Booth blowhard bothered by Bolt

Paws of fury: Singo’s house cat lashes out                                                                                      

RAY Hadley has refused to give Andrew Bolt a live right of reply on 2GB after maliciously accusing the Herald Sun columnist and blogger of being a serial defender of paedophiles. Like other disk-jockey bovver-boys with a track record of treating weaker human beings like garbage, Hadley likes to show off his deep concern for child welfare and his emphatic loathing for abusers. I don’t doubt his sincerity on this. Good for him. But his stance is not exactly rare. It is the default attitude of virtually the entire adult population. To paraphrase a wonderful line by flawed cop Russell Crowe’s estranged wife during a courtroom custody hearing in American Gangster: Hadley lays it on thick regarding children for one reason – to buy being an asshole on everything else. Bolt is not a professing Christian, let alone a Catholic, and wouldn’t imperil his reputation by defending a fellow non-leftist credibly in the frame for such crimes. Hadley is living proof the Peter principle is no straitjacket to the ambitious. He rose to his level of incompetence at the Dapto dogs but he didn’t stay there.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On the subject of Cardinal Pell and blowhards, I also note for the record that Malcolm Turnbull – a new chum to Catholicism whose conversion unkind observers regard as less than abyssal – has this morning outsourced a reaction to the most historic acquittal of a falsely convicted man in Australian history. “Well said, Julia.” That’s all, folks – from the celebrated silk of the Spy Catcher trial.

I recently praised Ms Gillard for not becoming in prime ministerial retirement like Messrs Turnbull, Rudd and Keating whose ego-fuelled interventions and bitter commentaries blight the nation’s discourse. Here, though, she uses the cynical, half-smart Daniel Andrews tactic of not discussing Pell v The Queen at all but playacting unctuous concern for victims of sexual abuse. But the one has nothing to do with the other. So let me script for these sore losers a proper, dignified response: ‘Today is not the day to talk about child sexual abuse, important though it is. Today we acknowledge that false accusations – not least when promoted by police, politicians and journalists to further an ideological cause – are a serious threat to human rights and the rule of law. We rejoice that Cardinal George Pell was spared any further agony and re-dedicate ourselves to safeguarding the impartial administration of justice. To Cardinal Pell: we are sorry.’

This entry was posted in Australian Story, Politics of the Left. Bookmark the permalink.

76 Responses to Booth blowhard bothered by Bolt

  1. Fisky

    Yes indeed. It is a total non-sequitur to say anything about Pell and child [email protected] in the same sentence. They obviously are looking for ways to smear while just falling short of outright defamation.

  2. Fred

    Julia was happy to have Bill in her cabinet.

  3. stackja

    JA was in trouble.
    JA called RC.
    Troubles forgotten by many.
    Michael Smith didn’t.

  4. stackja

    Ray H has a pedal file fixation.

  5. John A

    I have no doubt that JG and all similar commenters will be thinking or saying to you “Dream on, sunshine!” and in that particularly supercilious tone of voice which sounds like fingernails across a blackboard.

  6. Mick Gold Coast QLD

    On The Australian front page:

    Cathedral vandalised as Pell leaves monastery

    The words ‘r8pist’ and ‘no justice’ have been graffitied on Melbourne cathedral and items placed outside the monastery George Pell has been staying.”

    The photo shows white ribbons tied to the iron gate, signifying the anonymous grafitists are too gutless and cowardly to reveal themselves.

    The obsessive anger displayed by these primitives is very, very similar to that of the snarling mob that demanded all Australians demonstrate love and admiration for blokes who shove their penises into the anus of other blokes, a quite strange unhygienic and filthy practice, by declaring them man and wife, a quite ludicrous notion.

    Funny that.

  7. egg_

    Singo’s house cat lashes out

    That’s a keeper!

  8. Terry

    @Fred

    ‘Julia was happy to have Bill in her cabinet.’
    A euphemism?

  9. It is about abortion, not hot dude on dude action.

  10. a happy little debunker

    She is chairwoman of Beyond Blue – an organisation that is supposed to help people deal mental anguish.

    To say that there are people who are choosing to ‘suffer’ from the Pell HC challenge is an understatement.
    She is advising them to get help in dealing with this self-chosen suffering.

