The latest example, by a "guest post/rant" by the Pell obsessed uber-conservative Catholic CL, in a lengthy diatribe against an ABC journalist, is this comment about the need for the High Court to fix the Pell conviction:
If ever there was a case in need of High Court correction, this is it. The future of the Commonwealth depends on it.Um, yeah. I'd like to hear how.
And this:
....a second jury of dupable vigilantes eager to convict the self-same but, by then, notorious George Pell and an appeals court which this morning raised preposterous hearsay to the level of DNA and CCTV.Hearsay? I don't think this scintillating dissector of judicial wrongs even knows the first thing about the legal terminology.
Isn't it also simply offensive to describe the jury - any jury - that way?
Mind you, this is the same character who has been outright claiming for months since Pell's conviction that the accuser is an outright liar and fabricator. While I have no problem with people doubting that a conviction is reasonable, common decency alone would suggest that someone who have no direct experience of hearing a witness (or knowledge of a jury) should not start publicly attacking their character and motivation simply because the outcome was not what they thought it should be.
In the bigger picture, I also note that Sinclair and his nutty crew spend much of their time rubbishing the low ratings and national importance of the ABC in order to argue for its defunding, but when it comes to Pell, the story switches to writing as if every juror has obviously been watching and reading the ABC's spin on the matter.
But put on the "I just run a clown show in my spare time" defence, Sinclair, and it'll be OK.
4 comments:
No Stephen
CLQC is to be acknowledged as the Supreme person to be heard on legal matters
We all know that Pell is innocent of the specific charges to hand don't we? He might be guilty of many other things. Just not what he is in prison for.
We all know that Pell is innocent of the specific charges to hand don't we?
I don't. I haven't followed it and haven't seen the evidence. I can't know at a level of satisfaction what the truth is though intuitively I'm inclined to think he is innocent but that means nothing because the only realm where I trust my intuition is in the areas where I have done a lot of reading and thinking.
The way people carry on about this issue as if it heralds some great destruction of our legal system is ludicrous. It is one case and they think it will bring down the Commonwealth.
It does herald serious damage to our legal system. Certainly it shows Victoria to have the legal system of a banana republic.
Because the so-called "Good Judge" was the driving force behind changing the law in Victoria so you could be convicted on one persons say-so. He can be seen talking about how 30% of the people getting off on appeal was a big problem. There was a problem with the court cases taking too long, with two many appeals, and excessively long Judges instruction to the Jury. This was compared to other jurisdictions and found wanting. So they delivered this bait and switch and now you can be convicted on the sayso of an intelligence agent, a paid whore, or anyone at all, and if you then go away and investigate, finding the whores testimony is provably wrong, your appeal won't be treated seriously.
If you go and listen to the two evil judges, and the alleged one good judge, its just one of the evil judges talking. Its very evident that truth, falsehood, innocence and guilt are very far from her main concerns. So clearly the Victorian legal system has run right off the rails. To me its not even a place worth visiting that being the case. And I lived there for seven years. But I won't visit there. Anyone or his Momma can accuse you of something and there is no recourse. No valid appeals process.
Post a Comment