier does not want one!
Marr did not think the High Court would be interested BUT they are! Mind you when Marr thought that Pell would win the appeal he thought the High Court ought to be interested! Chris Kenny just said ‘say what?’. Marr is exactly the bias of this case writ large. Marr’s motive is to get Pell irrespective of the evidence! Marr has no problem looking both ways to suit himself, just like all the rest of the anti-Pell campaigners that Steve is now unable to openly unite with. Yet Steve is also not wanting to expose them.
I am after an inquiry and their goal will be to prevent an inquiry. Steve Owens is heading for another fence to sit atop, with the pretense that it’s all too hard to work out!
What Weinberg has done is not now the important part that I have been trying to get at, and others are trying to hide from. Weinberg had explained the law to his incompetent Supreme Court colleagues – that somehow he could not get to join him in the real world. He went down 2:1 and I don’t understand that, nor do I claim to fully grasp how the jury could have been so flawed.
As luck would have it, Pell won the support of a single judge and that legal expert could clarify matters sufficiently for the scales to fall from Steve’s eyes. As far as an acquittal goes that is the simple luck of having this single judge to guide and explain how this case has gone so terribly wrong.
So now Steve, like me, also now thinks the High Court will rule in Pell’s favor. I couldn’t convince Steve, nor could Bolt, or Windschuttle etc., Steve just held to his initial discomfort of this being just 1 man’s word against another, with no supporting evidence at all and THAT Steve found himself unable to countenance, but that was the law and so there was nothing to see other than that. Importantly for Steve, the change of stance is only just enough. Weinberg is simply not concerned with the police misconduct that I have spotted and want dealt with. Weinberg is not interested in an inquiry that drags in the ABC. Steve can’t see anything wrong with what the police and the ABC have done, and in his view, Australia ought to just move on as the system has worked as it should!
There is now sufficient doubt for Steve to understand the case to the degree required to go along with that minority of one judge and condemn the majority decision as an error that he wants the High Court to overturn 7-0. WOW; that is something.
So, if all the judges had sung from the same hymnbook, Pell would have no support from Steve except that he thinks that the law which could permit a word on word trial to bring forth a conviction of beyond a reasonable doubt in the first instance, is wrong.
Luckily, we have the ruling elite lawyer turned judge to solve our thinking for us. Weinberg gives Steve the excuse to go further than he previously had.
What Steve had managed was something like; that bastard Pell could be convicted because it is the law that the jury can decide who they believe! And though Steve’s not happy with that state of affairs, nevertheless that is the law, and Pell had a fair trial and the jury convicted. So, nothing unusual in that and the High Court ought not to interfere with that!
No concession to any deductive reasoning from amateurs.
No concern about what the police have been up to.
No problem with a culture of hysteria generating a collective blind spot.
No problem with the publicly funded ABC bias.
NADA care, ZIP comment.
Steve can just bleat that really we can leave it for our betters to decide Pell’s fate. I can picture Steve, straw in mouth bringing in the squires sheep talking to another muck covered peasant; ‘Aye Jim lad; and it’s not as if that rich bastard has not had the very best legal minds that money can buy now is it?’ ‘They would have gone through all that stuff that them there Pell supporters are raising now; wouldn’t they Jimbo?’ Tis not for the likes of us to work this out and we’re all too busy with the sheep and the fires anyway! Mark my words, the lawyers will sort this out and we can rest assured of that.’
Given Steve understand ‘its the timing of the subsequent events that matter.’ who got to the room first? J and R who had to double back and work out where to go as they went back into a church like all young boys would NOT do after they got out of the joint or those leading the procession?
Naturally, Steve will stick to not knowing. It won’t matter to Steve to get to the bottom of this either. Steve won’t want another hearing for the other people in the procession to explain reality. Once people answer that question of who got back first all the rest goes up in smoke. The room was a ‘hive of activity’ from that point on! It was known to be a hive of activity by all those actually involved. None of these people believed such an event could have happened!!
Apparently the police from SANO have Steve’s full support. I on the other hand call for an inquiry into what has made Australia a laughing stock right across the world.
According to Steve, Pell is just lucky to be getting out under a cloud of suspicion thanks to Weinberg. The ability of others to see right through this is pure luck and anyway methodologically flawed. People ought not to try to work this out themselves because they were not in the room for the whole trial, so they really are not in anything like the best place to do the job. We should all just keep quiet and let the process unfold. But why will that not end with the police getting away with this misconduct, and Victorian Premier Andrews not looking the other way?
If it weren’t for Weinberg as far as Steve is concerned, Pell would just sit there and do his time!
Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews and fence-sitting pseudo leftists can pretend there is nothing to investigate. But when the film is made it will show them all up as the threats to democracy that they really are. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_Angels_(film)
Recent Comments