    That she is able to see how they have hung their shingle on George Pell and lost – is surely of no surprise?

  11. Tel

    Julia was happy to have Bill in her cabinet.

    She left us with the Bill … boom tish!

    He probably gets fed up with that joke. Hope he is sitting very bored in his house and gets even more fed up as it gets told over and over.

  12. Cynic of Ayr

    “Methinks the man protests too much.”
    (Who was the originator of that saying?)

  13. Selwyn

    “Paws of fury”. Priceless.

    Your “dignified reply” deserves to be quoted everywhere.

  14. Real Deal

    Methinks the man protests too much.”
    (Who was the originator of that saying?)

    It could onlybe tbe great Peter FitzSimons, surely?

  15. John64

    ‘Julia was happy to have Bill in her cabinet.’

    I thought that was Craig?

  16. iain russell

    Cracker CL! Unctuous indeed.

  17. Mother Lode

    Can Hadley point to a single instance of the Cardinal committing a p3d0 act?

    Can he point to a single instance of him moving priests about to shield them and the Church from the consequences of someone else perpetrating such an act?

    This is where Hadley shows himself to be a truly worthless human being – he is more concerned with hounding a man that he cannot show to have done anything wrong but whom he has fixed his tiny mind on, at the expense of real cases – in fact I suspect he has not moved his ample posterior real estate an inch to try to get to the bottom of any cases that might have merit.

    A spineless cnidaria, blind and oblivious, anchored still in the place it bumped into at its beginning, swaying to and fro, straining, and flopping as buffeted and swept by prevailing surges.

  18. Mother Lode

    Shakespeare, in Hamlet.

    The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

    If it was Pirate Pete it would be:

    , Crikey, Blue! That, sheila do’th, prot,est to, much,

  19. Mick Gold Coast QLD

    Hadley, and his junkie son who had to leave the police force in a hurry, has form. Hadley favours fashionable excuses too (eg. “Boo hoo, I’m mental.” and again “Boo hoo, me son’s mental”). One suspects he knows how to seek out favours.

    This is longer than I’d like but it is funny as can be – Hadley was born in Dundas, a ’50s-’60s welfare ghetto, and he hasn’t really departed the toothless drongo lifestyle.

    April 15, 2019:

    “There’s now eight separate issues involving Hadley, which have been raised in the weeks since former 2GB panel operator Chris Bowen took to social media on March 22 to talk about alleged bullying.

    The first of the new complaints was made on March 25 by a junior staffer – who has reportedly been on leave and is seeing a psychologist.

    The second came from a senior producer who approached 2GB bosses at the beginning of April.

    The same week, another senior staff member complained to management alleging that Hadley had made a comment which was defamatory of another staff member.

    The latest complaint came last week from a production worker for 2GB.

    Other complaints are ‘historic’ matters involving digital technician Jesse Perez, rugby league commentator Andrew Moore and commentator John Gibbs.

    In 2013, Hadley reached a court settlement where he was forced to pay a former staffer a significant amount of money after they secretly recorded a tirade. “

    Dec 12, 2018:

    “A former police officer and the son of Sydney broadcaster Ray Hadley has had his drug possession charge dismissed on mental health grounds.

    Daniel Hadley, 28, was charged with possessing a small amount of cocaine while off-duty at a pub in Rouse Hill in Sydney’s northwest on August 3.

    His arrest followed a NSW Police professional standards investigation focused on prohibited drugs allegations.

    At Parramatta Local Court on Wednesday, magistrate Garry Still dismissed the charge under the Mental Health Act, discharging Hadley into the “care of a responsible person”. “

    May 16, 2014:

    “Ray Hadley has flatly refused to comment on the breakdown of his marriage with his second wife, Suzanne … has now embarked on a new relationship with Canberra Raiders assistant coach Matt Parish, who is also assistant coach for the NSW team in the upcoming State of Origin. To say the situation has created a political minefield around the corridors of the NRL would be putting it mildly.

    NSW coach Laurie Daley yesterday confirmed Hadley had applied undue pressure on him to have Parish sacked, having lobbied various NRL figures for weeks since Parish and Suzanne began their relationship.

    “It is only a new relationship and it is going well so far, but the problem they face is Ray,” a source close to the situation told PS.

    In February this year, the Herald broke the story about the broadcaster’s wife applying for an apprehended violence order against Hadley and his son, a policeman named Daniel, only to withdraw the applicationthe next day. …”

    Sept 27, 2012:

    “NSW Police confirmed an investigation had been launched after a complaint from a 17-year-old boy relating to the 2GB presenter and his son, Daniel, who is a police officer.

    The boy alleges he was assaulted by both men. …

    … counter claims by the Hadleys that the teenager might have been responsible for property damage and the assault of an off-duty police officer.

    … Hadley’s daughter posted a Facebook event online about a month ago, inviting fellow students to her family’s house at Kenthurst for a ”year 12 after party”.

    After falling to the floor, the teenager claims Daniel Hadley kicked him while he was trying to get up. A series of verbal exchanges with Daniel Hadley and two other off-duty police officers allegedly followed.

    The teenager then alleged: ”I felt my head being hit from behind. I turned around and saw Ray Hadley standing right behind me. He was that close, he was almost touching my shoulders.

    ”As I turned around he grabbed my shirt by the right shoulder, lifted it up, scrunched it in his hand and it nearly choked me. He said words similar to: ‘You’re out of here, you little turd.”’

    The student said that, while Ray Hadley was dragging him down the driveway by his shirt, he continued: ”Shut your f—ing mouth … say one more word … I’ll roll you.”

    As they reached the end of the driveway, Ray Hadley then allegedly let go of the shirt and said: ”There’s the gate. Use it.”

    According to the boy’s statement, Ray Hadley returned a short time later, yelling words similar to: ”One of you little c—s broke my gate.”

    The boy denies damaging any property.

    ….

    At least one other student is known to have provided detectives with a formal witness statement backing the boy’s version of events.”

  20. Tintarella di Luna

    Shakespeare, in Hamlet.

    The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

    If it was Pirate Pete it would be:

    , Crikey, Blue! That, sheila do’th, prot,est to, much,

    Tres droll Mother Lode – love your work

  21. Mother Lode

    Thank you, Tints.

  22. FelixKruell

    Today we acknowledge that false accusations – not least when promoted by police, politicians and journalists to further an ideological cause – are a serious threat to human rights and the rule of law. We rejoice that Cardinal George Pell was spared any further agony and re-dedicate ourselves to safeguarding the impartial administration of justice. To Cardinal Pell: we are sorry.’

    Except no one has found this to be a false accusation. Certainly not the high court.

  23. Mother Lode

    Oh, crap.

    Felicity is back reminding us that the HC said he was not guilty, not that third option where they declare people innocent.

    “‘No evidence’ is a technicality!”

  24. Peter Finch

    Hadley often has a good heart but an obvious foul temper and bullying personality according to his latest litigant. You’d think he’d learn to keep his head down when the shrapnel is flying but oh no not our Hadley.

  25. Tom

    Except no one has found this to be a false accusation. Certainly not the high court.

    So, Felix, you’re saying the facts of this case and the High Court’s 7-0 ruling against the Victorian kangaroo court don’t matter and Pell’s a pedo*****?

    FMD. You tribal leftards make me sick. You’ll stop at nothing to destroy your enemies. You’ll never forgive Pell for not being part of the pedo gang, so you’ll hound him to his grave accusing him of being one.

  26. FelixKruell

    Mother:

    Felicity is back reminding us that the HC said he was not guilty, not that third option where they declare people innocent.

    It seems people here are still confused on that point. Thanks for clarifying it for them.

  27. notafan

    There is nothing honest about Felix repeating this nonsense.

    An acquitted man returns to his former state of innocence.

    There is no inbetween ‘not proven’ in Australian law.

    And the primary reason for the decision was that the alibi testimony, that it could not have happened in the manner claimed, stood up.

  28. Lee

    Give it up, Felix, you lost.
    It never stops personal animus to Cardinal Pell though, does it?

  29. FelixKruell

    Tom:

    So, Felix, you’re saying the facts of this case and the High Court’s 7-0 ruling against the Victorian kangaroo court don’t matter and Pell’s a pedo*****?

    Nope. He’s not guilty. The prosecution couldn’t establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

    But that doesn’t mean the accusation was proven false.

    Plenty of accusations get made every day. Very few make it to court, let alone to a guilty verdict that’s upheld. We rightly set a high bar for conviction. That doesn’t make all those allegations false.

    FMD. You tribal leftards make me sick. You’ll stop at nothing to destroy your enemies. You’ll never forgive Pell for not being part of the pedo gang, so you’ll hound him to his grave accusing him of being one.

    I have nothing against Pell. I don’t accuse him of anything. Nor did I before the high court verdict.

  30. FelixKruell

    Notafan:

    Yet currencylad is treating the accuser as guilty of making a false allegation. This has not been tested in court in any way. Where is his presumption of innocence? Or is there an ‘in between’ state for him?

  31. Fisky

    Except no one has found this to be a false accusation. Certainly not the high court.

    Pell is now entitled to the same PRESUMPTION of innocence to the charge of child [email protected] that you are. If you claim otherwise then you would be committing defamation and Sinclair as the publisher would have to delete your comment. He should delete your comments anyway.

  32. Mick Gold Coast QLD

    From Frank Walker from National Tiles at 3:27 pm:

    “It is about abortion, not hot dude on dude action.”

    Way too glib Anonymous, and incorrect, wrong, not accurate.

    Sydney Morning Herald, May 20, 2002 “Pell lashes out after gays refused communion”.

  33. Mick

    Gays affect stuff all of the population.

    How many abortions are there a year?

    If you paint your opponent as a child abuser, it depricates their position as being pro life for tots.

  34. Michel Lasouris

    Dear Sir

    Whether George Pell committed a heinous crime against society or not, is of little consequence.
    The process of condemning or absolving persons alleged to have committed crimes seems to be ever more contentious and flawed.
    George Pell will doubtless seek redress for his imprisonment, and you and I will be the ones to pay up, despite our having absolutely no influence in the proceedings.
    Mind you, if George Pell really believes that the God and the Church have higher authority than mere mortal jurists, he will find out fairly soon if he will be become a martyr to the Catholic cause, or whether he will be condemned to eternal damnation. There is no Appeal in the Justice of the Almighty. Six years in clink then seems paltry.
    He has by my reckoning just ten years to dwell upon his real fate

  35. Mother Lode

    It seems people here are still confused on that point. Thanks for clarifying it for them.

    So Felicity, you think the court has ‘three’ options: Guilty; Not Guilty; and Innocent?

    The people around here understand perfectly well.

    Bar you.

    And maybe Poida.

    Oh, and Monty.

    And Numbers.

    That should about cover it.

  36. notafa

    Mr Lasouris

    Odd reasoning

    Cardinal Pell already knows whether or not he is guilty of the crime he is alleged he committed, and so does God, He’s always known, because He’s like that.

    But I can guess what motivated you to say it.

    And the crime if there was one, which there wasn’t, was against an individual, not society.

    And as for compensation, to which Cardinal Pell would be richly entitled but would afford him no satisfaction because really money for someone who has barely a penny in his pocket, by choice, for the last sixty years?

    What would he do with it other than give it away?

    Funny how you aren’t complaining about the many millions expended on Get Pell since 2013. I would guess upwards of twenty million.

    A question that never seems to get asked.

    And for nought.

  37. Scott Osmond

    Never been impressed by Hadley. My dad insists on listening. His mo is to work himself up in to a foaming rage, repeat himself endlessly, abuse anyone and everyone who doesn’t fall in line. The hampster wheel spins so fast that sometimes he trips over his own words. The few times I’ve heard Jones, in a cab or when visiting an older person he does it so much better. One of the most idiotic things I heard Hadley do is take someone to task for having a relationship with a 17 year old female. From a man who is in a relationship with someone much younger. Hypocrite. If a person is over the age of consent and the older person isn’t in a position of trust like a teacher, coach or carer than it’s between consenting persons. The morality train argument left the station back with killing unborn children, gay marage and the dissolution of a religious society. Now it’s just the legality of an issue. Not a fan personally but I don’t make the rules, just have to abide by them.

  38. notafa

    That would be the logical conclusion Felix.

    And CL isn’t putting J in gaol, in case you hadn’t noticed.

    We don’t need to go to court every time there is a question of truth or lies.

    Not that false accusers haven’t been convicted in the past.

    I can’t see this one going to court, though.

  39. That would be the logical conclusion Felix

    And CL isn’t putting J in jail in case you hadn’t noticed.

    We don’t need to go to court every time there is a question of truth or lies.

    Not that false accusers haven’t been convicted in the past.

    I can’t see this one going to court, though

  40. H B Bear

    The thought of Gillard, former typist for the Communist Party, apologising for State sanctioned force is fanciful. Remember when the ALP wanted to licence the papers to stop reporting on the AWU affair?

  41. FelixKruell

    Frisky:

    Pell is now entitled to the same PRESUMPTION of innocence to the charge of child [email protected] that you are. If you claim otherwise then you would be committing defamation and Sinclair as the publisher would have to delete your comment. He should delete your comments anyway.

    He is. As I’ve stated, he is innocent at law.

    As is his accuser. Despite currencylads accusation that he falsified or fabricated his accusation.

  42. FelixKruell

    Mother:

    So Felicity, you think the court has ‘three’ options: Guilty; Not Guilty; and Innocent?

    Nope. I just know the high court found him not guilty. And didn’t find the accuser guilty of anything, let alone fabrication or falsification of his accusation or testimony. That’s the bit people here seem confused about.

  43. FelixKruell

    Notafan:

    I can’t see this one going to court, though

    In which case I trust you’ll extend him the presumption of innocence. Right?

  44. Herodotus

    Why does Gillard remind me of Scarlet Overkill from “Minions”?

  45. Squirrel

    “Hadley likes to show off his deep concern for child welfare and his emphatic loathing for abusers.”

    Not a follower of his show, but I assume that Hadley deals with the fact that a lot of abuse occurs within the family, or extended family, unit.

    I’ve often thought that grim reality is one of the reasons for the extraordinary nature and extent of media attention given to cases involving offenders who are further (even if not greatly so) removed.

  46. Scott Osmond

    Squirrel, call me cynical but when I hear someone going off on a topic like child abuse or wife bashing I ask questions. Survivor of? perp virtue signalling?
    I happen to know someone who did the whole “someone who hurts animals should be taken out and shot” routine. I was told by family members that this person back in the 80s threw a small dog off a veranda on to concrete. The animal did survive.
    Couple of other people did the white ribbon thing. Don’t ask family members what happens behind closed doors.

  47. notafan

    You don’t understand Felix.

    I’m not proposing to prosecute him or put him in prison but I believe, on the information available, that he lied.

    Can you see the difference?

    Presumption of innocence is a legal concept, not every lie gets tested in court.

    My children sometimes told blatant lies when they were little.

    I didn’t even sent them to their rooms..

    The High Court made comments in Tyrrell versus the queen, in fact, iirc, they outright said that the complainant lied.

    Presumption of his innocence wasn’t mentioned, because it wasn’t at issue.

  48. Nighthawk the Elder

    Mick Gold Coast QLD
    #3400675, posted on April 8, 2020 at 6:00 pm
    Sydney Morning Herald, May 20, 2002 “Pell lashes out after gays refused communion”.

    This is where it all began. Pell annoyed the alphabet people by refusing them both communion and refusing their demand that he ignore millennia of canon law (not that he could anyway). They demanded the Catholic Church acknowledge and embrace their lifestyle. Of course he was always going to refuse. They wanted it captured on camera and had a compliant media on hand for the “event”.

    And that is where the “Get Pell” movement was born.

  49. Mother Lode

    Nope. I just know the high court found him not guilty.

    They acquitted him.

    In the body of the text of their decision they laid out just how bad the procedure had been. The evidence used and excluded was farcical. Every time they showed that what the drug addled ‘victim’ said could not be correct (such as Pell not being in the country, or not at the parish at the time the naughty boy said) they changed the story. The HC made it clear they believed him innocent, but are restricted to “Guilty” and “Not Guilty”. They did tear strips off the Victorian courts and police, but.

    I get the feeling that what you are saying is that Pell did not ‘prove’ his innocence. As long as someone makes an accusation – however laughable – if the target cannot ‘prove’ their innocence then some guilt remains.

    Does that guilt precede the accusation? Should we view you as quite possibly a kiddy-fiddler on the basis of not having cleared yourself of accusations not made yet?

    I will wager that you would have difficulty proving your innocence, having a rock solid alibi, for any given night three years ago – even more if we get to shift dates if you happen to be able to prove that the first one we cited you were somewhere else. And in the Cardinal’s case it was 20 years ago.

    There was no evidence against the Cardinal. There were observations that certain things could have occurred, but not that they had occurred. The amount of time it takes to get from one part of the Cathedral to another in no way means any body scurried around and did naughty things. It is possible for me to go to the local bottle shop and come back in 20 mins. It does not mean that in 25 minutes I will be drinking a Menabrea beer.

    So I will offer my prayers for all the young rent-boys you stiffed by not paying them after you availed yourself of their services. You are disgusting.

    Prove your innocence.

  50. Tim Neilson

    FelixKruell
    #3400774, posted on April 8, 2020 at 6:51 pm

    Felix, shortly before the HC decision you accused Mark Weinberg of “sailing very close to” exceeding the proper role of an appeal judge by re-trying the case.

    Do you have a similar criticism of the HC?

    If not, what are the crucial differences between the HC judgement and Weinberg’s judgement?

  51. Rockdoctor

    Used to listen to Hadley on 4HI a bit & other AM radio channels. IMO he is like lightning, never strikes the same place twice. He’ll have a few weeks of repetitive drivel, minor issues or just sports news that we get from the hourly bulletin anyway. Then one show will be bang where he tears apart the NSW State Gov, some QANGO or a council. His shows are chock a block full of advertising that takes up to close to a third of his time on numerous occasions. I used to turn the dial to try & get other AM music stations that were on the edge of range in the end.

  52. pbw

    ‘Today is not the day to talk about child sexual abuse, important though it is. Today we acknowledge that false accusations – not least when promoted by police, politicians and journalists to further an ideological cause – are a serious threat to human rights and the rule of law. We rejoice that Cardinal George Pell was spared any further agony and re-dedicate ourselves to safeguarding the impartial administration of justice. To Cardinal Pell: we are sorry.’

    Spot on, CL. Tell His Excellency Archbishop Mark Coleridge, a useless, gutless, sycophantic cipher, who happens to be my bishop. He’s the one who nearly broke his neck in the rush to close the churches for most of Lent and all of Easter, and deny any sacraments to Catholics.

    AUSTRALIAN CATHOLIC BISHOPS CONFERENCE
    STATEMENT FROM ARCHBISHOP MARK COLERIDGE,
    PRESIDENT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CATHOLIC BISHOPS CONFERENCE
    The High Court of Australia has today announced that it has quashed Cardinal George Pell’s convictions on historical sexual abuse charges. The Court has ordered that he be released from prison.

    Today’s outcome will be welcomed by many, including those who have believed in the Cardinal’s innocence throughout this lengthy process.

    We also recognise that the High Court’s decision will be devastating for others. Many have suffered greatly through the process, which has now reached its conclusion. The result today does not change the Church’s unwavering commitment to child safety and to a just and compassionate response to survivors and victims of child sexual abuse. The safety of children remains supremely important not only for the bishops, but for the entire Catholic community. Any person with allegations of sexual abuse by Church personnel should go to the police.

    April 7, 2020

  53. Tim Neilson

    We also recognise that the High Court’s decision will be devastating for others.

    True dat.

    ABC/Fairfax journos, Felix…

  54. FelixKruell

    Notafan:

    I’m not proposing to prosecute him or put him in prison but I believe, on the information available, that he lied.

    Can you see the difference?

    Sure. You’re free to reach that conclusion.

    Not sure currencylad is being quite so restrained though. Which was my point.

  55. JABL

    I will repost this:

    A magnificent decision.

    The important takeways:
    1. If the uncontradicted evidence is that the the conduct complained of could not have happened then the case should have been taken away from the jury (assuming that the DPP was brain dead enough to allow it to proceed)
    2. The Defence appears to have been nobbled in that they were prohibited by law from accessing the complainant’s counseling history and medical diagnosis. This exists in at least two jurisdictions. In mine ‘any’ counselor be it a teacher or whom ever who gives ‘advice’ to a complainant is protected. This prevents, unless a Court rules otherwise, a defendant from knowing what a complainant may have claimed in the past (ie possible prior inconsistent statements).
    3. Further to 3 it is believed by some in legal profession in light of certain personalities involved in the Royal Commission that this may be covering a return to hypno-therapy and “recovered memories” with all the attendant injustice that entails.

  56. FelixKruell

    Mother:

    The HC made it clear they believed him innocent,

    Being a little presumptuous there…

    I get the feeling that what you are saying is that Pell did not ‘prove’ his innocence. As long as someone makes an accusation – however laughable – if the target cannot ‘prove’ their innocence then some guilt remains.

    Nope. Pell is not required to prove his innocence. He is (at law) now innocent. No guilt.

    Doesn’t mean the accuser fabricated or falsified his testimony. They are two separate things.

    There was no evidence against the Cardinal. There were observations that certain things could have occurred, but not that they had occurred. The amount of time it takes to get from one part of the Cathedral to another in no way means any body scurried around and did naughty things. It is possible for me to go to the local bottle shop and come back in 20 mins. It does not mean that in 25 minutes I will be drinking a Menabrea beer.

    There was evidence – the accusers testimony. Thats what the high court weighed up against the conflicting evidence from other witnesses. The high court specifically confirmed that an accusers testimony (on its own) is sufficient evidence to convict. In this case however, they found the other conflicting evidence should have caused the jury to have reasonable doubt.

  57. FelixKruell

    Tim:

    Felix, shortly before the HC decision you accused Mark Weinberg of “sailing very close to” exceeding the proper role of an appeal judge by re-trying the case.

    Do you have a similar criticism of the HC?

    They have effectively re-tried the case, so yes. But that’s part of their remit, in those very rare cases where they believe it’s warranted. They clearly felt it was warranted here. You have to respect that. This isn’t a court that has made a habit if it, or abused that power.

    As I said above, the high court effectively approved Weinbergs cumulative approach to doubt-raising evidence – as opposed to the majority’s serial approach. I wonder whether there would have been as big a distinction between the two at the court of appeal had Pell’s defence team not unnecessarily set themselves the high bar of impossibility, or framed it as series of barriers to conviction. The high court gave them a gentle rebuke for that.

  58. JC

    As I said above, the high court effectively approved Weinbergs cumulative approach to doubt-raising evidence –

    Felicity, recall when you claimed Weinberg’s finding really wasn’t so important, because the trial judg, jury and the Victorian appeals court total more than one person. … ie Weinberg.

    You clown.

  59. Oh come on

    CL is on fire. Brutal, deadly accurate and well-deserved shellackings.

  60. JC

    Felix is making shit up.

    There is nothing in the common law that compels a trier of fact to consider the facts piece meal.

    In fact, they have an obligation to assess the probanda submitted by the prosecution.

    If you don’t have a logical narrative to connect the evidence, it gets knocked on its head during the committal or voir dire.

    If there is a preponderance of ridiculous testimony adduced as evidence, it is completely routine to dismiss the case or find an acquittal.

    It can be done solely on the importance of a cardinal piece of evidence or the probanda being ridiculous, or on the credibility of one mere exhibit of evidence or testimony adduced.

    In the end, the High Court ruled the prosecution probanda formed around the kid’s incredible testimony was quite ridiculous and impossible.

  61. Oh come on

    What revisionist nonsense is Felix trying to push now that the HC has completely obliterated his previous stances in defence of Pell’s obviously dodgy conviction?

    Anyone with half a brain could see there was reasonable doubt in the Pell case. This isn’t being clever after the fact – very many of us said it at the time – many times, in fact. It’s on the record right here.

  62. JC

    In the end, the High Court ruled the prosecution probanda formed around the kid’s incredible testimony was quite ridiculous and impossible.

    Yep, he lied. It simply didn’t happen.

    The clown is suggesting no-legal folks shouldn’t hold an opinion that the accuser was a total fraud. THere’s no question in my mind that Pell didn’t do it and the punk lied to get money.

  63. FelixKruell

    JC:

    Felicity, recall when you claimed Weinberg’s finding really wasn’t so important, because the trial judg, jury and the Victorian appeals court total more than one person. … ie Weinberg.

    It wasn’t so important. He was in the minority. That was plain fact.

  64. FelixKruell

    Frank:

    Using big words you don’t quite understand again?

  65. FelixKruell

    Oh come on:

    What revisionist nonsense is Felix trying to push now that the HC has completely obliterated his previous stances in defence of Pell’s obviously dodgy conviction?

    What stances would those be? Be specific now…it’s all on record here.

  66. JC

    It wasn’t so important.

    LOl

  67. Atoms for Peace

    Felix..only because I’m bored. Would you feel comfortable if you or yours went through the same process as Cardinal Pell, knowing that you were innocent ? At what stage would you squawk ?

  68. Tim Neilson

    I said Felix, shortly before the HC decision you accused Mark Weinberg of “sailing very close to” exceeding the proper role of an appeal judge by re-trying the case.

    Do you have a similar criticism of the HC?

    Felix said They have effectively re-tried the case, so yes. But that’s part of their remit, in those very rare cases where they believe it’s warranted.

    Doesn’t that also apply to the Court of Appeal? If so, why did you bother accusing Weinberg of “sailing close to” doing it, if he’s authorised to do so? [or are you accusing Weinberg of doing so without believing it was warranted?] If not, what’s the relevant difference in jurisdiction between the Court of Appeal and the High Court?

    Felix said They clearly felt it was warranted here. You have to respect that. This isn’t a court that has made a habit if it, or abused that power.

    Are you implying that Weinberg does? If so, have you got any grounds for that? If not, what’s the relevance to my question about you accusing Weinberg of “sailing close to” re-trying the case?

  69. Felix you got absolutely smashed you idiot.

    Here is T. J. Felix arguing at the High Court:

    https://ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/routhighcourt.htm

  70. FelixKruell

    Atoms:

    Felix..only because I’m bored. Would you feel comfortable if you or yours went through the same process as Cardinal Pell, knowing that you were innocent ? At what stage would you squawk ?

    I’d not be happy!

    But equally, if me or mine had been abused as a child, I’d want to be able to pursue the abuser in court. Even if there wasn’t many corroborating evidence. And even if it would be a struggle to convince the court beyond a reasonable doubt.

  71. FelixKruell

    Tim:

    Doesn’t that also apply to the Court of Appeal? If so, why did you bother accusing Weinberg of “sailing close to” doing it, if he’s authorised to do so? [or are you accusing Weinberg of doing so without believing it was warranted?] If not, what’s the relevant difference in jurisdiction between the Court of Appeal and the High Court?

    Less so in my view. Especially when it’s one judge, rather than a majority (or ideally a unanimous decision).

    Are you implying that Weinberg does? If so, have you got any grounds for that? If not, what’s the relevance to my question about you accusing Weinberg of “sailing close to” re-trying the case?

    I think all appeal judges have to constantly stop themselves from re-trying the case, or putting themselves in the shoes of the jury. It’s a natural human instinct. Hence my comment about sailing close to the wind. No idea of whether Weinberg makes a habit of it.

  72. Tim Neilson

    Less so in my view.

    But what’s your grounds for that?
    Something in the relevant Court rules?
    Case law?

    Especially when it’s one judge, rather than a majority (or ideally a unanimous decision).

    Why? Again, what’s your grounds for that? Surely if a judge “believes it’s warranted” they’ve got a duty to do so?

    No idea of whether Weinberg makes a habit of it.

    So “no idea” of whether that’s a valid distinction between Weinberg’s judgement and the High Court’s judgement?

  73. dover_beach

    Weinberg’s dissent wasn’t sailing close to doing anything unwarranted and the unanimous decision, 7-0, was a rousing confirmation of it. This is now beyond question given the HC’s decision.

  74. JC

    Felix..only because I’m bored. Would you feel comfortable if you or yours went through the same process as Cardinal Pell, knowing that you were innocent ? At what stage would you squawk ?

    It’s never been proven Felicity doesn’t fondle cats.

Comments are closed.